“It is important that Eve did not take on a sin nature of rebellion for it was her seed alone that would be without inherited sin in order for the Messiah to be born sinless and without the natural inclination to sin as a slave to sin. Eve was not taken from Adam after he sinned and thus Eve was the only woman who did not have Adam’s old man nature. She was the only one that the Messiah could come through her own lineage. If Eve sinned in rebellion there would be no one left for the Messiah to come through.”

But Mary, of Eve’s lineage and a virgin, carried the “sin nature of rebellion'” because she was born of both mother and FATHER.

Lin,
You are exactly right. Mary was not without sin since she had a human father and the sin nature spreads through the father. This is why Jesus had to be virgin born. It wasn’t an option for the Son of Man, it was needed in order for him to be our Messiah that was the lamb without spot or blemish.

Here is the link to the post where I use graphics to explain why it was necessary for the Messiah to be virgin born and why Mary was not sinless herself. It is a good background article for this post.

I am open to the idea that Eve is virtuous after leaving the garden but only if one of two interpretations of Gen 3:16 are followed:

Either Gen 3:16 is exclusively about Adam and Eve and is inapplicable to any other marriages;
or Eve’s “desire” is exclusive to Eve and Adam’s “rule” is a condition of both his sons and daughters.

What I can not accept is a situation where the virtue of Eve is passed on to all wives but the villiany of Adam is passed on to all husbands. If no woman is like Eve because of all women’s (other than Eve) inheritance of a sin nature from Adam, then no woman can replicate Eve’s sinless desire and it can not be applicable to any marriage.

Of course, both acceptable situations raise serious concerns for egalitarians. If Gen 3:16 is only about Adam and Eve, then no one can claim that males necessarily inherit a trait of ruling from Adam or that females inherit from Eve some desire to be benevolent toward their husbands even when those husbands behave badly. Any anecdotal evidence in support of such a conclusion is purley coincidental.

On the other hand, if everyone inherits Adam’s “rule”, men and women alike, then that lends weight to the comp claim that women want to rule men just as much as men want to rule women. They just go about it in different ways.

“You are exactly right. Mary was not without sin since she had a human father and the sin nature spreads through the father. This is why Jesus had to be virgin born. It wasn’t an option for the Son of Man, it was needed in order for him to be our Messiah that was the lamb without spot or blemish.”

So, even though Mary inherited the sin nature from her own father and carries it around with her, she cannot pass it on because she is a woman? She can have it…but cannot pass it on, right?

So when my daughter is naughty, I can thank my husband for passing on the sin nature to her. I am innocent. :o)

(Sounds like a reversal of what the comps do with blaming Eve. I blame them both for rebellion, deception and subsequent bad choices)

Lin,
You said:

So when my daughter is naughty, I can thank my husband for passing on the sin nature to her. I am innocent. :o)

(Sounds like a reversal of what the comps do with blaming Eve. I blame them both for rebellion, deception and subsequent bad choices)

While the sin nature comes through the line of Adam and through the male line, none of us can blame our bad behavior on our human parents. We are tainted through the sin line but we are responsible for our own sin.

There is only one who can free us from the vicious cycle of sin – both our own and the sin nature that we have through Adam. Jesus has given us a way out through the renewing of our minds. He alone is able to circumcise our hearts and remove that bent towards sin and as we live in Him we are growing more and more to become like Him. When we finally see Him, the process will be complete for we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is. Then the stain of sin will no longer have any hold on our lives.

Cheryl – “This is a false dilemma which is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t have to be a or b.”

You misunderstand. I am not saying that a and b are the only possibilities, I am saying they are the only possibilities I will accept as reasonable.

Cheryl – “Eve’s desire is not exclusive to Eve as men are to have this same desire and they are encouraged to “leave and cleave”.”

If you are saying that the good “desire” in Eve exists equally in men and women I am happy. Of course, it still means the bad “rule” in Adam exists equally in both as well.

Cheryl – “While it is relatively uncommon for women to be the abusers of men it is not unheard of.”

It depends on your definition of abuse. Physically, this is certainly true. But physical abuse is only one kind.

Cheryl – “But as our world shows, it is far more common for men to have this sin that manifests a stronghold in their lives because men are more apt to be aggressive and to want to control every situation.”

Absolutely untrue. Women are easily as controlling as men. Again, the difference is how each gender goes about accomplishing control. Just because men’s controlling actions are more visible due to the fact that they are outwardly physical does not mean they are more numerous.

Cheryl – “So while Genesis 3:16 is specifically about the first humans and their life outside the garden, in this verse there is a pattern that we can identify in a good portion of men and women.”

But you have managed to still see this “pattern” as biased in favor of wives. To you the pattern is that wives are generally virtuous and husbands are generally villianous. That is what I can not accept as valid.

The reason that the sin nature had to be passed on to all (except for the seed of the woman) is because we were all to be shut up under sin so that salvation would come through faith and not by works.

Galatians 3:22 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Romans 11:32 (NASB9)
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

The term “shut up” means:

to catch by enclosing, close up together, hem in, enclose…confine imprison
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.)

It is the sin nature that “catches” us and imprisons us and makes every single one of us needy so that none of us can claim to be sinless and having “earned” salvation.

If some were able to be sinless of their own ability, then salvation would not be needed by all. God has in His providential will allowed all to be “shut up” in disobedience through the sin nature that came through Adam. When we are caught in that sin trap, we are able to understand that we need a Savior. And none of us is in a better boat because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The fact that the sin nature comes upon all of us leaves us without hope in the world, but able to seek for and find the Savior by His own drawing us to Himself.

The other thing that has not been answered by those who claim that there is no sin nature is the fact that even young babies can sin without ever being taught to sin. They do it naturally. Why is this? If there is no sin nature, then why do babies sin? These should be the completely innocent ones if there is no such thing as a sin nature.

I have yet to hear an explanation for babies telling lies that has made any sense. If this is how God made us, then how is this “good”? No, the fact is that God did make us perfect and without sin “in the beginning”. But sin came into the world. That changed everything.

Here is one more thing to throw at my readers. If there is no “old man” nature that comes through the line of Adam, then why was it absolutely necessary for Jesus to be virgin born? Thoughts?

pinklight said on another post

Three witnesses of Adam’s sin nature:

Sin of rebellion
Rule
Reaching forth his hand also for the other tree

This is a very good summary of Adam’s sin. He sinned in rebellion, but he covered over his sin, God prophesied that Adam would take dominion over Eve (rule over her) and Adam was kicked out of the garden to prevent him from reaching forth his hand and eating the fruit of the tree of life. It also was a sign that he had the ability and the propensity to continue his pattern of sin.

Good job!

gengwall,

On another post you said:

A predictable event is not an assured event. As the definition so clearly states, the event is only “theoretically possible”. You can not claim that the cherubims and flaming sword prevented an actual sin, but only a theoretically possible one. I continue to contend that the Tree of Life can not be used as a witness to Adam’s future actual sin.

It isn’t an actual sin until it is committed, but by then it is too late. God will not allow one who has a sin nature to rebel again and then live forever in this state. Rebellion cannot exist forever since God has planned a day when it will end. God removing only one party from the tree of life is a witness to the potential of the nature that is in that person. In the original creation Adam and Eve were not removed from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were just commanded not to eat or reach out for that fruit. They had the ability to obey. But now it is necessary not just to command Adam to not eat but to actually remove him. His removal shows that he could partake, if he were not physically kept from eating. Since God only did this to one person, there is a division between the nature of Eve and the nature of Adam. Only one was a threat that caused God to bring in protection.

Moreover, as you state above, the reason to prevent Adam from accessing the Tree of Life was simply to ensure Adam’s death. It was not a sin for Adam to live forever, nor would it have been a sin for Adam to partake of the Tree of Life in an effort to live forever.

Yes, this would have been a sin. The tree of life was no longer allowed to them as they must die. If they went against God’s command, it would have been sin.

The term “lest” is a prohibition. The Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (pg 678) says:

removing, taking away always in constr. (followed by Makkeph) it becomes a conj. of removing, prohibiting, hindering, lest. It is used—(1) where an action precedes, by which something is prohibited which we fear and wish removed. ..
(2) it stands at the beginning of a sentence, where—(a), it implies prohibition and dissuasion…(take heed) lest Hezekiah deceive you.”—(b) it implies fear, dread. Gen. 3:22, and now (for fear) lest he put forth his hand.”

The tree of life is now a prohibited fruit tree.

Lin,
On another post you said:

Come to think of it..what makes you think God saying to Eve: “He will rule over you” is bad? Does God SAY it is bad? No. We just know such a thing is BAD and part of the warning to Eve.

The Hebrew term means to exercise dominion over as ruler tyrant, fearful dominion. This type of rule is lording it over another human being and this was usurping the rule from God that He had over Eve. It is a sinful action by the definition of the word that God uses.

But some cannot see that her ‘turning’ to Adam is a bad choice? Some old translations interpreted it as ‘alliance’ after the interpretation of turning… as in Eve and Adam form an alliance after the fall.

The term “for” as in longing for Adam is the term where the turning comes from. This places the longing toward the husband:

The sources that I checked all say that the word means longing, desire or craving.

Nothing says that this is a bad choice that she should remained glued to her husband in marriage and have his children.

Cheryl, I have been known to use syllogisms before. Perhaps not here? In any event, I am teaching them to my daughter right now and this one was too good to pass up.

I find this last comment from you below the belt and unnecessary. I think it is best I bow out.

Lin,
I didn’t mean to offend you at all. I think we both know that Paula has taken an opportunity to mock me on her blog. If you think this is fair and respectful then so be it. I think that she should come here and hash out this issue herself. Do you agree with me? If you don’t then I’m sorry. Those who want to argue passionately should be willing to defend their view instead of resorting to taking shots behind someone’s back. I prefer not to handle disagreements like that. Let’s be men and women of God and handle this fairly and with respect. That is all I am asking for.

Cheryl, I am at a loss of how you could think your comment was not personally offensive. I learned syllogisms in my 4 years of taking University Logic classes. I think they can be helpful when a topic becomes so detailed and confusing. It could be the premise is wrong and leads us to a wrong conclusion. But then, they do not work well when you continue to ‘change’ your views on certain points.

Such as this one:
“This is not what is claimed. God said that Adam will rule over his wife. His nature is not to rule – his nature is to sin.”

You have been claiming that men have a sin nature to ‘rule’. I think that is verifiable on the last thread. It could be that your view is being refined as you think this through.

I have not read Paula’s blog today so not sure exactly what you are talking about. Guess I should check it out. If she gives an opposing view, why would you consider that mocking? Do you consider my comments here mocking you? If you think that, you are very wrong. I simply disagree with you.

I have no wish to engage on this sort of personal attack level.

Questions going through my mind-
Where did Jesus get his humanity (perfect humanity/perfect nature) from? Are we born perfect or not born perfect? Were Adam and Eve made perfect or not?

More questions-
So if Eve had rebelled (assuming she did and her seed was tainted then) where then did Jesus get his perfect nature from since Mary did not have a perfect nature? Or did she have a perfect nature and we do too? If Jesus didn’t get it from Mary’s seed alone, then how can he be linked back to us (Adam & Eve) and be our Redeemer? If we have a perfect nature and Mary did too, then why do we need Jesus? Why did a perfect man (his flesh) have to die if we are born perfect and we can stop ourselves from sinning and rebelling? Couldn’t any one of us then choose to never sin and therefore be perfect like Jesus was?

Romans
7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

Can this be said about Jesus? Or was he different from us because of the woman’s seed that wasn’t tainted?

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Why must we die if it weren’t for us inheriting it from Adam? Why do we inherit death from Adam when he was the one who sinned? There must be a reason.

Lin,

It could be the premise is wrong and leads us to a wrong conclusion. But then, they do not work well when you continue to ‘change’ your views on certain points.

I haven’t changed my views. It seems like you have misunderstood. My focus is on Adam’s sin nature. His sin nature has come out in several ways – hiding his sin, rule over his wife and the need to protect the tree of life from the rebellion of Adam. Patriarchy is an outflowing of the sin nature in a desire to rule over women as well as other men. Patriarchy has been established since Adam’s day until our day in many cultures, in many lands and over a long period of time. Men and women have followed Adam’s way of sin during those years to in many different ways but the one way that God warns the woman about happens to be the most consistent sin with men. When Christianity comes into a culture, a change starts that gives respect, honor and freedom for women to serve God.

So ruling is not the sin nature, but the sin nature can consist of an ungodly rule along with other sins.

Do you consider my comments here mocking you? If you think that, you are very wrong. I simply disagree with you.

I do not consider people who come to my blog and engage me even if they disagree with me in a passionate way as mocking me. I invite dialog and as I said before I consider your questions as respectful. But I have had a dialog on the other blog some time back and I asked some hard questions – things that others ask here all the time and the post got shut down and no answers were given to my questions. I have no problems in inviting Paula or any others who disagree to disagree to my face. But doing things behind someone’s back is usually considered disrespectful at the very least.

That is my stand and I think it is more than tolerant for debate and dialog because it is my aim for my own blog to remain respectful and fair. I have no problem with you on my blog. You are upfront with your disagreements and you have a right to express your point of view with all the passion that you have.

Here is my concern. I do not want anyone unwittingly to be a “mouthpiece” for someone else who is unwilling to dialog here. I very rarely feel disrespected on my own blog and I tolerate a lot especially when the strong comps have shown up here from time to time. But I can feel highly disrespected when people take their disagreements with me behind my back without bothering to dialog with me first and especially when dialog has been shut down by the same person over the same subject in the past.

Okay, ‘Nuff said.

pinklight,
Excellent questions once again! You asked:

Where did Jesus get his humanity (perfect humanity/perfect nature) from?

Jesus is the promised “seed of the woman” so Jesus got his perfect humanity from Eve.

Are we born perfect or not born perfect?

None of us is born perfect. We are subject to death even during the time before we are born because of the fall of Adam. And we have a nature that has a difficult time not sinning although we can not sin for a time and we can hold back on the extent of our sin, but our own thought life should tell us how much of a sin nature that we truly have.

Were Adam and Eve made perfect or not?

Adam and Eve were made perfect in the beginning. They had the ability to choose to sin but they also had the

full ability to remain sin-free. There was no necessity that they sinned because they had choice.

pinklight,

So if Eve had rebelled (assuming she did and her seed was tainted then) where then did Jesus get his perfect nature from since Mary did not have a perfect nature?

Jesus had to inherit his perfect human nature from Eve since she was the only person on the earth who had no rebellion in their nature. If Eve had sinned in rebellion she would not be qualified to be the mother of the “seed”. God couldn’t just create another perfect woman from the dirt because the Messiah had to be the “kinsman Redeemer” which is someone who is related to us by blood but who is also able to purchase us. If Jesus had any spot or wrinkle he could not be the perfect sinless lamb who was given for the sins of the world.

Or did she have a perfect nature and we do too?

No, Mary did not have a perfect nature and neither do we. Mary did not have to be sinless to carry the Messiah since all that was needed was the “seed of the woman”. Eve’s seed passed along through the generations was never tainted with sin. As long as there was no human father there was no possibility that the human Jesus would be tainted with a sin nature. He was born perfect just like the first Adam and even though He was tempted, He was able to choose not to sin.

If Jesus didn’t get it from Mary’s seed alone, then how can he be linked back to us (Adam and Eve) and be our Redeemer?

If the seed of the man was used, the human Jesus would be tainted, but the Kinsman Redeemer needed to be a descendant of Adam. The only way that He could be a descendant of Adam but without an “old man” nature, would be to come through the seed of the woman alone.

If we have a perfect nature and Mary did too, then why do we need Jesus?

Good question! Why would we need Jesus? And if any of us are perfect then we could work our way to God because we are in perfection already. But we are in need of a Savior because we are sinful and we have been that way since we were conceived with the seed of the man.

Why did a perfect man (his flesh) have to die if we are born perfect and we can stop ourselves from sinning and rebelling? Couldn’t any one of us then choose to never sin and therefore be perfect like Jesus was?

These are questions that need to be answered by those who believe that they do not have a sin nature. I sure wish I had the answers because I would like to see how they would get the answers from God’s word.

pinklight:

Romans
7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
Can this be said about Jesus? Or was he different from us because of the woman’s seed that wasn’t tainted?

The term “of flesh” is one of the Biblical terms for the “old man” nature. No, Jesus was never “of flesh” or “sold into bondage to sin” because he was “the seed of the woman” born without any kind of sin.

Why must we die if it weren’t for us inheriting it from Adam? Why do we inherit death from Adam when he was the one who sinned? There must be a reason.

It is for this reason:

Galatians 3:22 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

In the wisdom of God, He decided that all would be “shut up” under sin so that we all would be in the position of needing a Savior. He was not going to play favorites so that none would be created perfect and thus never sin and not need a Savior. By the fall happenting exactly the way it happened, we all were “in” Adam when he sinned so that all were “shut up” under sin and all need a Savior. This was done so that God could give life in Christ to any who would believe. Eternal life isn’t given by being created perfect and working to stay that way. God’s plan is that He would bring people into heaven only by faith so universal sin had to happen so that God’s choice would be set up as the plan of salvation.

Why do we die?

Hopefully death/dying reminds us of our nature which is passing away.

Hi Cheryl,

I appreciate your attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin. I agree wholeheartedly here with you. However there were a few things i thought you might like to flesh out a little for me.

You said “God never prophesied that Eve might rebel and eat from the tree of life after the fall because Eve still had the ability to not sin.”

I wonder how you hadle texts such as these with your theology…

Eph 2 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. “
1 John 3:4 “sin is lawlessness”
I’m not convinced that the bible ever gives the indication that any single person has ever had the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall, even Eve. What texts support the idea that Eve was able to not sin after her original sin. Please cite your texts

You said “ That error that has been taught by many is the doctrine that Adam’s offspring are charged by God with Adam’s sin. The Bible lays this error to rest by stating that the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s sin.” You then quote Eze 18.

Now this may simply be terminology issues. I agree that no-one is responsible for another’s sin, Adams or otherwise. But are you saying that children do not suffer the punishment for the sins of their parents (on earth i mean, not eternally). If so, how do you understand these texts…
2 Kings 23: 25-27 “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.26 Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

Here Judah is punished for the apostasy of an earlier king Manasseh. The effects of the sin of the king result in the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of Josiah’s reforms. Also…

Numbers 13:18 “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Here quite plainly the children are punished to the third and forth generation. Can you clarify your position?

Also you said “since Christ is able to remove not just the sin of one man, but the transgressions of the many (Romans 5:16). The passage is an extremely important apologetic passage for the universality of Christ’s sacrifice”

Again maybe this is just terminology, but are you promoting a doctrine of ‘universalism’, namely that all people are saved and none perish in hell?

Thanks

Also one other point.

Where does the incarnation come into play in your theology. You seem to state very strongly that Eve did not have a rebellious sin nature because this was neccesary for Jesus to also not have a sin nature.( through the virgin birth with no corrupted father) But where does the fact come in that Jesus is God, and that in God there is no sin. To me he is sinless (or without a sin nature) precisely because he is fully God and he is fully human because he is born of woman (since only women can bear children)

I can’t help but wonder if you are pushing your Gen 1-3 theology into the incarnation and corrupting it.

Mark,
You asked:

Numbers 13:18 “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Here quite plainly the children are punished to the third and forth generation. Can you clarify your position?

I think you mean Numbers 14:18. In that verse God says that he “will by no means clear the guilty” what comes after that is to be interpreted by the disclaimed. These are not innocent children who are punished for their fathers sins, but succeeding generations who have been taught to hate God and despise His word. We can see this clearly by the parallel passage in Exodus.

Exodus 20:5–6 (NASB)
5 “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Do you see that God punishes those who hate Him, but to those who love Him and keep His commandments He does not punish but shows them lovingkindness?

God is a fair and loving God who does not punish the children for their parent’s sins, but he does punish those who hate Him even if that hatred has been taught and passed on from preceding generations. But when a people turn from this hatred and honor God He will not punish them, but love them and show them kindness.

Also you said “since Christ is able to remove not just the sin of one man, but the transgressions of the many (Romans 5:16). The passage is an extremely important apologetic passage for the universality of Christ’s sacrifice”

Again maybe this is just terminology, but are you promoting a doctrine of ‘universalism’, namely that all people are saved and none perish in hell?

No, this is not the heresy of universalism. All those who hate God and reject His word will go to hell.

In the Scriptures there is always a two part application of the removal of sins. There is the sacrifice which is perfect and complete and there is the application of the blood. For example at the passover the death of the lamb was enough to universally cover all the people within the house but the death of the lamb alone while it was a perfect sacrifice had to be applied by faith. So if the Israelites killed the lamb and ate it as was required by God, even though the sacrifice had been done on their behalf and even though it was a perfect sacrifice, God required the blood to be applied by faith. It was not a work but a response to God’s work. In every sacrifice for sin there is always two parts because the blood always had to be applied. This is where universalism fails. They believe that the death of the perfect sacrifice will be enough to apply the benefit that had been purchased, on their behalf. But the purchased benefit will never be put onto their account without faith. God kept all under sin universally so that only by faith would anyone enter the kingdom. Universalists believe that the fact that Christ died for all means that all are saved, but they fail to see that the application of the sacrifice by faith is required for all and it cannot be disregarded because God in His wisdom set it up this way. We either go in God’s way or we don’t go in at all.

I am going to leave the question about the incarnation until I have more time to answer. I have to go now and get other things done, but I will answer the next question because it is a very important and valuable questions that applies to this subject.

Mark,
You asked:

Where does the incarnation come into play in your theology. You seem to state very strongly that Eve did not have a rebellious sin nature because this was neccesary for Jesus to also not have a sin nature.( through the virgin birth with no corrupted father) But where does the fact come in that Jesus is God, and that in God there is no sin. To me he is sinless (or without a sin nature) precisely because he is fully God and he is fully human because he is born of woman (since only women can bear children)

Thanks for the questions! Jesus had two natures one as God and one as man. His nature as God came from His being God from eternity past. His nature as man came through Mary.

If Jesus as a human could be sinless because He was God then He wouldn’t be just like us. And if being God is what made Him sinless then why couldn’t He have a human father? Why must He have been born from a virgin without the possibility of a human father? This is where the incarnation comes into play with Him being fully God and fully man but without sin.

The reason why Adam and Eve were without sin in the beginning is that they were created that way by God. But since God requires a perfect sacrifice for us as the Kinsman Redeemer, the man Jesus had to take on our flesh – the flesh that came from Adam. If you make Jesus the man sinless because He is God, then that takes away His connection with us. Then He is different than us in his humanity because He has been somehow cleansed of the sin nature which we are not cleansed from. But if as I state that the sin nature comes into our world only through the man, then the virgin birth removes any barrier that would stop Jesus from being like us. He is our Kinsman Redeemer back through the lineage of Eve who came from Adam before he sinned. It gives Jesus a “natural” human existence as a sinless man just like the way that Adam was created sinfree.

The challenge to those who believe that the virgin birth was not necessary to have Jesus be a sinless human is to answer why God demanded the sign of a virgin and why He rejected a human father for Jesus. I believe that the Messiah coming through the seed of the woman which has not been tainted with the sin of rebellion assures that the Messiah will not have a sin nature. For if we believe that the sin nature comes through Adam, why should it be hard to believe that there is no rebellion that comes through the seed of the woman?

I can’t help but wonder if you are pushing your Gen 1-3 theology into the incarnation and corrupting it.

It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent. There is no corruption in this seed and God gives us no understanding that God would have to do something special to cleanse the seed. The woman had no rebellion to produce rebellion in her seed. If I am wrong, then all it would take is a Scripture or two that states that sin comes into the world through two or that Eve was in rebellion or anything along that line.

truthseeker,
On the other post about Eve you asked:

I see absolutely nothing stated in the text about Adam or anyone else developing/now having a sin nature. It is completely and totally absent. Would God have not stated something clearly that was this monumental?

Adam hid his sin which was a continuation of the sin pattern:

Job 31:33 (NASB)
33 “Have I covered my transgressions like Adam,
By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Adam is also predicted to sin against his wife by ruling over her. In Genesis 3:22 God stops only one future sin from taking place and that would be the sin of Adam eating from what is now forbidden. This verse is very monumental as it is the first time that God forbids something that was given freely before and it is forbidden because of the need to stop a sin from taking place.

If, as egals, we claim to be so careful about what is and isn’t clearly evident and stated in the text regarding women and their ‘roles’, then why do we just jump right in there on this one and pronounce that there is, indeed, such a thing as a sin nature showing up here? It is like the emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.

How do you explain only one man hiding his sin? How do you explain only one man looked on as one who could again sin with knowledge? I see Adam’s continued sin in three ways. Do you see an innocence or do you see something that has changed in the man? God didn’t have to set a guard on the tree knowledge of good and evil in the beginning. Why does God have to set a guard to the garden now? What has changed?

truthseeker,
You said:

If, as is stated above in #390, Eve sinned by eating the fruit and breaking God’s command (1 sin) and we might say, by offering it to Adam and presenting a stumbling,tempting opportunity to him (second sin?-after all, Jesus had harsh words to say about those who cause others to stumble-i.e. little children), then Eve is at least half way or all the way to having sinned the same number of times as Adam, at this point, and this would certainly qualify her for a sin nature, too. I mean, one or two times-what’s the big difference when we are ‘developing a sin nature’?

The Bible doesn’t say that Eve “tempted” Adam. In fact this is an old way of blaming the woman for his sin that many saw in the account. But it isn’t true. Eve offered the fruit to Adam and she wasn’t accused of being a temptress. God didn’t say to Eve, because you offered the fruit to Adam, cursed is…. Offering a piece of fruit was not a sin to her since she was fully deceived and he was not.

As for developing a sin nature due to a long enough list of episodes of sin, I only read of two-God says to Adam, because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife (1) and have eaten of the tree (2). How can two instances be enough to develop an entire nature? If I had a child who rebelled twice, I would in no way conclude they had a rebellious nature-not at the point of having rebelled only twice! There are some children who ‘only rebel’ a few times, and when they receive punishment, etc. for it, never do such things again.

There were two instances of what God said were sin and another stated by God in the book of Job that I quoted above (hiding his sin) another by God when He told Eve what Adam would do to her outside the garden and the very strong possibility of Adam’s future sin which would have been devastating to God. I think that all of these is a good sign of a new nature.

In fact, as I read out the rest of the account about Adam, he is only mentioned a couple more times and those are only minimal factual accounts of him knowing his wife and fathering Cain and Abel. There is no further explicit documentation of Adam continuing to rebel any more than there is of Eve.

We have already have enough documentation for a “two or three witnesses” pattern to prove Adam’s continued sin. There is no witness of Eve’s sin after she was deceived. But on top of this is the fact that Adam (and Adam alone) is said to have brought sin into the world. What sin did he bring into the world?

(Even if we ‘add a few’ by saying Adam sinned by blaming God and Eve, that is still only a total of 4 episodes. If repeated occurrences is what it takes to make something as deeply ingrained as a ‘nature’, I would hardly think 4 would be an adequate number of times to develop such a thing.

If Adam still had his perfect nature he would not have had to sin at all after the first episode if he didn’t have a different nature. After all in all the time that he existed before the fall he didn’t sin even once. Now all of a sudden within a short period of time he sins 4 times. Why? And now Adam is said to have brought sin into the world.

The next thing that is really important is to note that Lucifer only sinned in rebellion once before his nature was changed. It is the kind of sin that is most important. Adam’s sin was the sin of rebellion.

In fact, the more I look at the whole passage, I simply see Eve blaming the serpent for beguiling her, and Adam blaming Eve for giving him the fruit, and God saying, ‘because you did thus and such, this is what is going to happen.’ Period.

Eve blamed the one who was to blame. That wasn’t a sin. And God knew that the serpent was to blame so he cursed him for doing what he did to Eve. But Adam blamed the one who was not to blame. That is the difference. God did not accept Adam’s excuse and God did not blame the woman for Adam’s sin.

No mention of sin natures. No further mention of Adam or Eve sinning. The consequences are monumental, of course. But the account is simple. I don’t want to hang more pots and pans onto the wagon than are already there.

The new testament makes it clear that we all have an “old man” nature. Where did this come from? How could we have this “old man” nature and Adam be free from this nature? I would be interested to know where you think this nature comes from and if it is “natural” and God created us to sin so easily why would He say that what He created was good? Does God consider the “old man” nature as good?

truthseeker,
You said:

Regarding Eve’s desire being ‘to her husband’ which is how the interlinear translates it, I would really like to hear a scholarly, knowledgeable person’s take on what it means to have a ‘desire TO your husband’. That is an awkward way of saying ‘desire for a husband’. I think there is a reason why it is ‘to’ and not ‘for’.

It is actually “toward” and this is where the “turning” comes from.

The focus of her longing is toward her husband. If one sees Eve as left in the garden and Adam as the one kicked out, her one-flesh union with him would manifest in a longing toward him. It is the turning toward her husband that comes from this word alone. Longing for and cleaving for one’s husband is not a sin and as I said on another post, God gave them the mandate to fill the earth. That mandate was not rescinded because of the fall. It was not a sin for Eve to be with her husband and God never accused her of sinning nor did He force a divorce on her. She was free to be with her husband to continue God’s mandate.

gengwall,
You said:

I will add that I don’t think God’s image contains some sin component. That is not what I mean to imply. What I am getting at is that God gave Adam and Eve free will to make choices. That free will was equal and the choices available also equal. That includes the choice to rebel. It seems to me that the difference choices between Adam and Eve at the fall had only to do with knowledge, not nature. Adam chose to rebel because he had the knowledge to avoid being deceived. Eve was just as capable of a choice to rebel, but her lack of knowledge led to her being deceived. Adam may have had his nature transformed at the fall to now contain a propensity to make rebelious choices – that will be argued in the other post – but nothing about Eve’s experience changed her capability of making rebellious choices. It only changed her susceptibility to deceit.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that after Adam sinned at the fall with the two things that God charged him with and after God kicked him out of the garden so that he could not rebel and take of the tree of life, that Adam could have not sinned at all for the rest of his life? That he was actually no different than before he sinned? If this is so, can you explain the change in Lucifer was being perfect to the place where he has no truth in him at all and he is the father of lies? Was Lucifer (now satan) no different than Adam in that he could have chosen to not sin not to ever sin again even after he fell?

Lin,
You asked:

We have to ask why the Septuagint used ‘turning’. This is the translation quoted quite a bit in the NT. Then we have to ask why Turning was used almost exclusively (except for the Latin Vulgate around 400 AD which translated it as “power”) until around 1300 when Pagnino translated it as ‘lust’ and lust it stayed up to the AV until it was then translated as ‘desire’ in modern translations.

