Verse 27 states in full: Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God."
Its clear that Paul is talking about God searching the hearts of the saints, people who are already converted. Notice that the word 'Spirit' is capitalized.
Futhermore, Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can understand it?"
And do you think the righteous in the O.T. were not saints too?
Since Paul mentions they do not know what to pray for it is about pre-Christian saints who do not know they need to be conformed to the image of Jesus.
Remember all the early Greek manuscripts are in uncial letters: they are ALL in capitals.
Context again:
Jeremiah 17:10 God searches the heart. If ALL are so wicked there is no need to.
Yes their where saints in the OT, and God worked sovereignly in their lives to rescue them.
Why would Paul take the time to write the Gentiles about the history of Israel if it has nothing to do with them. What a waste of ink! I guess they were really big history buffs.
Talk about out of context... Jeremiah 17:10 is coming from verse 9. God is giving them exactly what they deserve for their vileness.
Romans is full of refs B4 chapter 12 to Israel in contrast to the Gentiles and where both fit in God's purposes. Look at this 1 verse:
"Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" Romans 11:22
The example of unbelievers in Israel being cut off is given as a warning to Christians!
He searches in Jer.17:10 so only wrong motives seen R judged
A judge that sentences a murderer to be executed doesn't take delight in having to kill a man but in order that justice be done the mourderer is executed. It also serves as a warning to others not to murder or face the consequences. god does not delight in that all men have sinned against him, however, he must judge sin. Christ volunteered to take the sins of some men on himself, but not everyone's sins. It was God's choice, not man's. God is sovereign. You have a Bible concordance, don't you?
"we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone." hebrews 2:9
Jesus died for everyone, but God has also self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) so He does not impose His free gift on anyone, but freely gives it to all willing.
@gracetruthguy "all" can mean all of the people this letter is addressed to, or if speaking to a crowd one might say "I'm glad that all of you are here tonight", which doesn't mean that everyone in the world is there. "All" can mean different things in which it is written and intended. The word "many" does not usually mean "all", either. Read this: "So Christ was offered as a sacrifice one time to take away the sins of MANY people" - Hebrews 9:28. It doesn't say sins of ALL people.
Aware of the arguments used that "all" does not mean "all" all the time, I chose a passage that is explicit and mentions "every one". Here is Young's literal translation:
"we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death"
@NewDirection4us wait a minute, Calvinists really believe that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world?
What Bible is that in? Is that John Calvin's Translation? Or did one of his deacons write it for him, since he was too busy ordering the death of Michael Servetus, just because the man didn't accept his theology? I wish Calvinists would actually look into the root of Calvinism in Augustine and Calvin's life. Bad trees cannot bear good fruit.
So God chooses the predestined to salvation based on his seeing that they love him? That's wrong. That would be finding something good in one sinner that is not in another. No, when Paul says God foreknew it means that God loved those he was choosing, not based on anything good found or seen in them, but by the good pleasure of the council of HIS WILL. God chooses based on God's will, not man's heart. All men have evil hearts until God changes us. It is all God...100% God. Man 0%.
@gracetruthguy No, it is from scripture which predates Augustine. Faith is a gift from God. no one has faith unles God has given it to them. you have it backwards and so do many preachers who want to feel that they can talk people into saving themselves by their own freewill. God chooses, God saves, God gives us faith. It is all God, and man has nothing to boast about. God chooses on whom to have mercy and it is his choice, not ours.
@gracetruthguy Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of ourselves,...."but you are washed, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God". - John 17:17
@gracetruthguy You should read a great book titled " debating Calvinism" by Dave Hunt and James White. Dave Hunt does about as well with presenting the Arminian doctrine as anyone could but James White destroys his points at every turn using scripture to back it up. One of the best verses to destroy Armininism is the one where Jesus tells some people who are listening to him that they are unable to hear him, unable to come to him, and why? Because they are not his sheep.
Arminianism is not into open theism as I read in my bible.
See my video:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
As to Jesus words about not able to hear because thay are not His sheep, He does not go into how they are not His sheep and cannot be used as a proof text ASSUMING it means you a only CHOSEN in order to be a sheep. It does not follow.
Take a look at my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
Yes, God foreknows who he choose to be destined to belong to Christ. It is PEOPLE he knows, not what the people would do in their lifetimes such as believe or not believe. If God chose the elect based on his knowledge of them believing then he would not be doing the choosing; he would just be rubber stamping the individual's choice to come to Christ. Salvation is a merciful gift from God. We could not earn it otherwise it would not be a gift, it would be something we deserved or earned.
Yes, God foreknows who he choose to be destined to belong to Christ. It is PEOPLE he knows, not what the people would do in their lifetimes such as believe or not believe. If God chose the elect based on his knowledge of them believing then he would not be doing the choosing; he would just be rubber stamping the individual's choice to come to Christ. Salvation is a merciful gift from God. We could not earn it otherwise it would not be a gift, it would be something we deserved or earned.
As per my previous comment response there are no elect. See the video.
Please be so kind as to give bible reference to "the elect" with the word EKLEKTOS removed from the equation.
The truth is God desires all men to be saved, those who are not is not because God chose them to be that way. The opposite is clear in Scripture which you appear to deny.
" 'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies', says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!' " Ezek 18:32
"No, it is whilst we are sinners that as we desire not to be that God then enables us to do more and saves us "
Why would a sinner (who loves his sin, and approves of those who do the same) desire not to sin? That's an absurdity. No sinner ever wants holiness unless and until God gives that desire to him. He cannot want otherwise. He is enslaved to his sin, and is jealously protective of his sin, and wills not to be separated from it.
@gracetruthguy - Because something is commanded doesn't mean that one has the ability. The proper response is "God have mercy on me, a sinner". But you say "I thank you God, that I am not like that sinner who doesn't use his "has"."
If it is obtained by synergism, then the reason one person believes is because there is some INHERENT GOODNESS IN THEM that is NOT in the other person. And as I said before, you see yourself as one who willed yourself to salvation. Whereas God has to actually save me
@gracetruthguy - Your own words condemn you. Like I said above, this is the end of our conversation. I'm only addressing these points with one-liners to end it all, as far as I'm concerned.
@gracetruthguy - You need to be holding a mirror to yourself when you say that, comrade. We Calvinists aren't afraid of the truth. We don't have to make excuses for the Scriptures like you do. You take obscure verses and take them at face value, then take blatant ones and dissect them into meaninglessness. I wasn't raised as Reformed. I was an Arminian. Now I know the truth. You're stuck in the lie.
And just more of your silly "Calvinists are afraid of the truth" nonsense.
And you must do this in order to keep up the false doctrine you embrace, and to tell yourself every day "I'm a good person, and God ought to like me for it."
Here's the difference between me and you, Jacques. I NEED a Saviour, where as you just desire a Confirmer -- someone to agree that you're a good man, and to choose you since you've already chosen yourself, by being such a wonderful person, and to reward you for your not being evil. Christ came to save sinners. Since you're not a sinner, you don't really need a Saviour. You're your own saviour. You should be proud of your great achievement.
@gracetruthguy - We sin BECAUSE we're sinners. We're sinners by birth and by choice. No one has claimed that God forces anyone into heaven (straw man). God MAKES US WILLING. I've already given ample Scripture to support these several times.
And your use of the Scriptures, once again, makes you to be a (naturally, inherently) one who hungers and thirsts for righteousness, and one who is by nature merciful. So again, you DESERVE salvation by your good spirit and works.
No, it is written we are sinners because we sin "because all sinned" Rom.5:12
No, God makes no unwilling person willing "but ye would not" Mat.23:37
No, I've answered your Scriptures.
No, it is whilst we are sinners that as we desire not to be that God then enables us to do more and saves us "to him who has more shall be given and he will have abundance; to him who has not even that he has will be taken away" Mat. 13:12
@gracetruthguy - Try reading it again. The CONTEXT is about Adam's fall and that we (meaning all who are born from Adam -- the first federal head) inherit his sin and guilt. Whereas all who are in Christ (the second federal head) inherit his righteousness. In Adam, all sinned, all are guilty -- in Christ all are righteous.
Using "But ye would not" isn't a response to God making the unwilling willing. It simply means that God leaves some unwilling in their enslaved wills, where they want to be.
No man inherits the guilt of the sin of the father is explicit in Scripture:
"The son shall not bear the guilt of the father" Ezekiel 18:20
Paul DOES NOT contradict that.
Paul is clear all die as a result of our own sin. This is why He says "BECAUSE/FOR all sinned" Romans 5:12
As for your response to Mat,23:37 UR saying "It... means that God leaves some unwilling in their enslaved wills" really? so He does not help those who He WANTS then? Is He sovereign or not?
@gracetruthguy - Paul isn't contradicting anything by saying this in a different light than Ezek 18:20, anymore than Ezekiel is contradicting God, when He says that he visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generations.
If we die only because of our own sins, then infants are guilty of their own sins.
Your last sentence makes no sense. Please re-think and re-write it.
@gracetruthguy - Sin's wage includes both physical and spiritual death. If babies die simply because Adam didn't eat from the tree of life, then the only way they could die would be from starvation.
God was willing and WHO was not? And I say that anyone is not willing because of their own sin, and their love of it, their enslavement to the power of Satan, their inability to understand spiritual things, their abhorrence of God.
@gracetruthguy - You miss the point, that the only reason that babies (if they are not guilty sinners) should die is from starvation.
Man was not made to die. Adam began to died and then eventually died because he not only refused to do the thing that would've guaranteed him eternal life, but did the thing that guaranteed that what he did have would be taken from him. And Adam would've died a lot quicker if he stopped eating regular food.
Non sinner babies don't die, except from starvation
We know Adam did not eat of the tree of life. And we know that pain was here before the fall since to Eve God says it will be INCREASED in childbirth in Genesis 3:16
So the ability to hurt was present and death of the physical kind was possible before the Fall. We were NOT made immortal.
The death Paul speaks of is the separation from God. Not the separation from the body which is the physical death.
@gracetruthguy - That would be impossible UNLESS they were sinners.
Adam didn't eat but he also lived to be nearly a 1,000 years old.
Your assumption concerning the "increase" of pain is unwarranted. It's the sample failed "logic" that says that the command to "replenish" the earth means that the earth once had life on it, but it was all destroyed prior to Adam and Eve's creation.
Human death was NOT POSSIBLE until the Fall! ONLY if they refused to eat could they die. Death comes from sin.
If we are not immortal then sin has no direct part in the physical death of man
Yes, man was so well made that the corruption in the world did not take full effect in the physical lifespan of man till some time after the Flood. This does not mean he could have died or not.
The increase in pain is explicit.
''replenish' is in the KJV The word is just "to fill" there is no RE- (i.e. duplication element in it) and is a non argument.
