Have You Accepted Jesus into Your Heart?

A friend of mine was showing a Southern Baptist neighbor around the Catholic Church. She explained the Stations of the Cross, the crucifix, the image of the Blessed Mother and the saints.

Then they came to the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Baptist was bemused.

“Well,” said the Catholic lady sweetly, “You Baptists like to ask Jesus into your heart right?”

Perfect apologetics. Welcoming and kind and working from what the other person knows to what they have yet to discover.

My true love hath my heart and I have his,
By just exchange one for another given;
I hold his dear, and mine he cannot mis,
There never was a better bargain driven.
My true love has my heart and I have his.

His heart in me keeps him and me in one,
My heart in him his thoughts and senses guides
He loves my heart, for once it was his own,
I cherish his, because in me it bides.
My true love has my heart and I have his.

“Most of your long winded reply is based on this particular strawman that seeking and believing contradicts God’s giving it to us to seek and believe.”

Not at all. I agree that the ability to seek and believe are gifts from God. What is clearly wrong is the idea that for some people, God does not provide a means by which they can escape the judgment of hell because He has not afforded them the opportunity to repent and believe. It is correct to assert such a thing about Satan. He has no choice. It is correct to assert that God had no obligation to offer life to all mankind, but the fact remains that He did offer life to all. He did provide a sacrifice for all.

“And yet there is an effectual call that is NOT offered to all, but only to some so that they believe, since no one can come to Christ unless they are given by the Father in the first place: John 6:64-65 ‘But there are some of you that believe not’. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, ‘Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father’.”

There is always an effect when a person hears the gospel. In some cases the hearer does not repent and believe resulting in a hardening of the heart. The effectual call is when a person repents and believes and God’s Spirit gives to that person new life in Christ. But to say that the type of call is different because the results are different is a tautology. It is a distinction without a difference. That is, the result is some believe and some believe not. This result does not prove a cause.

The scripture is clear that some CANNOT believe because God has not given it to them. That is not what I am debating. The debate is over why He does not grant faith to some and does to others. Is it arbitrary? Is it capricious? Does God randomly select who will be saved and ignore the remainder?

There is a REASON God does not grant saving knowledge and faith to some: stubborn, unrepentant pride. When people hear God’s laws, when they are convicted by the Holy Spirit and yet refuse to humble themselves and tremble at His word, He hardens their heart so that “seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not.” When people stubbornly cling to their pride, they reject God’s grace and are unable to find saving faith.

“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.” (Isaiah 5:3-5)

The question He asks through Isaiah is “what more could I do to bring repentance”? It says plainly that God expected good fruit, but did not find it. Was God surprised? Did He not know they would not bear fruit? No, He knows all things. The point is they could have and should have produced good fruit but failed to do so, not because God did not do something but because of what they failed to do. And so, after doing everything possible to provide salvation, there are some who still refuse to repent. And there comes a time of God’s own choosing when He says He will no longer offer grace. For some that may possibly be at death, but clearly there are some who finally and ultimately reject Christ during their lifetime with absolutely no hope of being brought to repentance. We do not know who those people are, but God does. And so, in Isaiah 6 we see that He blinds them. He has done all He can, and they will not repent.

Likewise, today, God has done all He can do to bring repentance and salvation to man. He has looked for every possible way and opportunity to offer grace and mercy. He has withheld nothing. He gave His beloved Son. What more could He do than what He has already done? And so, when people reject His offer of salvation in Christ, there is nothing else left but judgment.

“And we know that none of the elect can ever be lost, even in the midst of the most terrible delusions and persecutions”

Agreed. Salvation is certain for the elect. God knows from before time began who will be saved. We can also know with complete certainty because He has given His Holy Spirit to those who believe as proof that He will complete the work He began at the moment of faith.

“It is a statement that says it is God who works in us to will and to do.”

Agreed.

“If one has to ‘remain’ in grace, this is no different than the Romish argument of salvation by works.”

Our coming to Christ is God’s doing, not ours. Our remaining in Christ is likewise His doing and not ours. It is not based on our ability but His.

“But the scripture does not teach that anyone is attaining election. It teaches that God elects whom He will before the foundation of the world, without regard to our merits.”

No one attains election. Yes, God chose the elect before time began. The question is “what is the basis for His choice?” Fortunately, not based on our merits. On that you are correct. Did He look down through the corridors of time and choose the brightest? No. The richest? No. The most beautiful. Again, no. Yet there are some rich, wise, and beautiful who are among the elect. God chose those who had no merit, nothing to offer Him. Then what is the distinction?

Can anyone simply will themselves saved? No. Satan could wish to be saved, but no such option is available no matter how much will power he can produce. But, God has offered salvation to “whosoever will” within mankind.

“And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”(Revelation 22:17)

“Technically, your system only allows this for those who have heard the Gospel. Those in remote places of the world do not hear the Gospel, and therefore die all the time without ever hearing it or ever having the chance. But in the Biblical system, Christ asserts that all those who belong to Him WILL come to Him, regardless of where they are in the world.”

I’m not sure how these people are prevented from coming to Christ based on my understanding of scripture. Presumably the same way they would come to Him in yours. Are you saying there are people who are born again today without the need or benefit of the gospel?

Regardless, if someone is elect then God will be sure they have heard the message needed. I don’t see how your position offers a greater likelihood of the elect being saved than mine. If they are elect, they will be saved. Their location in the world is no difficulty for God.

