# More fun with "T"ulip



## JB0704

Alright, I think the OSAS thread has run it's course......can we discuss the "T" in tulip.

We know that man is totally depraved if we read Paul's writings in the NT.  But......where does "good" come from when done by the "non-elect?"  Is "good" only accomplished by the elect?  How can it be any other way if we are "totally depraved," and have no will otherwise?

Why does Jesus say this in Mark 10:


> 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."



If we are born "totally depraved" to the extent that Paul characterizes it, how is a child's faith the standard?

Could it be that Paul is making a point about our general nature, which leans to evil, rather than a blanket statement about us being incapable of "good?"


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> We know that man is totally depraved if we read Paul's writings in the NT.



Do we?


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> Do we?



Well.....according to "them"....


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Well.....according to "them"....



Oh, no -- not Them!




Or do you mean Them?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I get confused about the "little Children". Little children are humble, meek, trusting, and inocent to be automatically save. Little children are also born sinners, inherited sin. They are born totally depraved little Atheist. 
What exactly are you trying to show with the "little children"? That if we aren't born totally depraved, how do we become totally depraved?


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> Oh, no -- not Them!



Funny.....but, I'm talking about those with Calvinistic inclinations.

But, you bring up a very good point.....

Could one fo the "tulip" folks (COUGH*COUGH*RJCRUISER*COUGH*GEMCGREW*COUGH*HUMMERPOO*COUGH) build the case for total depravity?


----------



## stringmusic

Good thread, this could get interesting.


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> Good thread, this could get interesting.



Let's hope......waiting for some of "them" to jump in.......


----------



## Artfuldodger

It is a good idea starting with babies:

III. Babies Are Innocent, Not Guilty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If original sin is true, then babies are born guilty of sin, totally depraved, destined for eternal punishment. All passages already studied disprove this. Now note specifically:

Psalm 106:37,38; Jeremiah 19:4,5 - In sacrificing babies to idols, people shed the blood of innocent people. But if the babies inherited Adam's sin, they would be guilty and worthy of death. [cf. Jer. 32:35]

Romans 7:9 - Paul (representative of people in general) was alive before sin came, but then he died. How, if people are totally depraved since birth? (cf. v11)

Hebrews 12:9; Zechariah 12:1; Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Our fleshly nature comes from our earthly fathers (like Adam). But God is the Father of our spirits. God gives the spirit and forms it within man. 

Total depravity says man is "wholly defiled in ... soul and body." Does the sinless Father in heaven give us wholly defiled, totally depraved spirits? If the spirit comes from God, not from earthly parents, how can we inherit sin from our parents?

Matthew 19:14; 18:3 - The kingdom of God belongs to those who are converted and become like little children. But if little children are totally depraved, why should we become like them? Does conversion make us totally depraved?

Jesus prayed for children and blessed them (Mark 10:14-16), but He did not baptize them. They did not need baptism, because they were acceptable just as they were. But how could this be if they were born total depraved? 

The Bible teaches that sinners must be baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 3:6,4; Gal. 3:26,27). The consequence of original sin is that babies who die without baptism are all lost eternally. But the Bible teaches that babies are innocent and need no baptism. So original sin must not be true.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If one believes in election & predestination, what is the point of "total depravity"? Your evil life before salvation  and your Christian life after salvation  is controlled by God. 
It would appear to be more of a debate between the free will believers.


----------



## Huntinfool

Total depravity does not mean we are incapable of doing "good" things.  It means that every aspect of our being is corrupted by sin.

All men (including the un-saved) are capable of "good" things....especially when viewed from our humanly perspective.  We are born with the knowledge of good and evil.  But we are fallen and, so, totally corrupted by sin.  Everything about us wreaks with the stench of sin.

So....when someone who is un-saved does "good", it is objectively good to our human senses.  But it is done with the corruption of sin surrounding it.  Why?  Because it is not done for the glory of God.  

Our sole purpose for existing is to glorify God.  Anything we do that is "good" that is not motivated by the desire to glorify Him is corrupted in sin.  We can do nothing that is TRULY good outside of salvation because, until that moment, we do nothing for the glory of God.

I'm sure I've not done a good job of explaning my position on that.  I'm not a TULIP guy.  But "total depravity" does not (and has never) mean that, because of sin, we are incapable of knowing or doing "good".  It means that Adam's sin corrupted us whole-sale.  No part of us is un-affected by sin.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Our sole purpose for existing is to glorify God.  Anything we do that is "good" that is not motivated by the desire to glorify Him is corrupted in sin.  We can do nothing that is TRULY good outside of salvation because, until that moment, we do nothing for the glory of God.
> 
> I'm sure I've not done a good job of explaning my position on that.  I'm not a TULIP guy.  But "total depravity" does not (and has never) mean that, because of sin, we are incapable of knowing or doing "good".  It means that Adam's sin corrupted us whole-sale.  No part of us is un-affected by sin.



Thanks for jumping in, HF.  I know you aren't as "tulipy" as some of the others on here......

But, why then is it "total depravity?"  Shouldn't it be stated in a similar manner as the concept of original sin?  It seems the idea of total depravity would mean no good can be accomplished "pre-election."  However, children are the faith standard.......

Paul writes a lot about this in the letters.  My favorite is the whole "I do not do what I want to do...." scripture (always a fun read, asked my son to read it the other night and try to explain it......took a while, great exercise in comprehension though).


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> If one believes in election & predestination, what is the point of "total depravity"? Your evil life before salvation  and your Christian life after salvation  is controlled by God.
> It would appear to be more of a debate between the free will believers.



Hmmmmm, can we put that on a back burner for a bit?  I would hate for this thread to get dragged off into a discussion on "election" just yet.


----------



## Huntinfool

Correct.  Nothing TRULY good can be accomplished pre-salvation.

Nothing is truly good unless done for the glory of God.  You cannot do that until salvation.  

That is the perspective on "T".  You can do things that appear "good" from a humanly perspective.  But anything done with the corruption of sin is not truly good.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Correct.  Nothing TRULY good can be accomplished pre-salvation.
> 
> Nothing is truly good unless done for the glory of God.  You cannot do that until salvation.
> 
> That is the perspective on "T".  You can do things that appear "good" from a humanly perspective.  But anything done with the corruption of sin is not truly good.



Than......children, as the standard for faith, are "elected?"


----------



## Huntinfool

You just changed subjects.  Do you want to talk about election or about total depravity?


----------



## Huntinfool

> Could it be that Paul is making a point about our general nature, which leans to evil, rather than a blanket statement about us being incapable of "good?"



Let me try to make my point better with a couple of questions:

1)  Is there anything truly good that does not involve God?

If the answer (rightly) is no then,

2)  When do we begin walking with God or, at what point are our actions focussed on God?


You see, we truly ARE incapable of doing anything good (in the real sense of the word) until we are saved.  Anything done outside of a desire to glorify God is done out of selfishness and self-centered self-righteousness....which is, by definition...not good.


----------



## JB0704

No I didn't.  I have zero interest in talking about election in this thread beyond how it applies to total depravity.

Let me try this again.......

If man is "incapable" of good outside of God.  And man can accomplish nothing "good" pre-salvation, why is a child's faith then the standard?  Is the assumption that the children are already elected?


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> No I didn't.  I have zero interest in talking about election in this thread beyond how it applies to total depravity.
> 
> Let me try this again.......
> 
> If man is "incapable" of good outside of God.  And man can accomplish nothing "good" pre-salvation, why is a child's faith then the standard?  Is the assumption that the children are already elected?



It's going to be hard to talk about Total Depravity or "total inability" as it is also called without discussing Election. The reason being is because all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. At least that's what the Calvinist believe.
You did say you wanted a Calvinest view. 

Because of Total Depravity, there is no way for you to "come to Jesus" without God making the choice for you.
Maybe Huntin fools definition is different from Calvin:
Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God, refrain from evil, or accept the gift of salvation as it is offered.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Are babies born guilty of original sin and total hereditary (inherited) depravity? Or does the Bible teach free moral agency and individual responsibility and accountability? Calvinism teaches the imputation of the sins of Adam and Eve, so that each person is born guilty of total corruption and a corrupt sinful nature. This doctrine is often used to justify infant baptism, but what does the gospel of Jesus Christ teach?

Part of this discussion has to be on what part of sin we inherited from Adam. Is it his fault or out fault that we sin or both?

Isn't Adam's sin the whole reason for needing Jesus in the first place?


----------



## gemcgrew

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."(Job 14:4)

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."(Psalms 51:5)

"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."(Psalms 58:3)

"There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness."(Proverbs 30:12)

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."(Romans 9:11-13)


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> If man is "incapable" of good outside of God.  And man can accomplish nothing "good" pre-salvation, why is a child's faith then the standard?  Is the assumption that the children are already elected?



Do you think Jesus should have said we should "have the faith of a 42 year old ex drunkard but got saved last year so now he is capable of doing good"?

Kidding

Here is my take on it....

The standard Jesus sets forth in Mark doesn't indicate, to me, that a child is capable of doing good(apart, or with God), only that the faith of a child is what is needed to enter the Kindom of Heaven.

I think it may be assuming too much that because of this requirment(childs faith) that any child, pre-salvation, is capable of doing good apart from God, or is "elected". 

Basically I'm saying I don't think Jesus was indicating that we should have "child like faith" because of a childs capability of doing good, because unless the child is saved, he/she cannot do good.


----------



## Artfuldodger

stringmusic said:


> Do you think Jesus should have said we should "have the faith of a 42 year old ex drunkard but got saved last year so now he is capable of doing good"?
> 
> Kidding
> 
> Here is my take on it....
> 
> The standard Jesus sets forth in Mark doesn't indicate, to me, that a child is capable of doing good(apart, or with God), only that the faith of a child is what is needed to enter the Kindom of Heaven.
> 
> I think it may be assuming too much that because of this requirment(childs faith) that any child, pre-salvation, is capable of doing good apart from God, or is "elected".
> 
> Basically I'm saying I don't think Jesus was indicating that we should have "child like faith" because of a childs capability of doing good, because unless the child is saved, he/she cannot do good.



We may be overthinking this "like a child verse"
Could it be just characteristics or attitude of a child: faith(as you mentioned), confidence, the simpleness not to make it complex, without worldly ambition, without lust fo power, humble, teachable,


----------



## mtnwoman

Huntinfool said:


> You just changed subjects.  Do you want to talk about election or about total depravity?



I don't see how you can seperate the two.....if you believe in 'election' don't you also believe in total depravity? Wouldn't that mean that even the 'elect' believe that the little children that Jesus said to let come to Him, are also totally depraved?

This is where it gets quite confusing to me.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> We may be overthinking this "like a child verse"
> Could it be just characteristics or attitude of a child: faith(as you mentioned), confidence, the simpleness not to make it complex, without worldly ambition, without lust fo power, humble, teachable,



In those same scriptures, it says that we should also come as little children, well if all babies are born totally depraved then that means that EVERY one that is born can come to Jesus, elected or not. It really can't be both ways. If you were preapproved for election, why would you be born totally depraved? Wouldn't you already be saved before the womb and not be born depraved? Wouldn't you just be born perfect right off the bat with no will of your own to sin?


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> If one believes in election & predestination, what is the point of "total depravity"?



Scripture tells us that man’s nature is lost and incapable of choosing or desiring God. We are born again by God's will, not ours. Arminians believe that Christ died for all men alike and each must choose to be born again or not.


----------



## mtnwoman

Huntinfool said:


> You see, we truly ARE incapable of doing anything good (in the real sense of the word) until we are saved.



I guess this is one confusing part for me. If you were preselected to be saved wouldn't you be born saved?


----------



## Israel

These discussions remind me of an incident recently.
Especially in speaking to the nature of salvation...who is...or "what" is...and the seeming of "how" IT is.
I have never had such an experience before in such clarity and perhaps, (I leave it to you all to discern) spiritual distinction.

Last week I was dreaming of a spider...it was large, malicious and clearly marked to my eyes as venomous. In fact, as it leaped around on a table in my dream while others beheld it...I mentioned "see...look there...on the abdomen...the telltale red hourglass shape." 

I took a stiff piece of cardboard...(perhaps inconsequential...who knows?) and began to bat it around as it was leaping with clear intent to bite me.  Then , I resolved to separate the head from the body, using the stiff board as a blade. In attempting it...I awoke.

(Now, here is the peculiar part)

I lifted myself off my pillow (sleeping on my stomach) and looked down at my sheet in the dim light. I CLEARLY saw a small spider, with orange iridescent markings on its back, scampering up toward my pillow as I was propped on my elbows. I thought immediately, "no wonder I am dreaming of spiders...there is this little spider in my bed!" It was so clear...so vivid, and I began to sweep it vigorously with my hands to knock it off the bed. I was not troubled at all, not fearful, just to me...an act I would do with any bug I discovered crawling there. The thing I discovered was...after many attempts to sweep this spider away...and failing...thought it was so plainly there...was that it wasn't at all.
I was awake...in that I then got out of bed and got dressed for work...so...it wasn't a dream within a dream.

What astounded me was that I could (while "awake') see something that wasn't there nor real at all.

As to what I "take away" from this after I sought the Lord was this. We are men being awoken from sleep...we are men awakening from what "seemed real" in our sleep...to be alive and really awakened to the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ...BUT...in that seeming "in between time"....where we may be more aware of our previous dreams in unreality and blindness...we carry to some extent...the conviction of a reality that really isn't there...at all.

And so I wonder if the butterfly coming forth from the coccoon...may still harbor some brief dim memory of munching leaves and humping along on some stem to even build its death chamber...may...soon enough...after several flights...and drinks of pure nectar...care not at all about thoughts that may have once filled its little head. 
The new creature doesn't wonder if all things are of God...and indeed...always have been...for by its nature and new sight...that's really all it sees. Or cares to.

What is of God.
And if some residual imprint of caterpillar mind, or old man's reasonings...even in what seems most reasonable in seeking explanation...is presented...well, even Jesus talks about a Kingdom in a manner that explains its "unexplainability".

26And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; 27And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up,_ he knoweth not how. _28For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

I suppose our only consideration is "what has been sown"?
Did this sower have the authority and right to plant something in the earth...that "we" are?
We hold this treasure in earthen vessels.

Jesus is Lord.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> I guess this is one confusing part for me. If you were preselected to be saved wouldn't you be born saved?


The elect are born unregenerate (spiritually dead) but repentance and faith are gifts from God and given to the elect (in time). 

God has determined in eternity what takes place in time. Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (determined in eternity) and Christ came into (time) to die for the sins of His people.
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37)


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> The elect are born unregenerate (spiritually dead) but repentance and faith are gifts from God and given to the elect (in time).
> 
> God has determined in eternity what takes place in time. Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (determined in eternity) and Christ came into (time) to die for the sins of His people.
> “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37)



Paul said: "when it pleased God to reveal his son in me..."
God knows...what we are just beginning to find out...


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37)



That's exactly what I was telling my oldest gd's boyfriend the other day when he was asking me about being saved. He is 20 and from the Greek Orthodox Church and says he doesn't have a clue what is going on. Should I just have told him, IF God has selected you, then you'll know sooner or later and let it go at that...you're either preselected or you'll never be saved...50/50 chance?

I told him to seek God and God would reveal Himself.  I told him in a short amount of time, what Christians believe. And how the blood of Christ is what covers our sins, and all that. 
Almost everyday now he is asking me questions. Will God help me, even if I don't understand the bible? Does God love me? Can I be forgiven?  I will never tell him, no son, you have to already be chosen, and if you aren't, there's nothing you can do about it.  I believe all our hope lies in Christ, and I believe that hope is there for anyone that comes to Him, just like your scripture says.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Man sins because he wants to. It's his fault. He knows better.
 Man is defiled (made guilty) by things which a person does because of decisions in his heart,
A person becomes enslaved to sin because of what he himself "commits."

Man is  "passive" in determining his own salvation. This is the part of total depravity I don't understand.

A. God Has Made Salvation Available to Everybody.
2 Peter 3:9 - God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:6 - Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all.

Hebrews 2:9 - Jesus tasted death for everyone.

Titus 2:11 - The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

1 John 2:2 - Jesus is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the whole world.

John 3:16 - God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34,35 - God is no respecter of persons.

Since God has made salvation available to all and wants all to be saved, if man has no control in the matter, then everyone would have to be saved. But we know many people will not be saved (Matt. 7:13,14), so it follows that man has the power to determine whether he will or will not accept salvation. Salvation is conditional.

Either: (1) Salvation is conditioned on the choices man makes, or (2) all people will be saved, or (3) God is a respecter of persons and did not really extend salvation to all. But points #2 and 3 are false, so man must have the power to choose whether he will or will not accept the salvation God offers.