@gracetruthguy - Wrong again! Romans 5 is talking about BOTH physical and spiritual death. Jesus rose PHYSICALLY from the grave, and all who are in Christ will be raised from the grave PHYSICALLY, with living spirits inside. Oh, but that's right, you think that "good" people from other religions will inherit the kingdom as well (as per your 1st published video - trash).
And your dismissal of "replenish" as a "non-argument" is fallacious since some people believe in a pre-world.
@gracetruthguy - Of course he would have been lost. Why else was the Gospel presented to him? If he was doing just fine as he was, there was no reason to present Christ in the Gospel to him. He worshipped God in the only way he knew how, which was the corrupted system that Paul was also under. Do you think Paul would've been just fine as a Jew without the Gospel?
Man you dig more holes for yourself.
And with the Adam stuff, you're missing the point again.
You seem to be oblivious that Paul mentioned the creation being an effective gospel too on its own. See Romans 10:18 quoting Psalm 19:1-3
Paul says those who have that “have heard”!
So you are wrong. The mention of Jesus to Cornelius is not to save him, but to give assurance of salvation and be a part of the Church, let alone the more reward.
As far as being a good Jew is concerned Jesus was clear about that in Mat.19:16-19.
@gracetruthguy - So, you're suggesting that the witness of nature is all that is necessary for someone to come to a saving knowledge of God?
Gee, then why didn't God think of that?
No. The witness of creation is simply that which renders all men without excuse as to belief in God, and in pursuing God. It is not sufficient to bring saving knowledge of Christ. Otherwise the Gospel is unnecessary.
Oh, that's right, you think the Gospel is only for assurance of salvation to good people.
I'm not suggesting anyhting that is not plainly to be read in the Scripture:
Paul says "Have they not heard?" then proceeds to say they have because Creation is a voice that speaks and is heard. Period.
Now, I need to inform you that any further comments from you about a point I have already answered will be deleted. It is one thing to comment and enquire; it is another to repeat the same comment when it has been fully replied to.
@gracetruthguy "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing."
Are you suggesting that Adam, right after meeting his lovely wife, and before disobeying God by eating from the tree, could have, in the middle of the night, stopped breathing and died?
Beside the fact that your responses concerning Original Sin are in direct opposition to Romans 5.
@gracetruthguy "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing."
Are you suggesting that Adam, right after meeting his lovely wife, and before disobeying God by eating from the tree, could have, in the middle of the night, stopped breathing and died?
@gracetruthguy - "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing."
Are you suggesting that Adam, right after meeting his lovely wife, and before disobeying God by eating from the tree, could have, in the middle of the night, stopped breathing and died?
@gracetruthguy - "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing"
Just to recap, you equated human death with the fact that Adam didn't eat from the tree of life, but in like manner refuse to accpet that if people today die because Adam didn't eat from the tree of life yesterday, then since he DID eat from the forbidden tree yesterday, then we today inherit his sin and death.
If your parent eats something then sure, of that which is eaten that then becomes a part of the being is ongoing to the progeny.
Of what tree did Adam eat? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What is passed on thereby?
The knowledge of good and evil. Nothing more.
Since the progeny do not have the same command they are not guilty of breaking that command and are not accounted guilty of that sin. Sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not an inheritance.
@gracetruthguy - Paul in Romans 5 says that IN ADAM death spread to all men, because IN ADAM all sinned (past tense -- not "all sin", but all SINNED, in Adam), and he drives it home further by saying that even though Adam's decendants didn't break direct covenant as Adam did, they still died BECAUSE Adam was a type of the one to come. How? He is Federal Head of his people. Whatever is his fate is his peoples'. In Christ, likewise, all that is his, belongs to his people. Life and rigteousness.
@gracetruthguy - Part 2: And how about when God sent Israel to kill men, women, and children in Jericho? Did god want to save them? And you can't say that he simply knew that none would ever believe the Gospel, because your god doesn't know the "free" actions of his creatures. God devoted that city (and others) to total destruction, saving none. Then God ordered the execution of Aichan AND his entire household when he kept some of the devoted things from Jericho. How comfy are you with that?
The deal is - since they were babies not having done evil or good - God knowing this, has them in His presence with Him and their life's purpose is fulfilled in their being taken at that point in time.
Babies die all the time...
The purpose in the nations that they die is so that the offending nation being full grown in sin (Genesis 15:16) is totally removed and no remnant arise later to hinder Israel and God's purpose in Israel...
@gracetruthguy - I'm not just talking about babies here. I'm talking about people, both young and old -- people that, according to you, might be potentially saved people. But God doesn't go into that at all with them. And not only in Jericho but in virtually every other city, with only one (maybe two?) exceptions, at least in this campaign. So now, according to your scenario, God is a monster who doesn't give "ALL" a "chance" to be saved. And saying "Babies die all the time" isn't addressing it
You seem to be making the assumption that people are saved only if they have some particular 'chance': some particular means to be saved.
Whereas the Scripture makes clear "Jesus as the Logos is the light that gives light to every man who comes into the world " John 1:9 that is everyone
And everyone who then receives Him He gives the right to become children of God - Jn1:12 this is not limited to the few, but all who do not receive AFTER all were given light
@gracetruthguy - The light that comes to every man is not sufficient for salvation -- only sufficient to render all guilty of personal rejection of God. The very next verse states clearly that "the world did not recognise him".
"As many as WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE believed." Only those who are born of God (sovereignly regenerated) can and will "recognise" Christ, repent and believe on him unto salvation.
"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful" 2 Sam.22:26 and Jesus said "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" Mat.5:7 that He then means something different in Romans 9:16?
It is TO MOSES God spoke - READ THE CONTEXT -
Watch this vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 9:14-16 - Jacques More"
@gracetruthguy - (1) 2 Sam 22 is speaking to David, not Moses. (2) It's talking about how God's people are to live, especially the king. He is to be merciful to those who have a report of being merciful, etc. READ THE CONTEXT. (3) Rom 9:16 is referring to WHY one person is SAVED and a nother is not. READ THE CONTEXT.
2 Sam.22 is David declaring what God does and is like.
Paul does not contradict that
In saying that is is "TO MOSES" in Rom.9:15 he is referring to a context which you miss. Moses wanted Israel spared and be held guilty in their place. God had said "no way!" and thereby "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" means:
You Moses have not sinned: You will receive mercy. But not those who have sinned against Me - Exodus 32:33
@gracetruthguy - Complete nonsense. And that is NOT the context of "I will have mercy...". According to you, God has mercy on whomever deserves it, but that's not what God says. He says he has mercy on whomever he WILLS. Paul explains that this is God's prerogative, which is why he follows it with the illustration of Pharaoh and says that God has mercy on one and hardens (actively) another. It NOT of him who wills or runs, but of GOD who shows mercy. But that's the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
@gracetruthguy - The chapters and verses have nothing to do with why it's not the context. That's the argument of a person who divorces Scripture from Scriptures (your position). Of course Paul doesn't contradict, he reinforces it by showing that God has mercy on one sinner (Moses) and hardens another sinner (Pharaoh). And I've already shown that it was God's will to harden Pharaoh, NOT being contengent upon Pharaoh's self hardening. But you ignored that fact conveniently.
So the Scriptures that makes it clear God has mercy on the merciful or that blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy say nothing in the doctrine of How God applies His mercy?
What rot!
Paul uses the example of what was said TO MOSES as an example of God being righteous (R9:14)
Your capricious interpretation makes God unrighteous!
It is as if God NEVER said it TO MOSES but just an (alleged) truth in thin air!
@gracetruthguy - I'm pleased to be in the company of Paul, who counters all of your objections. Notice that the offense is from those in your corner, the "open theists", the Arminians, the SemiPelagians. No Calvinist questions what Paul is saying. So, it's amusing to see you twist the Scriptures, to make it seem that Paul is not talking to you, when he is. YOU are the one to whom he says 'But who are YOU O man?". God has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. YOU OBJECT. We don't.
God has mercy on whom He wills and the context shows it is the merciful who receive.
God hardens whom He wills and HOW is seen in the context and the text: the text is Paul's use of 2 different Greek verbs to explain HOW this happens in Romans 9:22-23 But you turn a persitent blind eye to this.
The "who are you O man" is all those who do not understand HOW God does it.
This appears to include you.
Do you see the reason for Paul using different Greek verbs is R9.22-23?
@gracetruthguy - Hilarious! I'M the one misunderstanding Paul? Right. Everything Paul is saying is in opposition to YOUR position. YOUR the one having to do all sorts of acrobatics to get the meaning you desire from the Scriptures. I'm taking Paul seriously here. Jacob was not merciful. God said "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". It is NOT of him who WILLS or RUNS, but of God who shows MERCY. Mercy is NEVER OBLIGATORY.
In your view, God rewards the naturally merciful. Salvation is cheap.
Jacob and Esau's election is about the nation of Israel itself and not salvation: the salvation example was given in Romans 9:6 "Israel out of Israel" THEN Paul says "NOR..." Do you not know what 'nor' stands for?
Salvation cost Jesus' life and his tasting death for every man (Hebrews 2:9)
Not cheap!
It is the Scripture view that:
To the merciful God will be merciful (2 Samuel 22:26)
If the cost of Jesus death bought salvation for every man, then every man is saved. Period. If Jesus died for a man's sins, God cannot punish Jesus for his sins and him for his sins as well. That would be absurd and unjust.
But Jesus didn't die for the sins of every individual.
If you believe that God being merciful to the merciful is about salvation, then you have somewhere to boast in your salvation.
God makes his sun and the rain to occur on all, who benefits are those who avail themselves of that provision.
It's the same with the free gift of salvaiton. God made provision for all because Jesus tasted death for every man (Heb.2:9)
This is not equal to all will be saved since God has self- control and does not impose what He desires and does not force people to have what He wants.
The person using the God given ability which all have given has nothing to boast.
@gracetruthguy "No, it is written we are sinners because we sin "because all sinned" Rom.5:12"
No, that verse says nothing of the sort. Paul says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned". It says nothing about us being sinners because we've sinned. It says Adam sinned; death is the result of sin, and the fact that we all die (even babies) is because we're all guilty of sin BY NATURE.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "because" it is there to give us the reason for something.
The reason for what?
The reason that death came to all men is the answer.
Babies are not men AND death - separation from God in mind - is NOT the physical death, which has to do with the fact even Adam was not created immortal as he had not eaten of the tree of life.
It is explicit NO one is guilty by nature read Ezekiel 18:20
The word "because" in that verse means "because IN ADAM all have sinned, whereas all IN CHRIST are accounted as righteous". It has to do with federal headship. Your arguments get more and more desperate (now per the "babies are not men" bit. Fabulous. What do you do for an encore?)
