[Lightknight]

Ok, back. For the time being.

Listen bro, you in no way need to keep bumping this. I know where it is and will find it when I can regardless of how many pages back it is. It just so happens that I have some time on my hands now. Let's see if I can make some headway.

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Ok, back. For the time being.

Listen bro, you in no way need to keep bumping this. I know where it is and will find it when I can regardless of how many pages back it is. It just so happens that I have some time on my hands now. Let's see if I can make some headway.

Okay, cool. Sounds great. I look forward to seeing what you have to say .

How were midterms, by the way?

Love in Him,
Joel

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by jdironfist

Salvation is not something that can be acquired via some form of “Sinner’s Prayer,” following the Four Spiritual Laws, or doing ANYTHING. From your anti-TULIP post, it seems implied that you believe that man must do something in order to be saved.

Nope, you're incorrect in this assumption. Salvation is not earned by works, it is given to us through faith which we gain from hearing which is a gift in and of itself given to us by the word.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

having faith is not a works. James and Paul and many others makes this clear.

It also seems that you view salvation as largely God’s doing, but partially man’s doing.

No, man is saved by God's grace alone. Whether someone chooses to believe or not is irrevelant since that ability is contingent solely on having heard the Word as stated in Romans 10:17. The Word being a gift of grace itself.

I disagree with these definitions and I believe Scripture does as well.

Yeah, salvation by works is pretty easy to disprove, glad we have that settles.

My view of salvation is not a list of dos and don’ts, but is completely dependent upon a believer’s relationship with God.

... this is kinda self-contradictary here. "Do have a good relationship with God." Versus "Do have a good relationship with God." Those who "Do" have salvation and those who don't do not.

No, a believer is one who is saved. A believer does not merely believe but also is a practicing Christian living correctly. This is why we do not include demons as believers (they certainly believe and tremble before Him) because our terminology is slightly different. So if your ideal Christian walk is one with an ideal relationship with God (I agree, though many would claim God to be an impersonal one), then the ones we call "believers" will automatically be in the category of having an ideal relationship with God.

Of course, an unbeliever cannot have such a relationship at any point so it is necessary to believe before being such. So having a good relationship with God cannot lead to that salvific faith, but having that salvific faith can lead to having a good relationship with Him.

I’m not necessarily a five-point Calvinist anymore in that I believe that God has completely forgiven the sins of the world.

That's good to know, you've progressed (in my opinion) since last we spoke.

In other words, Jesus’ death was effectual and sufficient for all. This is not universalism. Rather, I have thrown out the legalistic approach that the Church has tended to take in regard to salvation, that a prayer alone can save man, and have replaced it with a God-centered worldview where all that matters with respect to man is his relationship with God.

The only way that such a belief could be taken as universalism would be if you claimed that everyone actually recieves that salvation, which I don't believe is what you're doing.

The only sin charged to man in this age (the age of the Kingdom of Heaven) is denying this relationship. That is the unforgivable sin. That said, much of Calvinism transfers nicely into this view of God, so I have no qualms in taking the Calvinist stand. However, for points I don’t hold currently (Particular/Limited atonement for one), someone else should be found who could speak in their defense.

But you see, you start the debate sitting on a wobbling chair. Calvinists hold onto Limited Atonement because they feel it is a necessary part and result of their beliefs. They believe that God elected that some would be saved and thus Christ was sent to atone for them with his blood. Disregarding that pillar weakens the others effectually as Calvinism is a systmatic belief system... man that sounds redundant.

I would agree with one wrinkle. As I said above, I believe that God has forgiven all of humanity, but draws people to Him individually. As they are turned towards Him, they begin running to Him (sometimes the process takes longer than other times). I believe that regeneration marks the beginning of the man-God relationship.

hmm, oh, you do believe that everyone was forgiven when Christ died on the cross. I am not sure enough now to say that it certainly isn't universalism from which you speak. But I think universalism implies that all will go to heaven, which you aren't saying.

In this paragraph, you disagree with many parts of Calvinism it seems. It appears that you do not affirm the first point either. If all mankind was forgiven when Christ was on the cross, then they are not deprived any longer. Calvinism believes that every person that is going to be saved has to(prior to becoming saved as part of the ordo salutis to which Calvinists adhere) be regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they can believe. The regeneration is the enabling of the sinner to believe.