The concept of turning is in the passage of Genesis 3:16 although the Septuagint translates it as “turning back” See below:

This is also the way it translates Genesis 4:7 but does this make sense? Sin is “turning back” to you?

pinklight,
You asked:

Why do we die?

We die because we are under the sentence of Adam because of sin and we do not have access to the fruit of the tree of life. What I really praise God for is that some day we will be back to paradise with God and back to the tree of life and we WILL life forever – those of us who have faith in God.

I’m noting this as I’m learning…:

and were by nature children of wrath

Interesting. Why would we be called “children of wrath” out of all things if we are born perfect – children of perfection with only the ability to chose to sin?

Did the fall happen once? Or does it happen everyday when someone sins? Or do we really never fall because we can go back to being perfect after we once choose to sin, by deciding to choose to sin no more?

If Jesus as a human could be sinless because He was God then He wouldn’t be just like us. And if being God is what made Him sinless then why couldn’t He have a human father? Why must He have been born from a virgin without the possibility of a human father? This is where the incarnation comes into play with Him being fully God and fully man but without sin.

Thanks. Making notes ;P

For those who have asked me privately, I will clarify. I haven’t read the article that was written about my view. I wasn’t sent the article nor was I consulted about it as I consulted complementarians that I wrote about. In fact I asked permission of CBMW and gave what quotes I was going to use to their publisher. I also contacted John MacArthur’s organization and spoke to his right hand man personally and sent him a list of the quotes I was going to use. I treated them with respect as brothers in Christ.

My concern about mocking was in the comments made about me in the comment section. That is the only thing that I have seen. I was misrepresented and mocked and those who treat their “friends” this way should consider if this is how they would like to be treated. Perhaps asking questions of a person puts one into the “former friend” category and then it becomes okay?

Just a reminder about the policy that I set up for my own blog. Here it is from my disclaimer:

As Christians we believe in unity through truth on the essentials of the Gospel, and the grace to allow for differences of personal conviction on non-essentials. Salvation in Jesus alone, by faith alone, and love for others are all essentials; issues such as gender (hierarchy), eternal security, predestination, Bible versions, etc. are non-essentials. It is loving to speak the truth and spread the Gospel to the lost, but not loving to divide over secondary matters, nor to harass those who disagree.

While I work hard to keep a respectful atmosphere on this blog I will not take a position of policing everything that everyone writes here. I request that posters respect my position that we stay focused on the issues and not attack individuals. Those who post here are responsible for their own comments. The blog owner and the blog administrators will not be responsible for comments by posters. I just ask everyone to remember that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ that we all serve and if we really love Jesus we will love and respect each other even if we disagree on the non-essentials.

Our belief is that the gifts that Jesus has given to women are for the common good of the body of Christ and women may use their gifts with the authority of 1 Peter 4:10, 11. We welcome dialog and trust that you will find a community here that loves the Lord Jesus and their brothers and sisters in Christ. We choose not to be identified with those who mock the body of Christ and attack fellow Christians in the name of a non-essential issue of faith. If you are willing to be respectful and you name the name of Christ, you are welcome to dialog with us whether you agree with our position or not.

Sorry another point.

I just read through some of your comments Cheryl to others about original sin, and i must confess now after reading them that i disagree slightly with you.

I agree that we have a corrupt sinful nature, however i disagree that children are not born ‘sinful’. I can’t see how you say one while rejecting the other. MAybe you can expand on it for me? At what age therefore do children become sinful? When does there corrupt nature kick in if not at birth?

Regarding those who outright reject the notion of original sin i must ask therefore how you even understand grace. Without a proper understanding of sin, the offensiveness of it to God, our inabilty to be sinless, i can’t even fathom how grace is attractive. It seems like a cheap version of grace. You are either ‘dead’ in your sin according to Eph 2 or you are not. Maybe someone can express how they understand what the bible teaches about sin if Augustine and the early church was incorrect?

Mark, glad to have you back!

1. First off- good on you for correcting my wrong biblical quote, sorry about that. However I can’t see in Num 14 how the text is saying that the generations are evil.

The issue is whether the people have repented from what the good King destroyed – the idols, the burning of their children to false gods, etc. Do you see where the people repented so that they would not be punished? After all God is not punishing innocent people. Or do you think that this is what God is all about – punishing people who have not sinned or people who have repented of their sin?

Not only that, if your interpretation would be to work you would have to say that every single person in Israel was apostate. There is no room in your theology to understand how the righteous amongst the nation still suffered because of the majority.

God treats the righteous differently than he treats the wicked. In one instance in the Scriptures a young boy from a wicked leadership is said to have to die as he was the only one who was not wicked. God said that his body would be the only on that would be buried. Sometimes God causes the death of the innocent to protect them from the punishment that He is going to inflict on the rest.

Other times, God promises to protect those who are obedient to Him and He prospers them even in the land of their enemy. Even those who are not Israelites qualify for special blessing from God even in the midst of God’s wrath on the wicked:

Jeremiah 39:15–18 (NASB)
15 Now the word of the LORD had come to Jeremiah while he was confined in the court of the guardhouse, saying,
16 “Go and speak to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Behold, I am about to bring My words on this city for disaster and not for prosperity; and they will take place before you on that day.
17 “But I will deliver you on that day,” declares the LORD, “and you will not be given into the hand of the men whom you dread.
18 “For I will certainly rescue you, and you will not fall by the sword; but you will have your own life as booty, because you have trusted in Me,” declares the LORD.’ ”

God is one who is faithful to those who trust in Him and He does not treat the faithful in the same manner as He treats the wicked.

To me the covenant was communial. The nation as a whole was to abide by it- especially the leaders (kings). When they were unfaithful, the nation suffered for that sin, even those who were righteous (though few).

God works within the levels of the entire community yet He also works in a one-on-one relationship within the community. This is especially important when the community becomes corrupt and unfaithful yet God is not unfaithful.

This same paradigm seems consistent with what the bible teaches about generational sin. Although person b is not responsible for person a’s sin, he/she may still suffer the consequences of it. Your thoughts?

The consequences will only be toward those who hate God. The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.

Mark,
You said:

Frankly I am astounded that you even have to defend the doctrine of original sin. Maybe that is a cultural thing in Canada/US.

No, I don’t think it is a cultural thing. What I think it is, is a reaction to any teaching that goes beyond original sin and touches areas that the Bible doesn’t teach. There mere mention of an inherited sin nature can cause many to think that I have accepted all the unBiblical additions that are common today. But I don’t believe in throwing out what is Biblical because it has been warped along the way. The fact is that we have all be touched by the fall and all are kept under sin so that all can be draw to the Savior.

It seems pretty clear to me in the bible the nature of our depravity. Not only that Pelagianism was wiped out early on as heretical teaching by the church. It appears however that it still runs rampid. I applaud you for defending the bible here.

Thank you, Mark, I do appreciate that! I don’t think many here know or understand that the rejection of the sin nature coming from Adam was part of Pelagianism and it was condemned as heretical. I tend to want to show from the Scriptures where the “old man” nature is an issue and must be dealt with instead of ignored and rejected as if it doesn’t exist. To merely say that this teaching has already been rejected as heretical isn’t always helpful until one can show why the correct teaching is true. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this way, but that’s how I think.

Mark,

You said:

4. Finally I would just like to point out how you understand the seed of the woman in Gen 3. you said “It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent.” Now I don’t think this is actually correct. The verse in Gen does not say that the seed of the woman would ‘crush’ the head of the serpent. The NIV is unhelpful here. The Hebrew uses the exact same word for the serpent and the woman, namely the serpent’s seed will bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, and the woman’s seed would bruise the head of the serpents seed. Nothing in this verse indicates that the woman’s seed would be victorious or crush the serpent.

Paul alludes to Genesis 3:15 and interprets the crushing as being done to satan in Romans 16:20

Romans 16:20 (NASB)
20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet…

And in Hebrews 2:14 the crushing is defined by the term “render powerless” as this is what the crushing means:

Hebrews 2:14 (NASB)
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

John MacArthur shows that the seed of the serpent is satan himself operating within his followers and it is satan who is defeated by Jesus:

3:15 After cursing the physical serpent, God turned to the spiritual serpent, the lying seducer, Satan, and cursed him. bruise your head … bruise His heel. This “first gospel” is prophetic of the struggle and its outcome between “your seed” (Satan and unbelievers, who are called the Devil’s children in John 8:44) and her seed (Christ, a descendant of Eve, and those in Him), which began in the garden. In the midst of the curse passage, a message of hope shone forth—the woman’s offspring called “He” is Christ, who will one day defeat the Serpent. Satan could only “bruise” Christ’s heel (cause Him to suffer), while Christ will bruise Satan’s head (destroy him with a fatal blow). Paul, in a passage strongly reminiscent of Gen. 3, encouraged the believers in Rome, “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom. 16:20). Believers should recognize that they participate in the crushing of Satan because, along with their Savior and because of His finished work on the cross, they also are of the woman’s seed. For more on the destruction of Satan, see Heb. 2:14,15; Rev. 20:10.
MacArthur, J. J. The MacArthur Study Bible (Ge 3:15).

And finally a quote from an Old Testament commentary written in the 1800’s that describes probably in the very clearest manner why the virgin birth was necessary:

I. The person here predicted—
[It was the Lord Jesus Christ; who was in a peculiar way “the seed of the woman:” for he was formed in the womb simply by the agency of the Holy Ghost, and was born of a pure virgin altogether without the intervention of man. And this was necessary: for, had he been born like other men, he would have been in the loins of Adam, like other men; and therefore would, like them, have been partaker of his guilt and corruption. But, being the sole and immediate workmanship of God, he was absolutely perfect, and therefore capable of sustaining the office of a Saviour for fallen man: whereas, if he had been otherwise formed, he would have needed a Saviour for himself, and been incapable of effecting salvation for others. Thus you see, that when it was impossible for man to restore himself to God, God “laid help for him upon One that was Mighty;” on one who, being God and man in one person, was able to effect for men all that their necessities required. As man, he could atone for sin; and as God, he could render that atonement available for all who should trust in him.]

Simeon, C. Horae (1832-63). Homileticae Vol. 1: Genesis to Leviticus (pgs 37–38)

Mark,
You said:

I think the point of the verse is to show the enmity between the two offspring, the corruption of relationships because of sin, firstly between God and people, then between people and people and finally between people and animals. To say that one is victorious over the other is eisegesis not exegesis.

The problem with your view is that the New Testament authors like Paul and the author of Hebrews say Genesis 3:15 as being a battle between the virgin born Jesus and those who are in Christ and satan and those who are his followers. None of them saw this verse as being a battle between merely humans and humans or between humans and animals. That interpretation doesn’t fly with the NT.

5. That said I am not saying that Jesus did not conquer over Satan, I believe that to be true, but the specific verse in Gen 3 grammatically does not say this, it’s read into the verse. Jesus conquering over Satan is established from other passages not Gen 3.

You are then going to have some difficulty with the direct reference back to Genesis 3:15 by Romans 16:20. Any interpretation of the promise of God that makes it as merely a fight between humans and animals and that the humans win over the animals is seriously missing the point of the gospel preached in Genesis.

Mark,
You asked:

I agree that we have a corrupt sinful nature, however i disagree that children are not born ‘sinful’. I can’t see how you say one while rejecting the other. MAybe you can expand on it for me? At what age therefore do children become sinful? When does there corrupt nature kick in if not at birth?

Sin nature is not sin. It is an inherited propensity to sin but it is not sin itself. One has a sin nature, but one doesn’t become a sinner until one actually sins. For example a baby still in the womb is not a sinner since he/she has not committed any sin. To say that the unborn are sinners is to go beyond what Scripture actually says and this is one of the reasons why so many are fighting against the teaching of the sin nature.

When a child lies or steals or whatever, they then are sinning and before that they have sin nature that makes sinning natural, but is not actual until they sin.

Regarding those who outright reject the notion of original sin i must ask therefore how you even understand grace. Without a proper understanding of sin, the offensiveness of it to God, our inabilty to be sinless, i can’t even fathom how grace is attractive. It seems like a cheap version of grace. You are either ‘dead’ in your sin according to Eph 2 or you are not. Maybe someone can express how they understand what the bible teaches about sin if Augustine and the early church was incorrect?

I look forward to reading an answer from one of those who believes that they have no sin nature.

I think that the verse about our being a “slave to sin” is a better one to use:

Romans 6:6 (NASB)
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Here we see the “old self”. How does one who believes that there is no sin nature understand that? And what is the “body of sin”?

How can those who believe that they have no sin nature understand the issue of “slavery to sin”? If they have no sin nature, then they should be able to just stop sinning.

Mark,
Here is one other quote that you may accept since it includes the view of Calvin:

The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’ appears in TJ and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the ipsa of the Vulg., applied the expression directly to the Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference, recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head.

J. Skinner: A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis. (pgs 80–81).

Cheryl,

I think that a propensity to sin and an inherited sin nature are not the same thing, and I think you’ve made it clear that they are not.

One can also argue that humankind has an inherited ability to do great good and therefore fulfill the law of Christ (Romans 2:14-16).

So where’s the rub? Do humans have no ability to do the right thing and make the world a better place?

Cheryl,

I’m not so sure that you have satisfactorally addressed the main issue in regard to our discussion.

You said that Numbers 14 says that the other generations were wicked also. But like i said i can’t see that in the text. Not only that but the 2 Kings reference deals with Menassah not the people. I can’t see how you can just interpret it as all Israel in these passages?

For example you said “The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.”

But according to Numbers 14 this simple doesn’t work. In Numbers the nation is rebelling about going into the Land promised to them, yet in verse 20 we read that God did forgive them. How does this work in your view, when directly following it, God then saids they will not enter the land. These people were forgiven yet still punished for their rebellion.

Again let me state that it seems far more consistent in view of all the relevant biblical passages to say that people do suffer the consequences of other peoples sins. The next generation did not rebel yet they still had to wonder in the desert for 40 years. They weren’t directly accountable for the sins, yet the repocussions still effected them.

Now regarding the incarnation.

I agree that i don’t understand the incarnation, and that is my point. None of us can!

However to come to the conclusion as you have done that Jesus was theoretically able to sin i must reject. I totally understand why you feel that this reduces his humanity but i think you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
How can you say that Jesus being fully God could have sinned? Are you saying he left his ‘godness’ in heaven during his time on earth. I find it very hard not to see your view as heretical. This is the mystery of the incarnation, how one man Jesus Christ, can be fully human tempted in everyway, yet at the same time fully God unable to sin. Like i have said, it is a very difficult thing to understand yet explain. The fact that he had no father, therefore he had no sin nature, therefore Eve had no sin nature is too long a bow for me. THere is nothing in the bible to indicate this

Now regarding Gen 3:15

I dont think you have fully understood what i said. I did say that you can gain from other passages that Jesus conquered over Satan. I did say that Christians read Jesus back into Gen 3:15 or at least interpret it this way.
My point though was simply that exegetically, reading the verse in it’s original language, context etc it is not about one ‘crushing’ the other. The actual language used is each bruising each other. This is simply pure exegetical fact.

That said, i do not disagree that we as Christians like Calvin can understand this as the first prophecy of the messiah. But this is reading it in our position in salvation history. I agree with Calvin and you that this could be a prophecy, but exegetically the verse is not dealing with Eve’s seed ‘crushing’ the serpents.
Have i explained this well enough?

Greg,

I agree with Cheryl that the verse you quoted does not support a rejection of original sin. Perhaps in the discussion of what is ‘good’ or good works, Romans 14 might help.

Romans 14:23b “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”

So what constitutes as good? Only those things done in faith. So if a non believer cares for another (but it is not done in faith in Jesus Christ) it is sin. This is harsh but true. This is the nature of our rebellion to God. Nothing we do is good unless it is done in faith in Jesus. And no one can have faith unless God grants it to them.

Until we understand the depth of our depravity and sin we will never understand the grace and mercy of God. We ALL fall short says Romans, no-one is good, not even one. This is where Augustine and the reformers got it right!

a rejection of original sin, makes a mockery of the atoning work of Christ and the depravity of our rebellion.

Cheryl,
thanks for the info.
But i think my point still stands regardless of how you translate the word. You can’t say that the woman’s seed (in the context) is victorious over the serpents-so whether you translate it crush, strike, bruise etc you must do the same for both. This is why the NIV is un helpful. It saids the serpent’s seed will ‘strike’ but the woman’s seed would ‘crush’. This gives the indication that the verse is saying one is victorious, but again i don’t think exegetically it holds. Whatever the translation is should be the same. Therefore that is why i think in the context the point is broken relationships not victory over another. The serpent will bruise his heel and he will bruise his head.
I guess the other point could be whether the ‘head’ incicates something significantly more than the ‘heel’. That i suppose is open for speculation.

Mark,
You said:

Therefore that is why i think in the context the point is broken relationships not victory over another. The serpent will bruise his heel and he will bruise his head.
I guess the other point could be whether the ‘head’ incicates something significantly more than the ‘heel’. That i suppose is open for speculation.

The context is not broken relationships because this is about a curse on the serpent not a curse on man. A curse is about destruction not about a broken relationships.

Crushing the head is considered a death blow:

Numbers 24:17 (NASB)
17 “I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel,
And shall crush through the forehead of Moab,
And tear down all the sons of Sheth.

Psalm 74:14 (NASB)
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

Judges 5:26 (NASB)
26 “She reached out her hand for the tent peg,
And her right hand for the workmen’s hammer.
Then she struck Sisera, she smashed his head;
And she shattered and pierced his temple.

So the bottom line will be what is a curse all about? If broken relationships is the serpent’s curse, then man was cursed too. This can’t be true. The curse that was revealed by the crushing of the serpent’s head is a death blow to him and a cause for victory from the One who received the crush to His heel on the cross. This meaning of curse that brought defeat to the serpent and victory to the Messiah was seen centuries before Jesus was born. For us to reject this now is to lessen God’s purpose and plan to destroy the serpent and restore our fellowship with God.

Mark,
You said:

You said that Numbers 14 says that the other generations were wicked also. But like i said i can’t see that in the text. Not only that but the 2 Kings reference deals with Menassah not the people.

Here is what a critical commentary on this passage says about the failure of Judah to repent and the confirmation from other OT writings that these people were indeed wicked.

26. Notwithstanding, the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his wrath,—&c. The national reformation which Josiah carried on was acquiesced in by the people from submission to the royal will; but they entertained a secret and strong hankering after the suppressed idolatries. Though outwardly purified, their hearts were not right towards God, as appears from many passages of the prophetic writings; their thorough reform was hopeless; and God, who saw no sign of genuine repentance, allowed His decree (2Ki 21:12–15) for the subversion of the kingdom to take fatal effect.
    Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (2 Ki 23:26)

You also said:

For example you said “The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.”

But according to Numbers 14 this simple doesn’t work. In Numbers the nation is rebelling about going into the Land promised to them, yet in verse 20 we read that God did forgive them. How does this work in your view, when directly following it, God then saids they will not enter the land. These people were forgiven yet still punished for their rebellion.

They can be forgiven for their sin but the consequences will still happen. But this in no way says that God punishes the innocent which is what we were talking about.

Again let me state that it seems far more consistent in view of all the relevant biblical passages to say that people do suffer the consequences of other peoples sins. The next generation did not rebel yet they still had to wonder in the desert for 40 years. They weren’t directly accountable for the sins, yet the repocussions still effected them.

God does not punish the innocent. When the generation came out of Egypt they were punished by not allowing them to go in to the promised land. The punishment was not 40 years in the wilderness. They were there for 40 years not for punishment but to allow all of that generation to die. Once they were dead, the children of these wicked people were allowed to go into the promised land.

Mark,

Now regarding the incarnation, I will answer that later when I have more time. Hopefully I can get to it later tonight after our bible study.

I have one more comment for people to think through and you may want to comment on this.

A sinless man was able to sin in the garden but he was also able to stay in the place of sinless as this was his nature. When man fell his nature changed so that he was unable to get back to where he had fallen from. He was now unable to live without sin and his new nature made it natural for him to sin just as it had been natural for him not to sin before he fell.

If man was now living in the “natural fleshly nature”, he could no longer be trusted to obey God’s law. It would appear then that God’s words…

Genesis 3:22…he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…”

When God used the prefixed imperfect tense it shows that the action was in progress but not yet completed.

Grammar (of a tense) denoting a past action in progress but not completed at the time in question.

If Adam’s rebellion to God regarding the tree of life was in progress but not yet completed, then this reveals his sin nature in progress heading toward a direction that God wanted stopped before it happened?

If Adam’s rebellion that is “in progress” at the time that God kicked him out of the garden, is not this the perfect definition of the “old man nature” or the “natural man” that we now call the “sin nature”?

What do you think?

Cheryl # 63,

Thanks so much for the friendly reply!

I can’t respond right now to my earlier comment (# 62) which you so graciously answered, but I fear that I didn’t represent myself as clearly as I would have liked to.

Hopefully I can respond soon to my earlier comment with a caveat or two that might enhance clarity.

Greg,
I so appreciate being able to discuss these issues. I welcome any comment, question or challenge as I do believe these are important issues to debate over in Christian love. It is also easy to misunderstand a person’s comments and I am glad that you are going to try to make your comments even clearer. Thanks for joining in!

Anonymous,

I can’t really understand what your point is. Can you re-state a little clearer your position?

You said this “Otherwise, you end up with a God who is either overly concerned about defending His honor or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment – a God without mercy and grace.”

Now regarding your last statement that God cannot forgive an offense without a payment. I fear you don’t understand the biblical position on the sacrifice necessary before God’s forgiveness. Are you saying that God can forgive our sins without a sacrifice? Can you elaborate?

I find it intriguing that those who reject the orthodox position think that orthodoxy presents a God without mercy and grace. Until we understand our sin properly we can never understand God’s mercy and grace properly. The fact is we all deserve to go to hell. It is only because of God’s mercy that he saves anyone. This whole notion that we are theoretically ‘good’ people is simply flawed. Let’s start judging our goodness in relation to a Holy God who can not tolerate sin, then we might begin to grasp the right perpective. This is why the gospel is so amazing that God would send his son to be a propitiation for us. The judgement we deserved fell on Jesus, so that we may be adopted and declared justified in God’s sight. This is the gospel. Anything else is simply false teaching.

Cheryl,

I appreciate your comments regarding Gen 3:15. Let me just say one final thing in case you missed it. I do agree with you that looking bcak at this verse in our position, we can see the prophetic nature of it. I’m just trying to look at the verse exegetically, that’s all- i think this is perhaps where we differ slightly.

However i’m not sure i’m ready to accept that the nail through the heel is fulfillment of Gen 3:15. That’s a bit too allegorical for me. You may be right, but i’d hold to that one loosely.

Thanks

Anon y mous,

You said:

Because I reject the “inherited sin nature” perspective does not then mean that I believe that any of us are somehow free from the myriad actions and choices of our parents and ancestors. Nobody starts life with a clean slate completely free from the influence of anyone but themselves. But the language for what we experience is not properly boiled down to “guilt or innocence.” It is the language of consequences as well.

The consequences that Paul is talking about are not because of the “choices” of our parents. It is about what is inside “us” that is a part of us.

While Christ made us alive together with Him and paid the price for our sin, there is a battle that goes on inside us that we cannot win without Christ who enables us to live “in the Spirit” so that we do not fulfill the desires of the flesh.

So the second question I need to ask you is what is the “desires of the flesh” that the Christian is not to live in?

Galatians 5:16–17 (NIV)
16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Here Paul is talking to Christians and he says that there is a sinful nature that is contrary to the Spirit. He also says that these two natures are in conflict with each other so that you (Christians) do not do what they want to do. What kind of nature is it that Christians fight with that is in conflict with the Spirit?

Romans 6:12 (NASB)
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,

Romans 6:16 (NASB)
16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

In Romans 6:12 Paul is again talking to Christians telling them that there are lusts that want to reign in their mortal body and they are to not let this happen or they become slaves to this sin. If Christians are free from sin, then why is it that they are warned not to present themselves as slaves to sin?

You also said:

God who loves us, made us alive in Christ, freeing us from the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air and bondage to our passions, and created us anew for good works. According to Eph.2:3, we “were” children of wrath – we were subject to the wrathful rule of the prince of the power of the air, but now Christ made us live.

You say here that “children of wrath” and you connect this together with the “wrathful rule” of satan. What makes you think that children of wrath means subject to satan’s wrath?

The Scriptures don’t talk about satan’s rule as a wrath, but rather that we were accursed children subject to God’s wrath and our own nature of hostility.

Colossians 1:21 (NASB95)
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

2 Peter 2:14 (NASB)
14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children;

I don’t see satan’s wrath being listed but I do see God’s wrath against those who live in unrepentant sin:

Romans 2:5 (NASB)
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

Lastly, you said:

Otherwise, you end up with a God who is either overly concerned about defending His honor or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment – a God without mercy and grace. Now, that does not correlate very well at all with the God I find in Scripture and it oversimplifies mankind’s problem and the measures necessary to save us. God paid His own penalty – that is forgiveness.

By “or a God who cannot forgive an offense without payment” do you mean that He would be a God who requires us to pay for the offense or do you mean that God forgives without a sacrifice that pays for our sin? I am not exactly sure what you meant by this. Could you explain this a little more?

Cheryl,

Have you read Calvin on the issue of original sin? Particularly Book 2 chapter 1 of his Institutes?

Mark,
You said:

Have you read Calvin on the issue of original sin? Particularly Book 2 chapter 1 of his Institutes?

Mark,
You said:

However to come to the conclusion as you have done that Jesus was theoretically able to sin i must reject.

Then you are saying that Jesus was not the last Adam? That He did not have free will like the first Adam?

How can you say that Jesus being fully God could have sinned?

Because Jesus wasn’t just fully God. He was also fully human. And in God’s creation humans were given free will. Adam was able to sin even though he didn’t have to sin. He had the choice to obey or disobey.

The Bible says that Jesus learned obedience. Did He have an ability to learn and an ability to obey? Then He had to have an ability to disobey otherwise He wasn’t the last Adam, just like the first Adam in his humanity before sin entered the world.

Are you saying he left his ‘godness’ in heaven during his time on earth. I find it very hard not to see your view as heretical.

No I am not saying that. I am saying that He laid aside his right to use His abilities as God independently and for His own benefit. He lived here on the earth completely as a human relying on His Father to give Him the okay to use His God powers. That is why He can read people’s thoughts at one time and yet another time He didn’t know who touched Him. He was not operating on His own but on full dependence on the Father. He was living as a human, as the last Adam so that He could be an example to us. How could He be an example if He had no temptation to sin? The Father could not be tempted, but Jesus could be tempted. Why? Because the Father is not human. Only Jesus took on humanity so that He could be our Kinsman Redeemer.

This is the mystery of the incarnation, how one man Jesus Christ, can be fully human tempted in everyway, yet at the same time fully God unable to sin.

There are two kinds of mysteries. One kind of mystery is that which has been revealed and is available for us to get to know and understand. The other kind of mystery is hidden and is not given to us. What has been revealed about Jesus Christ is for us to know as it is a revealed mystery.

Like i have said, it is a very difficult thing to understand yet explain. The fact that he had no father, therefore he had no sin nature, therefore Eve had no sin nature is too long a bow for me.

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. I would suggest that you get some shorter arrows and then you won’t have a problem with this bow 😉 Okay, silliness aside, my next post will deal with the issue of the last Adam compared to the first Adam. It might help a little. God is an Amazing God who has revealed all kinds of pictures for us in the Scriptures if we are willing to diligently search and find them. Nothing is haphazard to Him as all has a plan. When we can see God’s plan revealed in the Scriptures, it helps us to know His Character better as we can understand better how He controls the outcome without controlling the people.

I may be offline for extended periods of time during this Easter season as we will be spending time with our daughter and her family. I will be back here as I am able but my time away will start from later this morning.

Cheryl,

May i suggest that you at least read Calvin, because it is very clear when you make sweeping statements about ‘calvinist’ or ‘calvinism’ that what you are understanding is not actually what he taught.

For example you gave the indication that Calvin taught that we are punished for Adam’s sin, because of perhaps what someone may have said.

But if you read the reference i gave you, maybe it will help you actually understand the reformed position on original sin. Calvin did teach that every single person is tainted with a sinful nature from birth- that everypart of us is infested by sin. But he also clearly taught that each man is responsible for his own sins, not another’s.

I just think if you at least read Calvin, then you will be in a far better position to judge on ‘Calvinism’ regarding original sin.

More later on the incarnation aswell.
Have a good break

Mark,
The people that are helping me in the Calvinist area are apologists for Calvinism. I was told that the Calvinist position is that we are “sinners” from the moment of conception because of Adam’s sin. This is far different than having a “sin nature”.

I haven’t had a chance to see my grandkids yet as we arrived too late but the next few days should be wonderful. I will pop in here as I can.

Our salvation also is not just a new body and the resurrection but a restored relationship with God that has been paid for by the Lord Jesus. Only Jesus can do that for us too, right?

Cheryl, can you expound for me a little on the first statment in regards to the fall of Genesis. And on your second statement I agree with completely. Thank you.

Romans 7:18 (NASB)
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

Good verse that I need to keep in mind.

Cheryl,

I can’t see how your view is any different to Greg’s really. You say we are born with a sinful nature, yet you say that we have the ability to not sin. For example you said.

“So the difference is that the sin nature causes us to have the internal inclination towards sin yet we are still able to make choices regarding what we will do with our sinful feelings. If we give in to the feelings that are already within, sin becomes our master and it becomes harder to fight just as practiced sin makes us a slave to sin.”

What makes us able to make those choices? Free-will? IF you say free will then your view is identitical to Greg’s since he also believes that we have the ability to do good or keep God’s requirements by our own free-will.

Problem is this contradicts with scripture. Eph 2 says we are dead in sin. Romans 3 outlines the nature of sin. No-one seeks God, nor does any do good. John 3 says that we need to be re-born before we can come to God. Many old testament prophecies of the new covenant talk of a ‘new heart’ that is needed becasue our heart is corrupt.

Point is- until the Spirit gives us a new heart and opens our eyes we will never be able to act in faith in Christ. And Romans 14 says everything not done in faith is sin. So even those ‘good’ works are sin since they are not done in faith. Our free-will is corrupt since the fall. We will always choose sin over God, unless the Spirit intervenes in our lives.

If faith is not itself a gift, can you explain therefore how then we are not adding to our salvation? EVen if God does 99% and we do the last 1% it is still works based salvation. THis is what Augustine and the reformers have been fighting against throughout all of Church history, yet people still wish to promote this false teaching.

Pinklight,

Our salvation also is not just a new body and the resurrection but a restored relationship with God that has been paid for by the Lord Jesus. <

Cheryl, can you expound for me a little on the first statment in regards to the fall of Genesis.