@gracetruthguy - Um, no. That isn't the intent of the writer at all. He didn't have this rigid and bizarre use of the word "men" as you're doing. Death passed to all because IN ADAM, all sinned, whereas all IN CHRIST are accounted as righteous. THAT is what Paul is teaching. And there is no evidence that spiritual death is in view with Ezekiel 18:20. The reason physical death occurs is because spiritual death is already there.
Just a quick note, before I forget again. GTG, you said that all the word "grace" means is "love". That's incorrect. Grace is God's UNMERITED favour. YOU, by contrast turn it into a MERITED favour. God sees people who already love him, and so then is "graceful" to them; based on that foreseen love, he predestines them, etc. How utterly foreign to the entire story of REDEMPTION.
@gracetruthguy - And that's what you were, right? Merciful. THAT'S why God chose you! Oh, now I get it. Good ol, soft-spoken (with a very nice English accent) GTG. I mean, how could God resist? He must have been up there scrubbing his arms with glee when he saw how merciful and unproud and faithful you were and said "That's our boy!"
@gracetruthguy - Eph 2:3 by NATURE children of wrath; Acts 26:17-18 Enslaved by Satan; Gen 6:5-6 Every inclination is evil all the time; Gen 8:21 inclination of heart is evil from birth; 1Kings8:46 There is no one who doesn't sin against God; Psalm 14:1-3 None righteous, all without understanding, none who seek God; Psalm 51:5 We are sinners, even in conception; Psalm 58:3 From birth we begin lying; Eccl 7:20 None without sin; Eccl 9:3 Heart are full of evil; cont ...
@gracetruthguy - See? You're too busy denying what the Scriptures clearly say, because you're bent on them not meaning what they say (all the while claiming to take the verses "literally"). Utter nonsense.
Eph 2:3 "Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath" BY NATURE OBJECT OF WRATH (KJV says CHILDREN of wrath).
Acts 26:17-18 says that people are under the power of SATAN, and need their eyes open SO THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins.
@gracetruthguy - I've not seen your video on Eph 2:1. I've no immediate plans to do so, as I'm still working on my rebuttal of another of your videos. The poor exegesis makes it difficult for me to spend much time on your videos.
I've no idea why you would ask such a bizarre question as your last one. Please re-read my post. People are under the power of Satan, and God must open their eyes SO THAT they can and will turn from sin and embrace Jesus Christ.
Allow me to help you. In Eph.2:1 the word "IN" as "you were dead IN trespasses and sins" is NOT in the Greek. The words "the trespasses and the sins" are in the Dative. And it is because of the instrumental use of the Dative that "IN" has been added. It denotes it is WHILST IN sin and trespasses that they were dead.
No exegesis, just a plain teaching of grammar.
The question is to point to the fact that it is man's deliberate sin that places him under the power of Satan.
@gracetruthguy - How does one even respond to such irresponsible exegesis? Once again you ignore the fact that the rest of Scripture, especially that in Paul's writings, says that these people who are dead "whilst in their sins" will remain as such, because they love their sin, and are under the power of Satan. If they're under the power of Satan they cannot, in and of themselves, remove themselves thusly, neither do they wish to be removed.
@gracetruthguy - It's pretty funny that you'd use Matt 13:15 to try to support you erroneous position. Look at the preceding and proceding verses: Jesus is purposefully speaking to the people in parables to leave them in their ignorance, but to the disciples, they are called BLESSED because they are able to hear and see. John 12:40 uses this same verse from Isaiah, where we see that it is God who DOES this to them. So these are unable to turn, and in their wickedness, God doubly ensures it.
Because they were ABLE to repent and understand WITHOUT the parables.
A clear indication they were NOT totally disabled and THEREBY needed God to touch them 1st.
It is explicit:
"Lest they should understand with their heart and turn" Mat.13:15
You see they were not using their "has" of Mat.13:12b unlike the disciples who were using their "has" of Mat.13:12a but you do not understand this verse quoted 5 times in the N.T. do you?
@gracetruthguy - Able to understand without the parables? Wow. Talk about isogesis. And now, you have God purposefully stopping people who could actually believe. I don't understand the "has" of Matt 13:12?? Jesus says that the SECRETS have been given to the disciples but NOT to the others. What the disciples HAVE is the Spirit of God, which also was GIVEN to them. Jesus says they are BLESSED. But you're saying they're just getting their just rewards for "having" something in and of themselves!
Yes, God chooses the delusions of the (those who want to be) wicked.
If Jesus had not spoken in parables but plainly they would have understood and been able to repent, but their choice had been given them and their deeds showed that they did not want God.
Yes, all secrets are understood by those who have permitted the Spirit to teach them and go on opening themselves to Him. cf. James "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you"
@gracetruthguy - "Yes, all secrets are understood by those who have permitted the Spirit to teach them and go on opening themselves to Him:"
And there it is folks. Proof positive that Jac believes that God chose him because he chose God. Why wouldn't God save Jac? I mean he's so smart and righteous!
Notice how you have somewhere to boast in your salvation. But those of us who are actually saved know that we have NOTHING to do with it, that even our faith is a gift.
For 4 centuries the Church taught synergism as it is in the Scripture.
This "God does it all and we can do nought" is anti-biblical and begun with Augustine.
Do you think God saying "Let us reason together, though your sins are as scarlet they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18) Is monergism or synergism?
The Scripture is plain about faith being an action on our part. I referred you to Ephesians 2:8-9 and my video on that, Have you even looked at it?
@gracetruthguy - (1) That's not entirely true about the 1st 4. (2) The Bible teaches monergism. (3) Augustine was simply paraphrasing Paul in 2Cor 5:17-19. (4) Isaiah 1:18 is monergism. Only the elect (those regenerated by Sovereign Grace will do what God commands) God commands many things, which the reprobate never obey. (5) I've never said that faith is not an act that the person does. But the only reason one has faith in Christ is because it has been granted to him. And ONLY THOSE.
“In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.”
History of Christian Doctrine page 165 by George Park Fisher DD LLD. T&T Clark.
Prof. Fisher of church history Yale Uni
So, inculcated - persistently taugh t- was synergism: God and man co-operate: conditional predestination.
Period.
Faith is an act on our part and able to be carried out by all as all have (Luke 19:26)
@gracetruthguy - I've already established that it doesn't matter what anyone taught, if it wasn't true. It certainly isn't what Paul taught, and there are small snippets one finds hither and yon concerning Pauline/Augustinian grace prior to Augustine. But again, heresy slips in quickly. And the biggest problem being "conditional predestination" is an oxymoron. It cannot be "predestination" if it is "conditioned" upon the unknown. Period.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" 2 Thes2:13.
It is NOT of him who WILLS or RUNS, but of God who shows mercy.
It seems you do not understand the words "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" without that belief in play by their action no one enters into the predesitnation of the group who does that.
Not of Him who wills is out of context in your use of it. Read Exodus and see how Moses wanted Israel spared and God said no, for those who sinned against Him would not be spared.
@gracetruthguy - Part 2 ... Heresy creeps into the church rapidly. Gnositcism was already seeping in, even when John was still alive. And Paul had to rebuke Peter to his face (for going in your direction!), but Peter repented. And while much of the published work in the 1st 4 centuries is rather synergistic, it still doesn't make it right, since it's not the teaching of Paul, nor of Christ. There are nuggets of grace scattered hither and yon. One of Clement of Rome's prayers comes to mind. cont.
Yes, and gnosticism found its crowning glory in Augustine in that the manichean view he brought in of total depraivity is the ongoing inheritance of the 'Reformed'.
Peter was on about keeping the law by appearance (for a moment). I do not hold to that.
The very fact of God saying "let us reason together" is because God wants to do it with us, but you object as that offends your monergism. And HAVE TO re-interpret to say "No, God never means that!" What deception you are in.
@gracetruthguy - Total Depravity = gnosticism? Clearly you don't know what gnosticism is, nor do you comprehend TD properly, to make such a ridiculous assertion.
Not sure what your problem with Peter is. But rest assured, if Peter taught it in our writings, it isn't merely Peter, but Christ himself. Therefore you do not hold to Christ's teaching.
While I now pray for your awakening and conversion from Satan unto Christ, if God doesn't do this, I'll be one of your accusers on the Last Day.
A prayer from a saint for God's help is not monergism.
The opposite as per James 4:8
This is where Clement stood on choice and free will given to all:
Stromata Bk ii ch. 4
"But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of
faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice."
@gracetruthguy - I was quoting Clement of Rome. You're quoting Clement of Alexandria. To different people. But even if it was from the same person, neither Clement is writing Holy Scripture.
God using the prayers of a saint for the salvation of another is monergism. God is ACTUALLY saving someone. Your god doesn't actually save anyone. They save themselves. They're already (somehow) good people, and all your god does is recognise the fact and reward them accordingly.
@gracetruthguy - Gen 6:5-6 is in agreement with the rest of Scripture that says that ALL are wicked, except that God restrains the wickedness in some, and brings some to faith. But of course you, being a "good person", deny this.
Gen 8:21 There's no difference contextually between an infant and a youth. Same people, same evil.
1K 8:46 "for there is no one who does not sin", This leaves no exception.
Ps14:1-3 Re-read it. It says that ALL have turned aside.
Genesis 6:5-6 does not say that ALL are wicked. Read on: "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." Gen.5:8
A youth is a youth. An infant is an infant. There is nothing contextually to suggest one is the other.
1K8:46 the CONTEXT "When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin)..." Thisis not about everyone being terribly wicked, but just being sinners because they sin.
Yes PLEASE re-read the WHOLE of Psalm 14 & V.5 on! BEFORE is about the wicked.
@gracetruthguy - Are you suggesting that Noah was righteous by NATURE?
A youth, in the context, and in keeping with the rest of the Scritpure, is no different than an infant. Scripture speaks of infants lying as an illustration showing that ALL are sinful.
"Terribly wicked"? So you think there's a difference between being wicked and "terribly" wicked? Eating a forbidden fruit, as compared to rape -- not so terrible?
The Scripture indicates that the righteous man is so because He works with God and God works with him to enable: God imparts of His nature to the willing.
God was explicit to Cain "If you do well" Genesis 4:7
God is not into saying things we cannot do.
If I deliberately sin then I am in the flesh as per Rom.7 and become as the natural man in 1Cor2:14 which was written to the Christians who were not being spiritual but carnal (natural men). See 1 Cor.3:1
@gracetruthguy - So again, why is it that one man works with God and the other does not? It's either something good in the one man which the other man doesn't have by nature; or it's something good done IN a man which is not done in the other man by grace.
Your assessment of 1 Cor is incorrect. Contextually, to behave as a natural man doesn't mean one IS natural. If one IS natural, then there's nothing more natural than to be natural. But if supernatural it's inconsistent w/ the new identity.