I find that to be ridiculous because it implies that a sinner is being forgiven of sins prior to believing which is something we have to have (faith) to be saved in the first place.

As wierd as it sounds, you are actually affirming a non-Calvinist position that agrees to man's fall resulting in total depravity while still not agreeing with the Calvinist point. I, for example, agree with Calvinists that we were completely depraved because of the fall, however, I believe that the word which results in hearing which results in faith is what allows us to make that choice. So I disagree with the point in another portion of it just as you do, though our reasons may be totally different, we both disagree with that point.

All are forgiven of sins. We may have been dead in sin, but we can be regenerated at any time, for Christ has already died for us. The unbeliever may be dead in sin due to his temporary/permanent rejection of Christ, but God can regenerate him at any time. The only sin God refuses to forgive is continued blaspheming of the Spirit.

One who is forgiven is one who is saved. Sins, plural, are what we are judged for in the end. Not "the sin".

I forgot to mention this at the beginning, but I think it definitely has a place here. All scripture references taken from Gavin’s anti-TULIP post are going to be retyped in NIV so that anyone (like me) who has more difficulty reading KJV can more easily understand the intent and drive of the verse and why the person (Gavin, in this case) chose to use it. I haven’t chosen whether I’ll use NIV or ESV, but I will strive to indicate if I use ESV (my default will most likely be NIV) and any flip-flopping of versions will be largely due to clarification or simply preference of words used in a certain version. I will also try to avoid simply flip-flopping so that the verse seems more favorable to my point. Basically, as far as I am in actually writing down a counter-post, I have seen no reason to use ESV, so I probably won’t.

Yeah, the source that I use has the KJV as the default, though it has many other versions of the bible that I can link to, the KJV is the easiest for quick copying and pasting.

Ephesians 2: (4,) 5
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The reason I add Ephesians 2:4 is mainly for context—I don’t like giving a verse as an incomplete sentence. Concerning your point, though, Gavin, I would say that God made us alive (called us to Him) even when we continually rejected His grace. I don’t see how that poses a problem. Unbelievers are currently dead in their state of total rejection of Christ, as we were at one point, and God can regenerate them, causing, in a sense, their salvation. The nuts and bolts of this process get into more of Irresistible/Efficacious Grace, though, so I’ll wait and deal with this particular part of your objection there. You say that we cannot be restored without being forgiven of our sins, which I completely agree with. God regenerates us by allowing us to not reject Him. As I said though, I’ll focus more on that later.

It may not cause a problem for you because you are not orthodox Calvinist. You do not truly affirm it, or at least this point so far.

1 John 1: (8,) 9, (10)
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

I include the verses on either side of Gavin’s verse because they are integral to understanding the middle verse. Gavin, you imply in your interpretation that we are not forgiven of sins until we confess them to God. Do you truly believe that? If you or someone you love were to have lied to another person and then get in a car crash, do you truly believe that they would have that sin against them unforgiven and be sent to hell because of that? I don’t think that’s what you believe, but I want to check to make sure.

Notice how 1 John 1:9 relates to the verses right before and directly following it. Both 1:8 and 1:10 deal with the person who refuses to admit his sin and says instead that he has no sin. 1:9 contrasts with these verses and shows that if we instead confess that we do sin (which diametrically opposes refusing to admit our sin), we can be forgiven. This verse says nothing concerning continually asking repentance, but instead highlights God’s loving faithfulness and grace.

The verse is there, you believe that we have all already been forgiven and would only be held accountable for one sin, that of rejecting Him. But this verse declares that we are forgiven if and only if we confess our sins. This means that we are still sinners. What I take it to mean in context isn't us confessing each individual sin, but accepting that we are sinners doing evil and are in need of salvation from the wages of those sins. Does that make sense?

Romans 10: (6-8,) 9-10
6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

The added verses just give a background to the verses Gavin used.

Again, Gavin, you seem to be implying something I don’t think that you believe; that one must be able to talk to be saved, otherwise, how could one confess with one’s mouth that “Jesus is Lord?” I believe these verses should be taken as verses which instill confidence to the believer who is unsure of his salvation—if he is able to say (or think, if he is mute) honestly that Jesus is the ultimate Lord of his life and believes that He has been resurrected, then he does not need to worry about his salvation. Again, I want to know how you meant these verses, because the way that you seem to be presenting them has very unfriendly implications to all mutes.