When the fall happened man became mortal and subject to decay. The final part of our salvation is getting a new body not subject to death or decay.

Romans 8:23 (NASB)
23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

By the way let me be clear that i do not think that non-calvinists are not Christians. I myself was not always convinced of reformed theology but i would never have said i wasn’t saved. Nor do i think that others are not saved.
I simply believe that as i have grown in my walk we God he has been gracious to open my eyes to new hard truths of the bible even when they seem unfair.

I will however always protest when i think the gospel is at stake, and i believe it is at stake when we deny that faith is a gift of God for all believers. A works based salvation is contrary to scripture and i know Cheryl agrees. This is a false teaching on justification by faith and must be said so.

We must be willing to always seek to honour God and not ourselves and to always be faithful to scripture even when it seems hard. Hope this helps you understand my stance.

“God cannot be found unless He allows Himself to be found. God has given the promise that He will be found under several circumstances. One circumstance is that the person seeks for God with their whole heart.”

How can an ungenerate person seek God with their whole heart when their heart is corrupt? I don’t think they can. Genesis 6:5 is very clear on the condition of the human heart.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Our heart by nature is corrupt, it is stone. This is the importance of the new covenant. It is God who gives us a new heart according to Jeremiah. We need a new heart to seek after God. Our new heart isn’t given to us after we seek God. The human heart is evil and does not seek God. The spiritual heart on the otherhand will. That is why we need to be re-born (a new heart) before we can accept the message of salvation. That is why we need to be born again BEFORE we can see the kingdom of God
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Seeing the kingdom is to be saved, therefore being born again is before we are saved, before faith not after. Jesus again repeats himself that we CANNOT enter the kingdom of God (be saved) unless we are born of the Spirit and water.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Your fighting against the Bible by stating that we can seek God when our heart is stone and not re-born. Being born again is something that happens before faith not after. The bible is clear on that. PLease show verses stating otherwise.

By the way can you differentiate between ‘seeking God’ and ‘coming to God since you seem to make that an important distinction.

Hey Mark,
Can’t keep up with you, man. We just got back from our Easter time out and my head is pounding besides the internet problems.

Let’s see what I can do before I head off to bed.

How can an ungenerate person seek God with their whole heart when their heart is corrupt? I don’t think they can. Genesis 6:5 is very clear on the condition of the human heart.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God has graciously given us both the ability and the mandate to seek Him. While you gave Genesis 6:5 as proof that all men had only evil in their heart continually, that verse is not without exception.

Genesis 6:9 (NASB)
9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Genesis 7:1 (NASB)
1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.

Noah and Job and many others were seen as “righteous” and not ones with an “evil heart”. We cannot take a generality and make it a rule without exception. That isn’t good Biblical exegesis.

Our heart by nature is corrupt, it is stone. This is the importance of the new covenant. It is God who gives us a new heart according to Jeremiah. We need a new heart to seek after God.

Um, where does the Bible say that we need a new heart in order to seek after God?

Our new heart isn’t given to us after we seek God.

Oh yeah? In Deut. 10:16 God commands the people to circumcise their hearts before He does His work of circumcision that produces a new heart.

Deuteronomy 10:16 (NASB)
16 “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

Deuteronomy 30:6 (NASB95)
6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

This circumcision by God is the removal of the foreskin of sin on our hearts and it is necessary for us to love God with all of our hearts and live in His love. God fulfills the complete act of what man is required to start. Man is required to repent and to circumcise his own heart through a turning away from evil and a turning toward God, while God does the miracle of a brand new heart. There is nothing at all in the Scriptures that I have seen that says God must give us a new heart before we can seek Him.

The human heart is evil and does not seek God.

I have already dealt with this in context. It is the fool who says there is no God who does not seek God. Those who do seek God and who fear God are called righteous. They are never called evil.

The spiritual heart on the otherhand will. That is why we need to be re-born (a new heart) before we can accept the message of salvation.

That is a human tradition and human reasoning but it is not Scriptural. Where does the Bible say that we have to be born again before we can accept the message of salvation? Where does the Bible say that Cornelius was born again before he heard the gospel?

That is why we need to be born again BEFORE we can see the kingdom of God…Jesus again repeats himself that we CANNOT enter the kingdom of God (be saved) unless we are born of the Spirit and water.

Mark, Mark, Mark, how long will you change the Scriptures? “entering” the kingdom of God is not being born again “be saved”. One is born again a long time before one enters the kingdom of God and into eternity. It is a fact that one cannot see nor enter the kingdom of God without being born again, but to equate being born again with “entering the kingdom of God” is mashing the Word of God.

Acts 14:22 (NASB95)
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”

The disciples did not claim to have “entered” the kingdom of God. It was something that was future to them and not the same thing as their being born again.

Your fighting against the Bible by stating that we can seek God when our heart is stone and not re-born.

My friend, it appears that you are the one who is in need of understanding the Scriptures. First of all, not every heart is stone. Those who harden their hearts against God’s call will eventually turn their heart to stone, but not all harden their hearts. Many will respond with gladness to His call.

Secondly God commands the unregenerate to seek Him.

Isaiah 55:6–7 (NASB)
6 Seek the LORD while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

It would be a cruel act for God to command men everywhere to seek Him if He was the One deliberately stopping them from seeking Him.

Our God is a gracious God, filled with loving kindness and abounding in mercy.

I will get to the other questions/comments next day, God willing.

Oh, I forgot to get to this one.

Being born again is something that happens before faith not after. The bible is clear on that. PLease show verses stating otherwise.

You first. Please show me where born again happens before faith and once you have shown me the supporting verse(s) we can discuss your challenge.

I will be waiting with baited breath 😉

“By the way let me be clear that i do not think that non-calvinists are not Christians. I myself was not always convinced of reformed theology but i would never have said i wasn’t saved. Nor do i think that others are not saved.”
Mark,
Many of your comments do not lend themselves to that impression. Just sayin’…

“Either we will by nature always sin or we won’t, and we can keep God’s commandments. The view you are presenting doesn’t make sense.”

If this was true, then it would be life threatening to walk down the street, shop for food, picnic in the park or do any other normal task.

“Our God is a gracious God, filled with loving kindness and abounding in mercy.”

I really appreciate the concept of ‘hesed’ demonstrated throughout the OT.

Cheryl,

Thanks so much for your moderate and amiable reply!
Although we may not agree on every point concerning the nature of fallen humanity, we can certainly agree that civility and the free exchange of ideas without rancor goes a long way as a positive example to the non-Christian world.

Greg,

…we can certainly agree that civility and the free exchange of ideas without rancor goes a long way as a positive example to the non-Christian world.

This is important to me too. I have seen way too much of Christians accusing their brothers of heresy over minor differences in doctrine or calling them names because of these disagreements. While we are free to defend our own doctrine with passion, when we turn around and deride the character of our brother merely for disagreeing with us, or assign them to hell for taking a diffewrent position on a debatable matter that is not essential to the gospel, we look like a bunch of misfits in the Christian family. But when non-Christians can see us accepting each other in love while having our differences, it is one of the best ways to show the difference that Jesus makes. Eventually I hope to see us all united. If it doesn’t happen in this lifetime, it will in the next.

Cheryl,

“Dead” is a metaphor.”

I don’t disagree that dead is a metaphor and that they can do all those things listed. Our focus though, is can people who are ‘dead IN SIN’ seek or come to God according to their own free will without the grace of God to draw them? No they can’t, because they need to be ‘born-again’!We are dead! We need to be made alive again and Ephesians saids that only God can do that, not us.

“Of course. Who is teaching that we ourselves can accomplish the miracle of re-birth? Who is teaching that we make ourselves alive? It isn’t me”

But you are saying that being re-born comes after our salvation which is done ONLY in OUR faith. Therefore you are saying we as humans do something BEFORE God makes us re-born. This is reject because it is making salvation based on our work of faith, not God’s gift of faith.

“My question – why do you do that?”

I have never said that you believe that the work of being re-born is not a work of God. Where my problem lies is that you think that faith is not a gift of God for all believers. Therefore when people accept Christ, it is their faith not God’s gift of faith that saves them. This is works salvation. Perhaps you can clear it all up. Is faith something we add to salvation in that it is not a gift of God, or is the faith that saves us a gift of God? Which do you believe? Being re-born is a side issue really. I have no doubt you believe it is God’s work, but that is because you seem to be saying it happens after faith. I believe it happens before faith and John 3 teaches that. Is the faith that justifies us God’s gift or is it our own free-will? This I want to know?

Here lies the problem- you say
“The “gift” is salvation which is completely a work of God”

I agree that salvation is the complete work of God. But how is it that we are saved? Like you said- through faith, yet you are not including ‘faith’ in the complete work of salvation, namely this ‘gift’. Therefore you are not seeing salvation as the complete work of God, because the very means by which we are saved (faith) is not a work of God but man. You confirm your mishap by saying

“I am on solid grounds exegetically and the “gift” is not “faith” but the action verb “salvation” of which action only God can be source of.”

So it appears that you are giving lip service to the complete salvation of God, yet are actually denying it by saying the very means by which we are saved is not a work of God. Salvation is not a complete work of God by what you have said. Sure you believe God saves people but only if they add to it by their faith. Can you also address whether repentance is our own work or is it something God grants? These are vital questions because this is at the heart of the gospel.

“If every single person is like this, then God lied because God said that Job is not like that. Are you really going to make God into a liar or will you admit that Paul isn’t using the quote from Psalms out of context and in a whole different meaning than the author of Psalms meant”

How long will you misinterpret the Bible Cheryl? You are pulling chickens out of hats to come to the conclusion that Romans 3 is not talking about Original Sin. The problem with your understanding is that you think people can be rightous apart from the work of God. This is the core of the issue. You think Noah, Abraham, Job are righteous people because in their own free-will they seek and worship God. If Noah was ‘righteous’ according to your definition why did he get drunk? If Abraham was righteous in his own free-will why did he lie and deceive people? If Job was righteous because of what he did why did God rebuke him at the end of the book. After all Paul says that if we break just 1 law we break all the law. How can these men be ‘righteous’ when they are sinful? I don’t think you understand what the old testament means when someone is righteous at all! It is faith which justifies us- declares us righteous. It was faith which made these men be called ‘righteous’. Now faith is either a gift of God or it is a work of man. It has to be the former otherwise we preach a works based gospel. This is simple fact. Unless faith is a gift that God bestows on us it is something we add to our salvation. How can you skirt around that massive issue.

“What I don’t understand if why you want to make us incapable of seeking God when God shows very clearly that unregenerate people can and must seek Him. Why do you do this?

I don’t want to say anything except what the bible teaches. It teaches that we are incapable of saving ourselves by seeking God or having our own free-will faith. I agree that we are called to seek God but we are sinful, we live in darkness, we love the darkness, we suppress the truth, and therefore we are judged for it. It is only in God’s mercy that he opens the eyes of his sheep to the message of salvation in order to save them.

By the way I don’t think Paul twisted scripture at all. He expanded on the nature of our depravity to the Romans. Abraham, Noah and Job were ungodly men because they were children of wrath as descendents of Adam, yet they were declared righteous by faith- they were not perfect people. You also have to remember that the Old Testament looked forward to the coming of Jesus. Jesus himself applied many scriptures to himself away from the original context, but I’m sure you don’t accuse him of twisting scripture. You are inconsistent Cheryl with your concerns and comments.

Greg and Cheryl,

I am amazed that you think that the nature of sin is a non essential in our scriptures. It affects everything- what we understand about God, grace, salvation. I’m sure this is clear by the conversation we have been having. What we understand as salvation is adversely affected when we don’t understand the nature of sin. I disagree with both of you. This whole political correctness stuff is culture not bible- it is postmodernity. Paul is very clear in Galations 1 that anyone who preaches a different gospel will be eternally condemned. Let’s start taking the bible a bit more seriously and the warnings in it. This is at the heart of an essential in the Christian gospel

one last note…

i really would like you to explain to me how you pray for non-believers. Do you believe it is God who opens their eyes and softens their hearts or not?

P.S I am only going to discuss these issues for as long as you want to Cheryl since i am fully aware of your earlier comments about it all. When you no longer wish to discuss it, that is fine, just let me know. I know we are a fair way from the original topic of this post.

Mark,
You said:

Your other old testament quotes do nothing to support your view of unregenerate man seeking God. The first one is a dubious translation, the NIV makes is a hypothetical by using ‘if’, that is “But if from there you seek the Lord”,

Deuteronomy 4:29 (NASB)
29 “But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.

The NASB is far from a “dubious” translation. Let’s have a look at the Andersen-Forbes phrase marker analysis to see what the actual Hebrew says:

It agrees with the NASB so your point does not stand.

P.S

I’m wondering what you do with Psalm 51 Cheryl in relation to original sin, particularly verse 5.

Psa 51:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet went to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
Psa 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!
Psa 51:3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Mark,
You said:

By the way Cheryl, repentance is also a gift of God not our own strength
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
Who grants repentance here Cheryl, clearly God. Repentance and faith are gifts of God to his sheep, so that no-one can boast.

Repentance may be “granted” but it is granted by allowing, enabling or helping one to repent.

if-perhaps God may-give (b) them repentance to acknowledgment of-truth,
LEXICON—
b. aorist act. opt. (LN 13.142) (BAGD p. 192): ‘to give’ [BAGD, ICC; KJV, NJB], ‘to give the opportunity’ [TEV], ‘to grant’ [BAGD, Herm, HNTC, LN, NTC; NASB, NIV, NRSV, REB], ‘to allow’ [LN], ‘to enable’ [NAB], ‘to help’ [TNT], ‘to get to give’ [Lns].
An Exegetical Summary of 2 Timothy (2nd ed.) (pgs 81–82).

Okay, that is all I can get to tonight. Will try to pick up where I left off sometime tomorrow providing God grants me the time.

Okay, I just happened to read this:

With what you have said i feel strongly that the core of the gospel is at stake. You say you believe in a non-works salvation, then please show me why and how.

…so my answer should allow me to go to bed.

Faith is not a work. Faith is contrasted to works.

Galatians 2:16 (NASB)
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Romans 3:28 (NASB)
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Now show me where in the Bible that man’s faith is called a “work”. If you cannot do that then would you please stop calling your sister in Christ one who believes in a works salvation. A works salvation is a heresy and no one who believes in works for salvation is saved.

If you need more I have some drawings I did for another Calvinist pastor that I can try to reproduce here. But first of all, do you job and either put up or shut up (a term used here in North America for proving your case. It isn’t meant to be offensive.) Prove that faith is considered a work in the Scriptures if it is not a “gift” of God. Go ahead. I will be waiting with baited breath.

Continuing on…
Mark, you said:

Unless we accept that every single piece of our salvation is from God, it will always be works based.

Look Mark, every piece of our salvation is from God. But regarding our faith, we are required to believe God. When God speaks and I believe God, how can I be considered to be working for my salvation? Scripture doesn’t say that faith is a gift of God to unbelievers. If so, please show me where it says this.

Rather, the faith that is a gift is always given by the Holy Spirit to believers.

I do pray that God will reveal that to you, in the same way he did to me a few years ago. It totally changed my understanding of the grace of God. He is so merciful.

I did an interesting study concerning Calvinism and I asked Calvinists how they got the “truth” of Calvinism and I was told in each case that it came from studying the works of Calvinists/Reformers. They didn’t just “get it” from reading the Word of God. Apparently some think that men’s books are necessary for God’s revelation because God’s Word isn’t plain enough without addition “helps”.

What I have seen from reading these books is a God who has mercy on so few yet the Scriptures tell me that God is rich in mercy.

Psalm 103:8 (NASB)
8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.

And another thing I notice about the Scriptures is that God freely gives His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.

Psalm 103:11 (NASB)
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.

I have not seen anyplace that says that God gives the “gift” of fear to some men. Rather, people respond to the revelation of God with godly fear and God responds with His awesome lovingkindness.

Should we say that those who “fear God” are doing a works based salvation? Should we say that God gives the “gift” of fear to some? No. Fearing God is faith in God and it is our response, not a gift reserved for an elite few.

Cheryl,

It appears that we disagree on being born again. Let me just state what i think it is and what i think it isn’t.
Being born again is not being saved. Being born again is being made alive when we are dead in our sins, so that we may have faith and believe in Jesus and then be saved. Being born again happens before salvation not after. John 3 shows this like i said. It is the supernatural work of God opening our eyes when we are dead in sin to enable us to accept the message of salvation.

I’m glad you believe that God draws people to Himself. But i can’t understand how you believe God draws every single person to himself. You quoted Jn 6:37 which says that all the father gives to Jesus will come to him. Does the father give every single person to Jesus? or a limited number? You have already said you reject a doctrine of universalism so what is Jn 6 saying? What about Matt 11:27, when Jesus says no-one knows the Father except the Son and those whom the Son CHOOSES to reveal him. This is not for everybody. God only draws those whom he chooses to reveal his Son too.

Now about the kingdom of God- this amazes me since you say that the kingdom is only future. And you criticize me for not giving biblical references infering there is none. Well here we go…
John the baptist saids
Mat 3:2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Now is he talking about heaven Cheryl?

Jesus after giving the parable of the sower saids to his disciples
Mat 13:18 “Hear then the parable of the sower:
Mat 13:19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
What is the word of the kingdom? Is it only something future?

Again Jesus saids
Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,

Again with the parable of the mustard seed
Mat 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.
Mat 13:32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
Mat 13:33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”

I could go on and on. Just look at Matt 13. The kingdom of Heaven (God) has come in Jesus, but is still waiting to be fully revealed at his second coming.
See Matt 18:23; 19:14, 23-24; 20:1
There are so many references to the kingdom of God that I simply cannot go through them all, but to say the kindom is only future is a big mistake. Therefore that is why Jn 3 is so clear that we need to be born again before we can even see or enter the kingdom. You have a wrong understanding of the kingdom and a wrong understanding of being born again.

Finally iwould just like to address the issue of faith.
I agree 100% that faith is not a work contrasted to works. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone. Now you asked me to show you where the bible says that faith is a work. Now this is just silly, because we both agree it isn’t. If I believed faith (as outlined) in the bible was a work we wouldn’t even have this conversation. What I believe is that those who say faith is not a gift of God are making saving faith into a work.
Now saving faith is a gift says Eph 2. It is a gracious gift of God, so that no one can boast. You have made a bold claim in saying that the faith outlined in Eph 2 is not for every believer and I have asked you to show me why, but you haven’t. Therefore to deny that saving faith is in itself not a gracious gift of God necessitates that it is something we do without the help of God. This therefore is a work since it comes from our doing and not God’s.
You cannot say that the faith that saves us is not a gift of God, unless you can prove biblically how this is not a work of man to earn salvation. If we say that it is our own faith (with no gift from God) then we have every reason to boast since we have chosen wisely when others have not. This I reject. I have done nothing greater than anybody- God has simply shown me grace in giving me his gift of salvation and faith. I have nothing to boast in of myself, I can only boast in God’s mercy. Now also since repentance is required for salvation and as 2 Tim 3 says even that is a gift of God, no-one can repent nor have faith unless God grants it to them otherwise they have room to boast of their own salvation.

Cheryl please show why the saving faith outlined in Eph 2 is not for every believer. Please explain how you can have faith (which is not a gift from God) and it not be a work. If it does not stem from God then it is something we do correct?

Mark,
You said:

By the way can you differentiate between ‘seeking God’ and ‘coming to God since you seem to make that an important distinction.

Seeking God is searching for Him and wanting desperately to know Him. Coming to God is having a relationship with Him.

John 14:6 (NASB)
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Mark,
You said:

John 3 shows this like i said. It is the supernatural work of God opening our eyes when we are dead in sin to enable us to accept the message of salvation.

No, Mark, God reasons with us with His own word and this enables us to believe. God reasoned with Nicodemus. Why did He do this? Can a dead man believe according to Calvinism? Was Nicodemus already born again? Then why did he show that he had not yet believed?

Mark, have you been born again? Did this happen while you were an unbeliever? If so, then how did you know that you were born again?

“Show me where it says that everything that an unbeliever does that is not in faith is a sin? And how can an unbeliever do anything in faith? Wouldn’t that make him a believer?”
😉

Mark,
You said:

I’m glad you believe that God draws people to Himself. But i can’t understand how you believe God draws every single person to himself.

Drawing is not the same as “coming”. God draws all, but He doesn’t make all come.

John 12:32 (NASB)
32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

Is there any reason why I should doubt Jesus? If He said that He will draw all men to Himself, then He certainly didn’t fail to do what He prophesied.

You quoted Jn 6:37 which says that all the father gives to Jesus will come to him. Does the father give every single person to Jesus? or a limited number?

No. The Father does not give every single person to Jesus. The Father only gives those who belong to Him. He gives none that don’t belong to Him. They are the ones in the Father’s hand.

John 10:29 (NASB)
29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

They belonged to the Father and they kept the Father’s Word:

John 17:6 (NASB)
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

Now, Mark, I would like to reason with you from the Scriptures. Did God give believers in God or unbelievers to the Son? And did God give those who hated God to the Son?

You have already said you reject a doctrine of universalism so what is Jn 6 saying?

John 6 is a repeat of something that the Father already prophesied in the OT.,

Psalm 25:12–14 (NASB)
12 Who is the man who fears the LORD?
He will instruct him in the way he should choose.
13 His soul will abide in prosperity,
And his descendants will inherit the land.
14 The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will make them know His covenant.

Jesus is God’s covenant. Those who fear God will be brought to the new covenant in Jesus.

John 6 says that all those who already belonged to the Father (those who feared God) were given to Jesus. It is all about believers. God gives these believers into the safe keeping of Jesus and He will lose none of them.

What about Matt 11:27, when Jesus says no-one knows the Father except the Son and those whom the Son CHOOSES to reveal him. This is not for everybody.

Sure. And who does Jesus choose to reveal the Father to?

In Jesus’ high priestly prayer, Jesus reveals who He chooses to reveal the Father to:

John 17:8–10 (NASB)
8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
9 “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

John 17:20 (NASB)
20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;

John 17:26 (NASB)
26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

Jesus reveals the Father only to believers.

God only draws those whom he chooses to reveal his Son too.

No. God draws all, but He only gives those to Jesus the ones that belong to Him. Don’t you see the difference, Mark? How can God give to Jesus those who do not belong to Him?

Kay, I love your smilie!! Glad someone else is following this post. I wasn’t sure if anyone would be interested in this side discussion.

“Mark, have you been born again? Did this happen while you were an unbeliever? If so, then how did you know that you were born again?”
Cheryl,
Perhaps you can unmuddled something for me – if a person believes in calvinist “total depravity” of the human intellect, how can they ever be certain that they are actually born again? How can they even be certain about their own “total depravity?”

Let me see if I understand your view.
1. Jesus draws every single person in the world to himself
2. But not everyone comes to the Father
3. Those who come to the Father are those who are seeking/fear God and therefore believe.

I have a problem with this. Even in my own experience this doesn’t work. When I was saved I did not have any interest in seeking or knowing God. I do believe I was drawn by God to where I heard the message, but I did not go there because I was looking to be saved. But yes I do believe I was born again before I was saved. I believe the Spirit opened my eyes to that message when I was saved, even though I had no intention of becoming a Christian. I was dead in sin, but the Spirit opened my eyes .This is how God works- he softens hearts, opens eyes. This is what i pray for God to do in other people’s lives so that they may accept Jesus. I do not pray that they will just seek a little bit harder than others.

To me this is how God and grace works. God doesn’t reward those who are seeking him more than those who are not. This view gives us room to boast. I got salvation because I was seeking type of idea. I can’t by that. It’s contrary to the bigger biblical picture. We are saved purely by the mercy and grace of God. But maybe this isn’t how you see it/ Let me know

Ah Mark, my anti-spam word for this one is “friend”.

Finally iwould just like to address the issue of faith.
I agree 100% that faith is not a work contrasted to works. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone to the glory of God alone. Now you asked me to show you where the bible says that faith is a work. Now this is just silly, because we both agree it isn’t.

Then, my friend, why do you continue to say that I believe in a works based salvation when I believe in faith alone and not in works? Why do you at one time say that man’s faith is a work and then deny that faith is work?

I can only have a works based salvation if I am working for my salvation. Since I am saved solely by grace through my faith in God, it is impossible for me to have a works based salvation. How is it in your head that you can see faith=works and faith does not= works? This kind of reasoning is illogical.

If I believed faith (as outlined) in the bible was a work we wouldn’t even have this conversation. What I believe is that those who say faith is not a gift of God are making saving faith into a work.

This is illogical. Saving faith cannot be a work no matter where it comes from. Now it can be a very passionate discussion between us where saving faith comes from, but it is completely illogical to state that saving faith is a work. It is by definition incapable of being a work.

Now saving faith is a gift says Eph 2. It is a gracious gift of God, so that no one can boast.

Now Mark, I have carefully gone through this piece by piece to show that the action of God which is the verb salvation is the “gift”. The rest only explains how the action is gifted to us “by grace” and “through faith”. Why do you ignore what I have written to keep insistent that Ephesians 2 says that it is “faith” that is the gift? By what basis do you hang your hat on this and where is your second witness to this important doctrine?

You have made a bold claim in saying that the faith outlined in Eph 2 is not for every believer and I have asked you to show me why, but you haven’t.

Mark, you must be very busy, because you are not taking the time to carefully read what I have written. I didn’t say that the faith outlined in Ephesians 2 is not for every believer. Instead it is 1 Cor. 12:9 where the faith listed as a gift is not given to every believer.

1 Corinthians 12:8–11 (NASB)
8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Mark, I understand that you are busy, but it is important to read what I have written and not assign a statement to me that was never said. Do you want to go at this slower so that you can better absorb my comments? After all it is very wise to first understand and then defend. Otherwise it is easy to get caught in misunderstandings which lead to false claims of heresy.

127 Kay,

You asked:

Perhaps you can unmuddled something for me – if a person believes in calvinist “total depravity” of the human intellect, how can they ever be certain that they are actually born again? How can they even be certain about their own “total depravity?”

No one in that mindset can really know for sure. The biggest problem is that there is the teaching that God allows some of the unregenerate to merely believe that they are saved but since He doesn’t give them the “gift” of faith, their belief is really a deception. No one can know for sure, in this thinking, whether the faith that they have is an actual “gift” or if they are one of the deceived ones who only think they have saving faith. This is one of the heartbreaks of Calvinism that causes many to question their own salvation.

Frankly because of the teaching, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to say for sure if they are really one of the elect according to Calvinist doctrine. The only way that they will ever know for sure is if they persevere to the end. So until the day that they die or until the day that Christ comes, they can never really know for sure.

I listened to a debate with James White a Calvinist apologist and he was asked about the assurance of his own salvation. He would not answer that question but spoke about the assurance about other people’s salvation. In other words he turned the question around to be how can he know for sure that other people are saved? But that wasn’t the question that he was asked. However I can see that those who really know Calvinism and its teaching very well, do not claim that they can know for sure that they are one of the elect. They can only hope that they will persevere and not be one of those whom God has chosen to mock by giving them a fake belief that isn’t a saving faith. How very, very sad.

Mark,

Until only recently I was a life long Lutheran.
I go back far enough to remember the times when Lutheran Pastors wore the Cassock on High Holy Days, and you couldn’t tell Pastor Harzheim from Father Doyle the Jesuit.

When I began to investigate for myself what the scriptures say and what they do not say in light of God’s whole counsel, I could no longer believe in the doctrine of original sin nor in Luther’s repudiation of free will.

Religions of the Christian variety are nothing more than ideological belief systems based on varying intepretations of scripture, but they are certainly not “hills to die on”. When they become hills to die on, they strip us of our humanity.

Cheryl has never preached anything here at her blog but the good news of Jesus Christ, so I’ll sign off with the words of Jesus:

“…But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in…”

Hi Greg,
I didn’t remember that you were a Lutheran. What kind words you said on my behalf. Thank you!

Indeed it seems that there are spiritual leaders whose main purpose in life is to keep people away from the kingdom of heaven. I find this incredibly sad.

How did they do this? I will quote a couple of good commentaries on the sad state of the leadership of God’s people at the time of Christ:

How did they “shut up the kingdom”? (v. 13) First, by refusing to receive the message of John the Baptist (21:25–27; 11:16–19). Second, by refusing to acknowledge Christ Himself (John 7:47ff). Third, by keeping the true meaning of the Scriptures from the people (Luke 11:52). By hiding “the key of knowledge” (Christ as seen in the Scriptures) behind their man-made traditions, the scribes and Pharisees actually locked the door to the kingdom of heaven! How tragic when “religious leaders” today shut people out of heaven by rejecting Christ, resisting His Spirit, and refusing to preach and teach His Word.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1997). Wiersbe’s expository outlines on the New Testament (pgs 83–84).

13. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men—Here they are charged with shutting heaven against men: in Lu 11:52 they are charged with what was worse, taking away the key—“the key of knowledge”—which means, not the key to open knowledge, but knowledge as the only key to open heaven. A right knowledge of God’s revealed word is eternal life, as our Lord says (Jn 17:3; 5:39); but this they took away from the people, substituting for it their wretched traditions.
    A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Mt 23:13).

Mark,
You said:

I’m quite astonished really. What makes Noah righteous? His own free-will? No I don’t think so. Was it not his faith?
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

Noah was righteous in the same way that Job was. His faith made him righteous and his actions lined up with his faith.

Job 1:1 (NASB)
1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

Job 1:8 (NASB)
8 The LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.”

Job as well as Noah had faith in God and feared God by turning away from evil.

You see, it was his faith that made him righteous.

But this faith was his response to God not a “gift” from God. Mark, let me ask you, is the fear of God a “gift” too?

Gen 6:5 can be taken to mean everyone-it should. We are all by nature corrupt and evil. It is only faith in God which makes us righteous.

Sorry, but it cannot mean everyone because one cannot have faith in God and fear God and act in a corrupt and evil manner. If this is universal, then please show me where Job acted in a corrupt and evil manner.

This whole idea that humanity are essentially good people is non-sense.

I too believe this is nonsense. But it is equally nonsense that unbelievers cannot do good deeds. We are not in bondage to the point that we cannot do good. If Jesus said that the evil Pharisees can do good deeds, then I chose to believe Jesus.

“Um, where does the Bible say that we need a new heart in order to seek after God?”
Here is one passage
Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,
Eze 11:20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

This passage is not talking “seeking” God. It is talking about having a relationship with God and obeying Him. Those who seek God have not yet found Him. So do you actually have a passage that says that man must have a new heart before he can seek God?

I can’t see your point in referencing Deut because it actually proves my point. In Deut 10 God calls on the people to circumcise their hearts, but they can’t by themselves.They don’t actually do it. Deut 30 (if you actually looked at the context) is a prophetic word about what is going to happen after the exile. It will be God who does the circumcision of the heart.