“How is one willing to turn from their sins if they don’t have faith that Jesus is the Christ?”

By the Law. The righteousness of God is revealed in the Law and resonates upon the heart of all who hear being convicted by their own conscience of their guilt before God and worthiness of judgment. Some are pricked in their conscience and lash out at the messenger; some humble themselves and find grace and mercy.

“Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37)

“When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.” (Acts 7:54)

In both of these cases, the conviction of righteousness revealed in the laws of God brought a response. In one instance, the law served like a schoolmaster that brought thousands to Christ. In the other, they rejected God’s call to repentance and remained in their sins. yet, even in this second case, God continued to pursue Saul who later repented and was saved.

“And how does one actually have faith of themselves when the truth of Christ being the savior is revealed by God Himself, and not worked out on your own?”

They cannot believe who will not repent.

When people are convicted by the Holy Spirit through either the law of God written on their hearts or by the revealed righteousness of God contained in the Law of Moses or even by the glory of God revealed in nature including our own bodies, they will either harden their hearts and remain unrepentant or will humble themselves and be granted repentance and faith unto life.

“The entire discourse [in Romans 9] is on salvation from sins for those who are the people of God. It isn’t talking about some obscure topic about Jacob that doesn’t apply to anyone else.”

Yes, Romans 9 is about salvation, but the verses he quotes to make his case are not specifically about salvation. In a broader context Paul is defending his gospel message to his Jewish opponents. These are the same ones who took pride in being the “chosen” people and the “elect”. These are like the ones John the bapist told to not say “we have Abraham as our father.” Christ pointed out to them that God chose to do special miracles for Gentile believers Naaman the Syrian and the widow who helped Elijah whom God miraculously fed during a famine. For that the Jews wanted to kill Him. This is a group that argued that Paul’s gospel was false because it would mean God had cast away His chosen people and failed to keep His promises.

Between verses 12 and 13 over a thousand years have elapsed. First he quotes from Genesis 25:23 and then from Malachi 1:2-3. Yet Paul links the two. He is talking about Israel being chosen to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant rather than Edom, because the two unborn babies were actually two nations. It is similar to how he argues that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. The timing and order are important. God rejected Edom, but He had a special and eternal love for Israel. Yet there are decendants of Israel (Jacob) who are NOT chosen for salvation.

Paul then continues to explain how God has chosen a remnant of Israel to be saved in the past and at that time. He further says that Israel will yet be saved as a nation. And he says that the partial blindness of Israel (i.e. the blindness of those who are not of the chosen remnant) was part of God’s plan to bring salvation to the gentiles. Paul here expresses hope that more Jews will be provoked to jealousy by His favoring of the gentile believers and result in more Jews being saved. The Jews did not win many converts to Judiasm:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15)

Yet Paul and others were spreading the gospel arond the world. And the Jewish religious leaders were jealous. Paul hoped this jealousy would result in his fellow Jews reconsidering their relationship with God. Paul doesn’t seem at all concerned that the newly provoked Jews might somehow be unable to come to Christ because they are not the elect. No, he strives to see as many as possible come to salvation. Further, there is no complacency of saying “that all those who belong to Him WILL come to Him, regardless of where they are in the world”. No, Paul is urgent about going to the lost with the message of salvation.

“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more” (1 Corinthians 9:19)

And how do you reconcile this Old Testament passage being used to illustrate saving the elect when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given? (John 7:39) Didn’t you earlier argue that God’s Spirit must first regenerate a person before he can believe? and not rather that we must believe in order to receive the regeneration?

When we read that Abraham believed God, we are not given any indication that the Holy Spirit had raised him up from spiritual death so that he could then believe. Certainly the Spirit of God came upon some men to accomplish His special purpose for a select few individuals, but the scriptures are clear that even at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, the coming of the Holy Spirit was as yet an unfulfilled prophecy.

Certainly you are not saying that those of that dispensation were saved by keeping the Law are you? Salvation has always been by grace through faith. I’m very curious as to how Calvinists think Old Testament saints were saved.

“If seeking and believing are gifts from God, it does not follow that men are still given the opportunity to seek and believe on their own to earn what was given to them as a free gift, when we know they don’t:”

An opportunity to seek and believe is not “earning” anything. The life of a believer starts in grace and continues in grace.

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)

“You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” (John 15:16)

Notice that in both of these passages that predestination, that which God determined beforehand, includes the righteous acts of saints after having believed. Are these righteous acts an earning of salvation or are they the work of God accomplished by His grace?

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10)

“being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace.” (Philippians 1:6-7)

Again, the Christian life is by grace, not by works. Yet, believers are called not only to believe but also to labor by God’s grace. Is this “earning” salvation? No. Are we partakers of grace by our participation in good works? Yes.

“For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. But as you abound in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us—see that you abound in this grace also.” (2 Corinthians 8:3-7)

Here, the act of giving is called a “grace”. A person can give money as an act of self-righteousness as Christ described in the sermon on the mount, but it CAN also be done on the basis of grace.

God has given people time to repent. The opportunity to repent does not mean it is “doing it on their own”. Here is an example:

“And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent.” (Revelation 2:21)

So there is no indication that there is some category of people whom God never gives the ability to believe. You are assuming your own conclusion of irresistable grace rather than demonstrating that is from the scriptures and not a man made doctrine.