You are argueing in a manner of fallacy by trying to disprove the verse. I did not claim, as you think, that it is a verbal declaration of belief. This verse contradicts your own personal belief by showing something happening prior to our forgiveness of sin. The confession of Christ as one's Lord can easily be taken metaphorically of one's public declaration of God as Lord. The heart being the inner declaration, the mouth being the outer. This can be anything from one's lifestyle to one's mouth to one's anything, so long as it is declaring God as Lord and so long as it is the same within the heart. That's my take anyways.

This seems like nice doctrine, but I do not see much more than assertion here. I certainly believe that we have a calling to reach the nations for Christ and that God can use something we as Christians say to begin a person’s walk towards salvation, but I think you carry our power as humans too far. You are right when you say that man can do nothing to be saved, but when you say that God’s Word through us allows totally depraved people to believe, I completely disagree.

But if a man is no longer guilty of sin, as you claim, then how is he depraved if you believe him to officially be without sin?

Also, you referenced the verse:

NIV
Mar 3:28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

(if you can't remember referencing it, it was when you spoke on blaspheming the Holy Spirit as being the unforgiveable sin)

This is important because it clearly shows that our sins have not been forgiven yet. If Christ's blood has atoned for our sins, then they have already been forgiven. Yet it says, all sins SHALL be forgiven. In the greek, it is written in the future tense, agreeing with the way it is used above.

It is kind of weird, I admit, to be debating against Calvinism while actually just debating against your own personal belief.

No matter how much pushing we do, without God, “10 There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” (Romans 3:10b-11).

No, don't you understand what I said? We are ourselves, as believers, a gift from God to shed light on those who do not understand, to "bring" God to those who would not otherwise seek Him. It is God working through us. Understand?

Instead, completely apart from any meager help we can give, “Jesus [is] the author and perfecter of our faith.” (Hebrews 12:2), and that it was “[colort=blue]he who began a good work in you[/color]” (Philippians 1:6). These verses show a God-centered salvation with man as little more than a sideshow.

Again, it isn't us, "helping" God. It is God using us, His willing servants, to help others come to Him. ok? Does that shed better understanding on my position?

However, we all must keep in mind that it is not our decision whether God will use what we say to “catch someone’s attention,” in a manner of speaking. Therefore we must evangelize, although it is God’s show, not ours.

God told us to evangelize, it is His doing, not ours. So what if we willingly lead thousands to Christ? It is only God's word working through us to bring them to Him. That is the drawing process, the delivering of the truth to something, forcing them to choose God or deny God once they have been told it. I don't know what you think I believe, but you are way off track here.

You may say that this does not disagree with what you said, but it does—instead of believing that we are a necessary component (tell me if I’m putting words in your mouth), I believe that God allows us to take part in His plan and we are completely unnecessary. Again, though, we must evangelize if we want to see God’s glory.

You are putting words in my mouth. We are not necessary, we are just a tool that God has put in place that He readily and constantly (but not always) uses. The truth must be delivered to that person in some way shape or form.

This is not representative of Unconditional Election, but rather of a more severe form of election called double predestination (John Piper calls this the “sixth point of Calvinism”). I disagree with this. The Westminster Confession of Faith blends Unconditional Election with Irresistible/Efficacious Grace, so I will conceive of my own definition of Unconditional Election, saving the confession’s definition for the fourth point. I view Unconditional Election as follows: Man, with his complete free will prior to the Fall, chose to sin, sending all of mankind to hell. God, however, with His gracious mercy, chose under no condition or merit those who He wished to save. Essentially, God saves some, but leaves the others to the default destination for all mankind: hell.

Double predestination should be avoided because it puts God in charge of actively selecting who goes to hell, which He would not do, not wanting anyone to perish, but all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)

Wow, so then you disagree with Calvinism on this point as well. Because, you see, the Westminister Confession says this:

Westminister Confession Chapter III, Section III."III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]"



That all being said, I'm going to eat dinner now. I don't know if I'll be back on tonight or not, but I will respond to the rest.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by jdironfist

Okay, cool. Sounds great. I look forward to seeing what you have to say .

How were midterms, by the way?