Circumcising of the heart is a two act process. The first part is man’s repentance and the passage shows this:

Deuteronomy 10:16 (NASB)
16 “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

Notice that God links their circumcision to no longer “stiffening” of their neck? This circumcision is repentance and turning toward God. It is then that God does the inward circumcision and actually removes their sin. Repentance and the removal of sin always go together. God cannot repent for us and so repentance is our obligation. We cannot remove our sin so this is God’s obligation to remove the barriers to fellowship with Him.

This is the new covenant. See Jer 31:31ff also. So you have just proven my point. We can’t give ourselves a heart of flesh, only God can and only God does with the new covenant.

You are right in that we can’t give ourselves a heart of flesh, but we can and must circumcise our hearts no longer stubbornly stiffening our necks towards God. When we repent, God is able and willing to give us that new heart. God never gives a new heart to unrepentant people for He cannot repent for us.

“There is nothing at all in the Scriptures that I have seen that says God must give us a new heart before we can seek Him.”

Look more at the context of Deut as a whole. Look at the failure of the Jews to keep the covenant in their own strength. Look at Jeremiah 31, Ezekial 11, and also Ezekial 36.

Mark, you are failing to even understand my statement. I am not talking about keeping God’s law. I am talking about “seeking” God. I asked you where the Scriptures say that we must have a new heart before we can even seek God. You not addressed this and you are making seeking God as the same thing as obeying God’s law. It is not the same.

Sorry this attaches to the end of the other post

I disagree. I know I am one of God’s elect because everyday I wake up trusting in Jesus as my Lord. I rely on God’s faithfulness not my own assurance that I will believe to the end. God has promised that he will never let go of his sheep and I trust this. If I trust only in my own faith then I would be scared of my assurance. God is the one we can trust, he is the faithful one and he has promised to hold me. He has promised that the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing my eternal salvation. Calvinism gives assurance because we rely on God not ourselves to perservere. Again you misrepresent Calvin. Where does your security lay Cheryl?

I’m wondering Cheryl if we should continue this feed via email since the posts are getting ridiculously long and hard to engage with every aspect. Let me know

Greg,

I must admit that my Lutheran knowledge is lacking. I guess you still hold to Luther reclaiming justification by faith alone. Perhaps you still are a Lutheran underneath.

Can you explain why you reject the doctrine of Original Sin. You talked about the whole counsel of God’s word, which I think is great so we don’t just pull texts that we like which cause contradictions. Do you believe that people are born sinless? Or at least without a sin nature?

I’m assuming you quoted that verse at me. That’s a big call mate! I hope your willing to back up your doctrinal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your response and seeing how it is you can reject such a big doctrine and yet still hold to Luther’s revival of the true gospel. I’m particularly interesting since I’m the one here trying to defend the orthodox position of the Church, and yet I’m the one labelled a Pharisee. Please respond giving a clear outline of your beliefs and the verses you believe support it.

“I disagree. I know I am one of God’s elect because everyday I wake up trusting in Jesus as my Lord. I rely on God’s faithfulness not my own assurance that I will believe to the end.”

Hmmm… what if you’re heart is still actually so “totally depraved” that it is deceiving (Jer.17:9) you into thinking that you are trusting in Jesus every day, but really you are not, yet in your “total depravity” you are unable to see it?
Wouldn’t Jesus need to be doing the trusting for you? Otherwise, wouldn’t your trusting be a “work” to keep God’s assurance?

Kay,

It seems you do not understand total depravity nor regeneration. Our depravity is a big concept and too detailed for me to explicitly cover in a small post. I suggest you read Calvin’s first two or three chapters in book 2 of the Institutes. Then once you actually understand was is depraved we can discuss further. Until you actually understand it, what i say will be useless.

You ought to be very careful how you wish to push free-will. Since this is not even a biblical concept we should be wary. Like i said earlier, the faith we have in Jesus is very much our decision and choice to make, yet without being regenerate will we never make it, therefore we need God to intervene to make us new.

Kay, may i ask you the same question i have asked Cheryl, but have yet to get a reply. How do you pray for non-christians? If it is not God who opens their eyes and soften their hearts what do you pray for? You see when we pray for people we don’t expect them to ‘choose’ on their own do we? We ask God to help them, yet when i write that here it seems radical to people. This is where people’s theology never matches with their Christian walk.

Cheryl has said that God will draw every single person to himself, so surely we don’t need to pray for that right? Cheryl thinks that saving faith is not the gift of God, so surely we don’t need to pray for God to give them that right? So what do we pray for? Really we are not expecting God to do anything in these people! They have prevenient grace- now it’s up to them right! Why bother praying at all? After all they are only the elect because God foreknew what they would choose- he didn’t play a part. I’ll leave that for you to answer. And please do read Calvin if you can, that way we will at least be somewhere closer to being able to communicate better.

Maybe also you can tell me why you are so confident in your faith. What gives you assurance

Kay,

Does not the Bible say that the only way we can call Jesus Lord is by the Spirit? We are totally depraved, sinful creatures, deserving of wrath and punishment UNTIL- God in his mercy makes us new. If i was still totally depraved i would not be able to do that- totally depraved people do not care nor seek for God-they reject Him. Regenerate, forgiven, justified people call Jesus Lord because they are a new creation, they are no longer dead in their sins.
Hope this helps.

I have been following the thread with great interest but due to Mark and Cheryls frequent and lengthy posts it has been all I am able to do just to keep up my reading. I would like to propose an analogy to help convey what I believe is the biblical teaching here. I have probably borrowed bits and pieces from others along the way. It is only an analogy, I use it because I feel it can convey a complex concept more accurately than a longer post and is more easily understood. Please see past obvious faults with the analogy but test the understanding it conveys against scripture.

In my analogy lets put a rotten carcus and a roast dinner side by side. In our sin nature we are like a vulture – we will choose to eat the rotten carcus. Our choice is made not because we don’t have access to a roast dinner – it is right beside the carcus but because we actually prefer the carcus – in our sin nature the carcus honestly seems like the right choice, the best choice. It is the choice we will always make as it is our nature to actually prefer the carcus over the roast just as the vulture does. Once God opens our eyes (Mark refers to this as being born again from my understanding) we see the carcus and the roast for what they are. We now can choose what is truly good – the roast dinner and we will choose it every time because in Christ it is now our nature to want the roast dinner. In both cases a free choice was made. In both cases the party chose what they perceived to be best. But while ever we are bound by our sin nature we are not able to choose the roast – we simply don’t want it. Once our eyes are opened we are unable to choose the rotting carcus – its very nature is revolting to us. I believe that this analogy helps as it shows that it is both our free choice to follow Christ and that we would never have been able to make that choice if God hadn’t of first altered our nature and shown us what we were really choosing. Once we understand the choice we choose heaven over hell but we needed to get past our sin nature before this was possible.

I know that this is not biblical quotation but I feel that it is a picture that is helpful to convey my understanding. This stance can be defended from and its conception was based in scripture, indeed it is a balance of biblical truths of free will and divine grace but I am travelling this weekend so will be unable to elaborate further until next week.

Hi Gazza,
I am happy that you have found this topic to be of great interest to you. It is good to know that others are reading and following along. It has been a lively discussion and yes, it has had long comments. I need to figure out how to get them shorter, eh? 😉

I am going to answer your comment before I return to Mark since it is good to have some variety, and you certainly brought that by your analogy.

Let’s interact with your analogy. You said:

In my analogy lets put a rotten carcus and a roast dinner side by side. In our sin nature we are like a vulture – we will choose to eat the rotten carcus.

Would you allow me to change things a bit? I would say that in our sin nature, we naturally are drawn toward the rotten carcass as the rotten carcass stands for sin. But even with our sin nature we are not incapable of eating a roast dinner (with the roast dinner being doing good things). We can eat roast dinner with our family and we can treat them with love and respect, but even with the roast in our bellies, we still find ourselves drawn to that stinky carcass because it pulls at our inner desires.

Our choice is made not because we don’t have access to a roast dinner – it is right beside the carcus but because we actually prefer the carcus – in our sin nature the carcus honestly seems like the right choice, the best choice.

Here I would like to bring a bit of change too. We choose the stinky carcass not because it seems like the right choice, but because we just want to choose it. After all we have been given a gift from God called our conscience and our conscience tells us that the stinky carcass is the wrong thing to eat. It is not the best choice, but the choice that we crave despite our conscience telling us something different.

It is the choice we will always make as it is our nature to actually prefer the carcus over the roast just as the vulture does.

It isn’t the choice that we will always make because Jesus said that we are capable of choosing the roast, but it is a choice that if we are honest with ourselves, that we would choose if no one was watching and we would not have to suffer any bad consequences like stomach pains or someone watching us shamefully eating the bad meat.

Once God opens our eyes (Mark refers to this as being born again from my understanding) we see the carcus and the roast for what they are.

But if this is what our eyes are open to, then God has made the conscience to be of no use at all. No, I don’t think that being “born again” is opening our eyes to the stink of the carcass. We already innately know about the stink because of God’s gift of a conscience.

What we need is for God to reveal our shame. It is like we have been privately gorging on the bad meat without anyone knowing and then the curtain we are hiding behind is pulled back and our shame is exposed. It is then that we see that we have a need for the Savior because of the light that shines in our darkness.

But is the exposing of our sin the same thing as being born again? I don’t see how it can be for God has defined the “born again” experience as a new birth with the “seed” of God and the life it brings is eternal life not temporary life.

Peter talks about our being born again as coming from the imperishable seed within us.

1 Peter 1:23 (NASB)
23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

If we are given an “imperishable seed” at our rebirth, how can this new life be less than eternal life?

Peter also tells us that the new birth is tied to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

1 Peter 1:3 (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

If the new birth is tied to Jesus’ resurrection, how can it anything less than eternal life?

The new birth is also called “new creation”:

Galatians 6:15 (NASB)
15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

The new creation is a miracle, not just a new way to look at things. It is literally becoming a brand new creation and it means that one is now “in Christ”.

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NASB)
17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

When we are made alive in Christ, it is our salvation.

Ephesians 2:5–6 (NASB)
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Never does the Bible say that the new birth is a time without Christ or without eternal life or without salvation. It is always attached to salvation, God’s “seed” (being a child of God), eternal life and grace.

If the new birth is not becoming a child of God through His seed, then when does one become a child of God through what other seed?

Why would God use words for new life and words that make us an heir of God by His seed if at our new birth there is no eternal life, no inheritance, no seed of God within us? Did God use there metaphors to confuse us about when we inherit eternal life? What other miraculous event happens after the miracle of the new birth that would make us an heir of God?

The new birth is called the “washing” and “renewing of the Holy Spirit”. Titus 3:5 attaches this new birth to salvation.

Titus 3:4–6 (NET)
3:4 But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, 3:5 he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, 3:6 whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Why is there a need for a subsequent miracle that would bring us into the family of God and save us when the “new birth” is already attached to salvation?

The new birth shown in 1 Peter 1:3-5 is a new birth “into” a living hope and “into” an imperishable inheritance reserved in heaven. What else can God do to tell us that the “new birth” is our miracle that is salvation?

1 Peter 1:3–5 (NET)
1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1:4 that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, 1:5 who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Gazza,
You said:

We now can choose what is truly good – the roast dinner and we will choose it every time because in Christ it is now our nature to want the roast dinner.

You are right in that it is now our nature to want to do good (eat the roast dinner), however we still have the old nature hanging around and we unfortunately do choose it so that we do not choose the good dinner everytime. Even born again Christians are susceptible to sin.

In both cases a free choice was made.

Yes, a choice was made and in both cases we can make both choices, but the one who is the seed of God does not practice sin and the one who is the seed of Adam practices sin although he can do good too, his natural inclination is toward what is not good.

But while ever we are bound by our sin nature we are not able to choose the roast – we simply don’t want it. Once our eyes are opened we are unable to choose the rotting carcus – its very nature is revolting to us.

While this sounds like a good analogy, it doesn’t fit the Biblical picture for Jesus said that even the evil people can choose to do good to those who they desire to give of their best. They can give of their best to their children. And at times we who are have been born again will desire the rotting carcass because the old nature pulls us. Our way of life will be continually on the road of life, living by the Spirit’s power even if we do slip up, He gives us aid.

I believe that this analogy helps as it shows that it is both our free choice to follow Christ and that we would never have been able to make that choice if God hadn’t of first altered our nature and shown us what we were really choosing.

The problem with this analogy is that it comes across as a works based salvation while we are saved by faith, not by doing good.

This stance can be defended from and its conception was based in scripture, indeed it is a balance of biblical truths of free will and divine grace but I am travelling this weekend so will be unable to elaborate further until next week.

I would be happy to see your biblical proof of a “new birth” that has no eternal life, no God’s see and no salvation until later. Honestly, I haven’t seen that in the Scriptures.

Have a wonderful travelling time!

Mark,
You said:

Why stop at verse 27 Cheryl…let’s keep going
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,…

Surely you and I have both coveted, surely we have both been slanderers and gossips and boastful etc. This is the nature of humanity not just one specific group.

This is not the nature of all humanity. The verses above say that they were “filled” with… The Greek term means to be filled up, completely full, come to completion.

Is this a description of Job? Was God a hater of God? God said that he was righteous and turned away from evil. Job was not one filled up with evil but one who turned away. The verses are a description of those who know the truth and turn away from it.

Romans 1:32 (NASB)
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

The context the passage proves that these are the haters of God and ones who will not turn to God. It is not a description of those who fear God. There are two kinds of humanity, not one. Job was a God fearer and there are many more like him.

I can’t show you that Cornelius was born again- I don’t deny that. But not every conversion in the bible says ‘and they were born again before they believed’. We don’t always have every detail for every occasion.

I am glad that you admit the failure of Scripture to show even one case where a person was “born again” before they came to faith. Cornelius would have been an excellent case since he was one who feared God. He was one of those who belonged to the Father and the Father promised those who fear Him, that He would bring them to the covenant. This is fulfilled in Jesus. Cornelius had a vision that prompted him to ask for Peter to come because Cornelius was not a God hater, but one who belonged to the Father as a God fearing man.

The problem is though to say that we don’t need to be born again contradicts Jn 3, and contradictions are not acceptable.

We need to be born again because even fearing God is not good enough. We have to have a miracle that removes our sin and makes us clean. It is the new birth that washes us clean.

You have swept it away be changing what born again means and what the kingdom is.

I haven’t changed what born again means as I have used the Scriptures to define it for itself. There is no Scripture that says that being “born again” is merely a dead man coming to life but without eternal life within him. Born again means a washing away of our sin through the miracle of regeneration.

Perhaps you would like to revisit the Scriptures to find one that describes a born again man as one who is without eternal life and needing something else.

That’s all I can do for tonight. It has been a full day for me. Will try to get through the questions again tomorrow. And I also have a new post I need to finish.

Thanks Mark for continuing the lively conversation.

Cheryl,

Just a quick point to help you understand what i mean. I am not saying that those who are born again do not receive salvation and eternal life. Being born again is part of the process of salvation. No one will be born again yet reject salvation. Anyone who is born again is given a new heart. their eyes are open, they accept Jesus as saviour and Lord. I think we would agree on that, and i equally agree with the passages you quoted from Peter- i’m not denying any of that.

The difference between us is you think people can accept the message of salvation while dead in sin. You base this on the fact that Jesus told the pharisee’s that they did ‘good’ things.

I do not think people can accept the message while dead in sins. They need the work of the Spirit to open their eyes to the message. Although the pharisee’s did ‘good’ things that has nothing to do with salvation. Any ‘good’ in this world is the common grace of God poured out on believers and non-believers, but this does not mean that they can seek or find God while still dead in sin. There nature is still corrupt.

From what i can tell you believe unregenrate man has the ability to seek God. I do not. I believe only regenerate man has the ability to seek God. This seems to be our difference. When regeneration occurs! (and perhaps what regeneration means)

Cheryl, i would love to talk more with you about Job and other OT saints. I think that is a very important point. Can you answer a few brief questions relating to Job- why was he righteous? Or what do you believe made God call him righteous? Was it because he feared God?

Finally one last question regarding this statement
“He was one of those who belonged to the Father and the Father promised those who fear Him, that He would bring them to the covenant.”

Are you saying that God bringing people to salvation or the new covenant is dependent upon them first fearing Him?

“Hope this helps.”

Mark,
Given that during our last encounter it appeared you had written me off as a heretic, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the conciliatory tone of your remarks to me here.

As to how I pray for those I think are non-christians – well this falls along the same lines as when you asked me about having authority over my children and I replied that I viewed it as responsibility to guide them, but not as asserting of authority. My prayers move along the lines of: Dear Lord, You know I’m very concerned about “Pat” so I’m lifting this up to Your care. I realize that You are well aware of the situation and I thank you for that.”
I gave up a long time ago trying to conjure up specific solutions to suggest as if He needs my helpful hints. 😉

Mark,
You said:

Just a quick point to help you understand what i mean. I am not saying that those who are born again do not receive salvation and eternal life. Being born again is part of the process of salvation.

Mark, I think that you need to be completely forthright and admit that the Calvinist belief is that at the moment that one is “born again” that person is not saved. They are still unregenerate and still one of the reprobate until they believe. There is no “process” of salvation such that they are partly saved and partly regenerated and partly not a reprobate when they are “born again”. They are still fully unsaved at that point. The teaching is that being “born again” only makes them able to be saved by making them able to hear the gospel message.

One of the problems that I have with Calvinism is that its followers have a hard time actually admitting to the hard teaching of Calvinism to those who are not Calvinists. They system is complicated and this is why so many tell non-Calvinists to go and read chapters of Calvin’s work instead of taking them into the Scriptures and showing the person what Calvinism is clearly and distinctly from the Scripture. Why is that?

Now are far as how we pray, we ask God to do His work to save a person. A person has enough evidence of the Creator to seek for Him but many do not do that until God intervenes in a more direct way in their lives. We ask for Him to do that for our loved ones and those whom we desire to see saved.

But it is a complete mystery to me why Calvinists would even pray for someone’s salvation. After all they are taught that God has already picked out the elect from the foundation of the world so no prayer to God would ever change that. If the one you are praying for is one of the elect your prayer is unnecessary. If the one that you are praying for is not one of the elect, your prayer is useless. Do you ever think about this when you pray?

Mark,
You said:

No one will be born again yet reject salvation. Anyone who is born again is given a new heart.

This is another problem area for you. The new heart that is given is one that has been cleansed from sin. How is a person who has a clean heart not saved?

Psalm 51:10 (NASB)
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Acts 15:9 (NASB)
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

When we are given that new heart from God, that heart is cleansed of our sin and it always comes by faith and it always means salvation has come. It is completely baffling to me with the amount of teaching in Scripture about the new birth and the new heart that one could claim that the person is not saved who has that new cleansed heart. But for some reason the “system” of Calvinism doesn’t work without the denial that this is the work of God saving us. It has to be denied. For me, I would rather just believe God’s word that the new birth and the new cleansed heart is God’s work of salvation just as it says.

their eyes are open, they accept Jesus as saviour and Lord. I think we would agree on that, and i equally agree with the passages you quoted from Peter- i’m not denying any of that.

The problem is that you are actually denying it. You have to deny that the moment that the person is “born again” and has been given a “new heart” that is cleansed from sin, they are not saved. They will be saved at some point, according to Calvinism, but at that miraculous moment they are not saved. Rather than give God glory for the saving work that He alone does in our heart, Calvinism forces one to deny that this is a saving work of God. I am talking about the right now act of the new heart. You say it leads to salvation, but the Scriptures don’t ever say that. You have to read it into the passage, but I don’t even understand how you can do that. Give God the glory for what He has done. His cleansing work of providing new birth and a new heart cleansed from sin is the act of salvation. I will never deny God the glory of His act.

Now where does it say that a new heart is not yet salvation? Why would God need to give further gifts to save a person when a heart cleansed of its sin has no ability to be reprobate?

I will carry on in the next comment.

“But it is a complete mystery to me why Calvinists would even pray for someone’s salvation. After all they are taught that God has already picked out the elect from the foundation of the world so no prayer to God would ever change that.”

Cheryl,
I have often wondered the same things.

Mark,
Isn’t it true that genuine belief in Christ means that reward could not have been the motive for faith?
To me, the reality of the human conscience and reasoning ability (Isa.1:18) makes it practical to assume that we do have free will. If I’m right in that assumption, fine; and if I’m wrong, then according to Calvin, I was pre-destined to be wrong and have lost nothing by my involuntary holding of an erroneous view.

Kay,
The Calvinists “inability” to understand that even though we are fallen people, we still have a measure of free will is puzzling to me. If all was predestined, then there is no ability to do anything that is truly “free” of the man since we have been preprogrammed to do what God wants. The ones programmed for salvation will respond when the right button is pushed (the Calvinist “born again” button) and the unregenerate or reprobate will respond exactly how God preprogrammed that person to respond. It is like a no-brainer. If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination? And wouldn’t there be no hope of conversion if God had predestined me not to be a Calvinist?

I really ponder how Calvinists can not just throw up their hands and do nothing. After all what is, is what God planned and if God wants you to do something He will push a button and you will respond. Why try and fight against what is a set-in-stone issue by God’s own decree?

It is really, really puzzling to me.

“If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination?”
Cheryl,
I’m equally as puzzled. It reminds me of folks I know who during each presidential election try to convince everyone that one of the candidates is “the” anti-Christ – so do not vote for them. And I’m thinking: if you really believe that then why aren’t you standing in your front yard looking up??

Mark,
Some of your comments lead me to wonder if you are aware that Judaism was never a “works based” religion, but a Covenant-based relationship? The Covenant was established first. Torah obedience was seen as the outflow of the Covenant relationship, but not the means of establishing the relationship with God. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Gal.2:15-16
I think we can agree that the New Covenant is the same way.

I will work backwards.

Kay,

I totally agree that God’s covenant’s have always been covenants of grace. God chose Abraham first. God chose Israel from amongst the nations. God chose those who were to be in the new covenant. You are right that our works flow out from our salvation. I’m not sure which i my comments made you believe i meant something else.

But isn’t it therefore intriguing that Cheryl believes that poeple must be God fearers BEFORE they can be saved. That doesn’t seem to fit with the pattern you outlined Kay. It seems to me that CHeryl thinks we must do something (or at least have a certain quality) before we are allowed to be saved. Maybe i haven’t understood properly- i dunno. BUt i guess it essentially changes the nature of evangelism doesn’t it- we need to make people fear God first!

Mark,
Again I think you failed to understand me. I said that those who were God-fearers belonged to the Father and He gave them to Jesus. Those who will be saved are those who listen to God and learn from Him. Those who refuse to listen and learn have no fear of God in them.

I notice that you seem to ignore all the Scriptures I gave about God’s promises to those who would fear God. Is it because you believe that God brings those who hate God and who have disobeyed Him, to Jesus?

Regarding #157,

Cheryl and Kay,

You have both clearly shown that you don’t actually understand reformed theology. It is clear by the comment “The Calvinists “inability” to understand that even though we are fallen people, we still have a measure of free will is puzzling to me.”

No Calvinist denies we have free will. The question is how far has our free will been corrupted because of the fall. If you think Calvinist don’t believe in a free-will then you are wrong. We do! But as the bible saids our nature is now corrupt from the fall. Remember the threat of the garden if they ate- death! Both physical and spiritual. Spiritually we are dead, seperated from God as were Adam and Eve after the fall. We are in broken relationship with God. Our ‘free-will’ therefore is also dead. It no longer seeks after the right thing. It loves darkness, it loves sin. This is where the difference lies. Calvinist take Eph 2 seriously- we are dead in sins. Cheryl’s view makes us just sick not dead. If we are dead we need to be made alive and only God can do that. IF we were just sick, then sure we might have the ability to do it ourselves.

“If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination? And wouldn’t there be no hope of conversion if God had predestined me not to be a Calvinist?”

This made me laugh! Maybe you should read again Romans 9 when Paul expects these responses.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

Maybe it will be helpful to also remember how Jesus taught us to pray- that God’s will will be done, not ours. The fact is no-one knows who God’s chosen people are except God. That is why we preach the gospel to every single person we meet. God’s uses the faithful proclamation of His salvation to draw his people to himself. There is a great difference between us. See I believe in the power of grace and the power of God. I believe that God can change any person. I do not just sit back and pray to God as an abstract figure, who will or cannot change the hard hearts of people. Yes I believe that God has predestined some to salvation and not others- the bible teaches that. But this does not negate the need for evangelism, it actually encourages it. If I did not believe that it was God who changed people then I would feel immense pressure on what I did. Did I say it right? Was I good enough, clear enough? This is the difference between a Calvinist and Arminian- who they rely on to change people.

Mark,
You said:

Spiritually we are dead, seperated from God as were Adam and Eve after the fall. We are in broken relationship with God. Our ‘free-will’ therefore is also dead. It no longer seeks after the right thing.

The Bible never says that our “free-will” is dead. This is something that is added to the text by the reasoning of Calvinists. The fact that those who are evil can do good things proves that their free will to chose what is right is not “dead”. If it was completely dead, they could not ever do anything that is good. But Jesus’ teaching on this is plain and when people contradict His word, they go off into definitions that are not Biblical.

It loves darkness, it loves sin. This is where the difference lies. Calvinist take Eph 2 seriously- we are dead in sins.

Calvinists misunderstand Ephesians 2 by saying that an unregenerate “dead” man cannot do good. If their foundation of understanding what it means to be “dead” in sins is flawed, the entire doctrine and its results will be flawed. You need to deal with what Jesus said and make that a part of the picture and quit denying that those who are unregenerate can do good things.

Cheryl’s view makes us just sick not dead.

Jesus said that He came for those who are sick. Where does He say that He came for those who are “dead”? Notice that Jesus calls sinners as “sick”.

Mark 2:17 (NASB)
17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”>

Mark,
You said:

If we are dead we need to be made alive and only God can do that.

If we are “dead” then we need a resurrection not a rebirth. Those who are sick need to have a new heart that is cleansed, not resurrected.

Mark,
You said:
IF we were just sick, then sure we might have the ability to do it ourselves.

Jesus said that the sick need a physician. They cannot heal themselves.

Cheryl,

I don’t disagree with any of your scriptures. I agree that we are to fear God. I agree that people fear God. Where i disagree is that we can do this before we are saved or before the supernatural help of the Spirit. This is the issue. None of your scriptures say anything about people having to be God fearers before they come to God. Cornelius was a god fearer as a member of the Old covenant. THis was the description for those who converted to Judaism but would not get circumcised. This was not a requirement for him to be saved. He was already a partaker in the Judaism of the day.

You also need to keep in mind that the early chapters of Acts is when the message was spreading amongst the Jews. They already knew Yahweh adn his covenants. THis is not the same situation as Joe Blow down the street who has never heard about 1st century Judaism or Jesus Christ.

Mark,
You said:

This made me laugh! Maybe you should read again Romans 9 when Paul expects these responses.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?

Nope, you are wrong. This isn’t me. I am very happy that God made me like this and I do not see this as an injustice on God’s part.

Mark,

Maybe it will be helpful to also remember how Jesus taught us to pray- that God’s will will be done, not ours.

This has always caused me confusion too with Calvinists. How can you pray for God’s will to be done if God’s will cannot not be done? This would only work if God’s will may not be done if men stiffen their necks to his work. I have no idea how you think that a prayer like this would make sense to a Calvinist who believes that all things are preordained from the beginning. How is your prayer going to change that?

Mark,
You said:

The fact is no-one knows who God’s chosen people are except God. That is why we preach the gospel to every single person we meet.

And God has no way to direct you to the elect and to stay away from the reprobate? Why would He be interested in you preaching the gospel to anyone who has not been picked by Him?

Yet throughout Scripture we see God specifically sending His prophets to people who He knew would be lost. It is a godly thing to preach even to those who would harden their own hearts, but what good comes out of sending prophets to preach to those whom God predestined to be lost?

Cheryl

Do those people who do ‘good’ things get them in a right relationship with God? No of course not.

We are talking about an ability to come to God and recieve salvation. In terms of our nature and sin we are dead. This is precisely what Eph 2 is talking about, not about doing good things, so i actually think it is ou who does not understand the passage.

It is irrelevant if people can do good things because this has nothing to do with salvation which Eph 2 is talking about. IN terms of our nature and relationship to God, becasue of our sin we are Dead, not just sick.

Jesus uses the term ‘sick’ because he is contrasting wiht the ‘healthy’. You are importing foreign ideas into Eph 2. Pauls interest is between being dead in sins, and alive in Christ, not sick and healthy. Also notice the last contrast of JEsus- he did not come for the righteous but the sinners. It is clear that healthy= righteous, and sick=sinners in Jesus account. You are completely distorting both passages.

Mark,
You said:

God’s uses the faithful proclamation of His salvation to draw his people to himself. There is a great difference between us. See I believe in the power of grace and the power of God. I believe that God can change any person.

Do you really? Do you believe that God can change any person if that person is a reprobate that was chosen from eternity past to be lost?

I do not just sit back and pray to God as an abstract figure, who will or cannot change the hard hearts of people.

It would be wrong to think that non-Calvinists believe that we are praying to God as an “abstract figure” or that God cannot change a person by creating events that will bring them face to face with their sin and God’s judgment. Paul had a change from an outside event on the road to Emmaeus. God did not push a button to create a new heart in Paul without Paul’s will desiring that. He created an event that caught Paul’s attention and made Paul fall down before God in submission.

Yes I believe that God has predestined some to salvation and not others- the bible teaches that.

Name me one person that the Bible says was predestined to salvation.

Mark,
You said:

But this does not negate the need for evangelism, it actually encourages it. If I did not believe that it was God who changed people then I would feel immense pressure on what I did.

Well you are relying on God but you have no idea whether he will change that person or not because you have no idea whether God loves them or not. I have a freedom to know for sure that God loves everyone and wants all to come to repentance. And I know that God is willing to draw them and that He will help me to say what needs to be said to make their heart condition clear.

I don’t feel an immense pressure at all. I feel like it is a privilege and I know that the work that I do is not offending God by praying for them and studying to show myself approved unto God as a workman for their benefit. But you may be offending God by working hard at evangelizing someone who has been specifically chosen to go to hell. How does God feel about your work and how does He feel when He cannot help you to share God’s love with that man since God doesn’t love him? It seems like I am the one who has complete freedom knowing that I am doing God’s will and not fighting against it by praying for someone who God doesn’t love.

Did I say it right? Was I good enough, clear enough? This is the difference between a Calvinist and Arminian- who they rely on to change people.

Perhaps yo9u were relying on yourself to change people you were not a Calvinist, but I have the freedom to give my best and know that God is able to take my mistakes and use them for His glory. Even our mistakes can be used to win the lost. I do not worry, I do evangelism for God’s glory and then I leave Him with the results and praise Him for what He alone can do.