We all have the ability to choose at our beginning, so ti is not our own goodness, but God's gift to all. What we do with that determines our end. It is what WE sow into that WE inherit. Galatians 6:7
Since Paul uses the contrast of spiritual with natural and then says but "I, brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual" (1 Cor.13:1), it is not natural in the sense you read it, but in a chosen state. cf. Romans 8:1b in NKJV.
@gracetruthguy - Not sure where the robots stuff comes from (red herring). If we all have the ability to choose, then Jesus is frull of crap in John 6. And if we have this ability and only some do choose, then there is something inherently better in the one who does than in the one who doesn't choose. Period.
In John 6:45 Jesus explains what He had said before that.
Here He says:
1. all are taught of God
2. only of those who hear and learn go on to "comes to Me"
So all are able, but only those who receive what God teaches make it.
There is no inference in Scripture that inherently one is better than the other to receive the teaching of God. But that it is that independent decision that is the 1st cause to the difference of eternal future. As many as receive: He gave!
@gracetruthguy - All are ABLE? Not according to Jesus "NO ONE CAN (no one is able to) come to me UNLESS the Father DRAWS (compels) him...". Look at why Jesus says this - "You've seen me and yet do not believe." He then goes into WHO it is that comes to him "All that the Father gives (has given) to me come to me." "And they will ALL be taught by God" Some walked away from Christ, of whom he said "This is why I told you, no one can come unless it is GRANTED him by the Father." None are "ABLE".
Yes, but this is AFTER all are taught by God and a DIVISION THEN ensued has occurred whichs is Jesus' explanation of all the above. The above are all who who heard and learned, the rest did not hear and learn, but they were ALL taught and able to.
See my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
to recognise that faith is an action on our part and not a gift.
@gracetruthguy - Wrong! The necessary condition for anyone coming to Christ is that they are called by God, hear his voice, and learn from him. THAT is God DRAWING (compelling) them to come to Christ. And it works every single time, beause Jesus raises ALL of these on the Last Day. There is no talk of a division based on the actions of the sinner, but on the drawing of God.
I recommend my video that speaks of the explanation Jesus gave in John 6 which I pointed to above:
"not so Quick Answer to Calvinists John 15:16 (& John 6) - Jacques More"
If you cannot take John 6:45 as Jesus' explanation of how He sees people drawn to Him - when He uses it that way in my reading - then we may have to leave John 6 out of further comments.
Note Jesus says "THEREFORE everyone who has heard AND learned from the Father comes to Me" Jn6:45
@gracetruthguy - I recommend that you stop calling me Shawn-stegokitty, and stick with stegokitty.
John 6 (et al) is so blatantly opposed to everything you are and claim, that it's astounding, that you continue in your blathering. Jesus said NO ONE HAS THE ABILITY TO COME UNLESS THE FATHER DRAWS HIM. And then Jesus procedes to tell us WHO these who are drawn are. The Bible says that it's NOT of him who wills and runs, and you say it IS of him who wills and runs.
If you persist in denying Jesus' own explanation of the John 6 passage as He gives in John 6:45 you are and will always be taking John 6 out of context.
Not of him who wills - again IN CONTEXT - is Moses wanting to be struck off instead of Israel. God said "No!"
The bible says it is of Him who does not sin
"The soul that sins against me wil be struck off (not you Moses)" Exodus 32
it is of him who shows mercy
"Blessed are the merciful for they shall" Mat.5 and 2 Sam.22
@gracetruthguy - It's you who persists in denying Jesus' explanation. Jesus said "NO ONE CAN (has the ability to) COME TO ME UNLESS the Father draws him. Those who come to Christ do so BECAUSE they are his sheep. You reverse the meaning and say they are his sheep BECAUSE they come. The Scriptures say differently.
I'm afraid you're confusing two different texts in bringing up Moses at this point.
@gracetruthguy - The Reformed understanding of Romans 9 is the plain sense of the sentences. Paul is blatant in his affirmation of God's absolute sovereignty in election, and reprobation. It takes wicked, unbelieving acrobatics to come up with any other conclusion.
God has always from OT to NT chosen some for salvation and punished other equally guilty sinners. All Paul does is make it irrefutably clear.
This is not so as proved by 2 Samuel 22:26 and 400 years of contradicting teaching to the Reformed so-called.
If you were to read in context and like a Berean study it honestly then you would see. But you appear to have already chosen what you want to believe so you cannot do that sadly.
@gracetruthguy - cont ... 1st Cor 2:14 The NATURAL MAN does not RECEIVE the things of God, nor CAN he, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned. The Gospel is FOOLISHNESS to the unregenerate.
God must GIVE the ability to believe and repent Deut 29:2-4
Totaly depravity is not the same as "utter" depravity. Not too many people are utterly depraved (as bad as they can be); but ALL people are corrupted in every aspect of their lives through the fall, and exacerbated by their own sins.
@gracetruthguy will do, and may get back with you on that at a later date :) BTW, why did you remove Stegokitty's response? I thought he had an excellent response.
@skintightpotato - In all honesty. it doesn't appear that gracetruthguy removed it. YT's been full of bugs lately. I can't even promptly respond to messages in my inbox. When I go to press the REPLY button, it disappears. Really frustrating.
@gracetruthguy - Just a note here: I've already pointed out to you in PM that salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone was also absent from the majority of writings prior to Augustine. And this was lost (mostly) sometime later UNTIL Luther and the Reformers. Just because something is the presistent or prevalent teaching doesn't make it BIBLICAL.
@stegokitty Amen brother. Exactly my thoughts. Also, he doesnt even bring in the fact, that 1John says we love Him, because He first loved us. Also, that Romans 3 tells us, NO ONE seeks after God.
Verse 27 states in full: Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God."
Its clear that Paul is talking about God searching the hearts of the saints, people who are already converted. Notice that the word 'Spirit' is capitalized.
Futhermore, Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can understand it?"
Read Rom 11:5: "Election of grace" = unmerited
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
And do you think the righteous in the O.T. were not saints too?
Since Paul mentions they do not know what to pray for it is about pre-Christian saints who do not know they need to be conformed to the image of Jesus.
Remember all the early Greek manuscripts are in uncial letters: they are ALL in capitals.
Context again:
Jeremiah 17:10 God searches the heart. If ALL are so wicked there is no need to.
Roman 11 it is about Israel being elected!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
lieberR1 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
Yes their where saints in the OT, and God worked sovereignly in their lives to rescue them.
Why would Paul take the time to write the Gentiles about the history of Israel if it has nothing to do with them. What a waste of ink! I guess they were really big history buffs.
Talk about out of context... Jeremiah 17:10 is coming from verse 9. God is giving them exactly what they deserve for their vileness.
Too bad we could not reach agreement, bye now.
lieberR1 1 year ago
Hi lieberR1,
Romans is full of refs B4 chapter 12 to Israel in contrast to the Gentiles and where both fit in God's purposes. Look at this 1 verse:
"Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" Romans 11:22
The example of unbelievers in Israel being cut off is given as a warning to Christians!
He searches in Jer.17:10 so only wrong motives seen R judged
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
A judge that sentences a murderer to be executed doesn't take delight in having to kill a man but in order that justice be done the mourderer is executed. It also serves as a warning to others not to murder or face the consequences. god does not delight in that all men have sinned against him, however, he must judge sin. Christ volunteered to take the sins of some men on himself, but not everyone's sins. It was God's choice, not man's. God is sovereign. You have a Bible concordance, don't you?
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
I have a bible concordance and a bible:
"we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone." hebrews 2:9
Jesus died for everyone, but God has also self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) so He does not impose His free gift on anyone, but freely gives it to all willing.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy "all" can mean all of the people this letter is addressed to, or if speaking to a crowd one might say "I'm glad that all of you are here tonight", which doesn't mean that everyone in the world is there. "All" can mean different things in which it is written and intended. The word "many" does not usually mean "all", either. Read this: "So Christ was offered as a sacrifice one time to take away the sins of MANY people" - Hebrews 9:28. It doesn't say sins of ALL people.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
The reason I quoted Hebrews 2:9 was deliberate.
Aware of the arguments used that "all" does not mean "all" all the time, I chose a passage that is explicit and mentions "every one". Here is Young's literal translation:
"we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death"
Jesus tasted death for every one.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@NewDirection4us wait a minute, Calvinists really believe that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world?
What Bible is that in? Is that John Calvin's Translation? Or did one of his deacons write it for him, since he was too busy ordering the death of Michael Servetus, just because the man didn't accept his theology? I wish Calvinists would actually look into the root of Calvinism in Augustine and Calvin's life. Bad trees cannot bear good fruit.
daileydevotion 11 months ago
So God chooses the predestined to salvation based on his seeing that they love him? That's wrong. That would be finding something good in one sinner that is not in another. No, when Paul says God foreknew it means that God loved those he was choosing, not based on anything good found or seen in them, but by the good pleasure of the council of HIS WILL. God chooses based on God's will, not man's heart. All men have evil hearts until God changes us. It is all God...100% God. Man 0%.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
You are free to believe what you want to believe.
But, which bible are you reading?
Did you know that the unconditional predestination teaching began in the church with Augustine?
See my video
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
Did you know that faith is not a gift but an action on our part?
C "Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
That we are not dead in sin?
C "Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:1 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy No, it is from scripture which predates Augustine. Faith is a gift from God. no one has faith unles God has given it to them. you have it backwards and so do many preachers who want to feel that they can talk people into saving themselves by their own freewill. God chooses, God saves, God gives us faith. It is all God, and man has nothing to boast about. God chooses on whom to have mercy and it is his choice, not ours.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
You refer to no Scripture so how do we know you are believing Scripture?
And if you can't think of texts already covered on this YouTube channel then please give reasons why my arguments do not hold.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of ourselves,...."but you are washed, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God". - John 17:17
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
Yes it is, but it is not imposed on an infividual and requires not only his cooperation but also their invitation:
"Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit." Ezekiel 19:31
"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you" James 4:8
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy You should read a great book titled " debating Calvinism" by Dave Hunt and James White. Dave Hunt does about as well with presenting the Arminian doctrine as anyone could but James White destroys his points at every turn using scripture to back it up. One of the best verses to destroy Armininism is the one where Jesus tells some people who are listening to him that they are unable to hear him, unable to come to him, and why? Because they are not his sheep.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
Arminianism is not into open theism as I read in my bible.
See my video:
"1 Samuel 13:13 - Proof Positive of Open Theism -- Jacques More"
As to Jesus words about not able to hear because thay are not His sheep, He does not go into how they are not His sheep and cannot be used as a proof text ASSUMING it means you a only CHOSEN in order to be a sheep. It does not follow.