Love in Him,
Joel

The midterms went well, the last of which ended on Thursday.

[Lightknight]

Ok, well, due to certain various issues that give me time constraints galore, I'd really appreciate it if we could go point by point. Calvinism and non-calvinism as systems are just too broad to deal with in their entirety all at once. You have already made your opening statements for each point, so whenever we are done with one point, I'll just move on to your next statement and we can go on from there. That sound fair?

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Ok, well, due to certain various issues that give me time constraints galore, I'd really appreciate it if we could go point by point. Calvinism and non-calvinism as systems are just too broad to deal with in their entirety all at once. You have already made your opening statements for each point, so whenever we are done with one point, I'll just move on to your next statement and we can go on from there. That sound fair?

So would you like me to finish my response?

Love in Him,
Joel

[jdironfist]

Let me clarify my last post: you would rather bounce this point back and forth instead of bouncing the entire post back and forth, right? That's okay if that's what you would like to do. Unfortunately, many of the points rest on the other points, so I apologize if I bounce aroun in my posts.

Also, allow me to reiterate my purpose for the original post. I believe that your position, as defined by your anti-eternal security post and your anti-TULIP post in your signature is untenable and unbiblical, and I am seeking to establish that. I am not arguing specifically for traditional Calvinism (though I am also not quite denying it); rather, I am attempting to show that your interpretation of Scripture is false in the two aforementioned posts.

For each point, if my interpretation of the Scriptures can convince you that your point cannot be held, I ask that you remove it from one or both of your posts. If I am shown that I cannot defend my refutation, I will attempt to refrain from using that particular refutation in any future debates that may take place. The end result (in theory, assuming we both attempt to be open to persuasion, me included ) should be a better understanding of Scripture and doctrine.

Thank you for agreeing to do this.

Love in Him,
Joel

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Nope, you're incorrect in this assumption. Salvation is not earned by works, it is given to us through faith which we gain from hearing which is a gift in and of itself given to us by the word.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So then everyone without a Bible is hosed?

Do we have to listen/read the words to get that faith? Or can we sort of doze while reading?

Does everyone who has read/heard the Bible have faith? Paul himself says that everyone has heard—he asks, “have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.’” (Romans 10:18). So then faith always comes from hearing God, but not all who have heard believe. That’s where efficacious grace enters—man will always refuse the word of God without God drawing him.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Originally Posted by Gavin

having faith is not a works. James and Paul and many others makes this clear.

When I wrote this point, my mind was dwelling on your assertion that we can help “undeprave” man by spreading the Good News. I wanted to establish that we can do nothing for ourselves to be saved.

Originally Posted by Gavin

No, man is saved by God's grace alone. Whether someone chooses to believe or not is irrevelant since that ability is contingent solely on having heard the Word as stated in Romans 10:17. The Word being a gift of grace itself.

See the verse directly following that verse. Everyone has heard.

I am happy, though, that you believe that man is saved by God’s grace alone—that we can do nothing to please God before believing.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Yeah, salvation by works is pretty easy to disprove, glad we have that settles.

I’m glad you don’t actually believe in salvation by works!

Originally Posted by Gavin

... this is kinda self-contradictary here. "Do have a good relationship with God." Versus "Do have a good relationship with God." Those who "Do" have salvation and those who don't do not.

The subtlety here is that we don’t initiate the relationship. Were we to initiate the relationship, then you would have a point. However, since our salvation is from God, by God, and for God, God initiates the relationship. This is His “irresistible calling,” which is dealt with in efficacious grace. See, we still don’t do anything; rather, God draws us. We don’t have the option of getting a good relationship with God—we’re totally depraved—and we know this because Jesus Himself says that “No one can come to [Jesus] unless the Father who sent [Jesus] draws him. (John 6:44) Notice—no one has the ability to come without the Father drawing him, and those the Father draws will be raise up on the last day. Therefore, if and only if you are drawn by the Father, you will believe. This is what begins our relationship with the Father. There is nothing that we ourselves do that gets us saved. Anything we do end up doing is in response to God’s initial drawing and has no bearing on salvation.

Originally Posted by Gavin

No, a believer is one who is saved. A believer does not merely believe but also is a practicing Christian living correctly. This is why we do not include demons as believers (they certainly believe and tremble before Him) because our terminology is slightly different. So if your ideal Christian walk is one with an ideal relationship with God (I agree, though many would claim God to be an impersonal one), then the ones we call "believers" will automatically be in the category of having an ideal relationship with God.