“Nope, you are wrong. This isn’t me. I am very happy that God made me like this and I do not see this as an injustice on God’s part.”

Cheryl, this is exactly you, because you think it is unfair that God’s ordains all things as you have said before. My guess though is that you have re-interpreted Romans 9 aswell to make it say something it isn’t.

“And God has no way to direct you to the elect and to stay away from the reprobate? Why would He be interested in you preaching the gospel to anyone who has not been picked by Him?”

We are told in the bible to make disciples of all nations- to tell all about Jesus. When people reject this they are condemned. We would all be condemned if God by His Spirit did not open our eyes and soften our hearts. By preaching, God’s elect are saved by belief and those who reject the message are condemned.

You are right that God sent prophets to people who he knew would not repent. We see this with Isaiah early on. We see it in Acts when only those destined to believe are saved. We see it in 1 Peter when those who reject the stone, stumble because that is what they were destined for. Surely you believe that people are either destined to believe or not, unless of course you hold to some kind of open theology. Even if you are an Arminiam you believe this, because Arminians at least believe in God’s foreknowledge.

Mark,
You said:

I don’t disagree with any of your scriptures. I agree that we are to fear God. I agree that people fear God. Where i disagree is that we can do this before we are saved or before the supernatural help of the Spirit.

Show me a Scripture that says that one cannot fear God before they are saved.

Let me show you a Scripture that showed that people did fear God before they were saved.

Acts 10:1–2 (NASB95)
Cornelius’s Vision
1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Are you going to say that this Gentile who fear God was already saved? If there is even one example of one who feared God before they were saved then the doctrine that no one can fear God until they were saved is false.

This is the issue. None of your scriptures say anything about people having to be God fearers before they come to God. Cornelius was a god fearer as a member of the Old covenant.

Cornelius was a Gentile. How was he a member of the Old covenant? And I didn’t say that people have to fear God before He calls them, but I did say that those who feared God were brought to Jesus and the new covenant. When they feared God and were taught by Him, they belonged to the Father. Which God haters belonged to the Father?

It seems to me that you are making all people into one category when God has said that there are differences.

Malachi 3:17-18 (NASB95)
17 “They will be Mine,” says the LORD of hosts, “on the day that I prepare My own possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.”
18 So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him.

This is the passage that talks about those who fear God and that God promises to bring them to His covenant. God said that there is a distinguishing between these two kinds of people (the God-fearers and the God-haters) and you say they are all the same. Seems to me that you contradict the Word quite a lot.

Mark,
You said:

THis was the description for those who converted to Judaism but would not get circumcised. This was not a requirement for him to be saved. He was already a partaker in the Judaism of the day.

Again you bypass the fact that this one was a God-fearer before he was saved. This fact doesn’t fit with Calvinism.

Mark,
You said:

You also need to keep in mind that the early chapters of Acts is when the message was spreading amongst the Jews. They already knew Yahweh adn his covenants. THis is not the same situation as Joe Blow down the street who has never heard about 1st century Judaism or Jesus Christ.

We are once again talking about a person being a God-fearer before they are saved. Yet you say that one cannot seek God before one is “born again”. Does God say that those who fear Him will be brought to the covenant or does He say that He will take those who hate Him and drop something into them that makes them automatically fear Him? Is it a gift from God or is it a response from man?

Mark,
You said:

Do those people who do ‘good’ things get them in a right relationship with God? No of course not.

We are talking about an ability to come to God and recieve salvation. In terms of our nature and sin we are dead. This is precisely what Eph 2 is talking about, not about doing good things, so i actually think it is ou who does not understand the passage.

We have not been talking about doing good deeds to get saved. We have been discussing whether an unregenerate person can do good things. We are talking about an inability to do good, an inability to seek God and an inability to fear God without being born again. I have shown you verse after verse where those who have not yet been born again fear Him, seek for Him, and even those who are evil and do not seek for God can do good. That is the issue and you have failed to prove your point from the Scriptures.

When you became a Calvinist did you actually study this issue using an alternative view from the Scriptures or did you only receive influence from Calvinists? Have you read any books refuting Calvinism or dialogged with those who are not Calvinists in a respectful and passionate way before you became a Calvinist or did you just follow the path without any serious opposition?

“but I have the freedom to give my best and know that God is able to take my mistakes and use them for His glory.”

So you are expecting God to open the eyes of unbelievers, you no longer are saying that it is their own strength which saves them.

“Name me one person that the Bible says was predestined to salvation.”

Abraham was chosen purely by God’s grace. Moses was chosen purely by God’s grace. So was Isaac, so was Jacob. So was Paul since he was persecuting Christians until God changed him. IT sure wasn’t Paul’s concern for seeking Jesus.

Maybe you can clarify if you at all believe that people are predestined to salvation? Oh I almost forget, it seems Paul thought the Ephesians were predestined to salvation.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

1. “Do you really? Do you believe that God can change any person if that person is a reprobate that was chosen from eternity past to be lost?
   Yes I do believ God can change any unregenerate person according to his will and purpose as Paul’s says. IF it is not according to God’s will, then no it will not happen. Everything happens according only to God’s will and mercy not our own as Romans 9 states.

“It would be wrong to think that non-Calvinists believe that we are praying to God as an “abstract figure” or that God cannot change a person by creating events that will bring them face to face with their sin and God’s judgment.”

Ok I see. So you only ask God to ‘create events’ that will bring these people into a certain position. So you ask God for an opportunity to say something, but you don’t actually ask God to open your friends eyes right?

Final point, I have said and shown you from the bible why I believe God loves all people. Please don’t insistently keep saying God loves some more than others. You are hardly being fair to people who disagree with you. Don’t distort people’s views who disagree with you.

Mark,
You said:

It is irrelevant if people can do good things because this has nothing to do with salvation which Eph 2 is talking about. IN terms of our nature and relationship to God, becasue of our sin we are Dead, not just sick.

Sorry, my friend, you said that Eph 2 proves that the unregenerate are dead in sin and this means that they cannot seek for God and cannot do good. Now that your understanding has been challenged and proven wrong, you want to change the challenge.

And why did Jesus refer to sinful men as sick? Would you be making fun of him for doing so? How do you deal with the passages where Jesus talks about sinful men as sick?

Mark,
I should have read a little further for your answer.

You said:

Jesus uses the term ‘sick’ because he is contrasting wiht the ‘healthy’.

But Jesus also uses the term healthy to refer to the saved and “sick” to refer to the unsaved.

Mark 2:17 (NASB)
17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Look carefully at the above verse. Who is Jesus calling “sick”? It is the righteous or the sinners?

Here is another quote:

Luke 5:31–32 (NASB)
31 And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.
32 “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Are the righteous ones the well ones? Are the sinners the sick ones? Is it the sick ones that he is calling to repentance?

Mark,
You said:

You are importing foreign ideas into Eph 2. Pauls interest is between being dead in sins, and alive in Christ, not sick and healthy.

Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Jesus calls them sick. And His words are recorded twice. Where is a second witness that sinners are “dead” and in need of a resurrection?

Also notice the last contrast of JEsus- he did not come for the righteous but the sinners. It is clear that healthy= righteous, and sick=sinners in Jesus account. You are completely distorting both passages.

Yes, that is what I just said. Sinners are sick. They need to be made well, they don’t need to be resurrected. Sinners indeed are sick and Paul is not contradicting Jesus.

Mark,
You said:

So you are expecting God to open the eyes of unbelievers, you no longer are saying that it is their own strength which saves them.

I have never said that a sinner’s own strength saves them. Why can’t you see that? Don’t you realize that salvation is a miracle? Don’t you see that we are incapable of creating that miracle? Don’t you see that God alone can cause the miracle of the new birth, that He alone can put His seed in us and that He alone saves us. It is not of ourselves. It is 100% of God.

Wow Cheryl i cant keep.

Let me make a proposal because there are some real issues here. Why don’t we slow down and actually look at passages exegetically and in context rather than just proof texting.

After all one cannot claim that we can seek God if Romans 3 is correct that none can (unless of course Romans 3 is not as clear as it seems as you suggest)

Likewise one cannot say God has ordained some to salvation and others not, if there are passages which contradict that.

At least maybe this way we will be more faithful to scripture rather than proof texting all the time, and that way we can slow down a bit and actually discuss the bible, not theologies or presupposed ideas.

Ill leave it up to you. You can even choose the passage if you want. How’s that!

Sorry, my friend, you said that Eph 2 proves that the unregenerate are dead in sin and this means that they cannot seek for God and cannot do good.

No, my point was that good does not equal faith. Roman 14 says anything not done in faith is sin. Therefore it may be good becasue of God’s common grace, but it is still sinful because they are not doing it in faith in the God who enables them to do good- this is the difference. People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.

Here’s an example- When people build a hospital it is a good thing becasue it helps people etc etc (God’s common grace), however if those poeple who built that hospital do not build it in faith in God, they are sinning. THis is the issue and the nature of our humanity

Mark,
You said:

Let me make a proposal because there are some real issues here. Why don’t we slow down and actually look at passages exegetically and in context rather than just proof texting.

After all one cannot claim that we can seek God if Romans 3 is correct that none can (unless of course Romans 3 is not as clear as it seems as you suggest)

I have no problem with going through the Scriptures. But the problem that you mainly have is that you want to hold to a view that causes the rest of the Scriptures to contradict Romans 3. Paul is not adding to the Scriptures. If he was how could we be Bereans? The Bereans were more noble because they checked out Paul’s teaching by the OT Scriptures. If Paul contradicted the OT Scriptures like you believe he did, wow, that would make a real problem about whom to believe.

Likewise one cannot say God has ordained some to salvation and others not, if there are passages which contradict that.

God ordains believers to salvation. There isn’t one Scripture where an unbeliever is ordained to salvation. That is why I asked you. And I am still waiting for even one Scripture where the actual ordaining is of an unbeliever to salvation. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can.

At least maybe this way we will be more faithful to scripture rather than proof texting all the time, and that way we can slow down a bit and actually discuss the bible, not theologies or presupposed ideas.

Well, my friend, I am the one who kept calling you to the context and showing you where it disagreed with your view. You are the one who tried proof texting. But if it will keep you honest, let’s go for it.

Ill leave it up to you. You can even choose the passage if you want. How’s that!

How about John 6?

Mark,
You said:

No, my point was that good does not equal faith.

Oh my, is that ever baloney. If that was what you were arguing for we wouldn’t have argued for I to believe that good does not equal faith.

Roman 14 says anything not done in faith is sin.

Context, my friend, context. Who does this apply to? It is “anything” not for “anyone”. You can’t just change the words around and make this apply to everyone. It is for Christians who go against their conscience and without faith. That is certainly a sin. You have failed to show from the passage where it refers to unbelievers since no unbeliever can do a single thing in faith. Remember we talked about this?

People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.

Job wasn’t corrupt and sinful. He listened to God and he feared Him and turned away from evil. This was God’s witness. Why should I believe you when you are taking a text out of the context and disagreeing with what God said about Job?

Sorry, but I will go with God everytime because I am and want to continue to fear God.

Here’s an example- When people build a hospital it is a good thing becasue it helps people etc etc (God’s common grace), however if those poeple who built that hospital do not build it in faith in God, they are sinning. THis is the issue and the nature of our humanity.

Not only is this not what the Scripture says, but let’s play this one out and see where it gets us. We go to those people who are looking to build the hospital and we tell them that they cannot build because they don’t have faith in God. So we go around the world and force everyone to stop doing anything good because we don’t want them to be bigger sinners. So less hospitals, less people helping other people. And this is what God wants?

Here we would say “Give your head a shake!”

‘Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Jesus calls them sick. And His words are recorded twice. Where is a second witness that sinners are “dead” and in need of a resurrection?’

I’m not sure why you are trying to play Jesus words off against Paul as if the red letter parts of the bible are more authoritative. But just so you are aware here is a second witness to being dead in sin apart from Eph 2:1

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

John 6 sounds great. What parts? What have you got in mind?

by the way, just a few more verses to show you that the kingdom was inaugurated in Christ’s coming

Luk 17:20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

thoughts??

“People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.”
Mark,
Here’s what Genesis 6:5 says in context:
“5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. 9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypress wood…”
7:13 “On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark”

Notice verses 8-10 &14 and 7:13.

Kay,

I’m not sure i follow your point. Noah was a man declared righteous because of his faith. I would have thought we agreed on that?

“By faith ?Noah, being warned by God concerning ?events as yet unseen, in reverent fear con-structed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of ?the righteousness that comes by faith.”- Heb 11:7

It is faith that make some righteous not what they do. This is the case with Noah. This doesn’t mean though that we was exempt from the sinful nature of Adam and his offspring. By nature (Noah) and us have a sinful nature. Our hearts are stone, sinful. Sin is evil is it not? IF our hearts are by nature sinful, then we by nature are evil in relation to a Holy God. See also

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 ? Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil ?in your sight,
? so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:3-5

This is why we need a new heart (Jer 31:31ff). We need the law written on our heart, not stone. We need the indwelling of the Spirit. In other words we need God to give us something we can’t do ourselves. We cannot be righteous in and of ourselves (or our actions). If we as humans are not born corrupt in need of help, then what is the significance of the atonement, we would not need it.

Finally a vital text

“And even ?if our gospel is veiled, ?it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case ?the god of this world ?has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing ?the light of i?the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ?ourselves as your servants? for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, ? “Let light shine out of darkness,” ?has shone in our hearts to give ?the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:4ff

Unbelievers are blind! The gospel is veiled to those who are perishing. But God has shown light in believers hearts. He has opened their eyes from darkness to light, from being dead to being alive. Just as what is promised in the prophecies of the Old Covenant.

sorry about all the question marks in the texts, something went wrong there.

Kay, can i ask if you accept or reject the doctrine of Original Sin?

Cheryl

“Job wasn’t corrupt and sinful.”

Are you saying Job did not have the inherited sinful nature of Adam or that he was a sinful man?

“therefore I (Job) despise myself,
and repent? in ?dust and ashes.” Job 42:6

Why repent if he wasn’t corrupt and sinful? Sure Job is described as righteous and upright, but to therefore conclude he was not sinful is wrong, the bible shows that. It is in precisely the same way that we as God’s people are declared righteous yet we sin continually and must repent and seek forgiveness. Being described as righteous does not mean that he wasn’t sinful or by nature had a corrupt heart in need of God’s enlightening.

“But the Scriptures never teach a predestination to salvation of the wicked without the condition of faith. There is a predestination to earthly work but never a predestination to salvation without condition.”

“For those whom he ?foreknew he also ?predestined l?to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be ?the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also ?justified, and those whom he justified he also ?glorified.” Romans 8:29:30

Here we are presestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus (thus we must be saved) not an earthly work. Also note our predestination comes before justification (and therefore faith). Now where does the bible say we are predestined conditionally.

“In love ?he predestined us? for ?adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” Eph 1:5

Here again we are predestined for adoption through Jesus, by God’s will NOT because he foreknew what we would choose.

Not to forget all of Romans 9 which is clearly dealing with individual salvation not just ‘earthly work’. After all the Jews would never have been offended by the truth of Romans 9 if Paul was simply talking about earthly work. Not only that but the whole premise of Romans 9 hinges on verse 6b, where Paul said that not all Israel (earthly communal election) are true Israel (those predestined to salvation). This he saids becasue the question is raised whether God’s word has failed with the Jews. So Cheryl, the Bible does clearly teach UNconditional election. THis is the sovereignty of God.

I would seriously like to hear your definition of God’s sovereignty?

Mark,
I have been working on my next post so I didn’t get a chance to get to your last questions and comments. It is an extremely busy time for me so please have patience with me.

If you are producing your comments in Word and then transferring them onto the blog, that may be why you are getting question marks. The formatting is better if you want to do you work in notepad instead even if you write in Word and then copy and paste to Notepad to remove Word formatting and then copy and paste from Notepad to the blog.

I have time for only one comment this morning. You said:

Finally a vital text

“And even ?if our gospel is veiled, ?it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case ?the god of this world ?has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing ?the light of i?the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ?ourselves as your servants? for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, ? “Let light shine out of darkness,” ?has shone in our hearts to give ?the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:4ff

So tell me why does satan have to “blind” dead people? If they are truly dead and cannot see of their own, why would he have to blind anyone? The fact that he needs to keep them from the gospel shows that without his working to blind them, they would be able to see. That is another great passage that shows that we are sick and blind but not “dead” and unable to respond to God!

One other quick comment. To allow people to hear the gospel, does the Lord need to remove the blinders or resurrect them according to the passage that you quoted? If he needs to resurrect them to hear the gospel, then no blinders were ever necessary since it would be laughable to put a blind on a dead man. That wouldn’t make the passage make sense at all.

Thanks for your response to my last post #146. Unfortunatly I was not clear enough – ever a danger with analogies. The roast dinner/ carcus was not meant to represent any individual sin but rather choosing between everlasting life (the roast) or death (the carcus). It was meant simply to highlight the fact that even our choice to follow Christ in faith is one that we are unable to make until He opens our eyes through changing our nature. Once He has done this there is no other choice for us to make, we still have free will to reject Christ and choose the carcus but we no longer desire to do so…

In Post 185 you say
No they are not. They are condemned because God chose them for destruction without any conditions. ‘Apparently He made them to go to hell so it isn’t their rejection of the gospel that sends them there.

This is exactly the thinking I was trying to anticipate with my analogy. The choice of life is there right beside the choice of death but they reject it because of their sin nature. When someone tells them the baked dinner is better they regect them because of their sin nature(in our sin nature we do believe the carcus to be better). But they are still making the choice to reject Christ and they are liable for this choice. Certainly God did not open their eyes to show them the folly of their choice but this is at Gods discretion(indeed it is the corrupt nature of sin that they would not want God to do any such thing) – it is still a choice they have made and are accountable for it.

Mark,

By now I think you already know that I don’t hold calvinist doctrine.

Personally, I would have a big problem following the interpretations of someone like John Calvin, who condoned the death sentence of people he deems are “heretics” or people accused of being witches. I feel no affinity with a person who could stand for that.

To put that into familiar terms for you, imagine that Calvin was in your city and next Sunday the Dandenong Reformed Church is conducting a ‘beheading’ or ‘burning at the stake’ on their lawn. What would you think about that? Would you go to watch the heretics and witches burn? Would you help light the fires? Imagine the t.v. news crews showing up to film it!

I think you would find that abhorrent, right? I truly think you would. But that is just the sort of thing Calvin condoned in Geneva and never once spoke out against. And if he was alive and well today in Melbourne it could be happening near you.

Let’s say Calvin lived today in Melbourne and his ‘Consistency’ police had gotten hold of you the day ‘before’ you had converted to calvinism – *you* would have been condemned to die as a heretic. What a sad end for you Mark.

Think about it – *your* head at the end of the chopping block because another fallible human being like yourself, decided they were the judge and jury of your non-elect “heresy.”

Mark, have you ever wondered that about your own kids? Or, are you o.k. with the thought that if they are chosen ‘damned’ ones you’ve simply fulfilled God’s will by being their father?

It is puzzling that I see numerous commentaries by John Calvin, but in the same breath he could not figure out the verse “love you enemy as yourself”. For a man to be considered a genius on everything in the Bible and somehow miss what the entire New Testament conveys is a ridiculous notion to me. However, somehow his ‘infallible’ theology allows him to get a pass to endorse the burning and the imprisonment of others because they disagreed with his Institutes, while Jesus went to the cross for us! Totally puzzling.

If only God knows our status as His “elect”, how do you know that John Calvin was saved? I mean – really, how do *you* know Mark? What if Calvin wasn’t “elect” and you are following an entire theological system devised by a man not “of faith”? Calvin’s own paradigm contradicts itself on the fact that Calvin has no way of ascertaining his own elect-ness for you. It’s purely God’s own secret whether or not Calvin persevered to the end.

Please, understand that I’m not writing any of this to be mean or to make light of this. Truly I only hope that you will reconsider all the angles of what you are buying into.

Kay,

I appreciate your comments and concerns. There are no doubt that Clavin made mistakes in his lifetime. No one denies that. In fact i don’t agree with all of Calvin’s teaching, that is why i don’t like being labelled or labelling myself a ‘calvinist’. I try to follow the bible not men. Calling people calvinists or arminians or any other theological brand name, really doesn’t help in good dialogue. It just puts us into little ‘buckets’ of pre-conceived ideas.

However to deny the significance of the man’s teaching would be silly. His influence into reforming the Christian church back to it’s biblical roots was enormous. Following a doctrine of clavinism is not about following the man John Calvin. He of all people would be disgusted at the way we label people after his name. HIs concern was purely in magnifying the truth of the bible and glorifying God, not himself.

It is sad that you reject anything the man said because of some things he did. I have had a man in my church say the same thing to me. However if we took the bible seriously we would see that all theologians and teachers are sinful people. After all looking at someone in unrighteous anger is equivalent to murder in Jesus eyes. I’m sure most of our modern theologians would therefore be murderers in God’s eyes. We need to look past those sorts of things. Calvin had a firm grasp on scripture and that is why i enjoy reading him. Although i utterly reject the way he dealt with Servetus and others.

It might also help to remember the culture of his time. We should be wary being to criticle from our culture looking back. After all we have numerous references in the bible where things deserve the death penalty- even as small as a child disobeying their parent. THere are many things from other cultures which seem disturbing to us in the 21st century western societies.

Also Kay about judging whether people are saved is not a helpful thing- i’m sure we would both agree on that, even if you diagree with the doctrine of perserverance of the saints. Calvin simply taught what the bible says- Jesus will lose none of his sheep, those who perservere to the end will be saved, the Holy Spirit is a deposit guarenteeing our salvation. I’m not willing to speculate on who and who isn’t saved. SImply put, those who repent, ask for forgiveness, accept the free gift of Jesus salvation are saved, and we know the sincerity of a person’s commitment by their sanctification in this life and ultimately there persistence in faith until the very end of their life. THis is what the bible teaches, therefore we should teach it, without speculating on who is saved and who isn’t- that is not for us to do. God has revealed the way to salvation, so we should simply preach it.

Rejecting reformed theology causes many contradictions in the Bible, which simply can’t be explained exegetically as those who try to do. THis is why i believe much of what it teaches it true to the Bible. I am open to the Spirit teaching me otherwise, and i hope He does if it is not correct, but thus far in my Christian walk i have gone the other way- from rejecting calvinism to accepting it.

Also about my children i agree with you that it is hard to comprehend- i have seriously struggled with that. But my hope lies in GOd’s faithfulness, not on my children’s ability. GOd is just and righteous and will never do any wrong either to me or my children. IF they choose to reject Him God will have done me no wrong to punish them eternally. However i pray desperately for my children asking God to be merciful on them as sinners. I also teach my children the truth of the bible- that they must accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. I will never reject any hard truth of the Bible simply becasue it makes me uneasy about my family. After all Jesus has told us that if we love them more than Him, we are not worthy of Him. IF the Bible teaches unconditional election (which i think it does) then i would be far wiser to accept the Bible’s teaching, rather than reject it because of my kids. BUt that said i would be lying if the biblical doctrines of providence at times did not bring me to my knees in anguish.

Mark,
You said:

However i pray desperately for my children asking God to be merciful on them as sinners.

Please explain to me how this fits in with the 5 points of Calvinism? You asked me how I prayed for the lost and I told you. But how can a Calvinist pray like this knowing that all were chosen either for election to Heaven or election to Hell and nothing that we can do (or pray!) changes that? So help me to understand why a desperate prayer would have any meaning with the mindset of Calvinism? You haven’t answered this yet and I ask you to enlighten us.

Another thing, Mark, that is unsettling is the issue about leaders such as Calvin who brought teaching into the church that has been followed by millions. You said:

Also Kay about judging whether people are saved is not a helpful thing- i’m sure we would both agree on that, even if you diagree with the doctrine of perserverance of the saints.

I think one of the main points that Kay was making is that it would be possible that Calvin was not one of the elect since we cannot know for sure until we get to Heaven. The point that she made had not crossed my mind. If Calvin was not one of the elect, then millions of Christians have followed his teaching and may be in serious error. Calvin taught that one could be deceived by God into believing that they are saved when the faith they have is not saving faith. If this is so, how could anyone know before death that they are of the elect and how many of the “leaders” are teaching error because they are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing? The doctrine lends itself to uncertainty and doubt. One simply cannot have an assurance today.

I praise God that I do not follow a system that leaves me in doubt and worried that I might be deceived by God. I know that God never deceives people into believing that they have a faith in God while they are a false believer. It is the enemy who seeks to kill, steal and destroy. It isn’t God that has this position at times as Calvin taught.

Mark, as far as discussing John 6, it would be a discussion in the complete context of the chapter. Context is very important. The last JW I witnessed to was an elder who tried to prove his point by proof-texting. I made him read the chapter before and the chapter after along with the chapter of the quote that he made. By the time we were done reading the three chapters, his point had completely dried up and he knew it. Apparently it was the first time that anyone had made him read the context. I praise God for the truth in context!

Cheryl,

You asked why i pray the way i do. To answer simply, because we are told to pray and care for people, both saved and unsaved. God has appointed prayer as the means to communicate with Him. He has aslo appointed prayer as the means to to bring his will to come about- we know this from Jesus example. It is amazing that God uses human agents to fulfill his will.
It seems that you haven’t fully grasped what election teaches. Althought the Bible teaches Unconditional Election, that does not mean therefore that we do nothing- quite the opposite. God uses us to fulfill his purposes and will. When we preach the gospel faithfully, God will use that to bring people to himself. Likewise when we pray, God will answer our prayers (as long as it is His will of course) to fulfill His purpose and will. To sit back and do nothing (as some calvinists have done before) is not correct- that is not obeying the clear teaching to pray and witness.
The reason i pray for my children is because i know that they are sinful. I know that because of their sin they are in rebellion to God and a broken relationship. I know that they can’t fix that, therefore i ask God to show His mercy upon them.
That said the Bible teaches that God has mercy on whom he wishes and hardens whom He wishes, i’m not denying that. That is the harsh truth of the Bible which Paul outlines in Romans 9.

Cheryl,

If you think ‘calvinist’ are sheep in wolves clothing, you should say that outright.

Maybe also you can outline further this comment and cite where Calvin saids this.

“Calvin taught that one could be deceived by God into believing that they are saved when the faith they have is not saving faith.”

No issue with John 6 and surrounds, but please don’t compare me to a JW. I have seen you over and over again proof text aswell- it’s just inevitable in this sort of dialogue on theologies. The issue is whether a proof text contradicts a clear teaching on scripture- that’s where it is dangerous.
I’ll leave you to introduce the context if you like with John 6. You never know we might actually agree on something- let’s hope hey!

By the way, i would also like to apologise if i have offended you or others in any of my comments in the past. PLeaer continue to rebuke me if you feel like i overstep the mark. After all, we should all be striving to holiness and sanctification and helping each other to do that.

Mark,
“After all, we should all be striving to holiness and sanctification and helping each other to do that.”
Amen.

I don’t have time for one of my longwinded replies today, (I hope you smiled) – however, just a couple of quick observations.

I feel a “brethrenly” concern for you – as it appears to me that the theological views you currently hold about God are somehow robbing you of joy and peace.

As to the stoning of a child you mentioned – I take it you meant Deut. 21:18-21. First, the person in view is a not a small child but a grown “son.” The Hebrew term for “son” (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes. Of itself, the word “son” does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or a young man (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; 19:1; 1 Kings 1:33); age must be determined from the *context.* In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins named the in text to show his contumacious manner are *gluttony* and *drunkenness (v. 20); hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old. The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. The parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child but, rather, a youth at least in his middle teens or older. The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults.

Kay,

Sure i agree about the passage in Deut. The point i was making though, was that for us- that is still a harsh punishment. Imagine now if countries introduced that kind of law- half of the Australian adolescents would be killed. But we know from the text that the reason that punishments were so severe is because the Israelites were to get rid of the ‘evil’ from among them. This is about a community of God honouring people. They were essentially to ‘kill’ any evil- we see the same thing with the conqering of the land do we not?

Now in relation to Calvin, why did he do those things we consider ‘horrible’? He was applying almost the same principle. Now don’t here me wrong that i am applauding what he did- i do not. The Israelites had an imperative from the Lord to do such things, Calvin did not. Jesus shows us in the NT how we should live- based around love. However many in Calvin’s time were trying to sanctify the people. In order to do this they ‘purged’ the evil from the Church (in this case false teaching).

So although i do not recommend we act the way Calvin did, i can see why he did it. Do you understand what i am trying to say?

Also i appreciate your concern, however i do not feel like i am robbed of joy and peace. For me, once i grew in my understanding of sin, i grew in my understanding of grace. The more we realise what we deserve becasue of our sin, the more we appreciate and enjoy the gracious act of God to save us. To me, a weak view of sin= a weak view on grace.

Also the doctrine of predestination (unconditional) also emphasises God’s grace. Nothing we do or can do will save us. It is merely according to God’s pleasure and will that some are saved.

Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

The problem i see with people who reject this doctrine, is that often the arguments come from what we (as sinful human people) think is ‘fair and just’. But we have to remember that we see ‘but a poor reflection’ of God, and some things are kept to his secret will. And also the doctrine of predestination is a glorious one according to the apostle Paul

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Exegetically a conditional predestination does not hold. So i feel it far better to go with what the Bible says rather than try to understand the mind of God and what we consider to be fair.

I honestly can tell you that since i have looked into these doctrines, my faith has grown, my joy has grown, not the reverse. Although i know that some in this world are not of God’s sheep or elect i also know that God is fatihful, good and Holy in His actions. This doctrine brings us to our knees as it should. We ought to have fear and reverence for our God.

If you reject this doctrine maybe you can explain for me how you view the Bible’s teaching on election and what scriptures bring you to this conclusion. See to me the test is in the scriptures, not in philosophical reasoning!

I apologize for not being able to answer the comments in a timely fashion. There are several issues that have demanded my time including a building project. We are finally building a studio for filming videos and desperately needed office space for our production and printing equipment. Over the next few months we will be faced with many decisions that will determine how far our money stretches and the building crew and disruption of our living space will likely keep me gone for periods of time so I hope that all will have patience as I struggle to keep up. I know that I have several important comments to respond to and I will attend to them over the next couple of days.

Mark,
You said:

The reason i pray for my children is because i know that they are sinful. I know that because of their sin they are in rebellion to God and a broken relationship. I know that they can’t fix that, therefore i ask God to show His mercy upon them.