Take a look at my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists The Elect - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, God foreknows who he choose to be destined to belong to Christ. It is PEOPLE he knows, not what the people would do in their lifetimes such as believe or not believe. If God chose the elect based on his knowledge of them believing then he would not be doing the choosing; he would just be rubber stamping the individual's choice to come to Christ. Salvation is a merciful gift from God. We could not earn it otherwise it would not be a gift, it would be something we deserved or earned.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Yes, God foreknows who he choose to be destined to belong to Christ. It is PEOPLE he knows, not what the people would do in their lifetimes such as believe or not believe. If God chose the elect based on his knowledge of them believing then he would not be doing the choosing; he would just be rubber stamping the individual's choice to come to Christ. Salvation is a merciful gift from God. We could not earn it otherwise it would not be a gift, it would be something we deserved or earned.
NewDirection4us 1 year ago
Hi NewDirection4us,
As per my previous comment response there are no elect. See the video.
Please be so kind as to give bible reference to "the elect" with the word EKLEKTOS removed from the equation.
The truth is God desires all men to be saved, those who are not is not because God chose them to be that way. The opposite is clear in Scripture which you appear to deny.
" 'For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies', says the Lord GOD. 'Therefore turn and live!' " Ezek 18:32
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
"No, it is whilst we are sinners that as we desire not to be that God then enables us to do more and saves us "
Why would a sinner (who loves his sin, and approves of those who do the same) desire not to sin? That's an absurdity. No sinner ever wants holiness unless and until God gives that desire to him. He cannot want otherwise. He is enslaved to his sin, and is jealously protective of his sin, and wills not to be separated from it.
God saves sinners. Sinners don't save themselves.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
But, God also says
"If a wicked man turns from all his sins..." Ezekiel 18:21
And
"Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" Ezek.18:31
So, yes a new spirit and a new heart is needed, but is it by synergism obtained; not by monergism.
God saves sinners willing to change and be helped.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Because something is commanded doesn't mean that one has the ability. The proper response is "God have mercy on me, a sinner". But you say "I thank you God, that I am not like that sinner who doesn't use his "has"."
If it is obtained by synergism, then the reason one person believes is because there is some INHERENT GOODNESS IN THEM that is NOT in the other person. And as I said before, you see yourself as one who willed yourself to salvation. Whereas God has to actually save me
stegokitty 1 year ago 2
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
God is not into deceiving people, period.
If He says we can: we can.
If all have inherent goodness from God - by virtue of His creation as His image, then there is no one without that goodness.
No one is glorified in using it to open to God for more, but God Himself in giving the ability to all in the 1st place.
The making of a free choice is a decision without external influence.
Just as it was in 2 Chronicles 32:31
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Your own words condemn you. Like I said above, this is the end of our conversation. I'm only addressing these points with one-liners to end it all, as far as I'm concerned.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
You are free to comment or not to comment.
But note, deception is not overcome by education alone, but by a desire to know the truth irrespective of current belief of a particular doctrine.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - You need to be holding a mirror to yourself when you say that, comrade. We Calvinists aren't afraid of the truth. We don't have to make excuses for the Scriptures like you do. You take obscure verses and take them at face value, then take blatant ones and dissect them into meaninglessness. I wasn't raised as Reformed. I was an Arminian. Now I know the truth. You're stuck in the lie.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
I do hold to that.
Calvinists are afraid of the truth without reference to Calvin and augustinian thought. They will not look at the context or the plain texts like.
To the merciful He shall be merciful
What is obscure about that?
Who is believing a lie?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - "I do hold to that". To what?
And just more of your silly "Calvinists are afraid of the truth" nonsense.
And you must do this in order to keep up the false doctrine you embrace, and to tell yourself every day "I'm a good person, and God ought to like me for it."
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Jesus said those who hunger and thirst for righteousness shall be filled.
You twist it to say no one can do that without God 1st enabling which denies Jesus.
Jesus says all have something: Luke 19:26 You deny that.
It is what you do with what you 'have' that determines things.
One is good with God's help: synergism. He gives to all to begin with, It is then more given as we use it for good. He gets all the glory!
Hallelujah!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Here's the difference between me and you, Jacques. I NEED a Saviour, where as you just desire a Confirmer -- someone to agree that you're a good man, and to choose you since you've already chosen yourself, by being such a wonderful person, and to reward you for your not being evil. Christ came to save sinners. Since you're not a sinner, you don't really need a Saviour. You're your own saviour. You should be proud of your great achievement.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Anyone who sins needs a saviour. But it is our sin that makes us sinners.Rom.5:12
But, God will not force into heaven someone who does not want to be there. Mat.23:37
It is only those who hunger and thirst for righteousness who will be filled. Mat.5:6
Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Mat.5:7
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - We sin BECAUSE we're sinners. We're sinners by birth and by choice. No one has claimed that God forces anyone into heaven (straw man). God MAKES US WILLING. I've already given ample Scripture to support these several times.
And your use of the Scriptures, once again, makes you to be a (naturally, inherently) one who hungers and thirsts for righteousness, and one who is by nature merciful. So again, you DESERVE salvation by your good spirit and works.
That's not the Gospel.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
No, it is written we are sinners because we sin "because all sinned" Rom.5:12
No, God makes no unwilling person willing "but ye would not" Mat.23:37
No, I've answered your Scriptures.
No, it is whilst we are sinners that as we desire not to be that God then enables us to do more and saves us "to him who has more shall be given and he will have abundance; to him who has not even that he has will be taken away" Mat. 13:12
All who will can becos Jesus paid = gospel
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Try reading it again. The CONTEXT is about Adam's fall and that we (meaning all who are born from Adam -- the first federal head) inherit his sin and guilt. Whereas all who are in Christ (the second federal head) inherit his righteousness. In Adam, all sinned, all are guilty -- in Christ all are righteous.
Using "But ye would not" isn't a response to God making the unwilling willing. It simply means that God leaves some unwilling in their enslaved wills, where they want to be.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn,
No man inherits the guilt of the sin of the father is explicit in Scripture:
"The son shall not bear the guilt of the father" Ezekiel 18:20
Paul DOES NOT contradict that.
Paul is clear all die as a result of our own sin. This is why He says "BECAUSE/FOR all sinned" Romans 5:12
As for your response to Mat,23:37 UR saying "It... means that God leaves some unwilling in their enslaved wills" really? so He does not help those who He WANTS then? Is He sovereign or not?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Paul isn't contradicting anything by saying this in a different light than Ezek 18:20, anymore than Ezekiel is contradicting God, when He says that he visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generations.
If we die only because of our own sins, then infants are guilty of their own sins.
Your last sentence makes no sense. Please re-think and re-write it.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Since when is visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 3rd to 4th generations imparting the guilt on the children?
2 different things.
There are 2 deaths in view: physical death and spiritual death
Sin's wage is spiritual death
Physical death is only present in that we are mortal created and not having eaten of the tree of life
Babies do not sin, for sin is transgression of the law
Mt23:37 God was willing; they were not. U say they were not becos of God
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Sin's wage includes both physical and spiritual death. If babies die simply because Adam didn't eat from the tree of life, then the only way they could die would be from starvation.
God was willing and WHO was not? And I say that anyone is not willing because of their own sin, and their love of it, their enslavement to the power of Satan, their inability to understand spiritual things, their abhorrence of God.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Babies die for all sorts of physical reasons, starvation is only one means of death occurring and has nothing to do with sins of the baby.
Man was not made immortal. Period.
It is explicit that God was willing but they were not in Matthew 23:37 "but you were not willing" Period.
You do err by refusing to adjust your belief system (foreign to the Church for 400 years) to the plain reading of Scripture contradicting it.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - You miss the point, that the only reason that babies (if they are not guilty sinners) should die is from starvation.
Man was not made to die. Adam began to died and then eventually died because he not only refused to do the thing that would've guaranteed him eternal life, but did the thing that guaranteed that what he did have would be taken from him. And Adam would've died a lot quicker if he stopped eating regular food.
Non sinner babies don't die, except from starvation
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
What utter nonsense!
Babies can die through not breathing.
We know Adam did not eat of the tree of life. And we know that pain was here before the fall since to Eve God says it will be INCREASED in childbirth in Genesis 3:16
So the ability to hurt was present and death of the physical kind was possible before the Fall. We were NOT made immortal.
The death Paul speaks of is the separation from God. Not the separation from the body which is the physical death.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - That would be impossible UNLESS they were sinners.
Adam didn't eat but he also lived to be nearly a 1,000 years old.
Your assumption concerning the "increase" of pain is unwarranted. It's the sample failed "logic" that says that the command to "replenish" the earth means that the earth once had life on it, but it was all destroyed prior to Adam and Eve's creation.
Human death was NOT POSSIBLE until the Fall! ONLY if they refused to eat could they die. Death comes from sin.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
If we are not immortal then sin has no direct part in the physical death of man
Yes, man was so well made that the corruption in the world did not take full effect in the physical lifespan of man till some time after the Flood. This does not mean he could have died or not.
The increase in pain is explicit.
''replenish' is in the KJV The word is just "to fill" there is no RE- (i.e. duplication element in it) and is a non argument.
Only spiritual death comes directly from sin
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Wrong again! Romans 5 is talking about BOTH physical and spiritual death. Jesus rose PHYSICALLY from the grave, and all who are in Christ will be raised from the grave PHYSICALLY, with living spirits inside. Oh, but that's right, you think that "good" people from other religions will inherit the kingdom as well (as per your 1st published video - trash).
And your dismissal of "replenish" as a "non-argument" is fallacious since some people believe in a pre-world.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
It appears you do not believe that if Cornelius had not heard about Jesus in Acts 10 then he would have been lost whilst Peter says:
"In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:34-35
If Adam is the first man then there was no other before him. Period.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Of course he would have been lost. Why else was the Gospel presented to him? If he was doing just fine as he was, there was no reason to present Christ in the Gospel to him. He worshipped God in the only way he knew how, which was the corrupted system that Paul was also under. Do you think Paul would've been just fine as a Jew without the Gospel?
Man you dig more holes for yourself.
And with the Adam stuff, you're missing the point again.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
You seem to be oblivious that Paul mentioned the creation being an effective gospel too on its own. See Romans 10:18 quoting Psalm 19:1-3
Paul says those who have that “have heard”!
So you are wrong. The mention of Jesus to Cornelius is not to save him, but to give assurance of salvation and be a part of the Church, let alone the more reward.
As far as being a good Jew is concerned Jesus was clear about that in Mat.19:16-19.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - So, you're suggesting that the witness of nature is all that is necessary for someone to come to a saving knowledge of God?
Gee, then why didn't God think of that?
No. The witness of creation is simply that which renders all men without excuse as to belief in God, and in pursuing God. It is not sufficient to bring saving knowledge of Christ. Otherwise the Gospel is unnecessary.
Oh, that's right, you think the Gospel is only for assurance of salvation to good people.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
I'm not suggesting anyhting that is not plainly to be read in the Scripture:
Paul says "Have they not heard?" then proceeds to say they have because Creation is a voice that speaks and is heard. Period.