Yeah, an ideal Christian walk is having an ideal relationship with God, but nobody really has that. However, Christians do have a relationship with God. That relationship—that fact that we are His Bride—saves us. A great illustration of this is the entire book of Ruth. It’s not an exact illustration, but I just read it the other night, and this idea relates pretty well. That is not part of my argument here, just a nifty factoid.

I think that we agree here, other than one point. Does a believer need to be living correctly in order to be a true believer? I think that’s very works-based. Obviously, works follow from faith, but whether one is living correctly or not seems an awful lot like works-based salvation.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Of course, an unbeliever cannot have such a relationship at any point so it is necessary to believe before being such. So having a good relationship with God cannot lead to that salvific faith, but having that salvific faith can lead to having a good relationship with Him.

That’s completely backwards. It is impossible for an unbeliever to have that salvific faith. The Father must draw him first. It’s as simple as that. “No one seeks for God” (Romans 3:11). Because of that, God needs to draw us, create that relationship, and at that point—simultaneously with His drawing—we believe. But it never goes the other way. That would be anti-biblical.

Notice that your point that “an unbeliever cannot have such a relationship at any point so it is necessary to believe before being such” doesn’t follow, for when God initiates the relationship, the unbeliever believes. At that point, the unbeliever is no longer a unbeliever, but a fellow worker in Christ.

Originally Posted by Gavin

That's good to know, you've progressed (in my opinion) since last we spoke.

We’ll see. You’ll find that my position, when simplified, is very much the same, but because some things didn’t seem to fit just right, I tweaked my Calvinism slightly. I’m still (more or less) orthodox 4.5 point Calvinist, but I branch off most at Particular Atonement. However, you can see my new position as almost a modified way to limit the atonement in order to prevent Universalism.

Originally Posted by Gavin

The only way that such a belief could be taken as universalism would be if you claimed that everyone actually recieves that salvation, which I don't believe is what you're doing.

Correct. What I’m saying instead is the same thing as Jesus said: “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven (Matthew 12:31). Why try to limit Jesus’ blood more than He Himself limits it? There is no reason. Rather, every sin will be forgiven man, except for the rejection of God’s Spirit, which, unfortunately, man does by default.

Originally Posted by Gavin

But you see, you start the debate sitting on a wobbling chair. Calvinists hold onto Limited Atonement because they feel it is a necessary part and result of their beliefs. They believe that God elected that some would be saved and thus Christ was sent to atone for them with his blood. Disregarding that pillar weakens the others effectually as Calvinism is a systmatic belief system... man that sounds redundant.

I spent about an hour looking for this—there is a system of belief that holds the TU-IP, but instead of the L in the middle, they put a U, for universalism. I think that form of Calvinism is called something like “Barthianism,” but I’m not sure. The L is not essential for a Calvinistic mindset and Calvinistic arguments for the other four points. So there is no “wobbling chair” on which I am sitting; instead, I have merely swapped out part of Calvinism that doesn’t seem to work as well as the form I’m advocating and replaced it with a modified version of universal atonement.

Originally Posted by Gavin

hmm, oh, you do believe that everyone was forgiven when Christ died on the cross. I am not sure enough now to say that it certainly isn't universalism from which you speak. But I think universalism implies that all will go to heaven, which you aren't saying.

I do believe that Christ’s sacrifice forgave all men all their sins—He said so Himself—excepting only the blasphemy of the Spirit. So I am not Universalist. I also don’t believe that everyone was forgiven of everything with Jesus’ death, for there is that one sin that won’t be forgiven.

Originally Posted by Gavin

In this paragraph, you disagree with many parts of Calvinism it seems. It appears that you do not affirm the first point either. If all mankind was forgiven when Christ was on the cross, then they are not deprived any longer. Calvinism believes that every person that is going to be saved has to(prior to becoming saved as part of the ordo salutis to which Calvinists adhere) be regenerated by the Holy Spirit so that they can believe. The regeneration is the enabling of the sinner to believe.