Any doctrine which teaches that salvation is NOT conditioned on man's choice, must conclude either that all people will be saved or that God is a respecter of persons and did not really make salvation available to all.

[1 Timothy 4:10; John 1:29; 4:42; 10:9; 12:32,33,47; 6:51; Matt. 11:28-30; 5:43-48; Lam 3:33; Rom. 10:8-18; 11:32; 5:18; Acts 3:25,26; Luke 9:23,24; 15:7,10; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; 1 John 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:14,15,19; Rev. 3:20; Isa. 45:21f; Col. 1:28]


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> Man sins because he wants to. It's his fault. He knows better.
> Man is defiled (made guilty) by things which a person does because of decisions in his heart,
> A person becomes enslaved to sin because of what he himself "commits."
> 
> Man is  "passive" in determining his own salvation. This is the part of total depravity I don't understand.
> 
> A. God Has Made Salvation Available to Everybody.
> 2 Peter 3:9 - God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:6 - Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all.
> 
> Hebrews 2:9 - Jesus tasted death for everyone.
> 
> Titus 2:11 - The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
> 
> 1 John 2:2 - Jesus is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the whole world.
> 
> John 3:16 - God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
> 
> Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34,35 - God is no respecter of persons.
> 
> Since God has made salvation available to all and wants all to be saved, if man has no control in the matter, then everyone would have to be saved. But we know many people will not be saved (Matt. 7:13,14), so it follows that man has the power to determine whether he will or will not accept salvation. Salvation is conditional.
> 
> Either: (1) Salvation is conditioned on the choices man makes, or (2) all people will be saved, or (3) God is a respecter of persons and did not really extend salvation to all. But points #2 and 3 are false, so man must have the power to choose whether he will or will not accept the salvation God offers.
> 
> Any doctrine which teaches that salvation is NOT conditioned on man's choice, must conclude either that all people will be saved or that God is a respecter of persons and did not really make salvation available to all.
> 
> [1 Timothy 4:10; John 1:29; 4:42; 10:9; 12:32,33,47; 6:51; Matt. 11:28-30; 5:43-48; Lam 3:33; Rom. 10:8-18; 11:32; 5:18; Acts 3:25,26; Luke 9:23,24; 15:7,10; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; 1 John 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:14,15,19; Rev. 3:20; Isa. 45:21f; Col. 1:28]



I agree.

Nice post, thanks for taking the time to share all that.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37)



My new siggy.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> I believe all our hope lies in Christ, and I believe that hope is there for anyone that comes to Him, just like your scripture says.


All that the Father gives will  come and none else. These are the elect and they are effectually called by the power of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Either: (1) Salvation is conditioned on the choices man makes, or (2) all people will be saved, or (3) God is a respecter of persons and did not really extend salvation to all. But points #2 and 3 are false, so man must have the power to choose whether he will or will not accept the salvation God offers.


Art, God is no respecter of persons. This means that God has no regard for things that distinguish us from one another in this world (wealth, morality, intellect, race, etc...)

Has nothing to do with election. The whole argument is flawed.


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> I think it may be assuming too much that because of this requirment(childs faith) that any child, pre-salvation, is capable of doing good apart from God, or is "elected".



But.....isn't the indication that the child's faith is good?



Are you one of "them?"


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Scripture tells us that man’s nature is lost and incapable of choosing or desiring God. We are born again by God's will, not ours. Arminians believe that Christ died for all men alike and each must choose to be born again or not.



What then is "good" accomplished "pre-election?"

The unelected beleivers......are they accomplishing "good" when they are seeking God's will, and attempting to be Christ-like?


----------



## Ronnie T

2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.........................17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


I have no regard for Calvin's doctrine or for Tulip.
It conflicts with far too much of God's word.  I know it makes perfect sense if that's what you're looking for.  But for me, it is essentially something that God did not give us.

If you're interested in studying it's pro's and con's I suggest this:  http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?...r&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=az_C3yyvOz2rmHFP7xG.qw--

Check out paragraph:  IV


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think we've left "T" and went to "U" unconditional election. I think it's hard to discuss one without the others as they overlap. Maybe we can stay on "T". 
I would like to here a few more opinion on inherited sin or original sin and children as could be related to Total Depravity. If one is totally depraved or has total inability, then how could they hear God's call?


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> If one is totally depraved or has total inability, then how could they hear God's call?


"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."(John 6:63)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."(John 6:44)


----------



## Ronnie T

The Bible gives at least two examples of God responding to people who were seeking Him.

The ethiopian eunuch.
Cornelius


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> Check out paragraph:  IV


Ronnie, you need to research a bit. The very first item on the page (I. John Calvin proposed a five part system to explain salvation) is false. No need to read further.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> What then is "good" accomplished "pre-election?"


What is pre-election? Election is eternal.



JB0704 said:


> The unelected beleivers......are they accomplishing "good" when they are seeking God's will, and attempting to be Christ-like?


What is an unelected believer? Are you talking about a professing christian that is actually an unbeliever? Godliness is not outward but rather inward.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Ronnie, you need to research a bit. The very first item on the page (I. John Calvin proposed a five part system to explain salvation) is false. No need to read further.



Amyraldism (or sometimes Amyraldianism, also known as the School of Saumur, Hypothetical universalism,[1] Post Redemptionism,[2] Moderate Calvinism,[3] or Four-point Calvinism) primarily refers to a modified form of Calvinist theology. It rejects one of the Five points of Calvinism, the doctrine of limited atonement, in favour of an atonement similar to that of Hugo Grotius. Simply stated, Amyraldism holds that God has provided Christ's atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."(John 6:63)
> 
> "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."(John 6:44)



I agree, the Holy Spirit awakened me to the truth, opened my eyes so to speak.
Then the Father(God) drew me to him.
Then using my own free will accepted. There was no irresistible grace that hypnotized me to accept. I could have walked away. 
Actually I did walk away many times before my mind,body, spirit decided it might be a good time to listen to the Holy Spirit awakening me and God drawing me. I'm not doubting the mighty power of the Holy Spirit. I'm not doubting the power of Satan. And last but not least I'm not doubting "my decision."


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> What is pre-election? Election is eternal.



Was there a time in your life before the election became "active?"



gemcgrew said:


> What is an unelected believer? Are you talking about a professing christian that is actually an unbeliever? Godliness is not outward but rather inward.



Yes.  Just imagine any faith which is based on Christ, regardless of how poorly, and you will follow what I mean.

There are plenty of professing believers in Christ in the world......are they all elected?


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe we can stay on "T".



Yes. Please.



Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to here a few more opinion on inherited sin or original sin and children as could be related to Total Depravity. If one is totally depraved or has total inability, then how could they hear God's call?



I think the point is that God "wakes them up."

What I am getting at is that I do not see how man can be totally depraved, to the extent descibed, and still accomplish good?

The assumption is that God would also use the unelcted to accomplish his will.

Which brings the kids into it.  Their faith is given as an example......but is it depraved?


----------



## Ronnie T

Acts 10:34-35

34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
 35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.


----------



## Ronnie T

This false doctrine makes every command, every warning, and every admonition of God useless.  With Unconditional Election there is no reason to try to teach anyone the gospel of Christ if God has already arbitrarily decided who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost.  This makes no sense.  But Jesus says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).  God’s offer of salvation is available to everyone, but each must choose whether he will accept or reject it.
And because of that, this total depravity teaching cannot mean that a person cannot choose and develop faith.
"Faith come from hearing".


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> And last but not least I'm not doubting "my decision."


Just keep trusting in your decision then. Take it as far as it will carry you.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> Was there a time in your life before the election became "active?"


No. Election is eternal. Election is not salvation. It is unto salvation. It is God's eternal will and purpose to save the people of his love. It is as necessary as redemption and regeneration.


JB0704 said:


> There are plenty of professing believers in Christ in the world......are they all elected?


No, nor are they all born again.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> And because of that, this total depravity teaching cannot mean that a person cannot choose and develop faith.
> "Faith come from hearing".


Faith is a gift of God. It is not something you muster up from  your wicked nature.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> I think the point is that God "wakes them up."
> 
> Which brings the kids into it.  Their faith is given as an example......but is it depraved?



That's the way I see it too. The Spirit quickens and then it's my turn.

I'm still out on the Children and how that's ties in. I'm still trying to work out Adam's sin vs my sin. I don't think I can totally blame all my sins on Adam.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> What I am getting at is that I do not see how man can be totally depraved, to the extent descibed, and still accomplish good?


Unbelievers only appear to do good in man's eyes. They are thoroughly evil and their works are evil. 


JB0704 said:


> The assumption is that God would also use the unelected to accomplish his will.


Not an assumption.
"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." (Genesis 50:20)


JB0704 said:


> Which brings the kids into it.  Their faith is given as an example......but is it depraved?


I can attest that depravity was evident, very early on, in my two children.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> I have no regard for Calvin's doctrine or for Tulip.


Of course you don't. You've admitted that you have zero credibility in regards to the subject. In admitted ignorance, you continue to pretend to know something.


Ronnie T said:


> I promise you, my 8 year old grand son knows as much about Calvinism as I do.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Of course you don't. You've admitted that you have zero credibility in regards to the subject. In admitted ignorance, you continue to pretend to know something.



Gem, I think I understand your zeal in this matter, for being jealous for God's glory puts one in the rather peculiar place of often seemingly at odds with others that name the Lord Jesus Christ.
We can be so aware of anything that even hints a man might consider he could add anything to God's work...or in some way be an initiator of it.
Could you possibly consider this...that some brothers may see, in an adherence to doctrines, devices, even acronyms, derived plainly from a man whose name has gained some note...no less a deviation?
If we come to the place of believing God's sovereignty is only defined as far as a man named Calvin took it...or is somehow circumscribed by the teachings of that man...we may find that we could be somewhat amiss.
Actually, there is only one who rightly reveals the sovereignty of God in all things, and he is always present to help us see that.
Those walking in his tutelage will also see where men elevate other men, and (perhaps) too easily ascribe to their teachings the sum of all spiritual truth in regards to a matter.

To equate Calvin...or Paul, or any other messenger of "something" is to make equations that are just as odious to the man of the spirit as your seeming dismissal of a brother. 

Some say "My denomination only teaches what is in the Bible...therefore to be in accord with our denomination=Being right with God" It is said far more often by implication and subtlety than we often know.
 Some say..."Calvin only teaches the sovereignty of God, therefore knowing all these teachings=knowing all about God's sovereignty".

To some Jesus said "follow me"...to others he said..."Go back home and tell what has been done for you" to others he even said "Don't tell anyone what I have done here" Or "don't tell others." 
Mat_9:30  And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it. 
Mat_16:20  Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 
Mat_17:9  And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. 

Mar 5:18  And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. 
Mar 5:19  Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. 

Luk 8:54  And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise. 
Luk 8:55  And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat. 
Luk 8:56  And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done. 

Knowing God is sovereign is indeed a wonderful apprehension. 

But demonstrating it by obedience is what often seems
the place where we discover God does not work according to our understanding to make it known, and a blessing to others.

And sometimes we even discover...in our "own" attempts to glorify the Lord...we actually find ourselves working against him.


----------



## Ronnie T

The teachings of Jesus.

The parable of the talents.
The parable of the good Samaritan.
Jesus' teachings concerning casting the first stone.

Rahab.

The conversion of Cornelius.

The teaching of the Eunich.

All the New Testament teachings concerning being good examples; evangelizing the Gospel; staying strong in the faith.

The parable of the hidden treasure.

The parable of the lost coin.

The scriptures are clear.  When a person seeks, within a millionth of a second, God will respond by seeing that the person is given all that he/she needs on order to repond.  (Cornelius is an example).


----------



## hummerpoo

Could it be that Calvin is simply a “straw man”.  I have been referred to as ‘one of the “tulip” folks’, although not being able to recall the last time I uttered the word or any of the five doctrines to which it refers.

I confess it a challenge to refrain from negative characterizations of those who prefer to categorize rather than soberly reflect.  Perhaps such restraint is not good, the alternative being to allow the glory of God to be subordinated to the glory of man.

I have to consider that further.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Could it be that Calvin is simply a “straw man”.  I have been referred to as ‘one of the “tulip” folks’, although not being able to recall the last time I uttered the word or any of the five doctrines to which it refers.
> 
> I confess it a challenge to refrain from negative characterizations of those who prefer to categorize rather than soberly reflect.  Perhaps such restraint is not good, the alternative being to allow the glory of God to be subordinated to the glory of man.
> 
> I have to consider that further.



When some hear this: "Calvin is of no consequence"

...they may hear "God's sovereignty is being impugned"  

When others say "to know of God's sovereignty purely taught, one could familiarize themselves with Calvin"

...they may hear : "God's sovereignty is being impugned"

Who is Paul? Or Apollos? or even perhaps...Calvin?

Men's "names" ( please research the fullness of the meaning to "denominate") are often a stumbling block...and maybe rightly so...till we no longer stumble.
For, in truth, I don't stumble at men...but at my own opinion of them...and being delivered from "that" man's opinion of any and all things means the liberty to even count myself as nothing...and there...to find a place of no offense?


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> The scriptures are clear.  When a person seeks, within a millionth of a second, God will respond by seeing that the person is given all that he/she needs on order to repond.  (Cornelius is an example).


The natural man will not seek (Romans 3:11). He is at enmity with God. (Romans 8:7)
Salvation is of the Lord in its entirety.


----------



## Ronnie T

The greatest act we disciples of Christ can set to do is continue on with the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
To share the Gospel and our Savior.
To share our heavenly Father.  Our creator and sustainer.
To grow in our knowledge, knowing that knowledge is never reached, for knowledge always changes.  God provides understands as we seek and as we are able.  What were "facts" to me 40 years ago have now been overcome by God's word today.
God's word is for me, and for my sharing with others.  It is not my right to decide what God does with his plans.  It isn't for me to say that God has, or God has not.

It is only for me to obey the missionary message of Jesus and His apostles.

Someone recently referred to me as a Campbellite.  Frankly, it angered me.  The very nerve of someone seeking to inflict the teachings or ways of a mortal man upon me.
Let that man teach me Jesus Christ, and then give all glory to Him.


----------



## Ronnie T

gemcgrew said:


> The natural man will not seek (Romans 3:11). He is at enmity with God. (Romans 8:7)
> Salvation is of the Lord in its entirety.



Improper use of the intent of those scriptures.
You know very well that there are scriptures that teach differently.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> When some hear this: "Calvin is of no consequence"
> 
> ...they may hear "God's sovereignty is being impugned"
> 
> When others say "to know of God's sovereignty purely taught, one could familiarize themselves with Calvin"
> 
> ...they may hear : "God's sovereignty is being impugned"
> 
> Who is Paul? Or Apollos? or even perhaps...Calvin?
> 
> Men's "names" ( please research the fullness of the meaning to "denominate") are often a stumbling block...and maybe rightly so...till we no longer stumble.
> For, in truth, I don't stumble at men...but at my own opinion of them...and being delivered from "that" man's opinion of any and all things means the liberty to even count myself as nothing...and there...to find a place of no offense?



Who among us can communicate without the Mediator.

Therefore, the challenge is not to present our ideas or to understand another’s,
but to take up our cross and follow,
to hate mother and father …
to die and thereby live.

To love your neighbor is not second and love the Lord first …
to love your neighbor is “like” to love the Lord your God.


----------



## centerpin fan

Ronnie T said:


> Improper use of the intent of those scriptures.



Two thousand years of church history agree.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> Improper use of the intent of those scriptures.
> You know very well that there are scriptures that teach differently.


Only through the eyes of free-will works religion.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> Two thousand years of church history agree.


Carry it as far as you can. Church history is not the basis of my faith.


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> Church history is not the basis of my faith.



Au contraire.  The Reformation was a pivotal moment in church history.  Without it, you would not believe what you believe.


----------



## barryl

*A couple questions*

Total Depravity,Are you saying that extends to acts of the will? "Dead in Tresspasses and Sins" A man{Calvin} is telling you, you can't do something {Recieve Christ} even though God commands him[you} to recieve Jesus Christ. In one of Johns epistles, the commandment was that we "believe... on his Son Jesus Christ." "Unconditional Election" Not a case in the Bible that I know of where God elected anybody "until they did something He told them to do." Eternity, ain't no use in going there, you{me} were not in Christ before we "Believed."


----------



## CollinsCraft77

Augustine was well before Calvin. Tulip is ascribed to Calvin. The doctrines are much older.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Meanwhile back at the Circle T:

If we can inherit Adam's guilt, why not inherit the guilt of all our ancestors? And why can't we inherit righteousness too? If our parents were Christians who have been cleansed from all sin (1 John 1:7,9; Heb. 7:25), then there would be no sin to inherit, so we would be born pure!