There are many scriptures attesting to God giving people opportunities to repent. He pleads. He extends mercy, grace, patience, longsuffering. And yet, for all of this, some continue to resist and harden their hearts more and more until God finally decides there will be no more. I already showed you several scriptures with this regard. The ability to come to God is a gift. Gifts are not earned, but they are received. If someone gave you a car, it would still be your choice to tranfer the title, to get behind the wheel, and to drive it places.

“Because I have called and you refused,
I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.
Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.” (Proverbs 1:24–28)

“Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, ‘Today,’ after such a long time, as it has been said: ‘Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts’.”(Hebrews 4:6-7)

Did they fail to enter because God chose not to give them His irresistable grace, or because of their choice of disobedience. The writer says it was their disobedience.

And I have already answered your comment on Romans 3:11 about none seeking. I don’t know why you just repeat something when I have already shown several scriptures describing that people do seek God. So you need to go back and look at the context of the passage Paul is quoting from in the Old Testament to understand the thrust of his argument. It simply does not prove what you are claiming no matter how many times you quote it or repeat it.

“Either God gives us the ‘heart’ to know the Lord, or He doesn’t. Your view cannot coexist with such scripture.”

Even the term “heart” is figurative. We are being told spiritual truth using natural illustrations. To build such an elaborate scheme on a few verses with no context using figurative language is a fairly weak argument. To elevate your doctrine to the level of scripture and claim for your theological position to be equivalent to the authority of scripture is foolishness.

“Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 18:31)

Which is it? Does God give a new heart or do we get it for ourselves? Both are quotes from scripture. Can’t you see that it is foolish to stake a position on a turn of phrase using figurative language?

I’m more than willing to have my views corrected by scripture, but just repeating a verse with a trite explanation and no effort to actually look at the context of the passage itself or the passage being quoted does not make a persuasive argument.

“It seems you’ve come around to my view”

I haven’t actually changed my position on this issue. I am open to the correction of the word of God. I accept that as the final authority for all matters of theology.

“According to the scripture, men are not elected based on any foreseen merits or acts of faith, but for the will and purpose of God given to them before they had done either good or evil.”

Ok. But all people sin. So obviously His election is not based on our sinlessness. We already have both stated that salvation is not based on our merits. So you say it is based on His will and purpose. Ok. That’s fine too. Now, what will? what purpose? I have already answered that earlier also. It is according to His good pleasure and His glory.

We are discussing the very nature of sentience. These are deep philosophical questions which have long been debated in and out of Christian circles. I return to the election of holy angels and the rejection of fallen angels. Fallen angels have no opportunity to repent and be forgiven. But can Satan argue in the heavenly courts before the Judge of all of heaven and earth that he (i.e. Satan) is evil because God made him evil? Or did Satan choose to do evil contrary to the will of God? You have argued “For who hath resisted his will?” even though this is a foolish argument because Paul was not saying this to be the case. Will you argue next “let us do evil that good may come” as in Romans 3:8? Christ taught to pray “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven” because His will is not being done. It is constantly being resisted by the iniquity, rebellion and willfulness of man.

If Satan were to ask God if He is merciful and forgiving what would the answer be? Yes, of course. But can Satan demand for God to give him mercy? No. God is under no such obligation. But how can God prove that He is merciful if there is no one to show mercy to? And how can God create someone or some thing that chooses to do that which is against the nature that God gave to the created person?

Mankind is an object lesson. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 44-49; and Romans 5:12-21) Job was an object lesson. The church is an object lesson.

“and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:9-11)

In these object lessons God has shown that choice and will are truly independent operations of the creation seperate from the Creator. He has also found a basis or reason to show mercy to mankind without allowing Satan the opportunity for forgiveness. He placed man in the garden with a test of will. He warned Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He also placed the tree of life in the garden, but we do not read of God telling Adam or Eve that this tree existed or what it could do for them, only that of every tree they “may freely eat”. And God told them to be fruitful and multiply. They did not exercise their freedom to eat of every tree, we know, because they had not eaten from it when they were removed from the garden. If Eve or Adam had said to the serpent, “Let me sleep on that. Let me try out all the other trees first”, then they would have eaten from the tree of life eventually. They did not exercise their liberty and lost it. They procrastinated on procreation as well, for we read later that Adam finally “knew his wife” and had a son. In all of this God allowed Satan to tempt them, by which they became his victims. God also allowed Satan to acquire his own domain over the earth in order to prove Satan was incapable of being the god he desired to be.

“Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms’?” ( Isaiah 14:16)

In the first words we find spoken by Satan, we see him challenge the authority of God, the truth of His word, the integrity of His motives, and the very nature of sentience:

“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” and “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1, 4)

Satan has thrown down the gauntlet. He is defying God in front of mankind and the angels. Yet God does not instantly punish Satan. He allows him to continue for a long season in his endeavor. Why? He is showing His wisdom and power to the elect angels and also to us who are saved.

Satan wants to be like God. He proposed that the tree of knowledge of good and evil would result in humans being like God. This has to do with choice and autonomous decision making. He is arguing that true choice requires no accountability or submission to a higher authority. Yet scripture teaches that everyone is subject to authority. Even Christ is subject to the Father.

“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’”
(Isaiah 14:12-14)

“So Satan answered the Lord and said, ‘Does Job fear God for nothing?’ “ (Job 1:9)

Here we see Satan arguing the nature of Job’s righteous behavior. Satan argues that for Job there really is no choice to be made. Satan insinuates that God is buying Job’s loyalty and, as such, subtly maligns God’s character in front of the angels.