Now, I need to inform you that any further comments from you about a point I have already answered will be deleted. It is one thing to comment and enquire; it is another to repeat the same comment when it has been fully replied to.
You need to read and learn from the replies
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing."
Are you suggesting that Adam, right after meeting his lovely wife, and before disobeying God by eating from the tree, could have, in the middle of the night, stopped breathing and died?
Beside the fact that your responses concerning Original Sin are in direct opposition to Romans 5.
stegokitty 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing."
Are you suggesting that Adam, right after meeting his lovely wife, and before disobeying God by eating from the tree, could have, in the middle of the night, stopped breathing and died?
stegokitty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gracetruthguy - "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing."
Are you suggesting that Adam, right after meeting his lovely wife, and before disobeying God by eating from the tree, could have, in the middle of the night, stopped breathing and died?
stegokitty 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - "What utter nonsense! Babies can die through not breathing"
Just to recap, you equated human death with the fact that Adam didn't eat from the tree of life, but in like manner refuse to accpet that if people today die because Adam didn't eat from the tree of life yesterday, then since he DID eat from the forbidden tree yesterday, then we today inherit his sin and death.
Keep squirming. It's funny.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
If your parent eats something then sure, of that which is eaten that then becomes a part of the being is ongoing to the progeny.
Of what tree did Adam eat? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What is passed on thereby?
The knowledge of good and evil. Nothing more.
Since the progeny do not have the same command they are not guilty of breaking that command and are not accounted guilty of that sin. Sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not an inheritance.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Paul in Romans 5 says that IN ADAM death spread to all men, because IN ADAM all sinned (past tense -- not "all sin", but all SINNED, in Adam), and he drives it home further by saying that even though Adam's decendants didn't break direct covenant as Adam did, they still died BECAUSE Adam was a type of the one to come. How? He is Federal Head of his people. Whatever is his fate is his peoples'. In Christ, likewise, all that is his, belongs to his people. Life and rigteousness.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Scripture:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" R5:12
SK:
"IN ADAM death spread to all men, because IN ADAM all sinned"
The Scripture is clear the death (spiritual) is passed on through our own sinning.
Which is why Paul also says
"The wages fo sin is death" Romans 6:23
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Part 2: And how about when God sent Israel to kill men, women, and children in Jericho? Did god want to save them? And you can't say that he simply knew that none would ever believe the Gospel, because your god doesn't know the "free" actions of his creatures. God devoted that city (and others) to total destruction, saving none. Then God ordered the execution of Aichan AND his entire household when he kept some of the devoted things from Jericho. How comfy are you with that?
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
That is a fair question.
The deal is - since they were babies not having done evil or good - God knowing this, has them in His presence with Him and their life's purpose is fulfilled in their being taken at that point in time.
Babies die all the time...
The purpose in the nations that they die is so that the offending nation being full grown in sin (Genesis 15:16) is totally removed and no remnant arise later to hinder Israel and God's purpose in Israel...
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I'm not just talking about babies here. I'm talking about people, both young and old -- people that, according to you, might be potentially saved people. But God doesn't go into that at all with them. And not only in Jericho but in virtually every other city, with only one (maybe two?) exceptions, at least in this campaign. So now, according to your scenario, God is a monster who doesn't give "ALL" a "chance" to be saved. And saying "Babies die all the time" isn't addressing it
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
You seem to be making the assumption that people are saved only if they have some particular 'chance': some particular means to be saved.
Whereas the Scripture makes clear "Jesus as the Logos is the light that gives light to every man who comes into the world " John 1:9 that is everyone
And everyone who then receives Him He gives the right to become children of God - Jn1:12 this is not limited to the few, but all who do not receive AFTER all were given light
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Actually I don't. That's not the Reformed position. It's yours.
And just to be clear, are you suggesting universalism?
Your last sentence makes no sense at all.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Universalism is a lie as it is explicit there are those will go to hell (eternal - lake of fire).
Whilst you make assumptions about my position, I do know and understand the Augustine position (which you call Reformed).
All are given opportunity as per John 1:9
"He is the light that gives light to EVERY man who comes into the world"
This is HOW it is not limited to the few.
And this is the context of my last sentence.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - The light that comes to every man is not sufficient for salvation -- only sufficient to render all guilty of personal rejection of God. The very next verse states clearly that "the world did not recognise him".
"As many as WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE believed." Only those who are born of God (sovereignly regenerated) can and will "recognise" Christ, repent and believe on him unto salvation.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
The light given to all if then received qualifies the recipient to be given authority to become a child of God (John 1:9 onto V.12)
As for the so-called appointed to eternal life I recommend my video entitled:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Acts 13:48 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - And your abuse of Mat 13:12 is quite telling. Who saved you? YOU DID! All God did was to acknowledge how wonderful you already are.
"All who will can, because Jesus paid"??? That's the gospel?
(sound of WRONG! buzzer)
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy (Rom 9:16).
Your arguments are getting more and more desperate.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn,
Do you really believe when God says,
"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful" 2 Sam.22:26 and Jesus said "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" Mat.5:7 that He then means something different in Romans 9:16?
It is TO MOSES God spoke - READ THE CONTEXT -
Watch this vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Romans 9:14-16 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - (1) 2 Sam 22 is speaking to David, not Moses. (2) It's talking about how God's people are to live, especially the king. He is to be merciful to those who have a report of being merciful, etc. READ THE CONTEXT. (3) Rom 9:16 is referring to WHY one person is SAVED and a nother is not. READ THE CONTEXT.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
2 Sam.22 is David declaring what God does and is like.
Paul does not contradict that
In saying that is is "TO MOSES" in Rom.9:15 he is referring to a context which you miss. Moses wanted Israel spared and be held guilty in their place. God had said "no way!" and thereby "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" means:
You Moses have not sinned: You will receive mercy. But not those who have sinned against Me - Exodus 32:33
That is the context
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Complete nonsense. And that is NOT the context of "I will have mercy...". According to you, God has mercy on whomever deserves it, but that's not what God says. He says he has mercy on whomever he WILLS. Paul explains that this is God's prerogative, which is why he follows it with the illustration of Pharaoh and says that God has mercy on one and hardens (actively) another. It NOT of him who wills or runs, but of GOD who shows mercy. But that's the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
When were the chapters put in the bible?
A; 13th century
When were the verses?
A: 2-3 centuries later
Who says it is not the context and why?
It was exactly what happened "TO MOSES" as Paul said - R9:15
Paul does not contradict 2 Sam.22:26 - he re-inforces it.
Moses willed Israel saved, God said no. "It is not of him who wills or of him who runs" NOW UNDERSTOOD
Pharaoh hardened his heart 6X before the Lord THEN kept it that way 6X.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - The chapters and verses have nothing to do with why it's not the context. That's the argument of a person who divorces Scripture from Scriptures (your position). Of course Paul doesn't contradict, he reinforces it by showing that God has mercy on one sinner (Moses) and hardens another sinner (Pharaoh). And I've already shown that it was God's will to harden Pharaoh, NOT being contengent upon Pharaoh's self hardening. But you ignored that fact conveniently.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Really?
So the Scriptures that makes it clear God has mercy on the merciful or that blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy say nothing in the doctrine of How God applies His mercy?
What rot!
Paul uses the example of what was said TO MOSES as an example of God being righteous (R9:14)
Your capricious interpretation makes God unrighteous!
It is as if God NEVER said it TO MOSES but just an (alleged) truth in thin air!
What a lie!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I'm pleased to be in the company of Paul, who counters all of your objections. Notice that the offense is from those in your corner, the "open theists", the Arminians, the SemiPelagians. No Calvinist questions what Paul is saying. So, it's amusing to see you twist the Scriptures, to make it seem that Paul is not talking to you, when he is. YOU are the one to whom he says 'But who are YOU O man?". God has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. YOU OBJECT. We don't.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
God has mercy on whom He wills and the context shows it is the merciful who receive.
God hardens whom He wills and HOW is seen in the context and the text: the text is Paul's use of 2 different Greek verbs to explain HOW this happens in Romans 9:22-23 But you turn a persitent blind eye to this.
The "who are you O man" is all those who do not understand HOW God does it.
This appears to include you.
Do you see the reason for Paul using different Greek verbs is R9.22-23?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Hilarious! I'M the one misunderstanding Paul? Right. Everything Paul is saying is in opposition to YOUR position. YOUR the one having to do all sorts of acrobatics to get the meaning you desire from the Scriptures. I'm taking Paul seriously here. Jacob was not merciful. God said "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". It is NOT of him who WILLS or RUNS, but of God who shows MERCY. Mercy is NEVER OBLIGATORY.
In your view, God rewards the naturally merciful. Salvation is cheap.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Jacob and Esau's election is about the nation of Israel itself and not salvation: the salvation example was given in Romans 9:6 "Israel out of Israel" THEN Paul says "NOR..." Do you not know what 'nor' stands for?
Salvation cost Jesus' life and his tasting death for every man (Hebrews 2:9)
Not cheap!
It is the Scripture view that:
To the merciful God will be merciful (2 Samuel 22:26)
You deny the Scripture.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Wrong. It's about salvation.
If the cost of Jesus death bought salvation for every man, then every man is saved. Period. If Jesus died for a man's sins, God cannot punish Jesus for his sins and him for his sins as well. That would be absurd and unjust.
But Jesus didn't die for the sins of every individual.
If you believe that God being merciful to the merciful is about salvation, then you have somewhere to boast in your salvation.
So who's denying Scripture?
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
God makes his sun and the rain to occur on all, who benefits are those who avail themselves of that provision.
It's the same with the free gift of salvaiton. God made provision for all because Jesus tasted death for every man (Heb.2:9)
This is not equal to all will be saved since God has self- control and does not impose what He desires and does not force people to have what He wants.
The person using the God given ability which all have given has nothing to boast.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy "No, it is written we are sinners because we sin "because all sinned" Rom.5:12"
No, that verse says nothing of the sort. Paul says "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned". It says nothing about us being sinners because we've sinned. It says Adam sinned; death is the result of sin, and the fact that we all die (even babies) is because we're all guilty of sin BY NATURE.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn,
Do you understand the meaning of the word "because" it is there to give us the reason for something.
The reason for what?
The reason that death came to all men is the answer.
Babies are not men AND death - separation from God in mind - is NOT the physical death, which has to do with the fact even Adam was not created immortal as he had not eaten of the tree of life.
It is explicit NO one is guilty by nature read Ezekiel 18:20
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Babies are not men? What are they, ducks? Don't be ridiculous. That's like saying "women aren't men" in the context. Bad form, Jac-o.
And again you take Ezek 18:20 out of context.
The word "because" in that verse means "because IN ADAM all have sinned, whereas all IN CHRIST are accounted as righteous". It has to do with federal headship. Your arguments get more and more desperate (now per the "babies are not men" bit. Fabulous. What do you do for an encore?)