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

None of Adam's descendants bear the guilt of his sin. No one's guilt can come to us through our parents. Adam's sin is upon Adam alone. If you or I are guilty of sin, it is because of what we have done.

Did Jesus inherit the guilt of Adam's sin? 

Hebrews 2:14,17 - He shared in flesh and blood, made in all things like us.

Luke 3:38; Galatians 4:4 - He was a descendant of Adam, born of woman. 

2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:22 - Yet Jesus knew no sin. In Him is no sin, because He did no sin [Heb. 4:15; 7:26]

If we inherit sin from Adam, then Jesus must have inherited it since he was a descendant of Adam and was like us in all things. But He did not inherit it, therefore we do not inherit it. Guilt is not inherited.

This would explain why children aren't sinners. If we aren't born with the guilt of Adam's sin, why do we need Jesus?


----------



## Ronnie T

I came across this statement earlier today.

"Actually Calvin did not originally develop the system, but Augustine of Hyppo (354-430 A.D.) in the fifth century came up with this idea.  Augustine tried in vain to live a celibate life but because of his many sexual and other sins he concluded that man was totally depraved from birth.  Since he chose to lead a sinful lifestyle he tried to justify himself by developing a theology to substantiate it."


----------



## Artfuldodger

When Adam sinned he brought sin upon the world. We sin because we want to. We live in a world of sin. We aren't born sinners.
I've been quoting some stuff from the following site. I wanted to give the owner credit and thought ya'll should read it.

http://www.gospelway.com/salvation/original_sin.php

Psalms 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Does this mean he was born guilty of sin, totally depraved?

1. It says nothing about Adam, Adam's sin, or that David inherited guilt of Adam's sin.

4. So David's point is, not that he was guilty of sin from birth nor inherited it, but he was born into the midst of a sinful environment and sinful influences. His mother was guilty and so were all around him, so he soon learned it, like one learns a language.
Psalm 58:1-6
The wicked are estranged from the womb (v3), so we are told this means we are guilty of sin and totally depraved from birth.

1. Again, it does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, nor that men inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

2. What makes these people sinners? In their hearts they work wickedness (v2), and they have violent hands (v2). They are sinners because of their own conduct, exactly as we have taught. This proves our position, not inherited guilt.

3. "Estranged from the womb" is explained to mean "they go astray as soon as they are born" (v3). How can one go astray into sin if he was in sin from the start? If you are already in sin and you "go astray," where do you go? 

4. How did they "go astray" and become "estranged"? By "speaking lies" (v3). Again, it is the conduct of the individual that makes him a sinner. But can babies literally speak lies at the moment of birth? No. So the verse itself forces us to conclude that the phrase "as soon as they are born" is not literal but figurative. It is an hyperbole - a poetic exaggeration to emphasize a point. (Compare the following verses where many illustrations are used to describe these same people.)

5. V6 says they have teeth. Again this is not describing people at the moment of birth.

Nothing here teaches that people are born guilty of Adam's sin. Clearly the passage confirms what we have taught: people are not born guilty of sin, but become sinners later when they go astray by their own conduct.

Conclusion
The Bible nowhere teaches the Calvinistic concept that man inherits sin or is born totally depraved, incapable of doing good or evil. Rather, little babies are born innocent and not accountable for their conduct. As they grow up in a sinful world, they reach the age when they are capable of understanding God's will for their lives. He then holds them accountable for their conduct, and they are counted sinners when they themselves choose to practice that which is a violation of God's will.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Who among us can communicate without the Mediator.
> 
> Therefore, the challenge is not to present our ideas or to understand another’s,
> but to take up our cross and follow,
> to hate mother and father …
> to die and thereby live.
> 
> To love your neighbor is not second and love the Lord first …
> to love your neighbor is “like” to love the Lord your God.


Amen Brother.
One can't do either without doing both. Inseparably linked. 

It is a pitfall I negotiate all too frequently...without success. OK, Lord...I am needing a rope thrown down here.
Years ago, in part of my training, I found myself under what appeared at that time a strict tutelage. I could say my own carnality arranged the surrender of a certain liberty for what I considered greater expediencies for the sharing of the gospel, but were later shown to just be my own craven desires for a power I thought could be imbued by this "fellowship."
After certain hypocrisies were revealed, and also my own, amidst consequent heat and flame, I believe I heard the Lord ask me this, in so many words.
"OK, I have brought you through a situation in which you have learned something of the nature of the will of man...(it's not fun being dominated, even so called "spiritually" is it?)..and now you think you rightly hate it. But, do you hate your own will with the same fervor? For if not, you really haven't learned anything."

Basically, I understood that I was the spiritual bully I needed to see, and far too often I am still brought to see I have not known that as I should.

For, again, far too often it seems, I set out like a blind leader..."trying" to establish the message of the cross.
"Lord, if only "they" would rightly miseo themselves, then I would know they love you, be able to see, and not be so entangled with the carnality I see abounding".

After i firmly hit bottom...then comes the light of God's laughter. 
"Hey, c'mon...could you stop laughing long enough...to throw me a rope?"

Sure. Just don't confuse disliking "man" as equal to loving me. Let's review what I paid for "them".

Oh.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Meanwhile back at the Circle T:
> 
> If we can inherit Adam's guilt, why not inherit the guilt of all our ancestors? And why can't we inherit righteousness too? If our parents were Christians who have been cleansed from all sin (1 John 1:7,9; Heb. 7:25), then there would be no sin to inherit, so we would be born pure!
> 
> Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
> 
> None of Adam's descendants bear the guilt of his sin. No one's guilt can come to us through our parents. Adam's sin is upon Adam alone. If you or I are guilty of sin, it is because of what we have done.
> 
> Did Jesus inherit the guilt of Adam's sin?
> 
> Hebrews 2:14,17 - He shared in flesh and blood, made in all things like us.
> 
> Luke 3:38; Galatians 4:4 - He was a descendant of Adam, born of woman.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:22 - Yet Jesus knew no sin. In Him is no sin, because He did no sin [Heb. 4:15; 7:26]
> 
> If we inherit sin from Adam, then Jesus must have inherited it since he was a descendant of Adam and was like us in all things. But He did not inherit it, therefore we do not inherit it. Guilt is not inherited.
> 
> This would explain why children aren't sinners. If we aren't born with the guilt of Adam's sin, why do we need Jesus?



I'm sure I remember similar advise having been given by others in the past but I'm going to try one more time.

Please, I ask you in love, block google from your computer, set up a study area somewhere that is quiet and undisturbed for at least a couple of hours a day, go there with your Bible (make sure it has good cross-references, most NASB's are good on that score but there are several others) and read, read, and read some more.  Take no commentaries, no dictionaries, no telephones.  If you don't understand something, read that whole passage (anything from a few verses to a few chapters) at least three times.  If you still don't get it, it's time to check a few cross-references.  If it's still foggy, it's time to move on; don't worry, it will show up again later.  Don't get into any extended theological discussion with anybody, you'll be ready for that at some point in the future.

I'll check back at Thanksgiving 2013 to see how your doing.

P.S. No Study Bibles, you'll forget which is scripture and which is opinion.

P.P.S.  Where's the down side, at the worst you will have spent more time in God's Word than the rest of us (I'm quessing).


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> Amen Brother.
> One can't do either without doing both. Inseparably linked.
> 
> It is a pitfall I negotiate all too frequently...without success. OK, Lord...I am needing a rope thrown down here.
> Years ago, in part of my training, I found myself under what appeared at that time a strict tutelage. I could say my own carnality arranged the surrender of a certain liberty for what I considered greater expediencies for the sharing of the gospel, but were later shown to just be my own craven desires for a power I thought could be imbued by this "fellowship."
> After certain hypocrisies were revealed, and also my own, amidst consequent heat and flame, I believe I heard the Lord ask me this, in so many words.
> "OK, I have brought you through a situation in which you have learned something of the nature of the will of man...(it's not fun being dominated, even so called "spiritually" is it?)..and now you think you rightly hate it. But, do you hate your own will with the same fervor? For if not, you really haven't learned anything."
> 
> Basically, I understood that I was the spiritual bully I needed to see, and far too often I am still brought to see I have not known that as I should.
> 
> For, again, far too often it seems, I set out like a blind leader..."trying" to establish the message of the cross.
> "Lord, if only "they" would rightly miseo themselves, then I would know they love you, be able to see, and not be so entangled with the carnality I see abounding".
> 
> After i firmly hit bottom...then comes the light of God's laughter.
> "Hey, c'mon...could you stop laughing long enough...to throw me a rope?"
> 
> Sure. Just don't confuse disliking "man" as equal to loving me. Let's review what I paid for "them".
> 
> Oh.



I can relate to your story, I've been grabbing for one of those ropes since Monday morning about 10:30 when I was shocked to realize I was out wandering around in the dark by myself while thinking someone should follow.  It's good to know Someone who specializes in impossible situations.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> I can relate to your story, I've been grabbing for one of those ropes since Monday morning about 10:30 when I was shocked to realize I was out wandering around in the dark by myself while thinking someone should follow.  It's good to know Someone who specializes in impossible situations.


Ha!
and 
Amen.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I'm sure I remember similar advise having been given by others in the past but I'm going to try one more time.
> 
> Please, I ask you in love, block google from your computer, set up a study area somewhere that is quiet and undisturbed for at least a couple of hours a day, go there with your Bible (make sure it has good cross-references, most NASB's are good on that score but there are several others) and read, read, and read some more.  Take no commentaries, no dictionaries, no telephones.  If you don't understand something, read that whole passage (anything from a few verses to a few chapters) at least three times.  If you still don't get it, it's time to check a few cross-references.  If it's still foggy, it's time to move on; don't worry, it will show up again later.  Don't get into any extended theological discussion with anybody, you'll be ready for that at some point in the future.
> 
> I'll check back at Thanksgiving 2013 to see how your doing.
> 
> P.S. No Study Bibles, you'll forget which is scripture and which is opinion.
> 
> P.P.S.  Where's the down side, at the worst you will have spent more time in God's Word than the rest of us (I'm quessing).



After reading one of these topics and all the different views and beliefs, It's funny that i'm the Confused One!

I don't have a particular Bible version I prefer. I did like the Bible app. my coworker has on his phone. I would probably stick with the NIV bit I would like this app as I could look at different versions and see the different interpretations. I wish I could wipe the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, Arminius and even the older teachers from my mind to really start with just the Bible and then do away with my Baptist indoctrination.
I know you are giving good advice but i've grown up reading the Bible(KJV) and still do but i've learned a lot from preachers, elders, scholars, Sunday School teachers, Priest, Rabbis, and I've learned a lot from how Christians interact with each other. I don't really think these types of discussions or how anyone believes in T.U.L.I.P. , or historical Bible topics are no where near as important as how we treat our neighbor. This is all educational and I like to hear all the different beliefs, etc. but Love, Faith, & Hope is what living a Christian life is all about, especially Love. I would like to also add Forgiving others, that's the hard one. I don't want to get too tied up in all this education that I become like the Pharisees.

Was there something about the Church in the link you didn't like? Was it because they aren't Protestants?
Simply Christians
The Church of Christ in Round Lake Beach is simply a  local congregation of God's people, just like those you read about in the New Testament. We are are just a non-denominational church of Christ - simply Christians, neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> I came across this statement earlier today.
> 
> "Actually Calvin did not originally develop the system, but Augustine of Hyppo (354-430 A.D.) in the fifth century came up with this idea.  Augustine tried in vain to live a celibate life but because of his many sexual and other sins he concluded that man was totally depraved from birth.  Since he chose to lead a sinful lifestyle he tried to justify himself by developing a theology to substantiate it."


Ronnie, in your research of Augustine, did you conclude that his sinful lifestyle was prior to his conversion to Christianity?


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> Au contraire.  The Reformation was a pivotal moment in church history.  Without it, you would not believe what you believe.


None believed it prior to the Reformation. Is that what you are saying? Seriously?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> After reading one of these topics and all the different views and beliefs, It's funny that i'm the Confused One!
> 
> I don't have a particular Bible version I prefer. I did like the Bible app. my coworker has on his phone. I would probably stick with the NIV bit I would like this app as I could look at different versions and see the different interpretations. I wish I could wipe the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, Arminius and even the older teachers from my mind to really start with just the Bible and then do away with my Baptist indoctrination.
> I know you are giving good advice but i've grown up reading the Bible(KJV) and still do but i've learned a lot from preachers, elders, scholars, Sunday School teachers, Priest, Rabbis, and I've learned a lot from how Christians interact with each other. I don't really think these types of discussions or how anyone believes in T.U.L.I.P. , or historical Bible topics are no where near as important as how we treat our neighbor. This is all educational and I like to hear all the different beliefs, etc. but Love, Faith, & Hope is what living a Christian life is all about, especially Love. I would like to also add Forgiving others, that's the hard one. I don't want to get too tied up in all this education that I become like the Pharisees.
> 
> Was there something about the Church in the link you didn't like? Was it because they aren't Protestants?
> Simply Christians
> The Church of Christ in Round Lake Beach is simply a  local congregation of God's people, just like those you read about in the New Testament. We are are just a non-denominational church of Christ - simply Christians, neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish.



I didn't follow a link, just read your post (#71 not #73) and said "this brother needs a lot more Scripture and Spirit and a lot less world and flesh".  The most well intentioned, loving, man in the world can not do anything more than point in the direction that the path can be found, and few can do that.  The Pharisees problem was not education or law, it was self.


----------



## Ronnie T

gemcgrew said:


> Ronnie, in your research of Augustine, did you conclude that his sinful lifestyle was prior to his conversion to Christianity?



Oh, I didn't research Augustine.  I just saw that in something else I had read this morning.  So I can't answer the second part of your question.


----------



## gemcgrew

barryl said:


> Total Depravity,Are you saying that extends to acts of the will?


Yes


barryl said:


> "Dead in Tresspasses and Sins" A man{Calvin} is telling you, you can't do something {Recieve Christ} even though God commands him[you} to recieve Jesus Christ. In one of Johns epistles, the commandment was that we "believe... on his Son Jesus Christ."


Dead men can't do anything. "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins".


barryl said:


> "Unconditional Election" Not a case in the Bible that I know of where God elected anybody "until they did something He told them to do."


Here you go... "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)"... "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." 


barryl said:


> Eternity, ain't no use in going there, you{me} were not in Christ before we "Believed."


Here you go... "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace"

And... "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"


----------



## Ronnie T

Artfuldodger said:


> After reading one of these topics and all the different views and beliefs, It's funny that i'm the Confused One!
> 
> I don't have a particular Bible version I prefer. I did like the Bible app. my coworker has on his phone. I would probably stick with the NIV bit I would like this app as I could look at different versions and see the different interpretations. I wish I could wipe the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, Arminius and even the older teachers from my mind to really start with just the Bible and then do away with my Baptist indoctrination.
> I know you are giving good advice but i've grown up reading the Bible(KJV) and still do but i've learned a lot from preachers, elders, scholars, Sunday School teachers, Priest, Rabbis, and I've learned a lot from how Christians interact with each other. I don't really think these types of discussions or how anyone believes in T.U.L.I.P. , or historical Bible topics are no where near as important as how we treat our neighbor. This is all educational and I like to hear all the different beliefs, etc. but Love, Faith, & Hope is what living a Christian life is all about, especially Love. I would like to also add Forgiving others, that's the hard one. I don't want to get too tied up in all this education that I become like the Pharisees.
> 
> Was there something about the Church in the link you didn't like? Was it because they aren't Protestants?
> Simply Christians
> The Church of Christ in Round Lake Beach is simply a  local congregation of God's people, just like those you read about in the New Testament. We are are just a non-denominational church of Christ - simply Christians, neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish.



It can be done, and it isn't so difficult.  I've spent the last 25 years seriously doing that.  Because of it, many consider me to not have a very broad modern day biblical knowledge.  But that's alright with me.  
You do like Hummerpoo said earlier.  Never study and "take in" anything except God's word.  
Read it, then again, then again.  One chapter at a time, in order, beginning with the first chapter of each book/letter.
And don't forget Jesus' teachings.  His teachings are the simplest.
Consider all things in context, rather than one verse against another.  Every verse must be considered - every verse is accurate.  Don't make it complicated.

If two chapters conflict, you don't understand them yet.

It is so liberating to trust only in God's word.


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> None believed it prior to the Reformation. Is that what you are saying? Seriously?