“So Satan answered the Lord and said, ‘Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life.’ “ (Job 2:4)

A second time now Satan makes his case that God is manipulating the outcome of Job’s behavior by restraining evil from happening to him.

What is Satan trying to accomplish by afflicting Job? Satan is trying to prove that choice is an illusion. He is trying to argue that God is responsible for every action of every person because we only do what we were created to do or we only act according to the circumstances in which we are placed. God proves Satan wrong. Remember it is God who brought up Job’s righteousness, not Satan.

“Who has resisted His will?” is not Paul’s logic or argument. Is it Satanic. As I already pointed out, Stephen preached that his attackers “always resist the Holy Spirit”. Paul answers the question that, yes, people do resist His will:

“But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Romans 9:20-21)

God said the older would serve the younger. The right response to this is, “How can I serve you? What would you have me do?” And not, “I will kill my brother rather than serve him.” Do potters normally spend hours forming a vessel for no reason but to smash it? No. Yet some clay is unworkable. Some clay in unfit for anything else. A potter will work the clay, adding moisture, and try to get it into the shape desired, but is forced to discard any that come out defective. This is not a reflection on the potter’s ability but rather of the condition of some clay. The potter may choose to make one vessel a beautiful vase while making another a basin to wash feet. If the clay is stubborn and will not mold into the desired shape, the potter must discard it. So, yes people do resist. And, no, it is not a reasonable reply against God to say He made me this way and that is why I am doing evil.

Satan attempts and fails again when he tempts Christ. Christ proves it is possible to be human and to not sin. Adam proved that humans have the capacity to sin. Both are true.

“For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

But God chose to extend mercy to mankind, having compassion on our frailty.

“For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust.” (Psalm 103:14)

Again, you said, “According to the scripture, men are not elected based on any foreseen merits or acts of faith”

Is repentance meritous? Is it praiseworthy to admit the extent of our depravity? Does any just judge grant pardon because the accused admits to being guilty? Of course not.

To stop resisting God does not constitute a “good work” or a works-based salvation.

God’s election IS based on foreknowledge. It does not say His foreknowledge is based on His election. You have it backwards.

“elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:2)

“I suppose your position is that God foresees that they will repent and believe, and therefore gives them the gift to repent and believe, as convoluted as that is.”

It is not merely that He foresees what people will do, He sees all possible outcomes. He knows what we will do in a given circumstance even if that circumstance never exists.

“Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.” (Genesis 2:19)

Did God not know what Adam would call the animals? Yes. Yet it is clear He wanted to watch these events unfold.

“But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, ‘Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.’ “ (Genesis 11:5-6)

Again we see God knew what would happen in the event of some circumstance that He did not allow to occur. And there are many others. One is the passage I mentioned above in which God says the spiritual Jezebel would not repent. He had given her time. He always knew she would not repent. But He proves it to us and to her. She has no excuse.

Again, “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” (Luke 10:13)

And so, yes, God does foreknow who will repent and who will not. I have given you specific examples from scripture.

You repeat John 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” which I have already answered.

When Peter, Andrew, James and John were called to follow Christ, did they NOT make a decision to leave their nets and follow Him? Their doing so is described. Christ is speaking using a figure of speech just like in John 12:44 where Jesus cried out, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”

Did His disciples believe in Him or not believe in Him. He says here whoever believes in Him does not believe in Him. Obviously they DO BELIEVE in Him. He is using a figure of speech to make a point. Believing in Him is the same as believing in the Father.

Who can obey Joshua 24:15 when it says, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve”? Can only believers make this choice AFTER they have received a new heart? If so, how can Paul tell believers to live out the Christian life in the same manner as when they came to Christ?

“This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Galatians 3:2)

“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him” (Colossians 2:6)

We walk in the Spirit the same way we receive the Spirit, by receiving the word of God with meekness, that is by a conscious choice of willing obedience.

“Actually, pretty sure it only took Paul just another moment to write it. There is no complicated lesson here about nations. Nor is there any gap in the writing.”

Wow. Just wow. We don’t even have to read a whole chapter for context when Paul quotes the passage from Genesis.

“And the Lord said to her:
‘Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger’.”(Genesis 25:23)

The second verse he quotes is from Malachi which was given to the prophet many centuries later and not before the twins were born:

“’I have loved you,’ says the Lord.
Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’
Says the Lord.
‘Yet Jacob I have loved;
But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.’ “ (Malachi 1:2-3)

By this time Jacob and Esau have been dead for centuries. Jacob is in Abraham’s bossom. Esau is in hell. The hatred here though is more than just God’s wrath on the older brother; it reflects His assessment of the moral condition of his descendants. Israel is among the nations that will be saved. Edom is among those that will be destroyed forever.

So, what you need to see is that the passage in Malachi is not an illustration of God choosing to hate one brother and love the other one. It is the prophetic fulfillment of the first passage.

Why didn’t God destroy Edom before this nation did all of the terrible things it did to God’s people?

“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:22-24)

Perhaps for the same reason He did not immediately destroy Satan when he rebelled. He wanted to show the angels the ultimate outcome of the rebellion. He wanted to show them His true nature of mercy and love. He wanted them to serve Him out of love rather than only fear.