Currently I only disagree with the L and double predestination because I don’t see biblical support. I do affirm the first point: although man has been almost completely forgiven, man will still not seek after God, but God must seek after man for man to be saved (Romans 3:10-12). So I have no problems with that point. I also don’t see what regeneration has to do with my point here—I simply stated that God forgave all humanity (but will not forgive rejection of His relationship with man through Jesus), which doesn’t affect regeneration.

Originally Posted by Gavin

I find that to be ridiculous because it implies that a sinner is being forgiven of sins prior to believing which is something we have to have (faith) to be saved in the first place.

The sinner is not forgiven of all his sins. I have also already addressed this above (it begins with “That’s completely backwards…”)

Originally Posted by Gavin

As wierd as it sounds, you are actually affirming a non-Calvinist position that agrees to man's fall resulting in total depravity while still not agreeing with the Calvinist point. I, for example, agree with Calvinists that we were completely depraved because of the fall, however, I believe that the word which results in hearing which results in faith is what allows us to make that choice. So I disagree with the point in another portion of it just as you do, though our reasons may be totally different, we both disagree with that point.

But I do believe in Total Depravity. All men are depraved and all men can do no good apart from God. This problem is compounded because no one seeks after God, so not only can men do no good apart from God, men don’t even try to seek after Him to remedy that problem.

Your belief in hearing the word of God falls because everyone has heard the word of God (Romans 10:18). Indeed, they have heard, so it takes more than simply hearing. It takes God drawing them for them to seek after God. Notice that God must save them before they seek after Him. So Total Depravity is not an issue for me, but your argumentation doesn’t hold up.

Originally Posted by Gavin

One who is forgiven is one who is saved. Sins, plural, are what we are judged for in the end. Not "the sin".

From here on out, when I say, “all are forgiven of sins,” I mean all sins except the one that Jesus said would not be forgiven. Also, those who do blaspheme the Spirit do it continuously throughout their lives. Multiple times=multiple sins=sins=what we are judged for.

Recall, also, that this is in response to your blurb about us being unable to be regenerated unless we are forgiven of the sins in which we have died. My position is that God must regenerate (draw) us before we can come to Him, as per John 6:44.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Yeah, the source that I use has the KJV as the default, though it has many other versions of the bible that I can link to, the KJV is the easiest for quick copying and pasting.

Eh, not a problem. As long as you don’t mind me working the NIV or ESV, it’s cool. I just don’t like KJV for debating (although it sounds wonderful) because many of the words used have different connotations than words of a similar nature used today. It’s very easy to use the wording to make a point that really isn’t in the text.

Originally Posted by Gavin

It may not cause a problem for you because you are not orthodox Calvinist. You do not truly affirm it, or at least this point so far.

I thought that I was pretty orthodox on this point. God must regenerate us, or draw us, before we can believe. We were made alive in Christ, right? Isn’t that regeneration in its purest form?

Originally Posted by Gavin

The verse is there, you believe that we have all already been forgiven and would only be held accountable for one sin, that of rejecting Him. But this verse declares that we are forgiven if and only if we confess our sins. This means that we are still sinners. What I take it to mean in context isn't us confessing each individual sin, but accepting that we are sinners doing evil and are in need of salvation from the wages of those sins. Does that make sense?

I’m glad you don’t see the need to confess every single sin. I think that talking to God about the sin is definitely a good thing, but continued confession is not necessarily as good. I agree that we are still sinners. Because man’s intentions are evil from childhood (Genesis 8:21) and no one seeks after God (Romans 3:11), the people who God never touches (regenerates) blaspheme His Spirit every second of their lives. The ones who are saved, though, will not live their lives blaspheming His Spirit. In fact, before we were even born, we were, as Romans 9:8 says, the “children of the promise” and we are “counted as offspring.” Also, if God prepared good works in advance for us to do them (Ephesians 2:10), we were considered His elect before even appearing on the Earth.

I agree with your interpretation here, but you said in your other post that “We are forgiven of our sins, by God, whenever we confess them to Him. Not before,” which I took to mean that we need to confess what we do continually to God.

Originally Posted by Gavin

You are argueing in a manner of fallacy by trying to disprove the verse. I did not claim, as you think, that it is a verbal declaration of belief.

I was showing you how you butcher the passage if you take it too literally. I read back over your argument and realized that you hadn’t implied what I thought you implied. My bad.