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Babies cannot trangress the law like men as they have no law to abide by.
That is how they are not men. Sin is the trangression of the law - 1 John 3:4
Ezekiel 18:20 is abstract in expression
"The soul who sins shall die" spiritual death in view "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father"
Babies do not sin. They die physically, not spiritually.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Um, no. That isn't the intent of the writer at all. He didn't have this rigid and bizarre use of the word "men" as you're doing. Death passed to all because IN ADAM, all sinned, whereas all IN CHRIST are accounted as righteous. THAT is what Paul is teaching. And there is no evidence that spiritual death is in view with Ezekiel 18:20. The reason physical death occurs is because spiritual death is already there.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Really?
Then why do you think Paul added "BECAUSE all sinned" R5:12?
In Adam are all who have sinned. In Christ are all who believe in Him.
Physical death is there because we are not immortal.
It has been accelarated by sin in the world, but it was already present.
Just as pain was already present, but it was INCREASED in the giving of birth for the woman - Genesis 3:16a
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Excellent Stegokitty, great to see someone defending the truth in proper context, good job!
raggedy80 1 year ago
Just a quick note, before I forget again. GTG, you said that all the word "grace" means is "love". That's incorrect. Grace is God's UNMERITED favour. YOU, by contrast turn it into a MERITED favour. God sees people who already love him, and so then is "graceful" to them; based on that foreseen love, he predestines them, etc. How utterly foreign to the entire story of REDEMPTION.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Perhaps you should read the Scripture again: it is explicit.
"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful"
2 Samuel 22:26
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - And that's what you were, right? Merciful. THAT'S why God chose you! Oh, now I get it. Good ol, soft-spoken (with a very nice English accent) GTG. I mean, how could God resist? He must have been up there scrubbing his arms with glee when he saw how merciful and unproud and faithful you were and said "That's our boy!"
stegokitty 1 year ago
@stegokitty
Hey, I would have chosen GTG if I were God, would'nt you? LOL
1689Baptist 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Again until you have in context a bible passage that says total depravity exists you are just speaking what you want to believe.
Why not be like a Berean and recognise the truth of 2 Samuel 22:26?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Eph 2:3 by NATURE children of wrath; Acts 26:17-18 Enslaved by Satan; Gen 6:5-6 Every inclination is evil all the time; Gen 8:21 inclination of heart is evil from birth; 1Kings8:46 There is no one who doesn't sin against God; Psalm 14:1-3 None righteous, all without understanding, none who seek God; Psalm 51:5 We are sinners, even in conception; Psalm 58:3 From birth we begin lying; Eccl 7:20 None without sin; Eccl 9:3 Heart are full of evil; cont ...
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Pt1
Eph.2:3 is about propensity in context not birth i.e. death by means of trespasses and sins see my video
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:1 - Jacques More"
Acts 26:17-18 is about the influence in the world we live in
Gen6:5-6 is only about the wicked in the earth
G8:21 not from birth but from youth
1Kings 8:46 just says we all sin
It does not mean we cannot repent
Ps14:1-3 is about the wicked
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Pt2
Ps51:5 see my video
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Psalm 51:5 - Jacques More"
Ps58:3 proves it is not born that way but onwards from
Same as 1 Kings8:46
Eccl9:3 sin is universal again
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - See? You're too busy denying what the Scriptures clearly say, because you're bent on them not meaning what they say (all the while claiming to take the verses "literally"). Utter nonsense.
Eph 2:3 "Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath" BY NATURE OBJECT OF WRATH (KJV says CHILDREN of wrath).
Acts 26:17-18 says that people are under the power of SATAN, and need their eyes open SO THAT they may receive forgiveness of sins.
Continued ...
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Have you even looked at my video on Ephesians 2:1?
And are you saying God placed them under the power of Satan?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I've not seen your video on Eph 2:1. I've no immediate plans to do so, as I'm still working on my rebuttal of another of your videos. The poor exegesis makes it difficult for me to spend much time on your videos.
I've no idea why you would ask such a bizarre question as your last one. Please re-read my post. People are under the power of Satan, and God must open their eyes SO THAT they can and will turn from sin and embrace Jesus Christ.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Allow me to help you. In Eph.2:1 the word "IN" as "you were dead IN trespasses and sins" is NOT in the Greek. The words "the trespasses and the sins" are in the Dative. And it is because of the instrumental use of the Dative that "IN" has been added. It denotes it is WHILST IN sin and trespasses that they were dead.
No exegesis, just a plain teaching of grammar.
The question is to point to the fact that it is man's deliberate sin that places him under the power of Satan.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - How does one even respond to such irresponsible exegesis? Once again you ignore the fact that the rest of Scripture, especially that in Paul's writings, says that these people who are dead "whilst in their sins" will remain as such, because they love their sin, and are under the power of Satan. If they're under the power of Satan they cannot, in and of themselves, remove themselves thusly, neither do they wish to be removed.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn,
In your assumption that no one has any ability - God given - in the 1st place then of course you would say that.
But it is understood throughout Scripture the ability to turn exists:
"If you do well" Genesis 4:7
"Let us reason together" Isaiah 1:18
"get yourselves a new heart and and a new spirit" Ezekiel 18:30
"Lest they should understand with their heart an turn" Mathew 13:15
et al
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - It's pretty funny that you'd use Matt 13:15 to try to support you erroneous position. Look at the preceding and proceding verses: Jesus is purposefully speaking to the people in parables to leave them in their ignorance, but to the disciples, they are called BLESSED because they are able to hear and see. John 12:40 uses this same verse from Isaiah, where we see that it is God who DOES this to them. So these are unable to turn, and in their wickedness, God doubly ensures it.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
And why indeed in parables?
Because they were ABLE to repent and understand WITHOUT the parables.
A clear indication they were NOT totally disabled and THEREBY needed God to touch them 1st.
It is explicit:
"Lest they should understand with their heart and turn" Mat.13:15
You see they were not using their "has" of Mat.13:12b unlike the disciples who were using their "has" of Mat.13:12a but you do not understand this verse quoted 5 times in the N.T. do you?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Able to understand without the parables? Wow. Talk about isogesis. And now, you have God purposefully stopping people who could actually believe. I don't understand the "has" of Matt 13:12?? Jesus says that the SECRETS have been given to the disciples but NOT to the others. What the disciples HAVE is the Spirit of God, which also was GIVEN to them. Jesus says they are BLESSED. But you're saying they're just getting their just rewards for "having" something in and of themselves!
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Yes, God chooses the delusions of the (those who want to be) wicked.
If Jesus had not spoken in parables but plainly they would have understood and been able to repent, but their choice had been given them and their deeds showed that they did not want God.
Yes, all secrets are understood by those who have permitted the Spirit to teach them and go on opening themselves to Him. cf. James "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you"
Will you?
Will I?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - "Yes, all secrets are understood by those who have permitted the Spirit to teach them and go on opening themselves to Him:"
And there it is folks. Proof positive that Jac believes that God chose him because he chose God. Why wouldn't God save Jac? I mean he's so smart and righteous!
Notice how you have somewhere to boast in your salvation. But those of us who are actually saved know that we have NOTHING to do with it, that even our faith is a gift.
Big difference.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
For 4 centuries the Church taught synergism as it is in the Scripture.
This "God does it all and we can do nought" is anti-biblical and begun with Augustine.
Do you think God saying "Let us reason together, though your sins are as scarlet they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18) Is monergism or synergism?
The Scripture is plain about faith being an action on our part. I referred you to Ephesians 2:8-9 and my video on that, Have you even looked at it?
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - (1) That's not entirely true about the 1st 4. (2) The Bible teaches monergism. (3) Augustine was simply paraphrasing Paul in 2Cor 5:17-19. (4) Isaiah 1:18 is monergism. Only the elect (those regenerated by Sovereign Grace will do what God commands) God commands many things, which the reprobate never obey. (5) I've never said that faith is not an act that the person does. But the only reason one has faith in Christ is because it has been granted to him. And ONLY THOSE.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SG,
“In harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated by the Greek Fathers.”
History of Christian Doctrine page 165 by George Park Fisher DD LLD. T&T Clark.
Prof. Fisher of church history Yale Uni
So, inculcated - persistently taugh t- was synergism: God and man co-operate: conditional predestination.
Period.
Faith is an act on our part and able to be carried out by all as all have (Luke 19:26)
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I've already established that it doesn't matter what anyone taught, if it wasn't true. It certainly isn't what Paul taught, and there are small snippets one finds hither and yon concerning Pauline/Augustinian grace prior to Augustine. But again, heresy slips in quickly. And the biggest problem being "conditional predestination" is an oxymoron. It cannot be "predestination" if it is "conditioned" upon the unknown. Period.
Dead men can't cooperate. Period.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Conditional predestination is that because it is predestination within the lifetime of the individual in view both in Romans 8 and John1.
Whilst the predestination of the group in Christ is in view in Ephesians 1.
You choose which group you are in.
So it is not an oxymoron if understood.
No one is dead if there is a spirit in every man. Ecclesiastes 12:7
See my vid:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:1 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Your assessment of "predestination" is utterly ridiculous. Here's what the BIBLE says:
"2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" 2 Thes2:13.
It is NOT of him who WILLS or RUNS, but of God who shows mercy.
God chooses. We don't.
Paul says the natural man is DEAD.
You deny the Scriptures again.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
It seems you do not understand the words "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" without that belief in play by their action no one enters into the predesitnation of the group who does that.
Not of Him who wills is out of context in your use of it. Read Exodus and see how Moses wanted Israel spared and God said no, for those who sinned against Him would not be spared.
Paul says you choose to be a natural man.
You deny the scripture in context.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Part 2 ... Heresy creeps into the church rapidly. Gnositcism was already seeping in, even when John was still alive. And Paul had to rebuke Peter to his face (for going in your direction!), but Peter repented. And while much of the published work in the 1st 4 centuries is rather synergistic, it still doesn't make it right, since it's not the teaching of Paul, nor of Christ. There are nuggets of grace scattered hither and yon. One of Clement of Rome's prayers comes to mind. cont.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Yes, and gnosticism found its crowning glory in Augustine in that the manichean view he brought in of total depraivity is the ongoing inheritance of the 'Reformed'.
Peter was on about keeping the law by appearance (for a moment). I do not hold to that.
The very fact of God saying "let us reason together" is because God wants to do it with us, but you object as that offends your monergism. And HAVE TO re-interpret to say "No, God never means that!" What deception you are in.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Total Depravity = gnosticism? Clearly you don't know what gnosticism is, nor do you comprehend TD properly, to make such a ridiculous assertion.
Not sure what your problem with Peter is. But rest assured, if Peter taught it in our writings, it isn't merely Peter, but Christ himself. Therefore you do not hold to Christ's teaching.