God allowed Israel and Edom to coexist. He allowed Satan and the fallen angels to coexist with the elect and holy angels. He allowed the wheat and tares to grow together. To what end? To reveal His glory whether by wrath or by mercy, and to find pleasure in showing mercy and kindness to the elect. God’s election is not in conflict with our ability to choose, it is the basis of it.

“An opportunity to seek and believe is not “earning” anything.”

When it comes down to it, if one accepts your convoluted view, ultimately the difference between the believer and the unbeliever is in the righteousness of the former in having a “willing” heart of his own to ask for a new heart from the Savior. And as long as they remain in this condition of wanting this new nature, they are saved. At the final evaluation, however, we can only say that they have earned grace by their continued faithfulness.

Of course, you hold that faith is actually a gift, but as a result of someone willing to repent and believe, which is a mere contradiction. You continue:

“Notice that in both of these passages that predestination, that which God determined beforehand, includes the righteous acts of saints after having believed. Are these righteous acts an earning of salvation or are they the work of God accomplished by His grace?”

This is exactly my view, that God determined beforehand the righteous acts of all believers. The difference between us, of course, is that the “choice” (the decision to follow Christ) is determined by Christ, whereas you say the person’s choice is determined by themselves, and acted upon retroactively in predestination. Christ is quite clear that “You have NOT chosen me, I have chosen you.” And so we must hold that the subsequent choosing of the believer for Christ is a direct result of Christ’s initial choice for them, and is ordained with all the other works that result from Christ’s initial choice. But then you veer off from these conclusions from this verse in this following quote, and this sounds very Romanist in actuality. (Are you Roman Catholic? I assumed you were Protestant at first.)

You write: “Yet, believers are called not only to believe but also to labor by God’s grace. Is this “earning” salvation? No. Are we partakers of grace by our participation in good works? Yes.”

This seems to suggest that one partakes of grace through participation in good works. But as the previous verse already shows, those same works are ordained for us from the very beginning that we should do them. They are a result of salvation (Christ’s choice), and therefore cannot be said to be a condition that we must uphold to remain in grace. If one fills a lamp with oil and ignites it, the lamp will shine brightly with the fire. It can’t do anything except burn brightly, and unlike the oil the Holy Spirit is never consumed utterly. And such is the same condition of the Christian who no longer has a heart made of stone, but a fleshy heart that endeavors to do the will of God. Therefore, to say that we remain in grace through participating in works is like saying a lamp has the option of not giving light when ignited.

“And I have already answered your comment on Romans 3:11 about none seeking. I don’t know why you just repeat something when I have already shown several scriptures describing that people do seek God.”

To be honest, the rest of your post is indeed a giant repetition of what has already been dealt with. You did not deal with my comment on Romans 3:11. You simply avoided quoting the scripture which says “none seek,” and then asserting that the existence of those who do seek must mean that Paul was just kidding when he said “none seek’ at all, in all of humanity. My view reconciles the two, by asserting that only those seek who have been regenerated, and these same regenerated souls infallibly know that Jesus is the Savior due to God’s direct revelation and imprinting on that same soul His identity. Your view says silly stuff like “none seek until they do,” ignoring the necessity of God regenerating the soul of the believer so that they do believe.

1Co 2:14-15 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Until the natural man is indeed made into the spiritual man, he cannot believe the Gospel nor even understand what it actually teaches.

“So there is no indication that there is some category of people whom God never gives the ability to believe.”

Yes there is, here’s one example of it:

Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

They do not believe because it was not given to them to believe. No matter how long winded your posts get, they can’t change this fact.

“Which is it? Does God give a new heart or do we get it for ourselves?”

From Gill’s commentary:

“... it [this verse] will not prove that it is in the power of man to make himself such a heart and spirit; since from God’s command, to man’s power, is no argument [In other words, a command from God does not imply a moral ability of the individual to do it. It is merely a prescription of what should be done, but does not imply that it can be done, since other verses declare that it can only be done by God’s doing]; and the design of the exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart; of the importance of it: and which, through the efficacious grace of God, may be a means of his people having it, seeing he has in covenant promised it to them. The Targum renders it, “a fearing heart, and a spirit of fear;’’ that is, a heart and spirit to fear, serve, and worship the Lord, and not idols”

A command by God to do this or that does not imply a moral ability, in and of himself, for man to do it, as I’ve gone over before. Unless you believe that to “sin no more” and to “be ye perfect” are possible. But if God does not give us that heart to begin with, it is impossible to desire to have one in the first place. Your reading, actually, would contradict Christ in the Gospels, who declares what I declare, that unless it is given by the Father, it is impossible to believe.

Jer 24:7 And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.

1Co_12:3 ... and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Mat_16:17 ... for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

“Now, what will? what purpose? I have already answered that earlier also. It is according to His good pleasure and His glory.”

As far as I can tell, you asserted that the “reason” was God foreseeing man’s faithful persevering in grace. If the reason is for God’s own particular purpose and will, and not because of any foreseen merits on our part, then you cannot argue what you have been arguing.

“Did they fail to enter because God chose not to give them His irresistable grace, or because of their choice of disobedience.”

Obviously, it’s the latter. Your false premise here is that because God elects some and not others, that somehow those who are not elected aren’t responsible for their sins. Your post is, honestly, filled with this false assertion which I’ve already addressed previously. While it is true that the man who is elected cannot take credit for his salvation, in the case of the unregenerate they are, by nature, utterly opposed to God despite His oft repeated pleas to turn and convert. When God predestinates a vessel of wrath, He merely passes them by. He does not give them a sin nature that they possess by nature. In the case of the elect, however, it is God actively reforming an individual into a “spiritual man” who is no longer the same person they were before.