This is the kind of prayer that a non-Calvinist would pray. The problem that I have with it is that it doesn’t match up with the Calvinist world view. If it is true that God determines from eternity past who will and who won’t be saved and that his decisions have nothing to do with any human, and that His decisions are unchangeable as they are set in stone as “elections”, then it doesn’t seem reasonable to pray for the unsaved as if God would do something different than what He had already determined from eternity past.

For example if one of your children was one of the elect, then God will have mercy on them whether you pray or not and certainly your prayers cannot be a reason for their election or else that would be considered synergism by Calvinist definition.

Also if another one of your children was one of the elected as eternally reprobate, God will never answer your prayers on their behalf. And it would seem to be going against God’s will if you would pray for God to do something that He has arbitrarily decided not to do before your child was born.

To answer simply, because we are told to pray and care for people, both saved and unsaved. God has appointed prayer as the means to communicate with Him. He has aslo appointed prayer as the means to to bring his will to come about- we know this from Jesus example.

This seems to me to be a great problem because it would be the Calvinist definition of synergism. After all if we cannot even respond to God through our own faith or else it is defined as synergism, then how on earth can another human responding to God’s call to pray not also be synergism? For surely if our own faith that would move God to save us is called “works” and “synergism” by Calvinists, then the faith and prayers of another human on our behalf should also be called “works” and “synergism”. It is a flaw in Calvinism that makes the system inconsistent and prejudiced.

Now I don’t believe this way myself, so I agree with you that we should pray for our children, but if I was a Calvinist I would want to be a consistent Calvinist, one who followed the system to its logical conclusion. It makes prayer a very inconsistent venture, making it a synergistic event while denying that God can change His mind on election.

To sit back and do nothing (as some calvinists have done before) is not correct- that is not obeying the clear teaching to pray and witness.

I agree that to sit back and do nothing is wrong, but many consistent Calvinists have done just that choosing to follow the logic of the entire system. After all if God has already chosen and no elect will fail to be saved whether anyone prays for them or not, why risk praying for one who is reprobate who cannot be saved, or pray for one who cannot fail to be saved? Prayer is made into a jolly good waste of time – thus the consistent Calvinist will sit by and do nothing.

It is amazing that God uses human agents to fulfill his will.

It is so amazing that the system of Calvinism teaches this synergism while calling non-Calvinists as synergistic and making fun of them as “working” for their salvation. It is an inconsistency that has not been answered successfully by those who embrace the system. Everything has to be relegated to a “mystery” when inconsistency is found. I find this incredibly sad.

Like I said, I must certainly be ordained not to be a Calvinist if that system is true, because its inconsistencies do not show the glory of God.

Mark,
You said:

If you think ‘calvinist’ are sheep in wolves clothing, you should say that outright.

Believe me, if I believed this, I would say it outright. I do not believe that Calvinists are for the most part sheep in wolves clothing. I do believe that the system is false when compared by the Bible, and I do believe that my brothers and sisters that are Calvinists have been misled in this area, but I do not believe that they are not brethren in Christ. I count them as dear brothers and sisters in Christ and those who love the Lord Jesus as I do and who love the brethren as I do will enter heaven together so I dare not call my brother a heretic or a wolf in sheep’s clothing unless there was evidence elsewhere that my brother was not a believer but a wolf. I do not take that kind of judgment lightly.

Maybe also you can outline further this comment and cite where Calvin saids this.

“Calvin taught that one could be deceived by God into believing that they are saved when the faith they have is not saving faith.”

Sure.

XI. I know that it appears harsh to some, when faith is attributed to the reprobate; since Paul affirms it to be the fruit of election. But this difficulty is easily solved: for, though none are illuminated to faith, or truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, but such as are pre-ordained to salvation; yet, experience shews, that the reprobate are sometimes affected with emotions very similar to those of the elect, so that, in their own opinion, they in no respect differ from the elect. Wherefore, it is not at all absurd, that a taste of heavenly gifts is ascribed to them by the apostle, and a temporary faith by Christ:(d) not that they truly perceive the energy of spiritual grace and clear light of faith; but because the Lord, to render their guilt more manifest and inexcusable, insinuates himself into their minds, as far as his goodness can be enjoyed without the Spirit of adoption. If any one object, that there remains then no farther evidence by which the faithful can certainly judge of their adoption: I reply, that although there is a great similitude and affinity between the elect of God and those who are endued with a frail and transitory faith, yet the elect possess that confidence, which Paul celebrates, so as boldly to “cry, Abba, Father.”(e) Therefore, as God regenerates for ever the elect alone with incorruptible seed, so that the seed of life planted in their hearts never perishes; so he firmly seals within them the grace of his adoption, that it may be confirmed and ratified to their minds. But this by no means prevents that inferior operation of the Spirit from exerting itself even in the reprobate. In the mean time the faithful are taught, to examine themselves with solicitude and humility, lest carnal security insinuate itself, instead of the assurance of faith. Besides, the reprobate have only a confused perception of grace, so that they embrace the shadow rather than the substance: because the Spirit properly seals remission of sins in the elect alone, and they apply it by a special faith to their own benefit. Yet the reprobate are justly said to believe that God is propitious to them; because they receive the gift of reconciliation, though in a confused and too indistinct manner: not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the sons of God; but because they appear, under the disguise of hypocrisy, to have the principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I deny, that God so far enlightens their minds, that they discover his grace; but he so distinguishes that perception from the peculiar testimony, which he gives to his elect, that they never attain any solid effect and enjoyment. For he does not, therefore, shew himself propitious to them, by truly delivering them from death, and receiving them under his protection; but he only manifests to them present mercy. But he vouchsafes to the elect alone, the living root of faith, that they may persevere even to the end. Thus we have refuted the objection, that if God truly discovers his grace, it remains for ever: because nothing prevents God from illuminating some with a present perception of his grace, which afterwards vanishes away.
Calvin, J., & Allen, J. (2010). Vol. 2: Institutes of the Christian religion (23–24).

You are even lucky that I can speak to you without talking about the JW’s with every second sentence.

lol

Cheryl,

I understand that you are busy, that is fine.

I agree with you that context is important, but the question remains- how far do you take it? To me the context is the whole Bible. Does the verse or the passage contradict the rest of biblical teaching. None the less i look forward to engaging with John 6- it’s a great chapter.

I have to disagree that you don’t proof text. For example you have often cited Hosea 6:7 without ever relating to it’s context in the book of Hosea. You have just used it as a ‘proof’ text to support your notion of only Adam being in rebellion and not Eve. In fact even in this post you quote stand alone verse not addressing the context in which they lay. You have by definition done the opposite of what your apologist friend says. So let me say again- we all proof text.

Cheryl,

Again you are convincing me more that you don’t actually understand the people you oppose-namely reformed Christians. No one i know who holds to a reformed doctrine would come to the conclusion that we don’t need to pray or that it is synergism.

The issue you need to deal with is in relation to salvation. Sinful people by nature do not know God. THat is, their sin seperates them from God. Now can they find their way back to God? Reformed theology saids no. THey need God to show grace upon them. God has instituted prayer as one means by which faithful people can pray that God might open people’s eyes.

Sure that person may not be elect, but we do not know that- only God does. But clearly God has told us to pray and witness to ALL people. If God chooses to use prayer to fulfill His will that is fine. ( but that is not synergism which said people have the ability in themselves to seek salvation)However God may choose not to answer a prayer because it is not in alighnment with His will. THis parody stands with every aspect of our christian life, not just salvation. We may ask God to make us well if we are sick, but he may choose not to answer that prayer- it’s up to His plan and will for our lives.

Your point makes no sense- your conclusion doesn’t fit. Otherwise you think every time we pray God answers it- but that is simply not the case because we do not know what his will is. This is no different with the elect. We are to pray for people but if they are not God’s elect he will not answer our prayer since that is not in his will.

That is why calvinists in the past have been wrong- that actually didn’t hold to the teaching of calvin nor the Bible. The logical conclusion of calvinism is not ‘do nothing’. THat is a wrong understanding of calvinism or as some say ‘high calvinism’.

Kay,
You said:

All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child but, rather, a youth at least in his middle teens or older. The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults.

Good work!

To affirm God’s sovereignty is to affirm that God could sovereignly create *ANY* kind of world God wished, even one in which he would leave it to humans to exercise free libertarian choices. Less control is not the same as less sovereignty IF God *chooses* to have less control.

Why should we limit God of this possibility? Just because Calvin or someone said so?

It all hinges on your view of the character of God. Does divine compassion and love for his creatures serve as the primary template through which all the Divine attributes operate? Or does a notion that God somehow needs to protect His sovereignty serve that function?

The basic issue here is which theological paradigm does a better job of representing the biblical picture of God’s character: which theological system gives a more adequate account of the biblical God whose nature is holy love? Why should His sovereignty need to be put above His love? Who decided that?

What do we make of an offer that *cannot* be accepted even though the one making the offer knows this is the case or—to make matters worse—could in sovereignty make the receiver able to accept but does not? To say that God presents a bona fide offer of salvation to all but that He grants only to some the ability to respond to that offer is not a “mystery,” it is a logical inconsistency that no pious appeals to “God’s ways are above our ways” will mitigate.

Again, to affirm God’s sovereignty is to affirm that God is very able to sovereignly create ANY kind of world God wished, even one in which He would leave it to humans to exercise free choices.

Less control is not the same as less sovereignty IF God *chooses* to have less control. And who are we to decide that is not an option for Him? Hmm?

“It just puts us into little ‘buckets’ of pre-conceived ideas.”
Mark,
Agreed – I’m not a fan of pre-conceived ideas either.

Again, this is part of the inconsistency of Calvinism that makes me scratch my head.

lol

Mark,
I am just going through some comments/questions that I have missed catching in the last week.

You said:

Why stop at verse 27 Cheryl…let’s keep going
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Surely you and I have both coveted, surely we have both been slanderers and gossips and boastful etc. This is the nature of humanity not just one specific group.

There is a huge difference between occasional sin and God “giving them up to a debased mind”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a debased mind and God has not given me up to live out these sins.

Sexual sins are just one aspect of our fallen humanity. We are depraved creatures- totally.

No we are not. The fact is that the ones that God “gives up” to a depraved mind are much more depraved than the rest of us. In fact even your next door neighbour who is not saved is likely a really likable guy who doesn’t act depraved, and helps out the neighbours who are in need. Most people have unsaved neighbours like that. We are not “totally” depraved creatures and the Bible never says that although I understand that it is a “theory” of Calvinism.

Isaiah 53:6 sums it up nicely- we all like sheep have gone astray and turned to our own ways.

Isaiah 53:6 sums up my view quite nicely. It says that we have all sinned and gone to our own ways. It does not say that all of us are totally depraved people. Man, if all people were totally depraved you couldn’t walk outside your door in the day time, let alone the night time.

I can’t show you that Cornelius was born again- I don’t deny that. But not every conversion in the bible says ‘and they were born again before they believed’.

The fact is that there is not even one conversion in the Bible that says that the person was “born again” before they believed.

We don’t always have every detail for every occasion.

That may be so, but you’d think that such an important detail as being born again before faith would show up at least in one place. But it is never there in any of the accounts. It is just another reason to see the “born again before faith” as a “theory” not as a Biblical fact.

The problem is though to say that we don’t need to be born again contradicts Jn 3, and contradictions are not acceptable.

My friend, I never said that we don’t need to be born again. I said that being born again comes after faith. I believe that all of us must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

You have swept it away be changing what born again means and what the kingdom is.

It is not me who has changed the meaning. The classical meaning of born again means:

The phrase “born again” literally means “born from above.” Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart—a spiritual transformation. New birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). John 1:12,13 indicates that “born again” also carries the idea “to become children of God” through trust in the name of Jesus Christ.

Throughout the gospel age the term born again has meant that the person has received eternal life and has believed the gospel and has become a child of God. To have a person remain as an unregenerate person and without faith and without being a child of God and call them “born again” is completely foreign to Christian terminology. Calvinism has taken classical Christian terms and re-written their meaning. I find that incredibly sad.

More comments coming up.

Man, if all people were totally depraved you couldn’t walk outside your door in the day time, let alone the night time.

You ain’t kidden!

I’d remove myself from the planet if that were the case! I’d be outte saying God beam me up!

go through the passage carefully and figure out what the text is exactly saying?

I think this is a problem with compism, calvinism, and whatever other doctrines that bear out one inconsistency after another that are out there – they don’t line up with what the text is exactly saying. They lack precision.

Kay,
Thankyou for at least defining your definition of God’s sovereignty. I have heard this attempt before by those who reject the reformed position and frankly i am unconvinced.
First of all, there is not one passage in Scripture that saids God ‘chose’ to limit himself when he created the world. Like i said this is philosophical reasoning and not based foremost on the Bible. Please highlight scripture to support a doctrine like this.
Second, this makes God changeable. If God can choose to be some sort of ‘less’ God, what stops us from saying that God has chosen to make himself vulnerable, reliant on people and so forth. Oh, wait a minute, this is exactly were theology has lead with ‘open theology’ who use philosophy instead of scripture to say God doesn’t actually know the future! This is where an emphasis on free-will gets exaggerated and simply contradicts the scripture.

Acts 17: 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Either God has determined the plan of this world (including us) or he hasn’t. This text along with a lot of others said God has determined everything in this world. Kay, I am willing to change my view, but only if scripture can show that to me. Please show me scripture to support your definition of God’s sovereignty or ‘chosen’ vulnerability.

Cheryl
“Isaiah 53:6 sums up my view quite nicely. It says that we have all sinned and gone to our own ways. It does not say that all of us are totally depraved people. Man, if all people were totally depraved you couldn’t walk outside your door in the day time, let alone the night time.”

Here again you have not understood the doctrine. Total depravity does not say people will always do evil things. In fact i have said already about God’s common grace in which you agreed. Total depravity saids that every aspect of our nature has been corrupted because of sin, if i can try to summarise it. That is, our will, minds, soul etc are totally depraved in that they are corrupted by sin. Sin seperates us from God, does it not, therefore we in all our nature are seperated from God. You have again not represented the doctrine correctly. It’s hard to discuss with you, when you don’t understand what you oppose.

” To have a person remain as an unregenerate person and without faith and without being a child of God and call them “born again” is completely foreign to Christian terminology. Calvinism has taken classical Christian terms and re-written their meaning. I find that incredibly sad.”

WHen did i ever say that Cheryl? I have never said a person can be born again and stay without faith. Being born again is part of the process of coming to faith is what i have said. Anybody who is born again WILL ALWAYS immediately follow it by faith. IF you like it is part of the ‘calling’. drawing process. A person will never accept the message until the veil is removed by the Spirit. Your attack on clavinism here again clearly shows me once more that you are not engaging wiht the actual teaching but your ‘view’ of the teaching. You need to be more careful to show me that you actually understand the ‘calvinistic’ position. Thus far it is clear you do not.

“All i have heard so far is critiques of mine by humanistic reasoning, not the word of God.”
Mark,
O.k. here’s a look at Romans 1:18. These verses show the attributes and symptoms of depravity when one’s conscience becomes seared.
” Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.” Ephesians 4:17-19

In Romans 1, we find a passage describing how the pagan Gentiles became depraved.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.” Rom. 1:18-21

These verses credit certain Gentiles the same attribute of depravity, using the same words as in Ephesians, but how did they become this way? The passage says they knew God, *but* by their wickedness suppress the truth, did not give God the glory He deserves, were not thankful for lives, given to them by the Creator. How did they show this ingratitude?

“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. For this reason God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Rom. 1:22-25

When these Gentiles became idolaters, God gave them over to their “lusts”. The words “For this reason” shows that it followed *after their choice*. They descended into the depths of moral depravity because of their desire to distance themselves from God and His will, so they became what they desired. God gave them over to what they wished and the consequences. (Rom. 1:28)

Mark,
Almost forgot my disclaimer for using the word “calvinist” – I’m not calling you one, just using it as a short cut sub of beliefs similar to yours.

Cheryl,

i haven’t got time right now to respond to your last 2 posts, but i am eager too.

Food for thought in the meantime. What is the atonement? Is it not Jesus taking the ‘punishment’ we deserve for our sin. If therefore Jesus took the ‘punishment’ for every single person in the world, how therefore are they sent to hell. After all their sins are ‘atoned for’, or in other words forgiven. Even if they choose not to believe, they are still atoned for that sin right? This is the problem.

I limit the application of the atonement to the elect. You limit it’s ability to be a complete atonement.

More soon

Mark, Mark, Mark,
You have got to let me finish catching up. Or how will we ever get to John 6?

What is the atonement? Is it not Jesus taking the ‘punishment’ we deserve for our sin. If therefore Jesus took the ‘punishment’ for every single person in the world, how therefore are they sent to hell.

They are sent to hell because they did not have the payment applied. But just because the payment wasn’t applied doesn’t mean the the payment wasn’t made.

Two examples:

1. If I buy you a very expensive gift certificate for your favorite store and I give you that certificate, have I paid the price for it? Is the money out of my pocket and is my bank account now a lot lower? Of course! But what if you refuse to cash in that certificate? Will it benefit you? But if you refuse to cash in the certificate does that mean that I didn’t pay the price?

2. All of the examples of atonement in the OT are always two fold. The requirement was the death of the animal and the second part was the application of the blood. When God told Moses that the people needed to sacrifice the lamb at the first passover in Egypt, was it okay to kill the lamb and eat it without applying the blood to the door?

The fact is that every example of the physical atonement was for the price to be paid and the blood to be applied.

Let me ask you, why was it necessary for Jesus to apply His blood into the holy of holies in Heaven after He had already died for our sin?

Mark,
You said:

I honestly can tell you that since i have looked into these doctrines, my faith has grown, my joy has grown, not the reverse. Although i know that some in this world are not of God’s sheep or elect i also know that God is fatihful, good and Holy in His actions.

My faith has grown in the understanding of who God is and His revelation to us. His Word is so clear that He is love and merciful and that He gave Jesus for all. If I were to take human reasoning and say that I love people and deserve them to be saved while God Himself doesn’t desire their salvation nor does He have an speck of saving love for them, then I would have more love and mercy for that person than God does. How on earth we can accept a doctrine that makes us more loving in some areas than God and more merciful than God in some areas just beats me. It is amazing that the Merciful God can be outdone by a mere human all for the sake of a doctrine of men that is only clearly found in the books written by men.

The sadness of this all amazes me. That there are people in the Christian world who are happy and content that they are of the elect and they do not care that their doctrine teaches that God deliberately and unconditionally creates people to go to hell.

Mark,
You said:

First of all, there is not one passage in Scripture that saids God ‘chose’ to limit himself when he created the world.

There are two parts to the equation. If God gives free will and free choice without making the choice for us, then God allows us within limits to act with freedom as He acts. The only way that He can give free choice is to accept our choice otherwise it really isn’t a choice but an ultimate decision made by Him.

Sorry for butting in on your conversation with Kay, but your comments that God does not choose to limit Himself was to tempting to bypass. Jesus as God chose to limit Himself to become human. It is a God-thing to have choices. If we tell God that He cannot chose one way or the other, then we have limited God and taken away His Sovereignty.

Mark,
You said:

“Isaiah 53:6 sums up my view quite nicely. It says that we have all sinned and gone to our own ways. It does not say that all of us are totally depraved people. Man, if all people were totally depraved you couldn’t walk outside your door in the day time, let alone the night time.”

You have again not represented the doctrine correctly. It’s hard to discuss with you, when you don’t understand what you oppose.

I wasn’t trying to represent Calvinism. I said that Isaiah 53:6 doesn’t say that all of us are totally depraved people.

In fact “total depravity” is a very bad misnomer for your doctrine. Most choose to call it “total inability” because the other term doesn’t properly represent Calvinism.

Let me quote from a position to see if you agree with it:

That man could not obtain saving faith of himself or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace through Christ to be renewed in thought and will.

Is this what you believe?

Mark,

” To have a person remain as an unregenerate person and without faith and without being a child of God and call them “born again” is completely foreign to Christian terminology. Calvinism has taken classical Christian terms and re-written their meaning. I find that incredibly sad.”

WHen did i ever say that Cheryl? I have never said a person can be born again and stay without faith.

Read again what I said. I didn’t say that you said a person can be born again and stay without faith. What I am saying is that Calvinism teaches that at the very moment that a person is born again he is without faith because being born again has nothing to do with faith. It is after that the born again experience that he is given the ability to understand the gospel and God gives him a gift of faith. It is an absolute fact that the moment of being born again the person is without faith. If you deny that, you are not reading your own Calvinist material.

Being born again is part of the process of coming to faith is what i have said. Anybody who is born again WILL ALWAYS immediately follow it by faith.

Faith in what? The person has to hear the gospel. Calvinists have admitted that it is possible that a person can be born again for a period of time before they hear the gospel and are given the “gift” of faith. Are you are saying that it must immediately be followed by the gift of faith?

Your attack on clavinism here again clearly shows me once more that you are not engaging wiht the actual teaching but your ‘view’ of the teaching.

Not true. The definition of being born again has always been that one is born with the seed of God and become a child of God. One cannot be a child of God without being saved. But Calvinism teaches that salvation is not accomplished until after the gift of faith is given. It is not an attack on Calvinism to reveal the revision to the term.

You need to be more careful to show me that you actually understand the ‘calvinistic’ position. Thus far it is clear you do not.

The Calvinist position is that a person must be born again in order to believe. A person then does not believe to be born again in the Calvinist position. So at the very moment of being born again, the person is not yet a believer but will follow with belief.

The issue of which comes first is very important to Calvinism. It is not an issue of being born again and believing at the same moment or it could look like a person is born again by believing. Rather there is an order that has to come. So when is a person’s sins forgiven? Are they forgiven when a person is born again? Or are they forgiven when they believe?

Mark,

“But again I mentioned that Romans 3 is a quote from the OT where the context is the fool who says there is no God. Paul would not illegally use an OT quote to mean the opposite of what God inspired as Paul supported Scripture. He did not twist Scripture to his own use.”

Maybe after John 6 we can go through Romans and actually look at the context right from 1:18 through to the end of chapter 3. Then perhaps you might see Paul’s point in relation to sin.

I would be happy to do that. That might take us into the next year or so, eh?

There is no hint what so ever that Paul is only addressing ‘the fool who saids there is no God’. Indeed, Paul includes himself in the quote using the 3rd person plural ‘we’. Your exegesis is flawed and wrong. The context in Romans denies the possibility of your interpretation.

Sorry, my friend, but you are wrong. Paul speaks about we and they and you must be very careful to distinguish and know who the “they” are. Otherwise you won’t understand the passage. No, Paul did not contradict the OT by taking a passage that applies only to the fools who say that there is no God and applying this to Abraham, Isaac, Job etc. There is a difference between believers and those who say there is no God.

Mark,
You said:

It is interesesting that you do not believe that free-will and God’s sovereignty do not go hand in hand.

I didn’t say that. God Sovereignty gives Him the right to allow people to chose while He decides the ultimate outcome. It is God’s way.

Let me ask who sold Joseph and sent him to Egypt.

Joseph’s brothers sold Joseph, but God sent him to Egypt. God sent the men who bought Joseph and He Sovereignly had Joseph delivered there.

OR again, who crucified Christ?

God Sovereignly delivered Jesus up to be crucified.

According to the gospel many people used their ‘wills’ to kill Jesus. >

These ones wanted to kill Jesus many times, but Jesus merely walked away from their trap. It wasn’t until it was God’s time, that the God allowed them to finish what their evil hearts had started. God did not put murder into their hearts, but allowed them to do what He willed.

So Cheryl, you are wrong. Men were guilty in both cases for their free-will, but clearly in both cases it happened according to God’s sovereign will and plan.

What you have forgotten is that God uses evil for His purposes, but He does not entice people to do the evil. God is able to direct the evil so that it accomplishes His purpose.

This is why it is indeed a ‘mystery’, but the raw facts of the Bible teach the tension.

It isn’t a mystery now. It has been revealed.

Pinklight,

I really do want you or Kay or Cheryl to use scripture to show me your doctrines. Rather than just criticising what i am saying, how about you guys share your theology and see how ‘consistent’ with the Bible it is.

It is an amazing thing that you don’t pay any attention to all the Scripture that I have used, and you have many questions you have not answered. To say that I don’t use Scripture to prove my point is really a bad move. It makes your eyes look like they have been blinded to everything but your own view.

Kay’s definition of sovereignty is not even in the Bible, mine is. Cheryl didn’t even give her definition,

I did give you my definition but since I have been behind, it may not have been as quick as you would like.

Mark,
You said:

I agree. An ungenerate person is one who is dead in sin. A regenerate person is one who has been born again. Your still looking at born again as only salvation, and this is where I think you are wrong.

Being born again has to be salvation since one has God’s seed within them and there is nothing else said to be needed after our rebirth. Our rebirth is our salvation. If you do not believe that it is, then show me how it is possible for God’s spirit to indwell a person who is not saved?

I wonder why you didn’t quote these verses? Is it because they are so obvious about a future judgment and a future entering into the kingdom that they cannot even be twisted to be about the here and the now?”

“Now Mark, I have carefully gone through this piece by piece to show that the action of God which is the verb salvation is the “gift”. The rest only explains how the action is gifted to us “by grace” and “through faith”.

Cheryl, I disagree with your exegesis. Logically we must say then that ‘grace’ is not even a gift then.

Grace is the means to the gift.

Col 2:13 also talks about us being dead in our sins and uncircumcised sinful nature? If we are by nature because of our sinful nature passed down from Adam, dead in sin, how on earth can we possibly have the ability to have faith in God.

Hi Cheryl
I have a few questions mostly arising from 243:
1. In your understanding of the sacrifice requiring acceptance was it possible that as He died Jesus could not be certain even a single person would accept His death?
2. If you have purchased the certificate and not cashed it, it is worthless, despite the price having been paid. But if it requires me to cash it to have any value then surely that is works – I can now boast that I saw the value in the certificate while the non-believer did not cash theirs, can I not?

Mark,
You said:

We needed God to do something to make us not-dead.

We are buried with Christ and resurrected with Him. How many times are we dead?

Ok I think I am getting closer to understanding your view…maybe! So God ‘draws’ everybody (however that works) and this is how God helps?

God does draw everyone and we cannot come to Him without this “work”.

But when the decision needs to be made then it is solely up to the person…correct? God does not help that person actually believe, he just draws them in however you understand that.

Of course He helps them to believe by giving them the unadulterated truth.

No I don’t know anyone who wants to separate Calvinists from non-calvinists. I don’t think that is anyone’s intention in our churches.

I have met more than enough Calvinists who want to charge me with heresy (semi-pelagianism) and who want to push Calvinism as if one cannot be a mature believer without it. And wasn’t it you too who called me a semi-pelagian? Calling someone a heretic is how people separate believers.

I simply want to know the truth. I want to know that if the act of saving faith is not something God gives to us, how can we say that we are therefore not adding something of our own to salvation?

Salvation is a miracle work and we cannot work this miracle. It is God’s work alone.

I can’t see how God draws every single person to himself when clearly not everyone knows about Christianity.

It is because drawing is not the same thing as coming.

I can’t see how as sinful people with a dead corrupt nature we can be expect people to accept Christ unless he opens their eyes to the message.

Of course God opens their eyes to the message, but opening one’s eyes is not a resurrection. The only resurrection that we experience is where we are buried with Christ and we are raised with Him. Can you please show me more than one spiritual resurrection?

“This is illogical. You are defining faith as having nothing at all to do with us.”

No, not at all, but I think we are at least getting to the heart of the matter- how free-choice and God’s sovereignty work together. Faith is our action, it has to be since people who don’t believe are condemned.

How can faith be our action if it is a “gift” given by God?

We believe because it is very much our decision to believe, yet we believe because it is very much God’s action to make us believe.

Believe is the action word. It is what we do. Where does the Bible say that God makes us believe?

This is where people stumble because they can’t handle it.

We can’t handle it because the Scripture doesn’t say that God makes people believe. If it isn’t Scriptural, then I am not going to believe it.

But like I pointed out with Romans 9- it is not human will or exertion, but’s God’s mercy which saves us.

And as I pointed out, our believing (our action not God’s), is not what saves us. Salvation is both the gift and the work of God.

More to come.

Cheryl In 245
You say “The only way that He can give free choice is to accept our choice otherwise it really isn’t a choice but an ultimate decision made by Him.”
David speaks of God knitting him together in his mothers womb (Psalm 139), God made David exactly who he was.He made David trust God right from the time he left the womb (Psalm 22). As our creator He makes us exactly who we are. I did not choose to love peaches and hate apricots – its simply who I am, my brother loves them both – that is who he is, it is how God has made us. In the same way was not the love of God part of who David was? Sure it was a choice he made – I am not disputing that David chose to stick by God in tough times when he could have turned his back. But why did he choose to trust God? Where did he choose to have such fortitude? Was it not part of who God made him to be- part of his character knitted by God Himself? This also fits with Romans 9 v20 “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ We are who God made us to be, our choices are our own, they are the choices we want to make, when and how we want to make them. Yet God made us who we are, He chose what we would like and dislike, He chose what we would choose to do and not do. WE DO CHOOSE our actions but they are only ever an expression of the nature God gave us. Thus we are accountable if we reject Christ – it is our free choice, but it is not a surprise to the God who defined our being as He created each of us our mothers wombs.

Cheryl,

First of all i never called you a semi-pelagian. I asked you to show me how your view is not semi-pelagian, there is a difference.

From what you have written it seems that we somewhat are closer to agreeing than perhaps first thought. You have admitted that we need God to open the eyes of believers, which i think is good.

So we both agree that God draws, calls, opens eyes, soften hearts all before people accept the message of Christ. But yet i guess we still disagree that faith is a gift. I’m quite surprised actually that you don’t even believe grace is a gift. But i guess at least you are being consistent with how you read Eph 2. But honestly it’s a bit far when you say that God’s grace to us is not even a gift, is it not? Can i ask is repentance a gift or not?

Also you did not define your view of God’s sovereignty. You simply asked me if God had the ability to make choices. IF you believe as Kay does, show me from the Bible. If not, i suggest you stop promoting an unbiblical view of God’s sovereignty.

Why is it people will go to such lengths when Romans 9-11 is so clear. You want me to reject the reformed position and accept a view that is not even found in the Bible. Come on now.

With regards to the limited atonement, i wonder how you understand John 10, when Jesus himslef declares that he lays down his life ‘for his sheep’. Maybe you think God’s sheep is everybody, i dunno?
I wonder if you feel that the OT sacrifices atoned for the whole world? Is this what you believe, or was it limited? Nothing in scripture teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person except the passages that use universal language. Now we can have a more thorough discussion on that terminology but i think we both know the danger in placing a theology on universal language. After all, this is precisely what universalists do.

You can’t have Jesus saying he only died for his sheep (limited) and that he died for the whole world (unlimited). One of them must not be as you might think on the surface. Clearly universal language is the more ambiguous, since the analogy of sheep and goats is quite clear. Where as universal language is not. I have already shown one example from John to disprove the universal language assumption, but there are plenty more.