No, I'll grant you that the Reformers took Augustine's teachings and ran with them.  Augustine was a lone voice, though.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> No, I'll grant you that the Reformers took Augustine's teachings and ran with them.  Augustine was a lone voice, though.


Perhaps a lone voice crying in the wilderness.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ronnie T said:


> It can be done, and it isn't so difficult.  I've spent the last 25 years seriously doing that.  Because of it, many consider me to not have a very broad modern day biblical knowledge.  But that's alright with me.
> You do like Hummerpoo said earlier.  Never study and "take in" anything except God's word.
> Read it, then again, then again.  One chapter at a time, in order, beginning with the first chapter of each book/letter.
> And don't forget Jesus' teachings.  His teachings are the simplest.
> Consider all things in context, rather than one verse against another.  Every verse must be considered - every verse is accurate.  Don't make it complicated.
> 
> If two chapters conflict, you don't understand them yet.
> 
> It is so liberating to trust only in God's word.



And your quest is why I value your guidance. I've only spent about 5 years doing this and it's very liberating.
I'll definitely take Hummerpoos advice as soon as I figure out what the WORD is. (Please see my latest post on "is the Bible Biblical".) 
I'm not buying your "Never study and take in anything that's not God's Word.  When Gemcgrew said "Church history is not the basis of my faith." 
Centerpin fan said "Au contraire. The Reformation was a pivotal moment in church history. Without it, you would not believe what you believe. "
Meaning all of our religious beliefs are formed on the teachings of a Church(man). I'm not even a member of a denomination but I can't deny my Protestant indoctrination. I can't deny my Earthly Father's influence. I can't deny my Nation's heritage on my influence. So to deny the outside influence would be a lie.
There is way more to God's word than the Bible. 
I consider you to have a very good ( old & modern) Knowledge of the Word. You've expressed the true meaning and teachings of Jesus to me (I can't speak for others) than a thousand words could express. And like me you still have faults.(no offense). 
OK how or what did you say to make me say this? (Your quote)And don't forget Jesus' teachings.  His teachings are the simplest.(end quote)
Just as Jesus taught in a simple way, just as Jesus used children as an example of a simple way, your teaching is in a simple way. I consider Jesus and his teachings while on earth to be "the Word".


----------



## JB0704

hummerpoo said:


> Could it be that Calvin is simply a “straw man”.  I have been referred to as ‘one of the “tulip” folks’, although not being able to recall the last time I uttered the word or any of the five doctrines to which it refers.
> 
> I confess it a challenge to refrain from negative characterizations of those who prefer to categorize rather than soberly reflect.  Perhaps such restraint is not good, the alternative being to allow the glory of God to be subordinated to the glory of man.
> 
> I have to consider that further.



HP. please accept my apologies.  It was not intended to be offensive. It was simply my, apparently bad, attempt at ebing lighthearted.

These topics often get dragged into arguing over predestination, and I am trying to avoid that whil ediscussing something the relies on it to stand scrutiny.

From our previous discussions, I believe you do not believe in free will, and would believe in predestination.  That's the category I was referring too.

I'll modify my remarks if you would like.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I didn't follow a link, just read your post (#71 not #73) and said "this brother needs a lot more Scripture and Spirit and a lot less world and flesh".  The most well intentioned, loving, man in the world can not do anything more than point in the direction that the path can be found, and few can do that.  The Pharisees problem was not education or law, it was self.



And I do think you are sincere. I do need more Scripture & Spirit. I provided a link to a different view not yet presented. I might agree with it, I might not agree and maybe just provided it for discussion. I would gather that you don't agree that Adam brought sin upon the world and we are probably going to sin because of it. Adam's sin is not inherited to children and therefore they are innocent.
We sin by our own free will and will be punished for it and that Jesus died for OUR sins and not Adams.
I can assume that you believe we inherited Adam's sin and that children are born full of sin. The OP started this discussion on this topic and we have heard various beliefs on the subject. Why would a fellow Christian do such a thing? Was he trying to "rightly divide the truth" or maybe just learn the concept of the "T"in tulip.
And with all the various beliefs & views, what was it about my post that lead you to believe I needed more Scripture?
I doubt that i'm the only one who might think children are born innocent, that we didn't inherit Adam's guilt for sin, & that man is fully capable of sinning on his own.

Again I don't see how these Bible verses I quoted in post 71 & 73 are not Biblical and any more confusing that all the other post on this topic. 
I would like to end for the night with your words:
Who among us can communicate without the Mediator.

Therefore, the challenge is not to present our ideas or to understand another’s,
but to take up our cross and follow,
to hate mother and father …
to die and thereby live.

To love your neighbor is not second and love the Lord first …
to love your neighbor is “like” to love the Lord your God. 

Those words are a way better message for someone needing the Word & Spirit than reading. I think i'll follow your Christian teaching of the true Word instead of something King James said.


----------



## hummerpoo

JB0704 said:


> HP. please accept my apologies.  It was not intended to be offensive. It was simply my, apparently bad, attempt at ebing lighthearted.
> 
> These topics often get dragged into arguing over predestination, and I am trying to avoid that whil ediscussing something the relies on it to stand scrutiny.
> 
> From our previous discussions, I believe you do not believe in free will, and would believe in predestination.  That's the category I was referring too.
> 
> I'll modify my remarks if you would like.



No need to apologize or modify anything.  Your misunderstanding is far too common to be offensive; and my reference to restraint has nothing to do with your post.  Although, I admit to a degree of concern about lighthearted references to the subject of sovereignty, which is in effect the character of God.

Admitting that I am, at this point, still too emotional to soberly express my thoughts (being obviously impaired even under the best of conditions), the statement that did and does require restraint is “The Spirit quickens and then it's my turn.”

(Art, the above statement is not in any way personal.  Many have expressed the identical idea, you just got the essence.)

In response to which I must ask:

Having exercised your prerogative, is it your flesh or your spirit that is gratified?  If your flesh, then are you not opposed to the Spirit?  If your spirit, then have you not supplanted the Spirit of God?

Having been enlivened to reality, which is the Creator of All, exactly what adjustments do you envision, and do you suggest or insist upon their implementation?

To the idea that God has ceded to the creature a preference as to eternal maters, I would invite comparison to other blessings from His personal being.  We are told that He shares with us His strength, can you demonstrate your choice of rain or shine; what of His peace, does you heart remain steady at times of peril; of His holiness, I leave to each reader; of His glory, we are told that at the appointed time we will be impelled to lay ours at His feet.

Each day that I am allowed to continue in this world adds to what I do not know, but this I know by the grace of God:

In the beginning God created … so that God may be all in all.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”


----------



## Ronnie T

Artfuldodger said:


> And I do think you are sincere. I do need more Scripture & Spirit. I provided a link to a different view not yet presented. I might agree with it, I might not agree and maybe just provided it for discussion. I would gather that you don't agree that Adam brought sin upon the world and we are probably going to sin because of it. Adam's sin is not inherited to children and therefore they are innocent.
> We sin by our own free will and will be punished for it and that Jesus died for OUR sins and not Adams.
> I can assume that you believe we inherited Adam's sin and that children are born full of sin. The OP started this discussion on this topic and we have heard various beliefs on the subject. Why would a fellow Christian do such a thing? Was he trying to "rightly divide the truth" or maybe just learn the concept of the "T"in tulip.
> And with all the various beliefs & views, what was it about my post that lead you to believe I needed more Scripture?
> I doubt that i'm the only one who might think children are born innocent, that we didn't inherit Adam's guilt for sin, & that man is fully capable of sinning on his own.
> Again I don't see how these Bible verses I quoted in post 71 & 73 are not Biblical and any more confusing that all the other post on this topic.
> I would like to end for the night with your words:
> Who among us can communicate without the Mediator.
> 
> Therefore, the challenge is not to present our ideas or to understand another’s,
> but to take up our cross and follow,
> to hate mother and father …
> to die and thereby live.
> 
> To love your neighbor is not second and love the Lord first …
> to love your neighbor is “like” to love the Lord your God.
> 
> Those words are a way better message for someone needing the Word & Spirit than reading. I think i'll follow your Christian teaching of the true Word instead of something King James said.



By the preponderance of Biblical evidence I believe any child of God; clothed by Christ; filled with the Holy Spirit, can live life today with absolutely no sin at all.
It is true that all have sinned.  But in Christ a child of God has now been placed in a position to be free from sin.  To never commit sin again......  Think about that a moment!

Now, even though I believe the above, I admit to sinning since being saved and receiving the Holy Spirit.  I further submit that it's likely that I will sin again, somemore, between now and death, even though God's spirit lives within me.

And yet, in my miserable sinfulness, and my understanding and acknowledgement of it, God will forgive those sins.  Those sins were my fault.  Not the devil's, not Adams, not God's.  I must take full responsibility for the sin, deal with it, ask for forgiveness, continue my walk with Christ.  I'm probably much more confident with the forgiveness part of the process, but I'm working on it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Man I'm so full of food, I might have sinned. I hope there is still room for the Spirit.
And back to the discussion, I would like to hear more people's beliefs on inherited sin. Jesus was 100% man and 100%God, why didn't he inherit Adam's sin? 
Does anyone have a belief on children being born sinners or being born into a world of sin?


----------



## centerpin fan

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to hear more people's beliefs on inherited sin.



We inherited the consequences of Adam's sin but not the guilt.  




Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus was 100% man and 100%God, why didn't he inherit Adam's sin?



Read _On the Incarnation_ by St. Athanasius.  I have it in paperback, but I'm sure it's also available online.


----------



## Ronnie T

Artfuldodger said:


> Man I'm so full of food, I might have sinned. I hope there is still room for the Spirit.
> And back to the discussion, I would like to hear more people's beliefs on inherited sin. Jesus was 100% man and 100%God, why didn't he inherit Adam's sin?
> Does anyone have a belief on children being born sinners or being born into a world of sin?



Turkey, cornbread dressing, sweet potato souffle, chicken & dumplings, fresh turnips, deviled eggs, ham, 7 layer salad, greenbean casserole, cabbage, hand pattied cornbread, homemade yeast rolls, potato salad,
pecan pie, pumpkin pie, coconut pie, sourcream pound cake, chess pie, watergate salad, peach cobbler......

I'm done.     I've had it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ronnie T said:


> Turkey, cornbread dressing, sweet potato souffle, chicken & dumplings, fresh turnips, deviled eggs, ham, 7 layer salad, greenbean casserole, cabbage, hand pattied cornbread, homemade yeast rolls, potato salad,
> pecan pie, pumpkin pie, coconut pie, sourcream pound cake, chess pie, watergate salad, peach cobbler......
> 
> I'm done.     I've had it.



I can't believe you're still awake. I've got to go to bed as I have to work tomorrow. 
I love Chess Pie. It's not real popular in the South. Love me some watergate salad too.


----------



## Artfuldodger

centerpin fan said:


> We inherited the consequences of Adam's sin but not the guilt.



Well that's the way I see it. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> All that the Father gives will  come and none else. These are the elect and they are effectually called by the power of the Holy Spirit.



I believe that....
We sow the seed (witness).. and then the HS takes over, if the person takes the 'bait' the HS overcomes them....and that's anyone who takes the bait by hearing the word. Whosoever believes...not a fewsoever.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> The natural man will not seek (Romans 3:11). *Romans 3:22-24
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> more of the same scripture
> Romans 3
> 
> 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
> 
> 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> 
> 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
> *Salvation is of the Lord in its entirety.



We have to believe, that's an acception/surrender on our part....nothing we have done will save us...only that we believe and that's also an action on our part.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> That's the way I see it too. The Spirit quickens and then it's my turn.
> 
> I'm still out on the Children and how that's ties in. I'm still trying to work out Adam's sin vs my sin. I don't think I can totally blame all my sins on Adam.



The Spirit does quicken us, and that's  for those who believe...the moment we believe....even before we believe,  He stands at the door and knocks....

You can't blame your sins on adam....they are your sins that Christ takes away. God's will is for you not to sin, so if we didn't have free will wouldn't we be perfect? Christ died for Adam's sin all the way down to our sins...everyone's sin. God chose for none to perish, but some of us won't chose Him and they will perish...even though they heard the word but did not "hear the word".
Let him who has ears, hear........we ALL have ears.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Turkey, cornbread dressing, sweet potato souffle, chicken & dumplings, fresh turnips, deviled eggs, ham, 7 layer salad, greenbean casserole, cabbage, hand pattied cornbread, homemade yeast rolls, potato salad,
> pecan pie, pumpkin pie, coconut pie, sourcream pound cake, chess pie, watergate salad, peach cobbler......
> 
> I'm done.     I've had it.



Dang and you didn't invite me? Send me a plate!

Happy Thanksgiving by brother!


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> None believed it prior to the Reformation. Is that what you are saying? Seriously?



Do you have a search on that? I'd like to know those answers, too.  

Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> Dang and you didn't invite me? Send me a plate!
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving by brother!



I wish you coulda been here.

.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> I wish you coulda been here.
> 
> .



Thank you Ronnie!

I had a great day with my daughter and "his" family. It was all good, great food...grandkids.....thank you God.
Glad yours was great, too.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> We inherited the consequences of Adam's sin but not the guilt.


That is not my memory of it and my memory is clear. God placed me there. I shook my fist in His face and said "No limitations here, thank you". Sin and guilt is what I fully became. Thank God, he placed me in the 2nd Adam and I am restored. Salvation is of the Lord.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> We have to believe, that's an acception/surrender on our part


No, it is an acknowledgment.



mtnwoman said:


> nothing we have done will save us...only that we believe and that's also an action on our part.


You keep telling me that there is nothing we can do. But then you tell me what we have to do. Please focus on this for a moment.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> I believe that....
> We sow the seed (witness).. and then the HS takes over, if the person takes the 'bait' the HS overcomes them....and that's anyone who takes the bait by hearing the word. Whosoever believes...not a fewsoever.


Who sows but one called of God? What seed but the Word of God? Who hears but a regenerate heart prepared by God? What harvest but God's? 

Bait? I think not!

Salvation is of the Lord.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> That is not my memory of it and my memory is clear. God placed me there. I shook my fist in His face and said "No limitations here, thank you". Sin and guilt is what I fully became. Thank God, he placed me in the 2nd Adam and I am restored. Salvation is of the Lord.


That brother, is worth all the waiting.
"I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
All have passed through the first Adam...except one.

1Co_15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 

Since Jesus is the "Lamb slain _from_ the foundation of the world" God has presented us another man in whom to find our identity.
We struggle with trying to understand "why" we seem to have a remnant/memory of sin and death. Because it "seems" so real to us, and we then use the scriptures to justify that of which Jesus tells us he has cleansed us. Inwardly...we still have a blame toward Adam, see him as "someone else"...even a convenient whipping boy. (this may require some forthright investigation).
Yes, we believe the scriptures, yes, they are all written for our instruction and admonition. Why then our persistence in holding to "that" Adam? Perhaps... because we still are!
And in our struggle to "disassociate" ourselves from him we "do" many things of ourselves...rather than simply believe. (Basically, that shred of pride..."I will show you I am better than the first Adam!")
And, in all our "own" attempts to separate ourselves from him...we find ourselves denying (to ourselves) the very mercy the 2nd Adam came to deliver.

God has no blame for Adam #1. He sent his own son to do nothing...but _show_ him mercy. Have we seen that?

Rom_11:32  For God hath _concluded_ them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
(It's worth searching out the meaning of the word "concluded")


I find it interesting that there is only one "new" commandment, and it is surely only received by "One".
Joh_13:34  A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 

This requires a seeing of something a knowing of something to fulfill it, does it not? 

"as I have loved you"?

Did this love start when we beheld it? Or did this love start before we even had an inkling of it...? From the beginning? Even the very love that brought us to see it...while we still abode in unbelief and rebellion?

How then if seeing this...can we have anything but mercy toward any and all that yet still identify the first Adam as their father...and EXCUSE?
Seeing myself as Adam, is my deliverance from "his" ways. Peculiar isn't it? It's the reverse of what we may think. To be "unlike" the first Adam, I would think I should try to be "not" like him? But there is our web we weave ourselves to bind ourselves to him. In trying to make ourselves separate...we are bound.

Our deliverance is seeing...and receiving...all the mercy God has toward the first Adam...and that alone...is our deliverance.
The new creature blames no one, identifies with all in their weakness and blindness. And, therein, the reconciliation is made. And therein, the life giving spirit manifests through us.

One man said:
Gen 3:12  And the man said, The _woman_ whom _thou_ gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 

He had forgotten where from and "of whom" the woman is. She was of him. Not separate...