I’ll also add that you also continue to assert that I take out the role of human responsibility, to a certain extent, of their actions. I have never said that the elect are made into Robots who only do what is right, because they are suddenly made perfect in understanding. My argument has always been that the elect are remade people, who possess a sin nature in their members and an imperfect knowledge, yet ultimately are new people within whom God works “both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” This is not an argument that states that man does not need instruction from the Word of God for “reproof, correction, to thoroughly furnish them for good works.” It is an argument that states that inside man is a desire to be reproofed, corrected, and thoroughly furnished.

Thus all your long winded arguments pointing to human responsibility in no way touch upon anything I actually disagree with. I simply assert that God’s decision to save a man is infallible, and that it is impossible that anyone not chosen by God can believe, and it is impossible for anyone chosen by God not to believe and desire to “will and to do” by the working of God in their souls.

“Paul answers the question that, yes, people do resist His will:”

You’ve repeated this a number of times, but Paul never said anything of the sort. He is quoting an objection to his view, and replies that “who art thou to reply to God, why hast thou made me thus?” In other words, he is rebuking the idea that God is unjust in electing one person over another. Notice you never quote the entire sentence when you reference it.

Your wresting of the scripture here is just a repetition without any real explanation for what has been said already.

“When it comes down to it, if one accepts your convoluted view, ultimately the difference between the believer and the unbeliever is in the righteousness of the former in having a ‘willing’ heart of his own to ask for a new heart from the Savior.”

A new and willing heart is offered freely to all. The ultimate difference between the lost and saved is the end result, either heaven or hell, either Christ-likeness or remaining in our sins. You are talking about a causal difference. The flaw of your thinking is in comparing people between eachother which is not the measure.

“But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise... But ‘he who glories, let him glory in the Lord.’” (2 Corinthians 10:12b,17)

Every person is different. Every person is unique in God’s plan. Jacob and Esau, as we saw earlier, illustrate how that we must accept our lot in life because God will use us to accomplish whatever purpose He has designed us to fulfill. If we resist, He accomplishes His will through our destruction. If we humble ourselves and submit, He blesses us in it and lifts us up. He may, if He so chooses, offer more than one opportunity to surrender to His will. We saw how that Jonah first resisted God’s call but later turned to God in His desperation. When he ran away God brought the fear of his name to those at sea. When he cooperated, God brought salvation to Nineveh. Likewise with the two Pharaohs as we discussed.

“Peter, seeing him [John], said to Jesus, ‘But Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.’ (John 21:21-22)

“At the final evaluation, however, we can only say that they have earned grace by their continued faithfulness.”

That’s not it at all. Can’t you see that accepting a gift of your own free will is not earning it? As above, everyone should glory in the Lord for receiving what he or she receives. We cannot boast because we receive it and others did not. Again, that is focussing on our neighbor rather than the Lord.

The church is the bride of Christ. The marriage is the third divinely arranged marriage. Adam and Eve are the first. Isaac and Rebeka are the second. Each picture God’s ways.

“Then they called Rebekah and said to her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ And she said, ‘I will go.’”(Genesis 24:58)

Do you believe coerced marriages are a good pattern to follow? Does Rebekah’s willingness earn her the right to marry, or is it simply a necessary element?

“The difference between us, of course, is that the ‘choice’ (the decision to follow Christ) is determined by Christ, whereas you say the person’s choice is determined by themselves, and acted upon retroactively in predestination.”

And you say my view is “convoluted”? Your explanation defies the very meaning of “choice”. I do not choose what my options are. The sun rises and sets without my choice. On the other hand, I sometimes may decide whether to stand in it or in the shade.

The object lesson in the garden of Eden shows three basic elements of choice: the decision whether or not to obey a positive command, the decision of whether or not to obey a negative command, and areas of personal liberty over which we are freely governed entirely by our own preferences. Adam and Even were created free. By sin they were sold into slavery, and we were born into this slavery. Christ has given a proclamation of liberty so that people are restored to a similar state as Adam and Eve.

Do you think that people go to hell by virtue of the fact their parents are sinners? Aren’t we sinners because we are born sinners? We sin because we are sinners. The only people who were sinners because they sinned are Adam and Eve. Yet God says He doesn’t punish anyone for their parent’s sins.

“But every one shall die for his own iniquity” (Jeremiah 31:30)

People go to hell for only one reason — rejecting God’s free gift of salvation in His Son Jesus Christ. It is a gift. It is free. We do not earn it or work for it. This means people can freely receive. They are no longer in bondage and unable to receive it.

“Therefore, to say that we remain in grace through participating in works is like saying a lamp has the option of not giving light when ignited.”

I am saying that believers have a choice whether to yield to the sin that remains present around us and in us, or to walk by faith in grace. It is the same with an unbeliever presented with the Gospel and who has not yet become hardened to its message. Not only can he or she make a choice, they MUST make one. They do not have a choice as to whether they make a choice. They must yield or be hardened. Sometimes God gives another opportunity. “He gives more grace.” Yet, there comes a time when God decides He will no longer strive with men and allows them to receive the consequence of their hardened hearts.

There are some like Judas of whom Christ says “good were it for that man if he had never been born.” Yet, we have no choice as to whether we are born. God chooses who will be born, where, what time in history, etc.