Ok i will stop now, unless Kay or pinklight respond. John 6 here we go!

Gazza,
I agree, Cheryl’s analogy is worthless.(why is it Cheryl you used an analogy anyway after slamming Gazza’s earlier) That is precisely why i said her view of the atonement is also limited.

Sorry one more

Cheryl you asked me this and i can’t help but wonder if you were trying to trip me up with an anonymous quote.

“Let me quote from a position to see if you agree with it:

That man could not obtain saving faith of himself or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace through Christ to be renewed in thought and will.

Is this what you believe?”

On the surface this might look ok but once you did deaper into the theology it is simply wrong. This is one of the points of the Remonstrance, so no i do not agree with it. Arminian theology only believes in preveniant grace and no more. Hence in there 4th point that outright reject the irresistability of God’s grace for the elect.
Is this what you believe?

Mark,
You said:

I don’t think you can separate all these things all the time Cheryl. You seem to want to completely separate salvation from faith all the time.

No, I don’t want to separate salvation from faith, because there can be no salvation without faith. But what is separated is who does what. Salvation can never be done by us since it is a work that we are incapable of doing. But we can have faith just as we are required to have. If faith was merely God’s gift to us, then God would be unwise to command us to have faith. He would just give it to us.

Sure we can boast if we work for our salvation, but surely there is room for boasting if I believe and you don’t, if faith isn’t a gift.

There can only be boasting if I am capable of believing and you aren’t. If God created me with the elect position and granted me the ability to believe (after gifting me with faith) then I could boast that I am in and you are not and God planned me to be “in” from the very beginning. But the fact is that both of us have been given the ability to believe if we will turn from our sin and fear God.

There is heaps of room for boasting.

The only time that there is room for boasting is if one person is privileged and the other is not. If we are equal in our ability and neither of us can earn our salvation there is no cause to boast.

The fact is that if we are not picked to be in a higher class than others, we have no reason to boast. Salvation is a free gift offered to all.

The verses do not lend themselves to such seperation like you have done. Salvation, grace, faith are all gifts, so that we may never boast of anything of ourselves.

Gift is singular not plural in the passage. It is salvation that is the gift (singular).

I think you had a cheap shot a Piper there Cheryl. Any of us are vulnerable to pride not just Calvinists.

It is the Calvinists who say that Calvinism is the only pride-destroying system. The fact is that it is not and those who claim the name of Calvinist have been some of the most arrogant people I have ever met. I am not saying this about you for you are here in a humble manner dialogging with me. I don’t think that Calvinists do well by claiming that their theology produces humility more so than non-Calvinism.

I’m sure if you or I are ever in a position like Piper or anyone like that we would struggle. It is a good thing that Piper has realised this, he takes sin seriously and I praise God for that.

Well I praise God for that too, but unfortunately Piper didn’t take time away before his pride over took him. There are many non-Calvinist pastors who have not fallen to this kind of pride. Maybe that’s why I am predestined not to be a Calvinist. If I thought that I had been created by God to be loved and saved, while the majority of humanity had been created by God to be hated and destroyed in hell, I am not sure if I could keep the pride down. It would be so good for the ego to know that one is in the special class picked unconditionally. How many people can really handle that? It seems to me that if this really was the truth, the best thing that God could do is to tell us when we are in Heaven when we are not subject to pride.

Being a Calvinist does not negate nor increase one’s possibility of being proud- this is something we all struggle with.

Man I have heard so many sermons about Calvinism being pride-destroying that one would think that it is practically impossible to have pride while being a Calvinist.

But I reject that reformed theology increases people’s pride. That is just a cheap shot. It is illogical.

It isn’t illogical. I would feel very tempted to be proud if I was a Calvinist. After all I am so special (for whatever reason) that Jesus died for me and all the other special ones that God loves.

If I believe that God’s elect are purely chosen by God’s choice and mercy (Rom 9) how can I boast- it has nothing to do with me.

Because I am one of God’s “choices”. It wouldn’t matter why He picked me. The fact that I am in the special class and most are in the hated class – well how wonderful.
‘

I don’t believe that God loves me more than others- reformed theology doesn’t believe that.

It is a “special” love – a saving and special love. Goodness, we had to sit there and listen to our Calvinist pastor tell us how much God loves the elect and how special the elect and how much God hates the reprobate. And you say that Calvinism doesn’t teach that God loves you more than the reprobate?

he doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 18). But God also chose to save some and not others according to his pleasure and his will.

This is a contradiction. To say that God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked but it is His pleasure not to save them (so that they die) is just plain contradiction.

It has nothing to do with us or that he loves us more. You are misrepresenting reformed theology saying those sorts of things.

If you say that this is a misrepresentation, then explain how saving love one given to one group and withheld from another group is not “more” love?

Perhaps you should read Calvin! Please don’t also describe Calvinists as some sort of ‘elite’- this is unhelpful.

I didn’t say that Calvinists are some sort of “elite”. I said:

While you may not know the reason why He chose you, the fact that He chose you and you are one of the elite elect chose out of all humanity makes you have lots to boast amongst those that God doesn’t love.

I was talking about all of the elect here as Calvinism describes them as being the ones loved from all of eternity by God. That would be an elite group – not just the Calvinists. Trouble is that I don’t believe that there is a group of people that God has unconditionally picked as a people to love while hating all the other reprobate people that He would create. You believe in this class. I don’t.

Perhaps you should read Calvin!

I am reading Calvinist literature as much as I can stomach. I prefer to get my spiritual nourishment from the Bible .

You obviously have not understood me at all. Let’s try again. Saving faith is not a work ONLY because it is a gift of God. Once you remove the fact that it is a gift, it no longer is something from God, it is something from man therefore it becomes a work.

The bible never says that saving faith is a gift and any other kind of faith is a work and not from God. Please prove your point from the Scripture, because I have never once seen faith described as a work. Please show it to me instead of just giving a philosophical answer.

Your view( although you say you believe grace alone through faith alone) have made the ‘faith’ part into a man’s work because you deny it is something that God gives us.

Prove this from the Scripture.

Do you see the difference. I have stated this several times now.

No. The Bible never calls any faith a work of man. It is not Scriptural.

Yes faith is a response, but even a response is a work (because it is something we do) UNLESS it is a gift of God.

This is where you greatly err. Doing something doesn’t make it a work. Cashing a cheque is not a work.

This is a work:

exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil.

It is impossible for believing God to be a work. If I am wrong, then stop arguing with me and show me this from the Scripture.

You are struggling to accept Calvinism because you don’t understand it.

I have some very good resources and explain Calvinism and I cannot accept something that contradicts the Scripture. The explanations that they give and what you give contradict Scripture.

That’s why I keep recommending you read Calvin, not me, not any other ‘Calvinists’.

If Calvinism is the truth, one would not need to read Calvin. One could be instructed by reading the Bible. Books on Calvinism that are recommended by Calvinists are sufficient. Calvin has been made out to be an icon that one cannot understand the Scripture without him. That really goes against the grain.

Then see if what Calvin saids squares with the Bible.

I have already quoted Calvin about the false faith that God gives to some of the reprobate. Where does that “square” with the Bible?

Gazza #253

You said:

I have a few questions mostly arising from 243:
1. In your understanding of the sacrifice requiring acceptance was it possible that as He died Jesus could not be certain even a single person would accept His death?

No that is not possible. God is not confined to time so He lives with us in the past, present and future so there has never been a doubt about who or how many will be saved. And Jesus even living as a man had assurance that His disciples would not be lost. He Himself kept them.

2. If you have purchased the certificate and not cashed it, it is worthless, despite the price having been paid. But if it requires me to cash it to have any value then surely that is works – I can now boast that I saw the value in the certificate while the non-believer did not cash theirs, can I not?

The certificate is not worthless at all. Let’s look at another example to understand this. If you opened up your billfold and pulled out a hundred dollar bill, is it worthless? Who would say that it was? But if it stayed in your billfold and you never used it to buy what you want is it worthless? No. It is never worthless. It’s value is not dependent on whether you turn it in to buy merchandise. It’s value is still there even in your wallet. The fact is not that the bill is worthless, but that it is ineffective to you if you don’t turn it in.

This is exactly what happens with the people in hell. Jesus died for them and the value of His death is not worthless. It is worth the same as when He died for them even while they are in hell. But for them His death is ineffective because they refused to meet God’s condition of faith to apply the price on their own behalf.

Does this make sense?

By the way I would like to thank you for the way you ask your questions. I do not feel attacked by you as a heretic or called names as if I was a semi-pelagian. You simply ask very thoughtful and gracious questions. I really appreciate this.

Gazza #255,

David speaks of God knitting him together in his mothers womb (Psalm 139), God made David exactly who he was.He made David trust God right from the time he left the womb (Psalm 22). As our creator He makes us exactly who we are. I did not choose to love peaches and hate apricots – its simply who I am, my brother loves them both – that is who he is, it is how God has made us. In the same way was not the love of God part of who David was?

Yes, but David still had a choice. This is very much like another person who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. This was John the Baptist. But even with being filled with the Holy Spirit, John the Baptist had a choice whether to trust or not.

In Matthew 11:3 John expresses doubt about whether Jesus is the expected Messiah even though he had been filled with the Spirit from birth and his own birth had been prophesied in the OT.

Jesus uses this doubt to teach a very valuable lesson to his followers. Jesus said:

Matthew 11:4–6 (NASB)
4 Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see:
5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.
6 “And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”

Jesus not only gives the signs of His being the true Messiah, but he gives a message to John saying that the blessed ones are those who do not take offense at Him.

Was John without faith at this moment due to his own choice? Jesus said that anyone in the Kingdom was greater than John at that moment. Why? Because someone who is without faith is not in the kingdom.

Even though John had everything that one could get for earthly predestination – filled with the Spirit from birth, he was the messenger of the Messiah and he saw the Holy Spirit light on the Lord Jesus, still his earthly position and his being filled with the Holy Spirit from before birth was not enough to grant him faith as one who was given the “gift” of saving faith. He had to believe God for himself. And at that moment John was not believing.

Sure it was a choice he made – I am not disputing that David chose to stick by God in tough times when he could have turned his back. But why did he choose to trust God? Where did he choose to have such fortitude? Was it not part of who God made him to be- part of his character knitted by God Himself?

No. At some point it had to be David’s own faith. He could not inherit his faith from God.

Psalm 37:5 (NASB)
5 Commit your way to the LORD,
Trust also in Him, and He will do it.

The consistent message of Scripture is that we must trust in God and then He will do it. No matter how good our position is on this earth, no matter how privileged God has made us, we are still required to believe God on our own. If God could just put inbred faith into us as humans, so that we were saved without ever having to fight through our inner struggles between believing God or not believing Him, don’t you think that God would have created us all with ‘natural’ faith? God is a good God, not wanting to be unjust and so He has committed all of us to the place of sin so that all of us will be in the place of needing to trust Him. We are all equal in this way and God planned it that way.

This also fits with Romans 9 v20 “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ We are who God made us to be, our choices are our own, they are the choices we want to make, when and how we want to make them. Yet God made us who we are, He chose what we would like and dislike, He chose what we would choose to do and not do.

While this is true of our earthly position and each of us has no choice regarding whether we were born or not and to whom and where and how much privilege we got, it is not true of salvation. God never said that He chose Jacob to be saved and Esau to be dammed. Don’t you think that God could have made this plain in Romans 9?

Romans 9:11–12 (NASB)
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

Why did God say that his purpose was that “the older will serve younger” instead of “the older will be damned and the younger will be saved”? The choice of God was their earthly circumstances, not their eternal destiny. If even John the Baptist had to choice his eternal destiny, then why should we think that God chose Esau to be damned from the time that he was a baby in the womb?

WE DO CHOOSE our actions but they are only ever an expression of the nature God gave us. Thus we are accountable if we reject Christ – it is our free choice, but it is not a surprise to the God who defined our being as He created each of us our mothers wombs.

But God has not defined our eternal destiny by our nature.

What happened to John the Baptist?

Matthew 14:10–13 (NASB)
10 He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.
11 And his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother.
12 His disciples came and took away the body and buried it; and they went and reported to Jesus.
13 Now when Jesus heard about John, He withdrew from there in a boat to a secluded place by Himself; and when the people heard of this, they followed Him on foot from the cities.

When Jesus heard about John’s death, he withdrew to a secluded place by Himself. Was He mourning? I don’t know. The Scriptures don’t tell us. But what I do know is that John was not born saved. Even though he was given the Holy Spirit in the womb, he still had to believe God for himself.

This speaks a lot to me about not taking anything for granted. It speaks to me about being humble and knowing that what God has given us with privileges of having Christian parents and Christian families does not guarantee anyone’s salvation. We are like everyone else. We must believe God and fear Him and if we do we will be saved. If we don’t, it doesn’t matter that we were a prophesied person from the OT. John was born once as a baby with the Holy Spirit right there. But he too had to be born again of the Spirit to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mark,
You said:

First of all i never called you a semi-pelagian. I asked you to show me how your view is not semi-pelagian, there is a difference.

Mark, when you present my view as what is semi-pelagian and then ask me to prove that I am not a semi-pelagian, it means the same to me. And it isn’t something new to me. I have heard non-Calvinists called semi-pelagian all the time. Sometimes I honestly wonder why Calvinsts would even consider us brothers and sisters in Christ. It is so divisive and I have seen so many people hurt. I have been hurt by my old pastor more than you can even imagine. I developed a stress related disease that the doctors said would never go away – all because of the persecution of Calvinism by someone who was supposed to love the sheep not eat them. The fact that I can even discuss these issues with a Calvinist and call them a brother in Christ is a miracle of God’s grace after what I went through.

From what you have written it seems that we somewhat are closer to agreeing than perhaps first thought. You have admitted that we need God to open the eyes of believers, which i think is good.

I think you mean unbelievers. Yes God needs to do that.

Here is where I feel very strongly. Please pardon me if I have already said this before….Some people think that they can delay accepting Jesus and putting their faith in Him until their last moments of life because, frankly, they want to live their lives for fun and for themselves and then take the escape hatch at the end. But what they don’t understand is that no one can come to God without Him drawing them. We cannot of ourselves conjure up saving faith. We cannot just snap our fingers and “decide” for God on our own. God said that now is the day of salvation:

2 Corinthians 6:2 (NASB) for He says,
“AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU,
AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU.”
Behold, now is “THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,” behold, now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION”—

The fact is that God has to let us find Him because we cannot come to Him on our own accord:

Isaiah 55:6 (NASB)
6 Seek the LORD while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.

Those who do not fear the Lord will not put their faith in Christ, thinking that they can have His favour anytime they want. But that is not true. God is not mocked.

Hebrews 12:15–18 (NASB)
15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;
16 that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

Repentance is not granted to someone who despised their birthright. For many there is no going back once God has hardened the heart. Today is the day of salvation for all but there is no guarantee of tomorrow if we harden our hearts today.

More to come.

Mark,
You said:

“Let me quote from a position to see if you agree with it:

That man could not obtain saving faith of himself or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace through Christ to be renewed in thought and will.

Is this what you believe?”
On the surface this might look ok but once you did deaper into the theology it is simply wrong.

I am not asking you to go beyond the quote. There has been a history of misrepresentation of what non-Calvinists believe. I was just asking you if you believe what the quote said. Yet you said “on the surface this might look okay”. It seems like if something doesn’t come from John Calvin, there is not truth in it. I am just amazed that you have come alongside me and agreed with me a lot at the end of our discussions.

Is this what you believe?

I think that it is well said. We have a need for God to work in our lives to bring us to the truth. Then we need to respond to God in faith so that we can be born again to a brand new life for salvation is never of or from us but only the work of our God.

Okay, I know I have something else to answer about a challenge I gave you, but I can’t find it right now an after spending all night answering questions and comments, I just want to get onto John 6 so that I can go to bed. It is after 2 am right now and I couldn’t go to sleep until I started what I promised. So the next comment will start the John 6 passage.

John 6. I am going to start with only two verses because that should get this going. Mark, you can give your differing point of view as we go or you can go on to the next 2 or more verses.

John 6:1–2 (NASB)
1 After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias).

There is a couple of important things that we can notice from the beginning of this passage. The first thing is that John says “after these things”. What things? We have to go back to chapter 5 to find out.

At the end of John 5 we find Jesus dialogging with the Jews that wanted to kill him (see John 5:18, 19) Jesus told them:

John 5:39–40 (NASB)
39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

We can see from Jesus’ words that these Jews were “unwilling” to come to Jesus. Jesus doesn’t say that God didn’t allow them to come, but that they were “unwilling” to come to receive life.

Why were they unwilling to come to Jesus? We can see from the beginning of the discussion with Jesus that they hated Him enough to want Him dead and Jesus goes on to say:

John 5:42 (NASB)
42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.

Jesus knew their hearts and Jesus said that in their hearts they did not have the love of God in them. These were the ones who did not fear God and did not love God. This important fact will come up again later in chapter 6.

In John 6:2, we see the next important thing that we need to pay attention to:

John 6:2 (NASB) A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick.

Here we see the reason why the crowd is seeking Jesus. It is because of the “signs” which He had been performing.

Over to you, Mark.

There is a few more important points to mote on John 5. The Jews want to kill Jesus becasue of two reasons- he broke the Sabbath and he claimed to be equal with God (5:18). Jesus expounds on his authority as the Son (5:19-29).
Jesus tells the Jews that what he saids to them is so they may be saved (34). He also confirms that the Jews were ‘willing’ to abide in the light of John for a while (35). BUT (36), Jesus sais his testimony and works are greater than John the Baptist. He tells the Jews they have never seen nor heard the Father, and that they do not have God’s word in them, and the reason is important- becasue they do not believe the one he sent. He expounds how the Jews seek eternal life in the scriptures, yet fail to see how the scriptures point to Jesus [with particular ref to Moses (45-47)].
I agree that Jesus knows their hearts (42).

However i reject Cheryl’s point that these Jews have no ‘fear’ of God. THis is not in the text anywhere. These Jews were pious and religious. They searched the scriptures looking for eternal life. Where they went wrong is failing to recognise the prophetic passages ref to Jesus. 5:18 teaches us that the reason they wanted to kill Jesus was becasue he broke the sabbath (their religious laws) and claimed equality with God. They were ‘unwilling’ to come to Jesus because they did not love God. This was clear because they did not recognise the scriptures about him. To say these people had no ‘fear’ of God is not in the text.

John 6
Verse 1- ‘some time after this’ is indefinate. This means that the events of Chapter 6 may or may not have happened immediately after chapter 5. Some commentator think it could be as much as 6 months, but that is a side issue. What is important to note is the ‘crowd’ is not the same Jews addressed in chapter 5. We know this because the Jews of chapter 5 did not recognise Jesus authority. The crowd of 6:1-15 however were different. After feeding the five thousand they remark

14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, ? “This is indeed ?the Prophet ?who is to come into the world!”

Also the theme of ‘bread’ will be common through out this chapter.

Verse 3 and 4. The ‘hillside’ or mountain mentioned may be a parallel to the Sinai experience with Moses (see 5:45-47). The mention of ‘passover’ is theological not chronological. The themes of blood, sacrifice, lamb, unleavened bread are fresh on their minds. It seems evcident that the ‘crowd’ is looking for a new ‘Moses’ to deliver them from the Roman bondage. This seems true once we see the reaction of the people post miracle and Jesus response.

15 ?Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus ?withdrew again to ?the mountain by himself.

Back to you!

Kay,

I’ve heard all these arguments before. But what you are failing to recognise is why Paul used these references. It comes directly after Paul has told the Romans that God’s word has not failed because not all Israel is Israel.
How has any of what you said relate to Paul’s original point. Or how does using the OT here help Paul’s argument. Paul’s use of these references relates directly back to his claim that all israel is not israel- so it is clear it is about individual election.

Also why after Paul outlines Jacob and Esau, does Paul expect the Romans to be upset at what he has said. If it is just ‘nations’ then there is no reason to be upset- he is just outlining history.

Also remember in Esau serving Jacob, Esau sold his birth right to Jacob, and Jocob recieved his father’s blessing not Esau. This is significant in the ancient cultures. Thus Esau lost his firstborn rights and his authority as the older brother.

Also how can it be far that God chooses Israel over the Edomites or any other nation. Even if you want to take the ‘national’ approach, you still have the same problem. Only the Jews were able to obtain salvation and atonement and not other people groups. Because you need to remember that nothing here is relating to the messiah, so Paul’s point is not to show which seed the messiah came through. Paul’s point is election- God’s sovereign choice of some over others.

Hi Cheryl
In Post 259 you said “God is not confined to time so He lives with us in the past, present and future so there has never been a doubt about who or how many will be saved.”
Yet in Post 244 you expressed sadness that people believe “that God deliberately and unconditionally creates people to go to hell.”
I struggle to put these together. If God indeed had no doubt about who or how many will be saved then at the point he creates those who will rejet Him is He not knowingly creating someone who will go to hell?

In post 260 you said “At some point it had to be David’s own faith. He could not inherit his faith from God.” I agree fully. I would put along side that statement that everything about David was created by God. David didn’t create himself God created Him. So even though the faith is Davids own faith, it is also and expression of who God created David to be. This is different to the blessings of growing up in a Christian family etc – three are plenty of examples where brothers and sisters grow up in a Christian home some reject Christ while some accept. Their different responses are due to the fact that God created them as different people. Each makes up their own mind but it will always be a mind that God created for them.

You also said “The consistent message of Scripture is that we must trust in God and then He will do it.” I might surprise you at this point but again I fully agree with you. Indeed failing to trust in God is why people go to hell. Yet just because that is the right thing to do it does not mean that everyone will do it. What do you see is the difference between believers and non believers? To phrase it another way why do you believe some have faith while others do not?

I really appreciate the way in which you foster an environment in which people of different stances can open the bible together and endeavour to better understand scripture in love. This is the way it should but unfortunately so often is not.

One other thing that really helps to keep things civil here even though we are all passionate. It is the fact that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We can give our view in a passionate way but we don’t have to force our view on the other person. If our view is reasonable and well thought-out it may be considered and that is all that we could hope for. It is not a life and death matter and we can still have love and respect as we deal with these issues.

Okay, Mark here is my comments on the next verses:

John 6:5–6 (NASB)
5 Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?”
6 This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do.

This is the first reference to bread and Jesus sets the stage for his revelation about Himself by asking a question of Philip about feeding bread to the crowd. It is important to note that Jesus was not talking about feeding only His disciples. He was talking about feeding all of the people who were coming to Him.

Jesus knew what He was going to do but He wanted to test him.

John 6:7–12 (NASB)
7 Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.”
8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him,
9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?”
10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted.
12 When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.”

In this portion there are some very important things that Jesus did. The people were not sent away to buy their own food, but they were made to sit down to receive. Jesus then took of the bread, gave thanks and He distributed to the crowd as much as they wanted to eat. Then he told the disciples to “gather up the leftover gragments so that nothing will be lost.” This is a picture of what He is going to say shortly where the food is distributed to all and nothing is lost.

Okay over to you Mark.

Hi Cheryl,

I’m a bit concerned about your 7 points. None of your references mention at all that the Jews did not fear God. You are bringing that into the text. Although alot of your points are correct (seek their own glory, not of God etc), none of them describe the Pharisees or scribes as not ‘fearing God’.
I am especially concerned about point 7.
You conclude that your points 1-6, therefore show that Romans 3:10-18 applies to them. On the contrary Paul is writing to
the Roman Church, a group of Christians. I cannot agree with you on that point. You cannot take Jesus words applied to
the Pharisees and scribes and interpolate that into Romans 3.

Now i do not believe the pharisees were ‘God fearers’ in the sense that we generally associate the word. I was simply
disagreeing with your discription of them as non God fearers. We agree they were pious. They sought to uphold the sabbath

5:16 “And this was why the Jews ?were persecuting Jesus, ?because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.”

They were zealous for the supremacy of God

5:18 “This was why the Jews ?were seeking all the more to kill him, ?because not only was he ?breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God ?his own Father, ?making himself equal with God.”

They followed in the light of John the Baptist

5:35 ” He was a burning and ?shining lamp, and ?you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. ”

They also searched the scriptures for eternal life (5:39). I do not think we can rightly label these men as those who “have no fear of God”. Also since we are looking at John 6 can we stay with that text and keep to it’s context.

What i mean by the ‘passover’ being theological is that the context of the passage parallels with Moses. Jesus is the bread of life parallel to the bread in the desert. Moses rescued the Jews (under God) from the bondage of Egypt. Parallel that to the ‘crowd’ wanting to make Jesus their king. Jesus went up on a mountain as did Moses. Basically what i mean is that there is deep theology behind the narrative, so the passover is theological not only primarily chronological. The passover represented the escape from Egypt, and so too the ‘crowd’ want Jesus to rescue them from the Romans.

continuing on…

no problems with what you have said, but i would like to add one more thing. THe crowd is 5000 ‘men’. Now presumably there were women and childern aswell, so it was a substantial number to feed.

John 6:13-15
“So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, ? “This is indeed ?the Prophet ?who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus ?withdrew again to ?the mountain by himself.”

THe 12 baskets emphasise that the miracle provided ‘more than enough’ food for everyone.

It appears the crowd understood something of this miracle. THey new Moses had fed their forefathers, and rescued them from
Egypt. THey obviously knew Moses prophecy of ‘the prophet’ greater than him coming after him (Deut 18:15), however they misunderstood Jesus’ miracle. His ‘kingdom’ was not political but spritual. Before Jesus can be ‘king’ he had to complete his father’s
will and be the ‘sacrificial lamb’. Jesus knew their intentions so he withdrew by himself. The detail of ‘by himself’ becomes important futher into the passage.

back to you

P.S- in the coming weeks i may be slow to respond, as we are expecting our 3rd baby in a week or so. Please bare with me.

“P.S- in the coming weeks i may be slow to respond, as we are expecting our 3rd baby in a week or so. Please bare with me.”
Mark,
How wonderful. Congratulations!
I’m having a slow down of sorts as well – yesterday my husband accepted a retirement package …so we will be preparing for a move to our home state (close to grandchildren) over the next few weeks.

Now to cover a few more verses.

John 6:14–17 (NASB)
14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
15 So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.
16 Now when evening came, His disciples went down to the sea,
17 and after getting into a boat, they started to cross the sea to Capernaum. It had already become dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.

In verse 14 when the people said that this is the “prophet”, they were not looking for a Savior who would save them from their sins. They were looking for a leader who would save them from the Romans just as you said.

In verse 15, Jesus withdrew to the mountain by Himself. The mountain is the place where Jesus would often meet with God and talk with Him. It was symbolic too because it was on a mountain where Moses was destined to meet with God and where God communicated with man. Jesus needed to spend time with His father as He was coming up to a very important time in His life and it was time to make sure that He knew and followed His Father’s will. It was another “mountain” time for Jesus.

Jesus also went by Himself to the mountain for another reason. By being alone His disciples would experience a revelation of who He is that would help them to understand the soon coming revelation that He is the God of creation. It would also prepare them for the words that He would say later about Himself being God.

It is not exactly apparent why the disciples left without Jesus, but perhaps they expected that Jesus would come later as this may have happened before where Jesus sent them off ahead of Him. Yet with whatever reason they had to go ahead, we can be sure that God was arranging for the events that were shortly to come to pass. The storm that would come upon them was not unknown to God, nor was God’s own actions to send Jesus walking on the water unknown to God. For just as Jesus knew what He was intending to do with the feeding of the 5,000, so God also knew what He was going to do with the upcoming crisis.

John 6:6 (NASB) This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do.

What was to come was also a test for the disciples and through the test came a special revelation of the Deity of Jesus.

Over to you Mark.

Kay,
That is also very good news for you about your move. It is nice to be near grandchildren and I am sure that this move will be a welcome one. I hope that your move goes well!

Cheryl,
Thanks! Yes. We are soooo much looking forward to it.

“”How has any of what you said relate to Paul’s original point. Or how does using the OT here help Paul’s argument. Paul’s use of these references relates directly back to his claim that all israel is not israel- so it is clear it is about individual election.”
Mark,
Why do you assume that Paul’s phrase ” all israel is not israel” could only be refering to individuals and not groups?

“”Only the Jews were able to obtain salvation and atonement and not other people groups.”

True, but gentile persons could convert to Judaism (ie. Ruth or Ex.12:48-49) and be in the covenant group.

“”This is significant in the ancient cultures. Thus Esau lost his firstborn rights and his authority as the older brother.”

While that is true, it is also true that the *individual Esau* is never shown serving the *individual Jacob*.

If it is so clearly about individual election, then what part of “the older will serve the younger” has anything to do with eternal salvation? Why would this part need to be included?

I’m surprised that you completely discount that for Paul and virtually all Jews (and non-Jews in that culture) of his time, the group was primary and the individual secondary. Now, we *modern Westerners* view social reality in the opposite way: the individual is primary and the group secondary. Our view of the group is conditioned by our view of the individual so that the group both draws its identity from the individuals in the group and is seen as merely a collection of individuals.
But Paul’s, and his culture’s, perspective was essentially corporate. The individual was *not* viewed as standing on one’s own, but was seen as embedded in the group to which each belonged.

In that culture, corporate concerns generally took precedence over individual concerns, and when it did not, this was judged as wrong. Paul’s corporate interest can be seen in his primary concern for love and unity of the Body dominant in all his letters. Paul’s corporate perspective found *individual identity based in the group* – rather than vice versa.
So, given that the people Paul was addressing had this group over individual mindset, why would it be out of the question for him to use that to show which group the Christians were now a part of and how to be part of the group?

“how can it be far that God chooses Israel over the Edomites or any other nation. Even if you want to take the ‘national’ approach, you still have the same problem.”

But, Mark God didn’t do this unconditionally. The Edomites, descendents of Esau, were “hated”, *BecausE* of their *wickedness*.
“Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the LORD of hosts: “They may build, but I will throw down; They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness, And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever. (Mal. 1)

“”I’m a bit concerned about your 7 points. None of your references mention at all that the Jews did not fear God. You are bringing that into the text.”

“”I am actually quite shocked that you would contradict this point. After all you were the one who said that Romans 3:10-18 applied to all unsaved people so that all people (except those who are “born again”) do not seek for God, none of them does good and none fears God. Now you are trying to say that this passage does not apply to the Pharisees?”

I was wondering the same thing.

Romans 3

It seems i wasn’t as clear in my objection as i would have hoped. Let me try again. I will say first what i do no think Romans 3 addresses and then who i do think it addresses.

1. IT does not address ONLY ‘the jews’ of John 6. It seemed to me that Cheryl was saying that Romans 3:10-18 is only addressing the pharasee’s or Jews of John 6.