Another refused to eat what she offered, but did not separate himself from her "Forgive them Father, they don't know what they do"...and presented himself as intercessor on her (his brides) behalf....and even joyfully paid the price for her deception and ignorance.
(For the joy set before him he endured the cross...)
Oh, to see...and allow...that full measure of mercy toward us...work in us, and through us to see our brothers return safely home.
Even, and especially those, who may even now...be consenting to our deaths.


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> That is not my memory of it and my memory is clear. God placed me there. I shook my fist in His face and said "No limitations here, thank you". Sin and guilt is what I fully became. Thank God, he placed me in the 2nd Adam and I am restored. Salvation is of the Lord.



I agree with the last part.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Did this love start when we beheld it? Or did this love start before we even had an inkling of it...? From the beginning? Even the very love that brought us to see it...while we still abode in unbelief and rebellion?


"Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

That "everlasting love" has an eternal ring to it, does it not?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."
> 
> That "everlasting love" has an eternal ring to it, does it not?



I often think about the words "everlasting" and "eternity". We tend to think it's like from here to the end. We forget about from the Alpha to the Omega. 
You agree somewhat with the Mormons on the pre-creation soul-life doctrine?


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I often think about the words "everlasting" and "eternity". We tend to think it's like from here to the end. We forget about from the Alpha to the Omega.
> You agree somewhat with the Mormons on the pre-creation soul-life doctrine?


I can't imagine that I do but am not familiar with it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> I can't imagine that I do but am not familiar with it.



I started a new post on it. Basically saying we were with God in Heaven before coming to Earth in a body. I was assuming with your pre-destinitian beliefs it was something along those lines. God knew us before we were in the womb, line of thinking. I'm thinking maybe your beliefs aren't similar. Sorry if I overstepped my assumption.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> That is not my memory of it and my memory is clear. God placed me there. I shook my fist in His face and said "No limitations here, thank you". Sin and guilt is what I fully became. Thank God, he placed me in the 2nd Adam and I am restored. Salvation is of the Lord.



Were you saved before all that? and then 'fell away'...or did you never believe before this happened?

Had you ever heard and understand the word before that happened?


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> "Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."



I believe He draws ALL of us. and that that scripture is for all of us who will come to Jesus. We can come to Him or not. (see siggy)That's the only difference that I see that  you and I disagree with.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> I often think about the words "everlasting" and "eternity". We tend to think it's like from here to the end. We forget about from the Alpha to the Omega.
> You agree somewhat with the Mormons on the pre-creation soul-life doctrine?



I'm thinking JW's believe they are part of the elect also.....even part of the 144,000...but I believe they are Jews....God's chosen ones.
I in no way think I'm a part of 'that elect',either. Lot's of 'religions' think they are the elect of God. I became of the elect when I surrender to Him and only Him, accept His gift, acknowledge of and recognize His gift....Jesus the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world. The entire world, not just what some think He's limited to, That's uns's...all of usn's..He has the power to save the entire world....not just a few.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> We can come to Him or not. (see siggy)That's the only difference that I see that  you and I disagree with.


Read your siggy carefully. It appears that you are reading it this way... "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, _possibly, depending on whether or not they choose to_; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


----------



## Artfuldodger

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37)

Giveth as in "Gift" as in "Salvation". That's what the Father  giveth. Presently giving.
If it meant predestionators, it would say "gave". All the Father gaveth me.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(that verse let's us know what God's will is.) (every one)

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(How could the Father draw or allure an already elected person?)
(God draws/allures and we have a desire to cleave.)

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(That explains why we are drawn and given to Jesus by God.)


----------



## hummerpoo

Art, you need to start over.  Hint - 1)Greek giveth ... 2) vs. 39


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Art, you need to start over.  Hint - 1)Greek giveth ... 2) vs. 39



Not start over but continue. Verse 39 comes later thus it changes from what the Father giveth me (present) in verse 37 to what the Father hath given in verse 39(past tense). 

Please give me your take on verse 40. There is no giveth or givin to "getith' in thy way. In this verse Jesus is explaining what the will of his Father is. Wonder why Jesus's will isn't important? You ever notice how everything is about God's will and not Jesus? I believe it has something to do with God's will. It uses words like everyone & everlasting.


----------



## hummerpoo

hint 1


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Please give me your take on verse 40.


You must back up. You are trying to unlock v. 40 but you left the key in v. 37.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> Jesus the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world. The entire world....not just a few.


Welcome to Universalism, where everybody without exception, goes to heaven.


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> Welcome to Universalism, where everybody without exception, goes to heaven.



The same man who said this:

_“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"_

... also said this:

_But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

“I baptize you with* water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”*_*

John the Baptist was not preaching Universalism.*


----------



## Israel

I used to "wonder".

Jesus: 

"Father...since you already know not all will believe on me, can we cut a little deal here? How bout I only suffer to the extent necessary to pay for those who will and do...believe? I mean...why pay for what's not "ours"? Would sure help me out here some..."

Father:

"You know Son, you don't have to do any of it, I am already well pleased with you. I got twelve legions of angels...and more...much more...it's up to you."

Jesus:  "Oh dad, when you put it that way...what else can I do? What else would I want to do? Yes, I can see that by even paying the full price for all, even those who don't believe...and won't...two things will be demonstrated...your absolute extravagance and generosity...which will not be "lost" on my brothers, your other children...and be a help to their joy...and also...in "that" day...you will not have to bear the accusations by some that all was not done for them as for others. And you know how I can't bear any accusation against your goodness and mercy..."

Father: 

"Bless you son...for how my JOY is fulfilled in you!"


Jesus:

"OH Father...it's you who are the fulfillment of MY Joy! I delight to do your will!"

Father and Son: 

"OK, now let's take a walk up that hill...together..."

Jesus (coming out of the garden):

 "Whom seek ye?" (wow...when he went into the garden...he was looking to see if there be any relief from what he saw coming to himself! Now...look! He wants to get the whole thing started...he even calls out to those looking for him! I think joy and strength are irreducibly linked!)

Those walking in darkness, (needing torches, and lanterns...and weapons):

"Jesus of Nazareth"


"I AM HE"..."now let these (my own) go their way..." (wow...what boldness...what righteousness, what irrefutable command of the whole of the "situation")


Man, they had no idea who they were releasing...by seeking to take "Jesus of Nazareth" captive to crucifixion.

Rom_11:33  O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 

If we receive him...we see them!

BUT...

Even if we deny him and seek to remove him...we prove God's righteous judgment!

Either way...as Paul said:

2Co 13:8  For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. 

For even the vessels that refuse...cause vessels of mercy to marvel...at both the patience and mercy of God!

Rom 9:22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 
Rom 9:23  _And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,_ which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 

The only thing persistent unbelief ought to provoke in us is "WOW! Look at our Lord's patience! Isn't it marvelous?"

Of course...this attitude will make unbelievers even more uncomfortable...and some may even help us out of these bodies of humiliation to put on a new suit...consenting to our deaths.

And some...perhaps...God willing...will leave our corpses there...well pleased...and head out to their next stop...Damascus.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> John the Baptist was not preaching Universalism.


Nor was I challenging John the Baptist, but the misapplication.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:
			
		

> We inherited the consequences of Adam's sin but not the guilt.



CP, could you give a Biblical defense of this position?  I have always believed we were inherently guilty as well.




gemcgrew said:


> That is not my memory of it and my memory is clear. God placed me there. I shook my fist in His face and said "No limitations here, thank you". Sin and guilt is what I fully became. Thank God, he placed me in the 2nd Adam and I am restored. Salvation is of the Lord.



I took a few days off from the forum, as I ventured into south Ga. in pursuit of the elusive deer (and the lord blessed my efforts ).

From above, and in previous posts, I think you are saying that total depravity is the root cause of you "shaking your fist."  I am still a bit confused then as to how those who are unelected ever seek salvation?

For instance, I always believed in God until my early 20's.  Then I had a period of "doubt."  Perhaps I am "elect," perhaps I am not, but how do we categorize my efforts at righteousness pre-salvation?


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> From above, and in previous posts, I think you are saying that total depravity is the root cause of you "shaking your fist."  I am still a bit confused then as to how those who are unelected ever seek salvation?


They do not. They remain in unbelief their whole life.



JB0704 said:


> For instance, I always believed in God until my early 20's.  Then I had a period of "doubt."  Perhaps I am "elect," perhaps I am not, but how do we categorize my efforts at righteousness pre-salvation?


Categorized as evil.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> They do not. They remain in unbelief their whole life.





We have to consider those who are "unelected" but want very much to be "elected," don't we?  As I said previously, we can consider all sorts of faiths which do not believe like we do.....but they try very hard to "get it right."




gemcgrew said:


> Categorized as evil.



Without getting into denominational discord, would this include the efforts of those that prosthelitze a messaage of salvation by choice?  I grew up Baptist, and as such, believe I "choose" to be saved.  However, this effort is based on what those who taught me firmly believe the Bible says.

Can seeking righteousness be evil?  If so, do you have a reference?


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> CP, could you give a Biblical defense of this position?  I have always believed we were inherently guilty as well.



It comes down to the translation of Romans 5:12.  The Greek-speaking Eastern church has never believed we bore the guilt of Adam's sin.


_The piety and devotion of Augustine is largely unquestioned by Orthodox theologians, but his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a, p. 9). His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979).

In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates._


http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> It comes down to the translation of Romans 5:12.  The Greek-speaking Eastern church has never believed we bore the guilt of Adam's sin.
> 
> 
> _The piety and devotion of Augustine is largely unquestioned by Orthodox theologians, but his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a, p. 9). His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979).
> 
> In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates._
> 
> 
> http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/



Ok......that is the first I had heard of that, and that would fit with the "child-like faith" question from earlier in the thread.  If we are not born guilty, then that would change the premise of total depravity, I would think.

Interesting.............thanks for tossing that out there.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> We have to consider those who are "unelected" but want very much to be "elected," don't we?


Reprobates have no desire to be anything other than reprobate. They are created as such and such remain. They are vessels of wrath. They are non-Christians or non-Christians pretending to be Christians.


JB0704 said:


> Without getting into denominational discord, would this include the efforts of those that prosthelitze a messaage of salvation by choice?


Yes but also keep in mind your reference of pre-salvation(new birth).


JB0704 said:


> Can seeking righteousness be evil?  If so, do you have a reference?


Reprobates do not seek. The message of Christ is not good news to Satan and it is not good news to the reprobate. For them, it is a stench of death.(2 Corinthians 2:16)


----------



## gemcgrew

JB, also keep in mind "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." 

The word "draw" here means "to drag".


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> JB, also keep in mind "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
> 
> The word "draw" here means "to drag".



I am thinking on that.......does that apply to my examples above?

HEre's where I am confused, and forgive me if I am frustrating everything here, but.....we are all aware of those who "pretend."  I guess Judas would be the most glaring example in the Bible.  However, they are not aware of their state....at least I don't believe I am / was.

In light of that, would any effort to "get it right" be evidence of being "dragged" to God?  I believe huntinfool mentioned that there is no good outside of God, if that is correct, wouldn't efforts to righteousness qualify?

I know I am sounding redundant, I am just having difficulty with the concept.  It seems you are drawing a line between elect and unelected that keeps one from doing "good."  Is that correct?


----------



## Artfuldodger

centerpin fan said:


> It comes down to the translation of Romans 5:12.  The Greek-speaking Eastern church has never believed we bore the guilt of Adam's sin.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Related to that is if Mary mother of Jesus inherited Adam's sin, then Jesus was born a sinner. The way people get around that is we only inherit sin from our father. I guess Clones won't inherit sin. Most believe that Jesus was 100% man and not a hybrid.
> I'd like to see a list of what Churches believe in inherited sin. I think the Church of God doesn't believe in inherited sin from Adam. I think they're are a few different denominations of the Church of God though.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> I am thinking on that.......does that apply to my examples above?


I believe so.


JB0704 said:


> In light of that, would any effort to "get it right" be evidence of being "dragged" to God?  I believe huntinfool mentioned that there is no good outside of God, if that is correct, wouldn't efforts to righteousness qualify?


"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."(Isaiah 64:6-8) 



JB0704 said:


> I know I am sounding redundant, I am just having difficulty with the concept.  It seems you are drawing a line between elect and unelected that keeps one from doing "good."  Is that correct?


The unregenerate elect are incapable of good as well. They are thoroughly corrupted. In regeneration, the elect's nature is changed from evil to good and produces faith and love towards Christ.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> It comes down to the translation of Romans 5:12.


No it does not.


centerpin fan said:


> The Greek-speaking Eastern church has never believed we bore the guilt of Adam's sin.


The Greek-speaking Eastern church is not the basis of my faith.


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> No it does not.



The question JB0704 posed relates directly to Rom. 5:12.




gemcgrew said:


> The Greek-speaking Eastern church is not the basis of my faith.



Correct.  The Latin-speaking Western church is.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> Correct.  The Latin-speaking Western church is.


The Latin-speaking Western church is not the basis of my faith. See a pattern yet?


----------



## centerpin fan

gemcgrew said:


> The Latin-speaking Western church is not the basis of my faith. See a pattern yet?



I see denial.


----------



## gemcgrew

centerpin fan said:


> I see denial.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> No, it is an acknowledgment.
> 
> 
> You keep telling me that there is nothing we can do. But then you tell me what we have to do. Please focus on this for a moment.



Acknowledment is still action on our part. Whosoever believeth, and I believeth.

There is nothing we can do to save ourselves. But we are called to action in acknowledgement. Jesus calls us by knocking on our hearts, we have to open our hearts.  Anyone has a choice to believe or not. For He wishes for no one to perish, and if His will is that no one should perish yet some will, He gave us the gospel to preach so that no one will perish IF they believe.  It's sort of like the 144,000 chosen by God that JW's believe they are. They are not, yet they've got a whole doctrine made out of a few verses in the Bible and many accept that. But that's not what the entire Bible says when you put it ALL together. And not turn a few scriptures into an entire doctrine while leaving many other scriptures out that refute the doctrine. When God said I have known you from the foundation of the earth and called on you to be a prophet, or a king, or a whale rider, or an ark builder, He wasn't talking to me, for I am none of those.  You can't prove a doctrine by assuming God was talking to us. He called on me, once I was saved, to preach the gospel.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> Who sows but one called of God? What seed but the Word of God? Who hears but a regenerate heart prepared by God? What harvest but God's?
> 
> Bait? I think not!
> 
> Salvation is of the Lord.



I believe all of that...except the bait part. Aren't we called to be fishers of men? What do fishers do to get the attention of 'fish'? Bait? How do you fish without bait? How do you fish without a hook? How do you fish without going out into the deep? How do you fish without casting your net? Isn't the seeds of God's word considered bait? Some will fall on thorny ground, some will take root and then wither, some will take root and bear fruit. The gospel, the word of God is bait.....relate it to us being called to be fishers of men according to God's word and maybe bait will seem useful to you.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> "There is nothing we can do to save ourselves"......"we have to open our hearts".


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


>



I said there is nothing we can do to save ourselves...we need a saviour. That saviour died for the sin of the world, not for a few....for all...His sacrifice was powerful enough to save the world not a few.  God gave us a saviour and to be saved we have to accept that saviour. Not all of us will, even though God chooses for none to perish. So if He chooses for no one to perish...why would He select the ones He wants to perish, (if not elected to be saved).....if He wishes for no one to perish....how could they perish if they were preselected to not perish. Why would that have to be mentioned? wouldn't it be a given?


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> The Latin-speaking Western church is not the basis of my faith. See a pattern yet?


I trust you are implying that unless our faith goes back to, and only comes from, the mouth of God, we are still tangled in the web of changing "church" history.

That God has used faithful men along the way to speak to us is not negated, but unless their speaking is to this one end, dig until you touch God...or reach...or question, that is as taught by the Master, ask, seek, knock, and know for yourself, from Him alone of the reality of His kingdom, reverence for them will only be a hindrance.

Rightly Jesus asks, "why do you call me Lord and do not the things that I say?"

Religious devotion to traditions of men will be of little comfort  "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." 
Rom 2:16

Sometimes we just wanna belong...but where, and to whom, is known by God alone.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> I trust you are implying that unless our faith goes back to, and only comes from, the mouth of God, we are still tangled in the web of changing "church" history.
> 
> That God has used faithful men along the way to speak to us is not negated, but unless their speaking is to this one end, dig until you touch God...or reach...or question, that is as taught by the Master, ask, seek, knock, and know for yourself, from Him alone of the reality of His kingdom, reverence for them will only be a hindrance.
> 
> Rightly Jesus asks, "why do you call me Lord and do not the things that I say?"
> 
> Religious devotion to traditions of men will be of little comfort  "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."
> Rom 2:16
> 
> Sometimes we just wanna belong...but where, and to whom, is known by God alone.