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27)

Here we see that people should or otherwise can seek God. We see they “might” meaning it is possible, but not that men “must” do so.

“Christ is quite clear that ‘You have NOT chosen me, I have chosen you.’ And so we must hold that the subsequent choosing of the believer for Christ is a direct result of Christ’s initial choice for them, and is ordained with all the other works that result from Christ’s initial choice.”

It appears you contradicted yourself. You are now saying that there is a subsequent choice by the believer to follow Christ. But your interpretation is literal that they made no choice at all. But again, Christ is using a figure of speech for emphasis. We are not saved because we a smart enough, wise enough, clever enough, righteous enough, or some other enough to CHOOSE. We are saved because He chose to save us. He did not have to. He chose to.

“You simply avoided quoting the scripture which says ‘none seek,’ and then asserting that the existence of those who do seek must mean that Paul was just kidding when he said ‘none seek’ at all, in all of humanity. My view reconciles the two, by asserting that only those seek who have been regenerated, and these same regenerated souls infallibly know that Jesus is the Savior due to God’s direct revelation and imprinting on that same soul His identity. Your view says silly stuff like ‘none seek until they do,’ ignoring the necessity of God regenerating the soul of the believer so that they do believe.”

Not at all. My point is that everyone is in the category of the “none who seek” at some point in time. Yet there are those who do seek at some later point in time. I gave scriptures to support that people do seek, they do choose. Paul is not sayng that none ever seek. He is saying that some find without seeking because God seeks us out when we are not even seeking Him. Who does Christ seek?

“for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10)

“Until the natural man is indeed made into the spiritual man, he cannot believe the Gospel nor even understand what it actually teaches.”

Paul was talking about deeper spiritual truths such as spiritual gifts. He even says that not only can the natural man not receive these doctrines, but neither can immature and carnal believers. Contrarily, there is a natural revelation of spiritual truth because all humans have a living, functioning spirit. In this same passage Paul teaches that humans understand human things because of the human spirit in them. It is possible for even lost people to understand some of the spiritual truths about Christ because Christ is also fully man.

“for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them” (Romans 2:14-15)

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20)

“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:19-20)

How many mouths? Every. How much of the world? All.

Who does the Holy Spirit convict of sin? Just the elect? No. The world is convicted. This is a spiritual revelation to the natural realm.

“And when He [the Comforter Who is the Holy Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8)

“They do not believe because it was not given to them to believe.”

They could not believe at that time and onward. This is the result of their hardening their hearts to the truth.

“He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” (Proverbs 29:1)

If you go back and read what I said carefully, I said there was not a category of people who NEVER had the opportunity to believe. The people in the passage who could not believe had rejected Christ in finality. They could not believe because God was done striving with them.

“And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’” (Genesis 6:3)

“A command by God to do this or that does not imply a moral ability, in and of himself, for man to do it”

I agree. What God is seeking though is an admission of our failure and inability to do so.

“But if God does not give us that heart to begin with, it is impossible to desire to have one in the first place. “

It is impossible to desire a new heart because we do not already have it? Contrarily, it is impossible to receive a gift unless the desire to receive it already exists. Do not conflate choice with merit. God gives the ability to choose. We are responsible for the choice. This does not give us any credit for salvation, but it does mean we are required to make a choice. However, our choice is like the clay in the potter’s hands. Our choice is not what we are to become or what shape we are to form. Our choice is whether we cooperate or resist.

“Are you Roman Catholic?”

No. And I do not subscribe to salvation by our good works. I do subscribe to salvation by the work of faith. God opens and shuts the door of salvation. We either walk through the door while it is open or get shut out when it is shut. Only God can open and shut the door though. It is open to all until God closes it. He either shuts us in or shuts us out.

“When God predestinates a vessel of wrath, He merely passes them by. He does not give them a sin nature that they possess by nature.”

I do not find a predestination to wrath. This I think is the biggest flaw of Calvinism as it is commonly expressed, or at least as many people understand it. People draw the conclusion that when people go to hell it is because of God. But God has done everything possible to keep people from needing to go to hell. We do not read of hell being prepared for the Devil, his angels, AND the non-elect humans. There is an exact number of places to be occupied in heaven. Hell, on the other hand, is never full. It is unlimited in capacity.

“Hell and Destruction are never full” (Proverbs 27:20a)

“Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.” (Luke 14:23)

Interestingly, in this last verse, those who come are “compelled”. I think this means to beg people to come in rather than coerce. Otherwise, why not just compel the original invitees to come in? The first invitees made excuses and did not come because of their unwillingness.

A predestination to wrath would be like a potter forming clay vessels with the express plan to break them. I suppose we do make skeets for skeet shooting, but do you think God makes some people just so He can destroy them and cast them down to hell? The passage in Romans 9 reflects how God delights in showing mercy but simply tolerates the existence of the vessels that must later be destroyed. He doesn’t create them to be destroyed. He creates vessels. Some do not become what they are meant to become. This is not a fault of the potter. It is a result of uncooperative clay. However, the vessels formed well cannot boast of forming themselves because that is the potter’s work.