2. Romans 3:9-18 is addressing all of humanity in their unregenerate state (so yes the Jews of John 6) would be included. This is seen from the context Rom 1:18-3:20. In Romans 1:18ff Paul addresses the Pagan Gentile world, and then concludes in 2:1 that the Roman Christian gentiles were the same. Paul then addresses the Jews in the Roman church in case they though they were any better and concludes again the same thing in Rom 3:9. The Jews are no better off, because as Paul has said both Jew and Gentile are under sin, as it is written…

In Rom 3:21ff Paul then begins with a big BUT and proceeds to outile that rightousness comes through faith in Christ. It is clear therefore that what Paul is addressing in Rom 1:18-3:20 is both Jew and Gentile in their unregenerate state. From 3:21ff Paul expounds on the ‘BUT’, what God has done!

Therefore this is why i disagree with Cheryl oh Rom 3. It is not solely addressing the Jews of JOhn 6. This is foreign to the context of Romans. Paul is writing to the Roman Church, a bunch of Christians and has told them that they were like what he has outlined in 1:18-3:20, but God has saved them in Jesus. Now if this state is true of the Roman CHristians it is true of all humanity. As Paul says in 3:23, all have fallen short.

Hope this helps. Romans 3:10-18 is not ONLY about the Jews of John 6, but ALL of humanity in thier UNREGENRATE state before God does the big BUT of righteousness through Christ.

Continuing on…
Joh 6:18 The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing.
Joh 6:19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened.
Joh 6:20 But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.”
Joh 6:21 Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

This is the second of the miracles in this pericope. The first was feeding the five thousand. Now this one has Jesus walking on water and calming the storm.

The rough seas probably did not worry the disciple since many of them were experienced fishermen. But one thing did make them afraid- a man walking on the water in the middle of the night

Jesus words ‘It is I” are from the greek ‘ego eimi’ which in places refers to His divinity. In this context however I don’t think that is the case, he is simply identifying himself. ‘Do not be afraid’ is an imperative (command)- stop being afraid! It appears that John wants us to see the immediate destination of the boat as a miracle aswell.

Note- I reject the common attack on this miracle that the boat was hugging the shore, so that Jesus did not actually walk ‘on’ the water, but rather was walking ‘on’ the shoreline or coastline. I believe that Jesus did in fact walk on the water, otherwise why are the disciples afraid?

Mark,
You said:

1. IT does not address ONLY ‘the jews’ of John 6. It seemed to me that Cheryl was saying that Romans 3:10-18 is only addressing the pharasee’s or Jews of John 6.

Nope.

2. Romans 3:9-18 is addressing all of humanity in their unregenerate state (so yes the Jews of John 6) would be included.

So it looks like you and I have an agreement on this one thing. We both agree that the Jews of John 6 are unregenerate and they are not seeking God, there is none of that special group that goes good and they are swift to shed blood, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness and destruction is in their path and no fear of God is before their eyes.

Whew! Glad to get agreement before we go on.

As far as the rest of your comments about Romans, I don’t agree, but then we are talking about Romans except for when it might be necessary to make the text clear in John 6.

Therefore this is why i disagree with Cheryl oh Rom 3. It is not solely addressing the Jews of JOhn 6.

I didn’t say that it was solely addressing the Jews of John 6. It also includes everyone else who says in their heart there is no God.

Hope this helps. Romans 3:10-18 is not ONLY about the Jews of John 6, but ALL of humanity in thier UNREGENRATE state

I do know what your position is, even if I disagree with it, but I thought you were in danger of losing your position by insisting that the Jews of John 6 were not those who didn’t fear God. Glad we can agree that they were definitely part of the ones who had no fear of God before their eyes.

I agree with most of what you wrote, except that I do think that “ego eimi” or “I AM” was a reference to His Deity. Only as the “I AM” could take control of the water as He did. I would also like to add one comment to verse 21. Jesus would later repeat many more “I AM” statements later in John 6 that also refer to His Deity.

John 6:21 (NASB)
21 So they were willing to receive Him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

Notice here that “they were willing” to receive Him. The Greek word is “thelo” which means to be willing, desire, wish to have. It is interesting that John makes this note because he could have left it out. It is an important note that the disciple’s were made willing by the Lord identifying Himself and His command for them not to continue to fear.

This is quite a bit of fun, isn’t it to go verse by verse?

John 6:22–25 (NASB)

22 The next day the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other small boat there, except one, and that Jesus had not entered with His disciples into the boat, but that His disciples had gone away alone.
23 There came other small boats from Tiberias near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus.
25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You get here?”

The crowd had paid attention that there had only been one boat and that Jesus had not entered that boat with His disciples. They didn’t understand that another miracle had taken place. But they were very curious as to what had happened to Jesus and they went looking for Him. They boarded the boats that had arrived from Tiberias in order to look for Jesus on the other side.

Over to you Mark.

Kay,
Yes you have thorough enough for me to see your point. The only problem is i think your wrong!

I think you need to go back to the end of chapter 8. Paul is clear there that nothing can seperate us from God. That is the lead in poin to chapters 9-11. Now if that statement is true, then what has happened with Israel the nation- it would appear that God is a liar because through Jesus he has seperated himself from the nation of Israel. This is where you are missing a vital ingredient.

With this in mind then one can understand Paul’s argument in chapter 9. God’s word has not failed because salvation was never granted to the nation of Israel, but only’true’ Israel- the children of the promise. Paul defines this clearer in Gal 3:29, where Abraham’s seed or children are those in Christ.

What you have written still does not make sense of the passage or the context. Maybe you can look into what Paul means by the terms Israel. Look again at his use in 9:4. His intention is the ‘people of Israel’ or his ‘brothers’. He wishes he could be cut off for their sakes.
Therefore when we read Israel in verse 6 this is clearly Pauls usage. Not all of his ‘brothers’ or ‘people’ are true Israel. True Israel are not the natural children of Abraham but the ‘children of the promise’. These children are the one’s who are considered Abraham’s children. Ishmael and Esau are not even considered in the Old Testament as part of ‘Israel’ so your whole lineage argument again makes no sense.
Also note the objectors of verse 19 are the people Paul is writing to. IN your lineage argument these are ‘true israel’ since they descend from Isaac and Jacob, so why are they objecting.

The reality is this teaching is a hard word. It made even the Romans object to Paul in exactly the same way it is making you object Kay.

I would love to write more but i’ve run out of time. Sorry

To continue–

John 6:31 (NASB)
31 “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’ ”

Here we can see what kind of food the crowd was looking for. It was a daily food that God had previously given to their fathers while they were wandering in the wilderness. The crowd was looking for God to take care of their physical needs in the way that their fathers had been cared for.

John 6:32 (NASB)
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.

Again Jesus says “truly, truly” or “amen, amen” showing that what He is about to say is a very important truth. Jesus has now identified that they are seeing Him as another mere human like Moses who would bring food from God. But Jesus refutes that expectation showing both that no mere human being gave manna out of heaven and that God Himself is giving the “true bread” out of heaven. This true bread from God is not like the temporary bread that was given in the wilderness. The introduction of “the true bread” will lead into a revelation of Jesus Himself.

John 6:33 (NASB)
33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”

Here Jesus reveals the next piece of important truth. While the temporary bread fed Israel, the true bread of God that comes down from heaven will give life to the world.

Over to you Mark.

Cheryl,

You emphasised ‘world’ ( i wish i could bold!). Why is that?

This text is not talking about the atonement, this text is talking about the ‘life’ that Jesus gives- eternal life.

Clearly Jesus does not give ‘life’ (eternal life in the context) to every single person since he is not a universalist. So here is another clear example where universal language is not meant to be understood to mean every single person in the world.

I agree that Jesus highlights that the crowd were ‘seeking’ him. That was a good addition. This is precisely because they were seeking the ‘wrong’ thing. They were unable to ‘seek’ spiritual salvation because they were unable to ‘believe’ without the intervention of God. They were blind to the true nature of Jesus miracles and proclamation.

Also note that it was Jesus testimony that it was the ‘Father’ who gave the manna to the Israelites. Here we see one example of the differing relationships and roles of the Father and Son.

Mark,
It is clearly a waste of time to continue carrying on with this discussion when it has become obvious to me that you do not really read my comments.

I’ve suspected it for some time, but your last reply completely confirmed it – you actually tried to argue with me on a point I made that is IN AgreemenT WITH you.

I would point it out for you, but I see no use – because obviously, you already “know” what I’m saying even when I don’t say it. LOL

Kay,

I’m sorry you feel that way- it’s up to you. Yes you did mention the end of chapter 8- i know that. But the way you linked it chapter 9 did not make sense, that is why i addressed it again. Pauls argument in 9-11 is to show how God’s word has not failed because he has not seperated himself from ‘Israel’ (in the true sense). That is why i said to go back again to the again of chapter 8.

Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Mark,
You asked:

You emphasised ‘world’ ( i wish i could bold!). Why is that?

I sent you an email that describes how to bold text. That should help.

I emphasized “world” because it is an important part of the truth claims of Jesus. Jesus emphasized his words claiming that they were “Amen, amen” as truth and said he gives his life for the world. It is worth paying attention to.

This text is not talking about the atonement, this text is talking about the ‘life’ that Jesus gives- eternal life.

Please explain how Jesus gives his flesh for the world and this is not the atonement. Eternal life comes only through Jesus’ death and resurrection. If eternal life could come from just a gift and the death of Jesus was not necessary, then God surely made a mistake as Jesus suffered when He did not need to.

If you are going to deny that eternal life comes through the death of Jesus, then you are going to have a big problem with the rest of the chapter, because Jesus talks about the bread as eternal life (verse 27) and the bread that Jesus gives as His own life that He gives up.

John 6:51 (NASB)
51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

Jesus gave a testimony to truth when He said that He gives life to the world. As another testimony to the fact that there can be no eternal life if Jesus doesn’t die, Jesus said:

John 12:24 (NASB)
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

It is Jesus’ death that bears “much fruit”. Here are other truth claims in John showing that Jesus created “the world”, “the world did not know Him”, He “takes away the sin of the world”, “the Light has come into the world”. Also even the Samaritans knew there was to be a Savior of the world” which included them (John 6:51).

John 1:10 (NASB)
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

John 1:29 (NASB)
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 3:19 (NASB)
19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

John 4:42 (NASB)
42 and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”

John 6:51 (NASB)
51 …and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

You said:

Clearly Jesus does not give ‘life’ (eternal life in the context) to every single person since he is not a universalist. So here is another clear example where universal language is not meant to be understood to mean every single person in the world.

This would be reading your own prejudice into the text for Jesus claimed to give life to the world. The truth that keeps Jesus’ words as truth and yet allows many to not have “life” is the fact that Jesus gives life to the world, but God requires a response. Those who believe will receive the life. Those who do not believe will be condemned. Yet it doesn’t stop Jesus from giving. For rejecting the gift does not limit the giver’s ability to give. It just limit’s the person from receiving.

Also note that it was Jesus testimony that it was the ‘Father’ who gave the manna to the Israelites. Here we see one example of the differing relationships and roles of the Father and Son.

The giving of the Son (the manna) to the Israelites prefigures the incarnation. The Father gives and Jesus gives. There is no one “role” of giver in the Trinity. This relationship is in the incarnation itself and does not mean that there is a “role” of one giver alone in the essence of the Trinity, but certainly there are differences during the time that Jesus was limited in His humanity here on the earth.

“Please explain how Jesus gives his flesh for the world and this is not the atonement. Eternal life comes only through Jesus’ death and resurrection. If eternal life could come from just a gift and the death of Jesus was not necessary, then God surely made a mistake as Jesus suffered when He did not need to.”

First of all, I agree that when Jesus give’s his body on the cross- that is the atonement. The question in view though, is whether this text is referring to the atonement or eternal life. Look again at the verse

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

This text does not talk about Jesus ‘flesh’. It is dealing with Jesus coming down from heaven to give ‘life’. Now clearly in the context this is dealing with eternal life! So is Jesus saying he came down from heaven to give eternal life to every single person- of course not! Clearly ‘world’ should not be understood universally.

“If you are going to deny that eternal life comes through the death of Jesus, then you are going to have a big problem with the rest of the chapter, because Jesus talks about the bread as eternal life (verse 27) and the bread that Jesus gives as His own life that He gives up.”

I have never denied such a thing. Eternal life does indeed come through the atonement, but again the verse is dealing with the ‘life’ aspect. Jesus did not give ‘life’ to every single person because Jesus did not ‘atone’ for every person.

‘This would be reading your own prejudice into the text for Jesus claimed to give life to the world.”

I have simply stated what the text saids and that ‘world’ should not be understood universally. It is you who is substituting ‘life’ for ‘atonement’, when the text and the context is clearly dealing with eternal life not with the atonement. Please deal with the term ‘life’ first and foremost. Then tell me whether Jesus came to give ‘life’ eternally to every single human. Yes or No- here is your chance- Did Jesus give life eternally for the world? This is what you need to address not going off in tangents about ‘responses’.

“The truth that keeps Jesus’ words as truth and yet allows many to not have “life” is the fact that Jesus gives life to the world, but God requires a response. Those who believe will receive the life. Those who do not believe will be condemned. Yet it doesn’t stop Jesus from giving. For rejecting the gift does not limit the giver’s ability to give. It just limit’s the person from receiving.”

This is exegetical dancing! First you say ‘many to not have life’ (limited) and then that Jesus gives ‘life’ to the world (universal). You are using ‘life’ to mean two completely different things. The first about eternal life, the second about the atonement. The passage is only dealing with one life- eternal life. See again how you have included ‘but God requires a response’. Again this is not in the text above. You either have to say that Jesus gives ‘life’ (eternal) to the world (everyone) or that ‘world’ is not meant to be understood universal. You can’t just include sub clauses into the text about responses. It is good though to see you confess how you limit the atonement- you limit it’s effectiveness to actually atone; where as I limit it’s application to the elect.

Let me summarise. The text in question is only dealing with eternal life. Any thing introduced about ‘responses’ is foreign to the text. Jesus claims that he has come to ‘give life to the world’. There are only 2 options to take- universalism, or mine since the text is dealing with eternal life.

“This relationship is in the incarnation itself and does not mean that there is a “role” of one giver alone in the essence of the Trinity”

So theoretically, the pre-incarnate Jesus could have sent/given the Father to come and die on the cross. It was just by chance that the Father sent Jesus? Why did Jesus choose to come and not the Father or Spirit, since there are no ‘roles’?

continuing on…

Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Here the crowd directly asks Jesus to give them the ‘bread’. Clearly though, they are still misunderstanding. They are thinking in physical terms. Like Cheryl pointed out, they are looking for physical nourishment in order that they can ‘work’ for their salvation.

Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Here is the first of the great ‘I am’ statements. Jesus now clearly reveals the meaning of his teaching. The bread that the ‘Father’ gives (a gift) is his only Son- Jesus. This ‘bread’ gives ‘life’. The spiritual and eternal nature of Jesus teaching is the main focus (juxtaposed against the temporary manna in the desert). We will not hunger or thirst spiritually- that is, we recieve eternal life. This verse should not be taken physically. (see 6:63 when Jesus declares that his words are spiritual not from the flesh)

Note- ‘comes’ is synonymous for ‘believes’. So the first clause is saying identically the same as the second, just using different terms (comes/believes, thirst/hunger). This becomes important throughout the rest of the chapter when we begin to see that no one can ‘come’ (believe) unless God enables them/draws them/ grants them. The terms ‘comes/believes’ are used interchangeably (37,40,44, 47,65) in this chapter.

I’ve only done these two verse because i don’t want to push through to quickly incase there is disagreement.

Mark,

Now onto the new verses presented. There are more things that you missed.

John 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

I mentioned this in my comments above but they actually belong right here so I will repeat. Jesus revealed in verse 33 that the bread of God (which is later revealed as His flesh) is given for the life of the world. So naturally the crowd asks for this bread. They were not asking for something that He wasn’t offering.

So the question I would like to ask, did Jesus offer eternal life to the crowd?

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

I agree that Jesus is revealed as the I AM and He is the Life. However Jesus also clearly said that just as a seed remains alone (remains as the only one who has eternal life) unless it dies, so He too cannot give eternal life unless He dies. He remains alone in life until He dies.

I also agree that coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus are used as synonymous things.

What you missed is that Jesus said “whoever” which is not a term that limits faith in Jesus to a select few who are alone “gifted” with faith. Rather they come and they believe as their own action since the word “believes” is a present, active verb. It is not passive as if it were a gift given.

and to continue….

First of all I should let you know that I will be spending about 5 days with family. I will try to keep up with the back and forth exegesis that we are doing, but if I should miss a day or so, that would be why.

I will only do 3 verses this time too.

John 6:36 (NASB) “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

Jesus said that the crowd had “seen” him (they had been a witness and experienced or caught sight of his miracles) yet they did not believe in Him. Now we are going to find out why.

John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Jesus says that “all” (not some, but all) that the Father “gives” Him will (not maybe, but will) come to Him. He also assures them that the one who comes to Him will not be cast out as a rejected one.

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Jesus also assures the crowd that this is the Father’s will and He came to do the Father’s will.

Now there are two important things about this passage that must be noted. Jesus said that “all that the Father gives me”. These are ones who belong to the Father. They are not unbelievers for God does not give anyone to Jesus who did not first belong to the Father. Jesus made it clear that the ones who have been given to Him first belonged to the Father and were ones who kept His word.

John 17:6 (NASB)
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

This is consistent with both the Old Testament and the New Testament where those who feared God were brought to Jesus. Now this doesn’t mean that only those who feared God could have faith and believe in Jesus, but only those who belonged to the Father were guaranteed that they would be given to the Son. We know that they had this guarantee because Jesus said that all those who belonged to the Father would come to Him. There was not a single person who feared God and who obeyed the light that the Father gave them who would be turned away and every single one of these would be brought to Jesus.

Psalm 25:12–14 (NASB)
12 Who is the man who fears the LORD?
He will instruct him in the way he should choose.
13 His soul will abide in prosperity,
And his descendants will inherit the land.
14 The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will make them know His covenant..

In Psalm 25:12-14, all those who feard the LORD were promised that they would be made to know His covenant. Jesus is God’s covenant. All of them were brought to and given to Jesus because they first belonged to the Father.

We can confidently know that the crowd of unbelievers were not given to Jesus because they did not first belong to the Father. To belong to the Father one must believe the Father. They did not believe the Father so they did not believe Jesus.

The requirement then to be “given” to Jesus is that they believed the Father first.

John 5:24 (NASB)
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Now for a NT example of one who belonged to the Father and who was subsequently brought to Jesus.

Acts 10:1–2 (NASB)
1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Acts 10:4 (NASB)
4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.

Acts 10:11 (NASB)
11 and he (peter) saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,

Acts 10:22 (NASB)
22 They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.”

Acts 10:34–35 (NASB)
34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35 but b>in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Acts 10:47–48 (NASB)
47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Those who belong to the Father are those who have heard and learned from the Father.

John 6:45 (NASB)
45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

All of these ones who first belong to the Father will be given to Jesus.

Cheryl,

I think you are misunderstanding me since it seems that you think i am saying that people can recieve eternal life apart from the atoning death of Christ. Like i said earlier that is not what i believe. People can only recieve eternal life by being reconciled in Christ. That is precisely why ‘life’ can only be ‘given’ to God’s elect, because only God’s elect have their sins ‘atoned’ for.

Your last lot of comments have diverged again. PLease stick with the verse in question. To show how you do this you asked me if i disagree with the ‘calvinists’ you quote, but neither of the quotes were dealing with the verse we are discussing. You are discussing ‘responses’, flesh and bread etc, none of which is dealing with the verse.

Perhaps we should stop and give some definitions for the words in question.
What is ‘life’? In the context Jesus is talking about eternal life.
‘Bread’- is ‘he’ or Jesus.
‘World’- has to mean God’s elect for the following reasons.

It cannot be universal unless you hold to a doctrine of universalism. Eternal life is not ‘given’ to everybody. You may think it is ‘offered’ but the text is not saying offered, it is saying ‘given’. Now is eternal life ‘given’ to everybody, yes or no? The Bible says an emphatic no!

You can’t argue all you like about offers and sprinkling and all your other points, but that is not dealing with the verse. Do you believe that eternal life is given to every single person? Not offered but given as the verse says? The reality is, eternal life is only ‘given’ to those who trust in Christ- it is not given universally. So the only way to understand ‘world’ has to be in regards to those who trust in Christ- God’s elect.

Cheryl

regarding my exegesis you said…
” Jesus revealed in verse 33 that the bread of God (which is later revealed as His flesh) is given for the life of the world. So naturally the crowd asks for this bread. They were not asking for something that He wasn’t offering.”

You’ve missed the point. The crowd asked for the bread becasue they thought it was physical like with Moses(32). That is why when Jesus continues they actually abandon him- only after they realise what he is ‘actually’ meaning. They are not naturally asking for ‘the bread that gives eternal life in the spiritual sense that Jesus means.
Your last sentence is wrong. They ‘were’ asking for something Jesus wasn’t offering. Jesus was not offering physical bread like they wanted. Once they realise the truth of what he means, they run, they do not ask again for the spiritual bread.

“So the question I would like to ask, did Jesus offer eternal life to the crowd?”

No he did not offer- he told them to ‘believe’, there is a difference.(29). Problem was the crowd was blind to what he was saying- as we have already agreed they were thinking physically not spiritually. And as we will see no one can ‘believe’ unless God enables them.

“What you missed is that Jesus said “whoever” which is not a term that limits faith in Jesus to a select few who are alone “gifted” with faith. Rather they come and they believe as their own action since the word “believes” is a present, active verb. It is not passive as if it were a gift given.”

Again you missed the point of the verse. The question is can everybody ‘come’ and thus ‘believe’ in the first place? John 6 says no- only those the Father enables can ‘come’ and therefore believe. ‘Whoever’ means exactly what it means- whoever the Father enables to come will never thrist or hunger- or paraphrased God’s call does not come back empty. I agree that the ‘belief’ of the person is their own choice and action- that has never been a matter of contention so the present active confirms what i believe.

Mark,
Do you believe that the atonement on the cross fully forgives all of your sins or did the application of the atonement happen later? In other words were you already forgiven before you were born or did the application need to be a separate even from the actual atonement?

Why do you believe that Jesus would say that He was giving the truth that he gives Himself for the life of the world when He really only meant for a few people? Why is the established meaning of “World” not mean elect in the lexicons? And why did the Samaritans believe that the Savior would be “of the world” not of the “elect”? Why did they qualify to have Jesus be their Savior? Were they wrong believing that Jesus was the Savior for the whole world?

Mark,
I will get to the last part of your comments the next time I can carve out some time away from my family. Thanks for your patience.

Moving on to the next four verses.

John 6:39–40 (NASB)
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

We can see several things about these verses:
1. Jesus is revealing the Father’s will
2. There are people who belong to the Father and these people will be given to the Son
3. Those who already belonged to the Father and are given to the Son will not be lost
4. It is also the will of the Father that the Son will raise to life all who see the Son and who continue to put their faith in Him.

John 6:41–42 (NASB)
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

Here the Jews were complaining secretly about Jesus that He was claiming to be something more than He is. He could not come down from heaven, in their minds, because He had a human origin. They believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father. They refused to believe Jesus’ words that He came down from heaven.

Cheryl,

Thanks for the reply. I will get back to you soon about your comments, just not at the moment as i have to go out.

By the way you did the next three verses- it was my turn…lol, but that’s alright i can comment on what you have said. I just didn’t do the next verses until you replied to what i had already said.

Speak soon.

So sorry, Mark. I guess I got ahead of you. It is okay to slow down a bit and my being away also slowed us down. We can work on the differences for a bit before we move on. I’ll let you decide on when that will be.

I look forward to carrying on as both of us are able. I will be back home within two days.

“It is very apparent that the passage is not discussing the giving of life in a way that is outside of Jesus’ death. If these Calvinist theologians can agree that this is the case it shouldn’t be a problem for you as a Calvinist to also accept.”

Let me say it again as I already have done. I am not saying one can receive eternal life apart from the death of Christ. The issue is whether ‘world’ is meant to be understood universally.

“I think that we can agree that it is eternal life that is the meaning in John 6:33.”

I’m glad we agree!

“It is interesting that the term “world” has no reference to the elect.”

Are you sure…look again at your ref. “6) sum total of particulars in any one field of experience, world, totality”… a sum total of ‘particulars’. Your own ref proves you wrong.

“Jesus can be the one who gives life to all without all being saved.”

This is a nonsense statement. You agree that John 6:33 is about eternal life, but yet you say the above. How does Jesus give life (not offer) to the world yet not all are saved-it’s a complete contradiction. Obviously ‘life’ isn’t given to the every single person. This is where you are substituting ‘offer’ for ‘given’.

“Not true. The Bible says an emphastic “yes”! It is given to everyone. This is the key importance of the atonement – that it was a universal sacrifice that no man can ever blame God for not giving on his behalf. It is a “paid for” sacrifice that is “applied” by faith.”

So everyone is given eternal life (not offered) but you don’t hold to universalism? You confuse me! How can their sins be ‘paid for’ if they are still punished? Obviously you do not believe their sins were paid for because you reject universalism.

“Eternal life is “given” to all but “received” by only a few.”

This sentence is obvious how you substitue ‘offer’ for ‘given’. They are not given eternal life in heaven because they go to hell. They are offered it sure but not given.

“Do you believe that the atonement on the cross fully forgives all of your sins or did the application of the atonement happen later? In other words were you already forgiven before you were born or did the application need to be a separate even from the actual atonement?”

Yes I believe that the atonement enables all of my sins to be forgiven. Of course the application is necessary- I do not deny that. But that is different to saying that those who never apply the atonement have already had their sins atoned for. Jesus only atoned for those who the father gives, those who have and will believe. He does not atone for those who have or will not believe. And of course God knew and predestined those who would believe thus enabling Jesus to atone for only them.

“Were they wrong believing that Jesus was the Savior for the whole world?”

Let me say again that universal language need to be understood in the first century backdrop. It is best understood as God’s elect from every tribe, nation and language. We see this in the book of Acts when the Jews are astonished that even the gentiles receive the holy spirit. The first century was very ‘exclusive’.

“If God does not enable all to believe, then it would be a lie to say that Jesus gives life to the “world”. All are “able” unless they reject what they have been given.”

2 points. Jesus did not lie. You argue like this because you misunderstand what ‘world’ means. Second point, not all are ‘able’ to receive Christ. People are blind (2 Cor 4:4). Only those God inwardly calls are justified (Rom 8:29). Jesus himself says that the crowd could not come because the Father did not enable, remember also that we agreed that ‘comes’ and ‘believes’ are synonymous. So only those that the Father brings to Jesus can come/believe. Jesus never says that all are able to come/believe.

“That is not true. God enables all. But when ones who have been enabled harden their heart against God and refuse to believe, they will not be drawn to Jesus.”

Give me one verse that says God enables ‘all’ to come/believe (remember they are synonymous) in John 6. It seems you are confusing a lot of different terms. All are enabled, but yet some refuse to believe and then they are not ‘drawn’ to Jesus. The Bible has a different order. We are all hard before regeneration (Eph 2:1, Rom 8:5-8), then God draws/enables us (Jn 6:65, 37, 44) and then we believe. You are making being ‘drawn’ to Jesus conditional on something we do (some sort of believing that is not believing in Jesus since it comes before being drawn to Jesus). I can’t accept that- it’s contrary to scripture.

“And how can the “belief” of a person be their own choice if God gives faith as a gift?”

Easy the Bible says so. Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3) yet we are told to believe so it is something we must do. It is the same with sanctification is it not? God sanctifies us, yet we work at becoming more holy (sanctified). It is the compatibility nature of the Bible.

Now I’ve run out of time atm to continue on with your exegetical points. Give me some time and I will respond to them before we move on to more verses.

“It is obvious that the reason they do not believe/come is because the Father has not ‘given’ them to Jesus. So although they had seen all his miracles they were unable to be saved because God the Father did not allow them to come/ believe in Jesus- they were unregenerate.”

I understand that this was Calvin’s view on the elect. However, I cannot find any place in Scripture where God does not allow someone who desires to come to Him, to come to Him. To believe such sounds very much like God is a preferer of persons and prejudiced like the rest of humanity. But God’s ways are not like our ways, they are superior in reason and in divine compassion.

TL
You said
“I cannot find any place in Scripture where God does not allow someone who desires to come to Him, to come to Him. “

I agree totally. However, scripture does say that without God opening our hearts first we will never desire to come to Him. Our sinful nature blinds us against even wanting to come to God in repentance.

Eph 2
4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

God MADE US alive even when we were dead and unable to act for ourselves. Our desire for God is a symptom of the new work He has begun within us. Without His work it is a desire we are unable to have as we are dead in our transgressions.

TL

“I cannot find any place in Scripture where God does not allow someone who desires to come to Him, to come to Him. To believe such sounds very much like God is a preferer of persons and prejudiced like the rest of humanity. But God’s ways are not like our ways, they are superior in reason and in divine compassion.”

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Now TL, does God ‘draw’ every single person, yes or no? Does God the Father ‘grant’ everyone to come to Jesus, yes or no? If yes, show me one verse that saids that. If no, well, i guess you see your dilemma and your own wrong percieved notions about God.

Did God choose Israel above all the other nations of the world? Did he choose Jacob over Esau? Did he choose Isaac over Ishmael? Does God have mercy on whom he wills, and harden whom he wills?

Gazza,
You said:

Eph 2
4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

God MADE US alive even when we were dead and unable to act for ourselves. Our desire for God is a symptom of the new work He has begun within us. Without His work it is a desire we are unable to have as we are dead in our transgressions.

There is a problem with this verse as used. As the verb is present in Ephesians 2:5 just as it is present tense in Romans 6:11. Thus it is that we “are dead” present tense. How do you explain that?

Ephesians 2:5 –

Romans 6:11 –

Mark,
You said:

I have already said earlier but you must have missed it. I agree that the atonement becomes effective by our coming to salvation. When Jesus died, he died for past, present and future sins.

Do you actually mean that the atonement becomes effective by our coming to faith in the Lord Jesus?

So why is it that God did not take the complete payment of Jesus at the cross and put it to your account at the time that Jesus died? Was His payment not full and complete at that time?

However God was not limited in knowing who his sheep were (contra open theism) both past and future. He knew who were his elect and so Jesus bore there sins on the tree enabling them to be granted ‘atonement’ from their sins once God regenerated their hearts and they put faith in Christ. Even an evangelical arminian agrees with this. God is not limited in knowing who will be his sheep.

So you will agree that there was a condition that must be met first before the atonement can become effective for you?