While I now pray for your awakening and conversion from Satan unto Christ, if God doesn't do this, I'll be one of your accusers on the Last Day.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Total depravity is just total inability to turn to God without God 1st giving ability to.
This total inability was in Manichee teaching: a gnostic sect which Augustine used to belong to.
Paul and Christ teach synergism. Pretty explicit in Luke 19:11-27
All are given something and it is what you do with that something that determines your future.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Part 3 (final) Clement's prayer: "Grant unto us, Lord, that we may set our hope on Thy Name.
And open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee."
MONERGISM.
Pelagius was wrong. Augustine was right.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
A prayer from a saint for God's help is not monergism.
The opposite as per James 4:8
This is where Clement stood on choice and free will given to all:
Stromata Bk ii ch. 4
"But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of
faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice."
SYNERGISM
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I was quoting Clement of Rome. You're quoting Clement of Alexandria. To different people. But even if it was from the same person, neither Clement is writing Holy Scripture.
God using the prayers of a saint for the salvation of another is monergism. God is ACTUALLY saving someone. Your god doesn't actually save anyone. They save themselves. They're already (somehow) good people, and all your god does is recognise the fact and reward them accordingly.
Pelagianism.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Salvation is a free gift of God.
It is obtained through faith: an action on the part of the believer.
See my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Gen 6:5-6 is in agreement with the rest of Scripture that says that ALL are wicked, except that God restrains the wickedness in some, and brings some to faith. But of course you, being a "good person", deny this.
Gen 8:21 There's no difference contextually between an infant and a youth. Same people, same evil.
1K 8:46 "for there is no one who does not sin", This leaves no exception.
Ps14:1-3 Re-read it. It says that ALL have turned aside.
Oh but not you. Not you. Right?
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
Genesis 6:5-6 does not say that ALL are wicked. Read on: "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." Gen.5:8
A youth is a youth. An infant is an infant. There is nothing contextually to suggest one is the other.
1K8:46 the CONTEXT "When they sin against You (for there is no one who does not sin)..." Thisis not about everyone being terribly wicked, but just being sinners because they sin.
Yes PLEASE re-read the WHOLE of Psalm 14 & V.5 on! BEFORE is about the wicked.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Are you suggesting that Noah was righteous by NATURE?
A youth, in the context, and in keeping with the rest of the Scritpure, is no different than an infant. Scripture speaks of infants lying as an illustration showing that ALL are sinful.
"Terribly wicked"? So you think there's a difference between being wicked and "terribly" wicked? Eating a forbidden fruit, as compared to rape -- not so terrible?
But you're not wicked, are you?
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
The Scripture indicates that the righteous man is so because He works with God and God works with him to enable: God imparts of His nature to the willing.
God was explicit to Cain "If you do well" Genesis 4:7
God is not into saying things we cannot do.
If I deliberately sin then I am in the flesh as per Rom.7 and become as the natural man in 1Cor2:14 which was written to the Christians who were not being spiritual but carnal (natural men). See 1 Cor.3:1
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - So again, why is it that one man works with God and the other does not? It's either something good in the one man which the other man doesn't have by nature; or it's something good done IN a man which is not done in the other man by grace.
Your assessment of 1 Cor is incorrect. Contextually, to behave as a natural man doesn't mean one IS natural. If one IS natural, then there's nothing more natural than to be natural. But if supernatural it's inconsistent w/ the new identity.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn,
God does not want robots in heaven.
We all have the ability to choose at our beginning, so ti is not our own goodness, but God's gift to all. What we do with that determines our end. It is what WE sow into that WE inherit. Galatians 6:7
Since Paul uses the contrast of spiritual with natural and then says but "I, brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual" (1 Cor.13:1), it is not natural in the sense you read it, but in a chosen state. cf. Romans 8:1b in NKJV.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Not sure where the robots stuff comes from (red herring). If we all have the ability to choose, then Jesus is frull of crap in John 6. And if we have this ability and only some do choose, then there is something inherently better in the one who does than in the one who doesn't choose. Period.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
In John 6:45 Jesus explains what He had said before that.
Here He says:
1. all are taught of God
2. only of those who hear and learn go on to "comes to Me"
So all are able, but only those who receive what God teaches make it.
There is no inference in Scripture that inherently one is better than the other to receive the teaching of God. But that it is that independent decision that is the 1st cause to the difference of eternal future. As many as receive: He gave!
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - All are ABLE? Not according to Jesus "NO ONE CAN (no one is able to) come to me UNLESS the Father DRAWS (compels) him...". Look at why Jesus says this - "You've seen me and yet do not believe." He then goes into WHO it is that comes to him "All that the Father gives (has given) to me come to me." "And they will ALL be taught by God" Some walked away from Christ, of whom he said "This is why I told you, no one can come unless it is GRANTED him by the Father." None are "ABLE".
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
Yes, but this is AFTER all are taught by God and a DIVISION THEN ensued has occurred whichs is Jesus' explanation of all the above. The above are all who who heard and learned, the rest did not hear and learn, but they were ALL taught and able to.
See my video:
"Quick Answers to Calvinists Ephesians 2:8-9 - Jacques More"
to recognise that faith is an action on our part and not a gift.
faith is (also) a decision to hear and learn.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Wrong! The necessary condition for anyone coming to Christ is that they are called by God, hear his voice, and learn from him. THAT is God DRAWING (compelling) them to come to Christ. And it works every single time, beause Jesus raises ALL of these on the Last Day. There is no talk of a division based on the actions of the sinner, but on the drawing of God.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi Shawn-stegokitty,
I recommend my video that speaks of the explanation Jesus gave in John 6 which I pointed to above:
"not so Quick Answer to Calvinists John 15:16 (& John 6) - Jacques More"
If you cannot take John 6:45 as Jesus' explanation of how He sees people drawn to Him - when He uses it that way in my reading - then we may have to leave John 6 out of further comments.
Note Jesus says "THEREFORE everyone who has heard AND learned from the Father comes to Me" Jn6:45
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - I recommend that you stop calling me Shawn-stegokitty, and stick with stegokitty.
John 6 (et al) is so blatantly opposed to everything you are and claim, that it's astounding, that you continue in your blathering. Jesus said NO ONE HAS THE ABILITY TO COME UNLESS THE FATHER DRAWS HIM. And then Jesus procedes to tell us WHO these who are drawn are. The Bible says that it's NOT of him who wills and runs, and you say it IS of him who wills and runs.
Only the elect hear and learn
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
If you persist in denying Jesus' own explanation of the John 6 passage as He gives in John 6:45 you are and will always be taking John 6 out of context.
Not of him who wills - again IN CONTEXT - is Moses wanting to be struck off instead of Israel. God said "No!"
The bible says it is of Him who does not sin
"The soul that sins against me wil be struck off (not you Moses)" Exodus 32
it is of him who shows mercy
"Blessed are the merciful for they shall" Mat.5 and 2 Sam.22
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - It's you who persists in denying Jesus' explanation. Jesus said "NO ONE CAN (has the ability to) COME TO ME UNLESS the Father draws him. Those who come to Christ do so BECAUSE they are his sheep. You reverse the meaning and say they are his sheep BECAUSE they come. The Scriptures say differently.
I'm afraid you're confusing two different texts in bringing up Moses at this point.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
Jesus' explanation is John 6:45 which is why He says "Therefore..."
What preceded were statements for the purpose of limiting those who wanted to follow Him so He could provide for them not the 'explanation'.
Moses I am reading in context. Chapters were added in the 13th century and verses 2 centuries later.
All Calvinist reading of Romans 9 is out of context of the full O.T. quotes again out of sync.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - The Reformed understanding of Romans 9 is the plain sense of the sentences. Paul is blatant in his affirmation of God's absolute sovereignty in election, and reprobation. It takes wicked, unbelieving acrobatics to come up with any other conclusion.
God has always from OT to NT chosen some for salvation and punished other equally guilty sinners. All Paul does is make it irrefutably clear.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi SK,
This is not so as proved by 2 Samuel 22:26 and 400 years of contradicting teaching to the Reformed so-called.
If you were to read in context and like a Berean study it honestly then you would see. But you appear to have already chosen what you want to believe so you cannot do that sadly.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - cont ... 1st Cor 2:14 The NATURAL MAN does not RECEIVE the things of God, nor CAN he, because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned. The Gospel is FOOLISHNESS to the unregenerate.
God must GIVE the ability to believe and repent Deut 29:2-4
Totaly depravity is not the same as "utter" depravity. Not too many people are utterly depraved (as bad as they can be); but ALL people are corrupted in every aspect of their lives through the fall, and exacerbated by their own sins.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
I recommend my video named
"Quick Answers to Calvinists 1 Corinthians 2:14 - Jacques More"
Deut 29:4 is the same as the reason Jesus spoke in parables, but he clarifies why as per Mat.13:12
And that is explicit we all ‘have ‘ something.
I repeat the Scripture is opposed to total depravity: that all are disabled
“God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” Ecc.7:29
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
"conditional predestination"...lol. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
skintightpotato 1 year ago
Hi Chris,
Conditional predestination was the persistent teaching of the early Church - for about 400 years - until Augustine came along and began Calvninism.
See my video:
"Augustine began 'Calvinism' - Jacques More"
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy Oh really...hmm...that could be highly debated, IMO. I'm not entirely sure where you're getting your historical facts from.
skintightpotato 1 year ago
Hi Chris,
Watch the video and you will see.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy will do, and may get back with you on that at a later date :) BTW, why did you remove Stegokitty's response? I thought he had an excellent response.
skintightpotato 1 year ago
Hi Chris,
I look forward to your future response.
I saw stegokitty's comment in my email inbox, but when I went to reply it was gone. I did not remove it.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy
ah, gotcha. I was just wonderin' because it really was quite a good response. That's too bad.
skintightpotato 1 year ago
@skintightpotato - In all honesty. it doesn't appear that gracetruthguy removed it. YT's been full of bugs lately. I can't even promptly respond to messages in my inbox. When I go to press the REPLY button, it disappears. Really frustrating.
stegokitty 1 year ago
@stegokitty I believed him :) It really was too bad, though...it was an GREAT response!
I know...youtube kinda stinks :P
skintightpotato 1 year ago
@gracetruthguy - Just a note here: I've already pointed out to you in PM that salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone was also absent from the majority of writings prior to Augustine. And this was lost (mostly) sometime later UNTIL Luther and the Reformers. Just because something is the presistent or prevalent teaching doesn't make it BIBLICAL.
stegokitty 1 year ago
Hi stegokitty,
I agree to your final sentence.
gracetruthguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
stegokitty 1 year ago
@stegokitty Amen brother. Exactly my thoughts. Also, he doesnt even bring in the fact, that 1John says we love Him, because He first loved us. Also, that Romans 3 tells us, NO ONE seeks after God.