Agreed. I might add ... is known and accomplished by God alone.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Agreed. I might add ... is known and accomplished by God alone.


amen...


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> I said there is nothing we can do to save ourselves...we need a saviour.


Where do you suppose that "need" comes from? I can assure you that I didn't need the Saviour until I was made needy. God makes a sinner and God saves a sinner.



mtnwoman said:


> That saviour died for the sin of the world, not for a few....for all


If by "world" and "all", you mean all men alike and without exception, I disagree. See your siggy. Only those given him by the Father come to him and none can come but those that the Father draws.



mtnwoman said:


> His sacrifice was powerful enough to save the world not a few.


Powerful enough, yes, and it is not a few.(Rev 7:9)



mtnwoman said:


> Not all of us will, even though God chooses for none to perish.


This is problematic in an unbiblical worldview. I assure you that "all of us", the elect, will and none shall perish.



mtnwoman said:


> So if He chooses for no one to perish...why would He select the ones He wants to perish, (if not elected to be saved).....if He wishes for no one to perish....how could they perish if they were preselected to not perish. Why would that have to be mentioned? wouldn't it be a given?


It is "a given" in a proper biblical worldview. "No one", of the elect, will perish.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> Where do you suppose that "need" comes from? I can assure you that I didn't need the Saviour until I was made needy. God makes a sinner and God saves a sinner.
> 
> 
> If by "world" and "all", you mean all men alike and without exception, I disagree. See your siggy. Only those given him by the Father come to him and none can come but those that the Father draws.
> 
> 
> Powerful enough, yes, and it is not a few.(Rev 7:9)
> 
> 
> This is problematic in an unbiblical worldview. I assure you that "all of us", the elect, will and none shall perish.
> 
> 
> It is "a given" in a proper biblical worldview. "No one", of the elect, will perish.



I totally understand your view.

The part that I disagree with is that God's will is for some to perish.

I understand also about being brought to your knees, I certainly was. But I had been saved many, many years ago. Left the fold and Christ left the ninty and nine and overcame His lost sheep. I always belonged to Him, it was just resistance on my part to be fully dedicated. Once saved always saved. 

And trust me, even when He came and got me, I was clueless as to exactly what was going on. All of a sudden and I mean like a day or two, I was back in the fold. Nothing I was trying to do, nor even praying for deliverance from my lifestyle....He just came upon me and took me, and no I didn't have free will at the time to resist....because I had become part of the elect since I was 12 so since I was of the elect even during my prodigal days, He would not let me perish.

If you were never saved in your life and was never part of the fold and you all of a sudden was overtaken by Him without a clue or a prayer or study is truly a miracle from God....so God blessed you greatly by never giving you free will in your entire life to sin....I wish I had understood better when I was younger and that He would've taken my free will away, because I went thru some truly hurtful things, even though in the end it has been a cause for testimony and I believe that was God's will.  I loved Him greatly at 12 and if it were His will that I went thru what I've been thru and not by my choice....then it was Him and not me that sucked the joy and peace out of my life....and if He knew my heart was that troubled why didn't He come get me sooner? I still have nightmares after 40 years....no amount of praying has made that go away. I wish He would have mercy on me, then, since it was something that happened within His free will.  

What we do in the flesh we reap in the flesh and what we do in the spirit we reap in the spirit.....should read..what God causes us to do in the flesh, we reap in the flesh.


----------



## JB0704

Are you guys arguing predestination????


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> The part that I disagree with is that God's will is for some to perish.


They are vessels of wrath and are created for destruction. "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" (2 Peter 2:12)


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> Are you guys arguing predestination????


No, and I do not think we are arguing, but discussing.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> and I do not think we are arguing, but discussing.







gemcgrew said:


> No,



....election?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between Pre-election and election. In pre-election God elects us, in election we choose God and are therefore forever & ever elected. I'm having a hard time seeing the difference. I guess it means my free will ends at election. Once elected i'm pretty much assured i'll be called back to the flock before I die. That's some "Blessed Assurance" for a 16 year old Baptized youth can have after living a lifetime of living a terrible life. When he's 60 or 80 God calls him back and he still gets to go to Heaven. It was all part of God's plan. God would not let him die before the recall. It sounds like "election" to me.  
If God controls every persons action, "total depravity" continues until you die. Therefore it should be called by it's other name "total inability". Free will until YOU accept the calling of God, and then "total inability" until you die.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> The Latin-speaking Western church is not the basis of my faith. See a pattern yet?



Amen, I sure do. Just as God gave us the Old Testament to show us we could never follow laws, he gave us the Catholic Church for the same reason. The New Testament way of being saved without no longer following laws is equal to the Protestant Church. 
It's either that or God started the Protestant Church for the elect.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> ....election?


Somewhat and in regards to the reprobate.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> If God controls every persons action, "total depravity" continues until you die. Therefore it should be called by it's other name "total inability". Free will until YOU accept the calling of God, and then "total inability" until you die.



Apparently, you are totally depraved until elected (or such is activated), then a slave to righteousness.....and on both sides of the event, you control nothing.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the difference between Pre-election and election.


I do not know what you mean by pre-election. Election is eternal.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> I do not know what you mean by pre-election. Election is eternal.



Were you elected before you were born? Was your soul somewhere else before you were born? Did God know you before you were born or did God know "of you" before you were born? Meaning he knew when you were gonna get here, but you didn't pre-exist.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> They are vessels of wrath and are created for destruction. "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" (2 Peter 2:12)



That goes for anyone that does not....'whosoever believeth'.  There is nothing in any part of the salvation message that says special ones are prechosen.

For God so loveth part of the world, the part He chose, that He gave His only begotten son and for whosever He prechoseth to believeth will not perish. Nothing in John 3:16 even suggests this is only good for His elect.

Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world...

Perhaps those brute forces are of satan's legion and can never be saved, only destroyed.  Why do you build everything on just one scripture here and there?

What do you think the gospel says? Not just some pulled out of context selection of scriptures that scatter thru the bible...but what does the gospel in it's entirety say?
The gospel is matthew, mark, luke and john. Not Paul's writings, which he never even saw Jesus and never first handed heard the words that Jesus spoke.  It took 40 years to breed the slavery mentality out of the Jews, on a 12 mile hike. Don't you think Paul still had some of the OT in him, especially since he knows he was of the children that God did elect? The Jews are God's chosen people, He elected them to be His favored ones, do you think that every Jew on this earth will be saved, just because they were God's chosen people, even if they never accept Christ as their saviour? Basically you're saying they are because they were prechosen by God. I know Jews who will absolutely not be saved unless they turn to Jesus no matter if they are God's chosen people.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> Were you elected before you were born? Was your soul somewhere else before you were born? Did God know you before you were born or did God know "of you" before you were born? Meaning he knew when you were gonna get here, but you didn't pre-exist.



I believe God knows us before we are born. So if I was elected before I was born, I was already saved and never sinned in my life.

I don't know of a single person who declares they are of the elect that is sinless. Yes their sin is forgiven, but why would God let you sin if you have no free will in the first place?  That's what blows my mind.  I should be total perfect, and I'm not.....not yet. If I decided to go out and get hammered, and that's what I was delivered from, would it not be sin? And if I didn't have free will to do it, then I wouldn't be able to, would I? I can blame it on God? as if I had no free will. Why tell me to repent and sin no more unless it was a possiblity to do so?

Art, I think of preelection as preselected and you become part of the elect after you confess  with your mouth that you believe the facts of the gospel....

if God elected us before we were born, why are we still here? Only those can be saved, none others....so why doesn't He just take us all up away right now? Instead of making us live amongst the evil doers, the unsaved and the unelected? If there's no hope except for the elect what's the point of preaching the gospel to anyone....God has chosen them and they WILL believe regardless, they don't need anything, they don't need to believe, they don't need to accept, they don't even need to hear the word, they have been chosen and that's that. Nothing they can or need to do, because they can't, God has chosen them already.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Here's what Richard Baxter wrote over 300 years ago:
"Now I would know of any man, would you believe that Christ died for all men if the Scripture plainly speak it? If you would, do but tell me, what words can you devise or would you wish more plain for it than are there used? Is it not enough that Christ is called the Saviour of the World? You’ll say, but is it of the whole World? Yes, it saith, He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole World. Will you say, but it is not for All men in the World? Yes it saith he died for All men, as well as for all the World. But will you say, it saith not for every man? Yes it doth say, he tasted death for every man. But you may say, It means all the Elect, if it said so of any Non-Elect I would believe. Yes, it speaks of those that denied the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And yet all this seems nothing to men prejudiced."


----------



## Artfuldodger

mtnwoman said:


> I believe God knows us before we are born. So if I was elected before I was born, I was already saved and never sinned in my life.
> 
> I don't know of a single person who declares they are of the elect that is sinless. Yes their sin is forgiven, but why would God let you sin if you have no free will in the first place?  That's what blows my mind.  I should be total perfect, and I'm not.....not yet. If I decided to go out and get hammered, and that's what I was delivered from, would it not be sin? And if I didn't have free will to do it, then I wouldn't be able to, would I? I can blame it on God? as if I had no free will. Why tell me to repent and sin no more unless it was a possiblity to do so?
> 
> Art, I think of preelection as preselected and you become part of the elect after you confess  with your mouth the facts of the gospel....
> 
> if God elected us before we were born, why are we still here? Only those can be saved, none others....so why doesn't He just take us all up away right now? Instead of making us live amongst the evil doers, the unsaved and the unelected? If there's no hope except for the elect what's the point of preaching the gospel to anyone....God has chosen them and they WILL believe regardless.



I agree, there are just too many verses telling us to repent and sin no more for us not to have a choice. And I just posted  verses stating that Jesus died for every ones sins.
Now I know someone is going to say, don't you think if God wanted to save everyone he could? Yes he could and then he wouldn't have needed to send his son as a savior either. God could have made us without free will. Then we couldn't sin. Then we would have lived for ever on Earth. He could have skipped the "Old Testament". He could have made a world without trials and tribulation. He could have killed Satan. He could have never made man to start with. God could have pretty much done anything he wanted to do.


----------



## Artfuldodger

And if we are born elect, sin and salvation is not anything for us to ponder. As a matter of fact, no use trying to make any decisions on anything. Good point on why we Christians were even born. Why didn't we just show up in Heaven already? Why didn't everybody else just show up in He!!? 
I'm starting to feel better about all the bad stuff i've done in my life already.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world...


I do not derive theology from made up songs. "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;" 
Perhaps a thorough study of just "who are the children" would be helpful.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree, there are just too many verses telling us to repent and sin no more for us not to have a choice. and I just posted  verses stating that Jesus died for every ones sins.
> Now I know someone is going to say, don't you think if God wanted to save everyone he could? Yes he could and then he wouldn't have needed to send his son as a savior either. God could have made us without free will. Then we couldn't sin. Then we would have lived for ever on Earth. He could have skipped the "Old Testament". He could have made a world without trials and tribulation. He could have killed Satan. He could have never made man to start with. God could have pretty much done anything he wanted to do.



I agree. Unless He just likes to see us suffer. If I were prechosen to be saved, why oh why do I need to live on this earth...I can already play the harp and wouldn't ever have been subjected to some of the evil things people have done to me.....I don't call that mercy.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> I do not derive theology from made up songs. "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;"
> Perhaps a thorough study of just "who are the children" would be helpful.



I don't derive theology from made up songs. But it does say in the bible that God does not wish for any of these little ones perish, that leads me to believe He loves all the children.

So God created the brutes just to torture and torment and kill us and our children....really?

So  all the unselected children are born speaking lies? and we weren't? You never lied, even though you were saved way before you born?  Do you think the 'other' children are born always speaking the truth? If any of your children have lied ever in their life, do you think they will then perish? Doesn't it say to bring up a child in the way of the Lord....why would you have to, if they were prechosen and perfect and never lied after coming out of the womb?

Why take the effort(verb) to teach your children about something they were born with....salvation?


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> And if we are born elect, sin and salvation is not anything for us to ponder. As a matter of fact, no use trying to make any decisions on anything. Good point on why we Christians were even born. Why didn't we just show up in Heaven already? Why didn't everybody else just show up in He!!?
> I'm starting to feel better about all the bad stuff i've done in my life already.



We should feel guilty. But our promise from God is that Christ died for our sins. When I realize I am worthy for all my sins to have been washed away, I then find more joy and peace in the Lord. Yet I still struggle with guilt, but I'm working on it.  I wish I had just been born with all the fruit of the spirit already in me then I could just lay back and enjoy them instead of having to work on it,  longsuffering, eh?


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> and I just posted  verses stating that Jesus died for every ones sins.


If Christ died for the sins of all men alike, and some perish in their sin, how will he see the travail of his soul and be satisfied? (Isaiah 53:11)


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> If Christ died for the sins of all men alike, and some perish in their sin, how will he see the travail of his soul and be satisfied? (Isaiah 53:11)



Well I reckon he'll be satisfied for getting the souls he could. He'll be satisfied that he did his part.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> Apparently, you are totally depraved until elected (or such is activated), then a slave to righteousness.....and on both sides of the event, you control nothing.



It would be hard for me to believe I had any conrol of "the event" if I didn't have any control before or after.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> It would be hard for me to believe I had any conrol of "the event" if I didn't have any control before or after.



Where I struggle with "T" is that the depravity must be God designed in order for the system to work.  Without a will, everything that happens is part fo the plan....good, bad, indifferent.

.....and.....if God made us "totally depraved," we are not really "depraved."  We are simply accomplishing God's will.  And if God's will is good.....then our "depravity" is also good.

It gets real confusing at that point.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Well I reckon he'll be satisfied for getting the souls he could. He'll be satisfied that he did his part.


If Christ came to save sinners as stated in 1 Timothy 1:15, and Christ finished the work as stated in John 19:30, what do you imagine is left for the sinners to do in regards to salvation?
Did Christ actualy come to seek and to save sinners as stated in Luke 19:10? Or did He come to save those that seek Him?
Do any seek? (Romans 3:11)


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> if God made us "totally depraved," we are not really "depraved."  We are simply accomplishing God's will.


If God makes us blind, are we really blind? "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" (Exodus 4:11)


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> If God makes us blind, are we really blind? "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" (Exodus 4:11)



When we are blind, it is our eyes affected.  What is affected by our depravity?


----------



## stringmusic

Just wanted to get this in the thread.....

We will be having our 5th annual "Choose Choice Catfish Fry/Small Game Dinner and Jamboree" at the Barnesville chapter of the FWS(Free Will Society) on December 21st at 6:00 pm.

All types of activities and games to _choose_ from, fun for the whole family!!!

PM me for more details, it's_ your choice _to bring a side dish.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> When we are blind, it is our eyes affected.


Only your eyes? Would not everything you do be affected by blindness?


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> Just wanted to get this in the thread.....
> 
> We will be having our 5th annual "Choose Choice Catfish Fry/Small Game Dinner and Jamboree" at the Barnesville chapter of the FWS(Free Will Society) on December 21st at 6:00 pm.
> 
> All types of activities and games to _choose_ from, fun for the whole family!!!
> 
> PM me for more details, it's_ your choice _to bring a side dish.





Not sure what the Lord will make me do this Friday, hope I'm there........


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Only your eyes? Would not everything you do be affected by blindness?



The eyes are blind.  What is depraved when we are depraved?


----------



## hummerpoo

JB0704 said:


> Where I struggle with "T" is that the depravity must be God designed in order for the system to work.  Without a will, everything that happens is part fo the plan....good, bad, indifferent.
> 
> .....and.....if God made us "totally depraved," we are not really "depraved."  We are simply accomplishing God's will.  And if God's will is good.....then our "depravity" is also good.
> 
> It gets real confusing at that point.



Please Sir, would you redo stuff so that I can understand everything I perceive … “sure” … “You are a rock”.

Wait, wait, I didn't mean it


----------



## JB0704

hummerpoo said:


> Please Sir, would you redo stuff so that I can understand everything I perceive … “sure” … “You are a rock”.
> 
> Wait, wait, I didn't mean it


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> The eyes are blind.  What is depraved when we are depraved?


Did I not just answer that?


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Did I not just answer that?



If you are saying "everything" then, I guess so.  The problem is that would include our thoughts, actions, and deeds.  These would all be under control of the creator, and intended to accomplish "good" (his will).


----------



## gemcgrew

hummerpoo said:


> please sir, would you redo stuff so that i can understand everything i perceive … “sure” … “you are a rock”.
> 
> wait, wait, i didn't mean it


----------



## hummerpoo

JB0704 said:


>



Just trying to interject a little perspective/Isaiah 55:8,9


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> If you are saying "everything" then, I guess so.  The problem is that would include our thoughts, actions, and deeds.  These would all be under control of the creator, and intended to accomplish "good" (his will).