Originally Posted by Gavin

This verse contradicts your own personal belief by showing something happening prior to our forgiveness of sin.

How? Does the verse ever say that those who never say “Jesus is Lord” are, without a shadow of a doubt, damned? No. The verse says, “If a, then b,” not “If not a then not b.” Basically, this verse doesn’t say that we were not saved before saying (or confessing in some way) “Jesus is Lord.”

Originally Posted by Gavin

The confession of Christ as one's Lord can easily be taken metaphorically of one's public declaration of God as Lord. The heart being the inner declaration, the mouth being the outer. This can be anything from one's lifestyle to one's mouth to one's anything, so long as it is declaring God as Lord and so long as it is the same within the heart. That's my take anyways.

I agree with that take. I don’t believe that simply doing that saves you. Salvation is purely God, not by anything man does.

Originally Posted by Gavin

But if a man is no longer guilty of sin, as you claim, then how is he depraved if you believe him to officially be without sin?

I don’t believe him to be officially without sin.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Also, you referenced the verse:

NIV
Mar 3:28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

(if you can't remember referencing it, it was when you spoke on blaspheming the Holy Spirit as being the unforgiveable sin)

This is important because it clearly shows that our sins have not been forgiven yet. If Christ's blood has atoned for our sins, then they have already been forgiven. Yet it says, all sins SHALL be forgiven. In the greek, it is written in the future tense, agreeing with the way it is used above.

Well, I don’t see the problem with it being in the future tense. Jesus hasn’t died yet, in that passage. Therefore the sacrifice had not yet been given for man’s sin. They are forgiven now. They weren’t before Christ died.

Originally Posted by Gavin

It is kind of weird, I admit, to be debating against Calvinism while actually just debating against your own personal belief.

I guess I figure that as long as I disagree with you, I can call myself a Calvinist . Truly, though, my belief is mostly Calvinistic in thought, though I jump through a few hoops to avoid Particular Atonement and then a few more hoops to land on the orthodox side of Universalism.

Originally Posted by Gavin

No, don't you understand what I said? We are ourselves, as believers, a gift from God to shed light on those who do not understand, to "bring" God to those who would not otherwise seek Him. It is God working through us. Understand?

But the crux of my statement is that while we can partake in the joy of leading someone to God, God Himself must actively change that person. Nothing that we can do can in any way assist in saving that person unless God chooses to save him. God may use us as tools, but He must regenerate the person prior to any assistance we can give.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Again, it isn't us, "helping" God. It is God using us, His willing servants, to help others come to Him. ok? Does that shed better understanding on my position?

You’re right. It isn’t us helping God. Like I said above—God may use us, but for anything at all that we say to be worthwhile, God must reach in and change the person’s heart.

Originally Posted by Gavin

God told us to evangelize, it is His doing, not ours. So what if we willingly lead thousands to Christ? It is only God's word working through us to bring them to Him. That is the drawing process, the delivering of the truth to something, forcing them to choose God or deny God once they have been told it. I don't know what you think I believe, but you are way off track here.

I was addressing this last point to any who might ask me, “Then why evangelize?” I don’t agree, however, with this sharing of the Good News being the drawing process. If the Father draws someone, Jesus will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44-45). The drawing is the assurance of salvation, not the opportunity. Also, the people themselves do not have the ability to choose God—no one seeks after God (Romans 3:11)—and they have already heard the Good News, anyway (Romans 10:18).

Originally Posted by Gavin

You are putting words in my mouth. We are not necessary, we are just a tool that God has put in place that He readily and constantly (but not always) uses. The truth must be delivered to that person in some way shape or form.

Thanks for telling me . I was more meaning my comment to say that, yes, God does use us, but God always takes the first step towards a future believer before anything we do can have an effect.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Wow, so then you disagree with Calvinism on this point as well. Because, you see, the Westminister Confession says this:

Westminister Confession Chapter III, Section III."III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]"

Huh. I didn’t see that. I’m not completely sure about double predestination, but I can see how people get to that view. As of now, I will go against the WcoF.

Originally Posted by Gavin

That all being said, I'm going to eat dinner now. I don't know if I'll be back on tonight or not, but I will respond to the rest.

Cool. Just remember, I’m praying for you. Thank you for helping me search for truth.

Love in Him,
Joel