"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."(Genesis 50:20)


----------



## JB0704

hummerpoo said:


> Just trying to interject a little perspective/Isaiah 55:8,9



Oh...gotcha...



> Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts



I thought you were saying I was "dumb as a rock."  Glad I didn't get snippy about it.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."(Genesis 50:20)



Is the first, then, depraved?


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> Not sure what the Lord will make me do this Friday, hope I'm there........


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> Is the first, then, depraved?


"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)



But....weren't those thoughts by design?  Part of the "good plan."


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> But....weren't those thoughts by design?  Part of the "good plan."


 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:9-11)


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:9-11)



So....yes?

Then, the "evil thoughts" are God's thoughts designed to bring about God's good plan?

Do you see how this is confusing?  I am being sincere here....no sarcasm involved.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> So....yes?
> 
> Then, the "evil thoughts" are God's thoughts designed to bring about God's good plan?
> 
> Do you see how this is confusing?  I am being sincere here....no sarcasm involved.



Yes, God has a good purpose for evil. God decreed the existence of evil for his glory and every instance of it is under his control. Is there a standard higher than God to judge this as wrong? Would he not have to decree a moral law preventing himself from it?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6)


----------



## StriperAddict

JB, I have the same problems with this extreme counsel on "Tulip".
The following excerpt of an article from Life on the Hill sums up some good points on this subject:
-----------------------------------


The word “omniscience” is a theological term that points to God’s ability to know all. In other
words, He, being God, not only knows what has transpired in the past, but also knows what will
occur in the future. But, if God’s knowledge of all events, including the events which are yet
future, are contingent upon His causing them, His omniscience is compromised. For instance,
which would be the greater God, the God who is required to cause all things to know all things,
thus eliminating man’s free will in the process, or the God who knows all things simply because
He sees all things at once, having ordained that man possess the freedom of choice? Would He
not be more omniscient if He knew what will transpire in the future without causing it?
What if, within the realm of His sovereignty, and without anyone holding Him at gunpoint, God
chose to grant mankind a free will? This in no way would diminish His right to rule as the one
and only Sovereign. Why? He, operating totally within the realm of His sovereignty, would have
made the choice to make man a free moral agent. God, however, does set limits on Himself in
many instances. For example, He promised to never again flood the entire earth (Genesis 9:15).
Does this mean that He lacks the power to do so, or does it mean that He has set limits on what
He will do? Obviously, He has set limits on Himself without the loss of power; for such things
were done as a result of His own choice, not man’s.
Those who view God as needing to ordain (cause) all things to retain His sovereignty use verses
such as Ephesians 1:11c in an attempt to prove their logic. But, when such verses are studied in
context, it becomes evident that they confirm otherwise.
who works all things after the counsel of His will, (Ephesians 1:11c)

The word "works," from the root word "energeo,” can also be interpreted "energizes." Thus God
"energizes all things after the counsel of his will." In Colossians 1:29 we read "And for this
purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me." The
word "works" in this case is "energeo”; so we can view the verse as follows: "And for this
purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily energizes within me." This
is a positive energizing that is done by God, not a controlled exploitation or manipulation. Even
in Philippians 2:12-13 (and other places as well), Paul teaches that God works in (energizes)
those who are His. But does all "energizing" come from God? Not according to 2 Thessalonians
2:9—"that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and
signs and false wonders." The word "activity" in 2 Thessalonians 2:9 can be viewed as an
energizing since it comes from the Greek word "energeia," meaning "operative power." Thus
Satan also energizes whomever he can in an attempt to thwart God's ultimate plan for man. Also
read Ephesians 2:1-2, realizing that the word "working" is from the Greek word "energeo." Since
both God and Satan are in the business of energizing (after all, Satan is not bound in our day, as is
the present belief of some), what the believer must do is possess the discernment to choose the
proper energy source. Such discernment is obtained through one avenue only, through the word of God activated by means of the Spirit of God. Therefore, if a believer has no passion for the
truth, discernment dismisses itself. Where there is no discernment, the improper energy source,
many times, seems the only option.

We next need to consider the words "all things" in the phrase "who works all things after the
counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11c). The "all things" cannot mean "all events" or "all that
transpires”; for Luke 7:30 states, "For the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for
themselves, not having been baptized by John." A hoard of additional verses confirm the same.
What we learn here is that God's ultimate plan and purpose will stand even though some, on an
individual basis, refuse to participate in it. Can we even imagine what God desires as His plan
unfolds? He desires that not one individual perish—"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as
some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come
to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, if man perishes, he does so as a result of his own choice,
confirming the free will of man (read Isaiah 65:12, Matthew 7:21, 12:50, Mark 3:35, John 1:11-
12, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-10, 1Thessalonians 5:12-18, Hebrews 10:36, and 1Peter 2:15-16 for
starters).
This brings us to another interesting topic—the counsel of God’s will, which is addressed in
Ephesians 1:11c, "who works all things after the counsel of His will.” The word “counsel” is
huge; for without it the verse would read, “who works all things after His will.” But, if God
works all things after His will, sin would be God’s will and Satan His friend and ally. Thus, Paul
inserts the word “counsel” to make sure that he is not communicating such. Consequently, “the
counsel of His will” points to the fact that God made a choice, on His own, to grant man the
freedom to choose without losing one ounce of His sovereignty.



God's will can be resisted by man without harming God’s overall sovereignty. 
In other words, God may will something for an individual only to see that individual
reject His will for his own. Jesus substantiates this in Matthew 23:37 by stating, "How often I
wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and
you were unwilling" (Matthew 23:37). Obviously, man has a free will and can choose what he
desires. However, regardless of the number who choose to disobey, God's ultimate plan cannot be
thwarted—that of summing up all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-10). Thus, the phrase, "who
works all things after the counsel of His will" is dealing with the fulfillment of His ultimate plan
even with man possessing the ability to choose. By no stretch of the imagination is Paul
communicating that men are preprogrammed beings, unable to do anything outside of what God
has preordained.


----------



## Israel

With man it is impossible (for good and evil to be reconciled), but with God, all things are possible.

The day of knowing good and evil (chosen) leaves man in the place of judging God...this is "good"...God did that. This is not, and therefore, cannot be God.

How many of us have stumbled over that thinking?


----------



## StriperAddict

Israel said:


> With man it is impossible (for good and evil to be reconciled), but with God, all things are possible.
> 
> The day of knowing good and evil (chosen) leaves man in the place of judging God...this is "good"...God did that. This is not, and therefore, cannot be God.
> 
> How many of us have stumbled over that thinking?



If this touches my post, then maybe I need to clarify...

In no way do I believe God is the "initiator" of evil, in that,
should an evil be done to us it is not in our favor to cite the Almighty with it's origin.
Having said that, I must trust the same Providence to lift me up from such, in the like same manner the Man of Sorrows was lifted from His evil...
and to "use" or "reckon" such for the glory of God.

This perspective, in my opinion, takes any and all "fault-finding" toward Heaven and replaces it in childlike faith, in the unseen plan of God I can only step through, pain and all, by faith.
Make sense?


----------



## Ronnie T

James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing......................................................................................................................................................................................................................  12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.


----------



## JB0704

SA, thanks for posting the article, a good read, and much food for thought.



StriperAddict said:


> In no way do I believe God is the "initiator" of evil, in that,
> should an evil be done to us it is not in our favor to cite the Almighty with it's origin.



This is my confusion.  If I am wrong, the "depravity" would have to be initiated by God.  But, would only be "depraved" because it was defined as such in that situation.....but is still part of the good plan.  Confusing.




StriperAddict said:


> This perspective, in my opinion, takes any and all "fault-finding" toward Heaven and replaces it in childlike faith, in the unseen plan of God I can only step through, pain and all, by faith.
> Make sense?



Yes.  But, wouldn't that also mean that "evil" is part of the plan?


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> Than......children, as the standard for faith, are "elected?"



I got in on this late and it may have been answered but I do not understand the mixing of these metaphors.


First of all I cannot recall where the Scriptures speak to having the same faith in God that a child has.
In Luke is the story of people bringing babies and in Matthew the account of Jesus asking for a child to brought that he might use him/her as an example.  

Babies and Children's faith is in the one that feeds, houses and clothes them.  I miss the connection you are making with salvation.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> Babies and Children's faith is in the one that feeds, houses and clothes them.  I miss the connection you are making with salvation.



It is in Luke....



> Luke 18:17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."



Whatever they have, according to Jesus, is worthy of being the "standard" for salvation, it seems.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> If Christ came to save sinners as stated in 1 Timothy 1:15, and Christ finished the work as stated in John 19:30, what do you imagine is left for the sinners to do in regards to salvation?
> Did Christ actualy come to seek and to save sinners as stated in Luke 19:10? Or did He come to save those that seek Him?
> Do any seek? (Romans 3:11)



Christ finished his task of dying on the cross. Everything else isn't finished. There is still time for people to come to Jesus. There is still time for people to repent. 

Do any seek? What does Isaiah 55: 8 tell us:
Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
(7) Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

How can man forsake his evil way and turn to the Lord without free will? 

When Jesus left the Earth for Heaven, he asked God to send us a Comforter. What was the purpose for this? Wasn't he a Spiritual guide or force to help us? Why do we need help without a free will?


----------



## StriperAddict

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, wouldn't that also mean that "evil" is part of the plan?


In that God gave man a garden...  and a choice...  I see your point. 
But I would not connect the dots towards God "initiating" the evil,
but far better,
being the Saviour of the entire "story" of man.


----------



## StriperAddict

Artfuldodger said:


> Wasn't he a Spiritual guide or force to help us? Why do we need help without a free will?


At times your posts have me wracking brain, (being a bear of very little brain am I),
but this is both poignant and profound and pointedly plausible in this ongoing perspective of predestination, et al!


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> It is in Luke....
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever they have, according to Jesus, is worthy of being the "standard" for salvation, it seems.



That is my point.  The verse is not saying unless we receive the Kingdom of God as a child receives the Kingdom of God.  An infant does not have much knowledge of anything except hunger, cold, discomfort, abuse.

Jesus is using the child as a metaphorical example, as the way we should approach the Kingdom.  

Children trusts parents to love them, feed them, etc.  We should trust God and have the same kind of trust in Him.

If you read into the text that Jesus is telling us to have the same faith in God that a child has in God you do violence to the Word and risk setting much doctrine on it's head.

For example:  "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." 1 Thes. 4:16 

If you read that verse the same way you read Luke the conclusion is that Jesus is an Archangel.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> When Jesus left the Earth for Heaven, he asked God to send us a Comforter. What was the purpose for this? Wasn't he a Spiritual guide or force to help us? Why do we need help without a free will?



We need Him to cry "Abba, Father"; because we can't.  Rm. 8:15-17; Gal. 4:6


----------



## centerpin fan

stringmusic said:


> We will be having our 5th annual "Choose Choice Catfish Fry/Small Game Dinner and Jamboree" at the Barnesville chapter of the FWS(Free Will Society) on December 21st at 6:00 pm.



Hope you have a great turnout!  Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend due to previous committments.  The Dunwoody chapter of the FWS will be holding our annual "Work Your Way to Heaven" retreat.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> Hope you have a great turnout!  Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend due to previous committments.  The Dunwoody chapter of the FWS will be holding our annual "Work Your Way to Heaven" retreat.



Darn. Well, I hope to see you at the national convention in June!!


----------



## mtnwoman

Madman said:


> That is my point.  The verse is not saying unless we receive the Kingdom of God as a child receives the Kingdom of God.  An infant does not have much knowledge of anything except hunger, cold, discomfort, abuse.



In case it was me that was confusing about what I was saying, I'd like to clear that up. If not then I'll still clear up what I meant...lol

Matthew 18:14
King James Version (KJV)

14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Were all the children that Christ was talking about, elected to be saved before the foundation of the earth? Or is it an invitation for ALL to be saved, not preselected to perish.

And yes it is, come as a child...not have the same faith as a child. I didn't take that meaning in any post. Does God want all of His children to come to Christ or only the prechosen ones?

And whoever wants to answer this....why are most of the scriptures quoted here about 'election' in the OT. Don't we have a new covenant that says not only Jews can be saved but ALL men...not part. In the OT God was talking to the elect...His chosen people of Israel.  God chooses for no one to perish from childhood to adulthood...and He is no respector of persons.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> How can man forsake his evil way and turn to the Lord without free will?
> 
> When Jesus left the Earth for Heaven, he asked God to send us a Comforter. What was the purpose for this? Wasn't he a Spiritual guide or force to help us? Why do we need help without a free will?



I agree.

Why even preach the gospel if no one has free will to accept/believe it? And if you don't have free will, then you still don't need the gospel, you are already saved no matter what, if you're of the 'elect' or prechosen by God.


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> Matthew 18:14
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.


It would appear that you are thinking "little ones" here in this verse means children.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> It would appear that you are thinking "little ones" here in this verse means children.



Come on....  If I remember correctly, he had kids right in front of him when he said it......


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> Come on....  If I remember correctly, he had kids right in front of him when he said it......



I thought the adults were trying to shoo the little ones, either kids or short people (lol) away from Jesus and Jesus told them not to, to let the children come to Him. No?


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> It would appear that you are thinking "little ones" here in this verse means children.



Who then?


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> Who then?


A babe in Christ or a new believer. Sometimes refers to the least of the brethren. It has been awhile since I studied it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> A babe in Christ or a new believer. Sometimes refers to the least of the brethren. It has been awhile since I studied it.



I don't agree with much of what you are saying on this topic but I too believe the "little ones" in question are new believers and not children. 
I don't believe God would want children to suffer and/or miss out on salvation. I've always been taught that all children went to Heaven if they died. I would assume under this "elect" belief, they don't.
We need other verses about children.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I've always been taught that all children went to Heaven if they died. I would assume under this "elect" belief, they don't.
> We need other verses about children.



"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> A babe in Christ or a new believer. Sometimes refers to the least of the brethren. It has been awhile since I studied it.



I know, I agree on that. But Jesus was talking to both.  He was telling their parents not to keep them away from the Word/Himself...and on a deeper level He was  talking about 'new bornagains' to more mature Christians, maybe disciples, etc.

Whatcha' think?


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."



God hated Esau because He forknew that Esau would be the father of the muslim nation. Esau didn't kill all the 
annanites, amorites or whoever, like God told him to do. But it was Esau's sin against God his own free will that He chose what he chose. That's why God hated him. It wasn't pick and choose. Like you say...God knew what was gonna happen... but done by free will. And yes, God forknew that, too.
Esau disobeyed God.


----------



## mtnwoman

God hated Esau because He forknew that Esau wanted to kill Jacob.  Not by God's will but by Esau's will. Just kill Esau, God, and be done with it? Esau had free will even though God knew what he would do with it.


----------



## mtnwoman

Totally 

Searching and found this....velly intellesting. I don't know what it is...anybody?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/57.htm


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> God hated Esau because He forknew that Esau would be the father of the muslim nation. Esau didn't kill all the
> annanites, amorites or whoever, like God told him to do. But it was Esau's sin against God his own free will that He chose what he chose. That's why God hated him. It wasn't pick and choose. Like you say...God knew what was gonna happen... but done by free will. And yes, God forknew that, too.
> Esau disobeyed God.


That is in direct contradiction to what the scripture says. It is not according to works and it is not according to them having done any good or evil. It is the purpose of God according to election.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> That is in direct contradiction to what the scripture says. It is not according to works and it is not according to them having done any good or evil. It is the purpose of God according to election.



I know, I get where you are coming from.  In the OT though it was according to works....wasn't it? obedience? It wasn't about grace like we are given.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."



In relation to the non-elect infants and little children, is there any mention of dead infants or children going or being in hale?
I'll have to think about that some more. The idea of non-elect infants doesn't sit well with me. We'll have to change the song to: "Jesus loves the unconditionally elected little children"


----------



## Artfuldodger

One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. â€œNot one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers.â€�(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: â€œMoreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.â€�(5) The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who â€œhave no knowledge of good or evilâ€� because of their age. These â€œlittle onesâ€� would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.

The above quote is from this link:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07...-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> I know, I get where you are coming from.  In the OT though it was according to works....wasn't it? obedience?


No. 



mtnwoman said:


> It wasn't about grace like we are given.


Yes it was.


----------



## mtnwoman

gemcgrew said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Yes it was.



So there's no difference in the OT and the NT? I thought something changed that...the Cross. Not as far as God was concerned but as far as us gentiles are concerned.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> In relation to the non-elect infants and little children, is there any mention of dead infants or children going or being in hale?
> I'll have to think about that some more. The idea of non-elect infants doesn't sit well with me. We'll have to change the song to: "Jesus loves the unconditionally elected little children"



Yep. Don't need to seek the kingdom of God...it will seek you.

God then is a respector of persons and He does will for some to perish. That's gonna be a hard pill to swallow for unbelievers we are trying to tell the gospel to. I think I'll skip the gospel and just say well if God chose you He'll let you know.....doink!


----------



## Ronnie T

Artfuldodger said:


> One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. “Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers.”(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: “Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.”(5) The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who “have no knowledge of good or evil” because of their age. These “little ones” would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.
> 
> The above quote is from this link:
> http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07...-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/



Ummmmmmmmmmmmm!
Didn't get your questioned answered did ya?

Rest assured, those 20 children who were recently killed while at school?  At the moment they parished, Jesus looked at their angel and said:  "Bring those little babies to Me, immediately."


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Ummmmmmmmmmmmm!
> Didn't get your questioned answered did ya?
> 
> Rest assured, those 20 children who were recently killed while at school?  At the moment they parished, Jesus looked at their angel and said:  "Bring those little babies to Me, immediately."



Amen!!


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> Rest assured, those 20 children who were recently killed while at school?  At the moment they parished, Jesus looked at their angel and said:  "Bring those little babies to Me, immediately."


Do you have a source for this, other than conjecture and emotions?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Do you have a source for this, other than conjecture and emotions?



What about a scripture about the non-elected children going to hale?


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> Yep. Don't need to seek the kingdom of God...it will seek you.


If you are referring to the unregenerate elect, I agree.


mtnwoman said:


> God then is a respector of persons and He does will for some to perish.


God is not a respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34) God's grace is his own and is dispensed by his own will and pleasure. Election is not based on a person's wealth, race, education, morality etc... "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." ( Romans 9:15)


mtnwoman said:


> That's gonna be a hard pill to swallow for unbelievers we are trying to tell the gospel to. I think I'll skip the gospel and just say well if God chose you He'll let you know.....doink!


It is an impossible "pill to swallow" for the unregenerate.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> What about a scripture about the non-elected children going to hale?


"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)
"The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3)
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

Art, we are born sin and require redemption. The only way that all the unborn, babies and children go to heaven, is if they are elect. Calvinist make that case but I do not see it in my studies. We do have example of regenerate unborn "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41) but I can not apply that to all.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Couldn't those verses show that we are all concieved in sin? Therefore no children are of the elect. 
Do you assume infants who can't even speak yet are telling lies and that all liars go to Hale? Hale's going to be full if not for just the liars. What about the elect who lie?


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Couldn't those verses show that we are all concieved in sin? Therefore no children are of the elect.
> Do you assume infants who can't even speak yet are telling lies and that all liars go to Hale? Hale's going to be full if not for just the liars. What about the elect who lie?


Redemption.


----------



## Madman

mtnwoman said:


> In case it was me that was confusing about what I was saying, I'd like to clear that up. If not then I'll still clear up what I meant...lol
> 
> Matthew 18:14
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
> 
> Were all the children that Christ was talking about, elected to be saved before the foundation of the earth? Or is it an invitation for ALL to be saved, not preselected to perish.
> 
> And yes it is, come as a child...not have the same faith as a child. I didn't take that meaning in any post. Does God want all of His children to come to Christ or only the prechosen ones?
> 
> And whoever wants to answer this....why are most of the scriptures quoted here about 'election' in the OT. Don't we have a new covenant that says not only Jews can be saved but ALL men...not part. In the OT God was talking to the elect...His chosen people of Israel.  God chooses for no one to perish from childhood to adulthood...and He is no respector of persons.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.



MtWoman,

I was not responding to comment you made I was responding to a conversation back around #200 with JB0704.


----------



## Madman

Madman said:


> That is my point.  The verse is not saying unless we receive the Kingdom of God as a child receives the Kingdom of God.  An infant does not have much knowledge of anything except hunger, cold, discomfort, abuse.
> 
> Jesus is using the child as a metaphorical example, as the way we should approach the Kingdom.
> 
> Children trusts parents to love them, feed them, etc.  We should trust God and have the same kind of trust in Him.
> 
> If you read into the text that Jesus is telling us to have the same faith in God that a child has in God you do violence to the Word and risk setting much doctrine on it's head.
> 
> For example:  "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." 1 Thes. 4:16
> 
> If you read that verse the same way you read Luke the conclusion is that Jesus is an Archangel.



JB0704


----------



## Artfuldodger

In reference to children dying, we know according to the Calvinist that some will not go to Heaven. But for the Free will believer who believe in God's foreknowledge,  couldn't he fore know that little Suzie wasn't going to ever become a Christian? Therefore he didn't take her home? I don't believe this. I try not to use "conjecture & emotions" but I never did get any Bible verses on non-elect children dying and going to Hale. (conjecture?)


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> In reference to children dying, we know according to the Calvinist that some will not go to Heaven.


Do you have a source for that?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)
> "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3)
> "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)
> 
> Art, we are born sin and require redemption. The only way that all the unborn, babies and children go to heaven, is if they are elect. Calvinist make that case but I do not see it in my studies. We do have example of regenerate unborn "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41) but I can not apply that to all.



I was going by this. Calvinest make that case but you don't. I wanted to hear from Free Will believers but any and all are welcomed. I realize all "Elect" believers don't call themselves Calvinest. If a group of babies all died at the same time would they all go to Heaven? God would know if they would eventually become Christians by his foreknowledge. If God foreknew that they would never become Christians, would they go to Hale? This was presented to Free Will  believers who believe God doesn't control actions but foreknows actions. Some believe God presents different paths and foreknows the actions of each path. The shooting at the school had me thinking about this. I don't believe God caused the event. I believe all the children went to Heaven. If all the children would have lived to be adults many would not become Christians. Why would God elect all children knowing all would not come to him as adults?


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would God elect all children knowing all would not come to him as adults?


That would make him a respecter of persons. When we misuse foreknowledge (omniscience) and say because God knew who would accept or reject and therefore knew who to elect, we make man's will or choice the determining factor in salvation. Election is based upon God's sovereign will and pleasure.

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:11)


----------



## Israel

Perhaps mechanisms are not quite as lovely as the whole.

Children regrettably have been known to take a cat apart to see how it works, thinking apprehension is found in deconstruction, and missing true appreciation.

The only one we are permitted to operate on is ourselves. And perhaps discovering my own mainspring is always nothing more than naked craving for power over others, either by knowledge, or any other wealth that entices to a higher seat in this world, is what I find.
I am undone at myself...by myself.
Save me...or I shall not be.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Children regrettably have been known to take a cat apart to see how it works


Wait just a minute! Did you grow up in Pasadena, TX and have a best friend with the last name of McGrew? If so, did you not just break our oath?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> That would make him a respecter of persons. When we misuse foreknowledge (omniscience) and say because God knew who would accept or reject and therefore knew who to elect, we make man's will or choice the determining factor in salvation. Election is based upon God's sovereign will and pleasure.
> 
> "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:11)



With that knowledge of God' will and pleasure, no one can tell it they are of the elect or if their salvation is eternally secure. God can and does elect an/or give salvation to whoever he wants to. He might send me to Hale for lying and you to Heaven for helping a sick person or the other way around. It's his choice. He makes the rules, he can break them. He could love you and hate me for his on reasons or no reasons.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Wait just a minute! Did you grow up in Pasadena, TX and have a best friend with the last name of McGrew? If so, did you not just break our oath?



Now...that's funny, no matter who you are.
Starving pygmies, anyone?


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> Now...that's funny, no matter who you are.
> Starving pygmies, anyone?



There was more in my comment than crass humor. Perhaps it is too early in the morning for much digging.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> With that knowledge of God' will and pleasure, no one can tell it they are of the elect or if their salvation is eternally secure.


I disagree. One can be sure of their salvation and the security of it. When you are sure of salvation, you are sure of election. Election is unto salvation.




Artfuldodger said:


> God can and does elect an/or give salvation to whoever he wants to.


Agreed. "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."



Artfuldodger said:


> He might send me to Hale for lying and you to Heaven for helping a sick person or the other way around.


I disagree. That would be works. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"



Artfuldodger said:


> It's his choice. He makes the rules, he can break them. He could love you and hate me for his on reasons or no reasons.


I am not sure of how you are using this comment, so I am unsure of how to respond. I would like to discuss it further but I am operating on 2 hours of sleep. Our power was off last night and this morning due to wind. I think I may have offended Israel already this morning, so off to bed I go.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> There was more in my comment than crass humor. Perhaps it is too early in the morning for much digging.


No, I hope you didn't think my response was to accuse you of crassness.

I never dissected a cat...but I did use birds to "see" how accurate I was with a BB gun. I had to know.

Funny how now, after hundreds of squirrels, (maybe only dozens) and pheasants, woodcock and woodchuck, etc, etc, that image I first beheld stikes my heart like a thunderous hammer, and like the 10 year old that then sat on the curb and wept over not being able to undo, refresh, cause a reversal of the crimson flow I still see leaking from a little sparrow's body, tears well up.
Oh, the carnage I have wrought in my need to know.
Oh, the utter sadness.

Save me.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> JB0704



Not dodging it.  Was there a point you wanted me to address?  It seemed as if you made your case, and there wasn't much to counter.  If you want me to respond specifically, I will.

It seems your point is that the kdis weren't "good."  But that their behavior is to be mimicked.  Is that correct?


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> Not dodging it.  Was there a point you wanted me to address?  It seemed as if you made your case, and there wasn't much to counter.  If you want me to respond specifically, I will.



Were you saying that you believe Jesus is telling us to have the same faith in God that a child has in God in order to be saved?





JB0704 said:


> It seems your point is that the kdis weren't "good."  But that their behavior is to be mimicked.  Is that correct?



No children are not to be mimicked, Christ is to be mimicked.

It seems to me you are saying all children are saved simply because they are children.  My point is that I do not see that in the Scriptures.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> This false doctrine makes every command, every warning, and every admonition of God useless.  With Unconditional Election there is no reason to try to teach anyone the gospel of Christ if God has already arbitrarily decided who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost.  This makes no sense.  But Jesus says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).  God’s offer of salvation is available to everyone, but each must choose whether he will accept or reject it.
> And because of that, this total depravity teaching cannot mean that a person cannot choose and develop faith.
> "Faith come from hearing".



Amen!

God let His Son go to the cross for people that were already presaved before birth?


----------



## Artfuldodger

mtnwoman said:


> Amen!
> 
> God let His Son go to the cross for people that were already presaved before birth?



It's no wonder Atheist use this senerio  against Christianity. I don't fully understand it myself. It really adds to the confusion as to why God would sacrifice his only Son for a group of per-approved clients.  It's makes it appear unnecessary. The whole concept of God controlling my every move and decision to the point of which salad dressing I use is unbelievable.


----------



## mtnwoman

Artfuldodger said:


> It's no wonder Atheist use this senerio  against Christianity. I don't fully understand it myself. It really adds to the confusion as to why God would sacrifice his only Son for a group of per-approved clients.  It's makes it appear unnecessary. The whole concept of God controlling my every move and decision to the point of which salad dressing I use is unbelievable.



That's a big turnoff to a lot of people....not anykind of 'bait' I would take.  I've never heard a gospel preacher say, Jesus died on the cross for some, not all, and in case you are one of them, let me tell you the gospel and if you're not chosen then I'm sorry you're going to hale. If that's the truth why don't pastors just tell you that up front......they might scare the fish away if they do? 

I still have a soul/personality, it's just I now have the spirit of God who convicts me what to do and not to do. I don't always mind....does that mean I am not saved? Isn't that why the Lord's prayer says to pray...'forgive me for my trespasses'....why would I have trespasses if I had no free will to commit those trespasses. If God chose for me to have no free will, I would be perfect and never sin or have to repent and ask Him for forgiveness. As long as I sin I will ask forgiveness, even though I know technically I'm sinless in God's eyes because of the blood. There is just too much scripture that is never used in the 'tulip system'.


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> Were you saying that you believe Jesus is telling us to have the same faith in God that a child has in God in order to be saved?



My only point was that Jesus gave accolades to children for their faith....or it seems "purity" in motive.  Whether that pureness was directed to the trust they give parents or God is not really the direction I was going.  It was more relevant to the "good" quality they possess.



Madman said:


> No children are not to be mimicked, Christ is to be mimicked.



What is the reasoning behind using them as an example in that scenario if their "faith" (in something) is not what we should have?



Madman said:


> It seems to me you are saying all children are saved simply because they are children.  My point is that I do not see that in the Scriptures.



That's not what I am saying.  If I have not clarified within this post, I will try again.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I believe Jesus used children as an example for a lot of the qualities they possess including faith. They have  faith in their parents. They have giving qualities without asking for anything in return, including love and passion. They show humility. Children aren't yet tainted by the world. They aren't prideful.
I'm sure there are more reasons I can't think of. This belief of mine is from all the scriptures of children. Granted some verses are talking about grown men being children of God.

I'm still having trouble with babies going to Hale when they die though. This is because I don't believe in pre-election. I can't find any verses that directly say: when children die they go to Heaven or Hale. So yes i'm having to use how I see God and the teachings of Jesus. Most Christians believe all the children who die go to Heaven but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Madman

JB0704 said:


> My only point was that Jesus gave accolades to children for their faith....or it seems "purity" in motive.



This is where we part.  I don't believe Jesus is giving them "accolades for their faith.." any more than Paul is saying that Jesus is an Archangel.  (from the Thes. reference.)


----------



## JB0704

Madman said:


> This is where we part.  I don't believe Jesus is giving them "accolades for their faith.." any more than Paul is saying that Jesus is an Archangel.  (from the Thes. reference.)



I know you have explained once within this thread, but perhaps I missed something....could you clarify, then, what Jesus is accomplishing by discussing the children?


----------



## gemcgrew

mtnwoman said:


> Amen!
> 
> God let His Son go to the cross for people that were already presaved before birth?


Using that same logic, do you not also ask yourself, "God poured out his wrath and crushed  his Son for people he knew would not believe?".


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Wait just a minute! Did you grow up in Pasadena, TX and have a best friend with the last name of McGrew? If so, did you not just break our oath?



Did you mean as in "Glenn, is that you?"


----------



## barryl

mtnwoman said:


> So there's no difference in the OT and the NT? I thought something changed that...the Cross. Not as far as God was concerned but as far as us gentiles are concerned.


Mtn. Woman, you speak the truth! I have a few friends back home that are 5 point{TULIP} Hyper Calvinists. They are stuck back in the Reformation. They are A-mill, round and round we go{circular reasoning} non witnessing, non missionary, non alter call,and don't believe the "Dispensation thing." I have enough sense to realize there is a OT and NT. The thing that they can't or won't understand is that no one was "in Christ" before Calvary!! They deny "progressive revelation." All you will get is a private interpretation of scripture or a cute, selfrighteous answer for any question you may ask. Calvinism{Tulip} is unbiblical and unscriptual. O.K. I'm back, go get em.'


----------



## gemcgrew

barryl said:


> The thing that they can't or won't understand is that no one was "in Christ" before Calvary!!


Unbelievable


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Using that same logic, do you not also ask yourself, "God poured out his wrath and crushed  his Son for people he knew would not believe?".



Using the same logic, i'd like some input on this too. I think this is what gemcgrew is talking about: How is his belief that God elected some for salvation different from God's foreknowledge of some for salvation? Either way God crushed his Son for people he knew would not believe.
If you are saying God knows beforehand who will accept Jesus, then he knows who want. He knew beforehand his son would not save them. Using that same logic what's the difference?


----------



## Israel

We do realize, right, that this _*happened*_ before we could even evaluate it, think about it, perceive it?

The "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".

The reality is, God did something in Christ at the beginning of creation, of which I am now only made aware by his manifestation of it in the _fullness of time_.

Gal_4:4  But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 

Is this your fullness of time...is it mine? To now see?

I really don't know about anyone else, but I am pretty well convinced I don't like time much at all. 
That thing that had me fooled into looking in two directions always...back at yesterday with guilt and to tomorrow with fear.
What is the "Lord's day?" When is the "Lord's day"?
What day am I relieved of my labors? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
Always "some other time"?

Heb_4:3  For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 

Letting go of why things_ seem_ to be, to discover how things _are_ is a calling.
We are called from illusions to truth, from seems to are.

"Daddy, Daddy, are we there yet Daddy?" "Daddy...?"


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> What is the "Lord's day?" When is the "Lord's day"?
> What day am I relieved of my labors? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
> Always "some other time"?



"Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished."

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."

There is no more work to be done.


----------