“Prepared” (for destruction) is the accusative neuter plural perfect passive participle form of the verb katartizo, or so I am reading. It means they are destined for destruction but not predestined. We see “prepared beforehand” describes the vessels of mercy using the verb proetoimazo. This is a very important distinction as the preparation of the vessels of mercy is the point or intent of the activity of preparing and fashioning the vessels, whereas the vessels of wrath are the indirect consequence of the planned preparation of the vessels of mercy. In other words, the vessels of wrath are the cost of doing business. The potter forms clay into vessels according to a plan. Some vessels do not conform and are consequently destroyed.

This is consistent with the parable of the wheat and tares which are allowed to grow together, not because the tares were planned but because their coexistence is being tolerated for the sake of the wheat.

“I simply assert that God’s decision to save a man is infallible, and that it is impossible that anyone not chosen by God can believe, and it is impossible for anyone chosen by God not to believe and desire to ‘will and to do’ by the working of God in their souls.”

Unfortunately it is an assertion that only fits some selected passages and not others as far as I can see. I am not intending to set myself up as the final arbitrator of the matter. I am just saying I am unable to see the scriptual basis for the conclusion you are reaching.

“My argument has always been that the elect are remade people, who possess a sin nature in their members and an imperfect knowledge, yet ultimately are new people within whom God works ‘both to will and to do of His good pleasure.’ This is not an argument that states that man does not need instruction from the Word of God for ‘reproof, correction, to thoroughly furnish them for good works.’ It is an argument that states that inside man is a desire to be reproofed, corrected, and thoroughly furnished.”

I can completely accept that statement.

“You’ve repeated this a number of times, but Paul never said anything of the sort. He is quoting an objection to his view, and replies that ‘who art thou to reply to God, why hast thou made me thus?’ In other words, he is rebuking the idea that God is unjust in electing one person over another. Notice you never quote the entire sentence when you reference it.”

I am assuming the familiarity of the passage as I am accustomed to quoting vast amounts of scripture which already consumes an enormous amount of space. I am by no means trying to sweep anything under the rug.

“Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”(Romans 9:19-20)

Or... “o anthrope, menounge su tis ei o antapokrinomenos to theo”, or so I read. The subsequent statement is in contradiction to the first. Paul is not saying, “yes, but...”, he is rather saying, “no, not at all”.

Now, you did not respond to my question of how Old Testament saints were saved. I have asserted that they were saved by grace through faith just as we are. No one has ever been saved by keeping the law. So, would it be incorrect to assume that the final outcome is the same? Are the intermediary steps the same? Perhaps the saints in heaven received the full benefit of the work of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost along with the New Testament saints. I am speculating here of course. But it seems to me that the process you believe must take place would have to have been happening in secret in the past. For example, we do not read anything about God’s Spirit created in Noah a new heart and then he found grace. We do not see the Holy Spirit giving Abraham new life and then he believed. I am not even trying to be argumentative here. Honestly, I have wondered this myself and am unsure of how this transpired. But it does seem fairly difficult to reconcile the process you describe with Old Testament saints. Whereas, for me, the process might be somewhat mysterious but not inconsistent with the process I see in the New Testament. In other words, the Holy Spirit is now given where He was not before. It seems to me your view demands the Holy Spirit be given first before a person can believe. Yet we see people receive the Holy Spirit after they believe in the New Testament.

I hope I have not come across as rude, arrogant or argumentative. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter and try to understand your and others’ perspectives. Please don’t take offense to my assertiveness, or especially my wordiness. Like the famous letter said, “I am sorry for writing such a long letter as I did not have time to write a short one”. Ironically, more time can sometimes produce less words to make the same point.

I did want to address one further point though. It seems that one distinction between our views may be as to who are the children of the Devil. John says the children of God and the children of the Devil are manifest based upon whether they produce the fruits of righteousness and love.

“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.”(1 John 3:10)

My question is whether all people are either children of God or children of the Devil. That is, are people born as children of the Devil, or are people subsequent to birth born either into God’s family or the Devil’s? I believe it is subsequent and only after rejecting the revealed truth of God’s word.

“Another parable He put forth to them, saying: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’’... Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.’ He answered and said to them: ‘He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.’” (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-39)

The pattern here seems to indicate that people are not born as children of the Devil but reborn as such only after failing to accept the gospel. No amount of willing from the earth can produce growth unless and until seed lands upon it. However, Christ taught to “take heed how you hear.”

All sin by virtue of our first birth into humanity. All die for the same reason. Yet, hell is not the consequence of our birth as human beings, but it is the consequence of those who receive sufficient natural revelation to produce humility and repentance and yet harden their hearts. Those who harden their hearts will eventually be given over to Satan and receive a false gospel. The final outcome will be for those who do this to be cast into the lake of fire along with the Devil when he is judged.

“Then Jesus said to them, “A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.” (John 12:35)

So I remain convinced that God has given everyone an opportunity to choose beyond what has been chosen for us by being born human. He has freed mankind from the slave market of sin so we all have the opportunity to receive everlasting life. He has given us each the opportunity, responsibility as well as the possibility to choose. If we choose life, it is because God provided life and the ability to choose it. If we choose death, we have only ourselves to blame because God afforded every opportunity. He gave everything for us to live. Those who reject the offer of His Son are treating His sacrifice with contempt and deserve the consequence of so great an offense.

The bottom line is that God and man both make choices when it comes to each instance in which a person is saved or rejects salvation. Those who end up in hell do so because of their own choice. Those who end up in heaven do so because of God’s choice. It may be paradoxical, but I am convinced this is the balance of rightly dividing the word on this issue.

Sometimes I feel that the debate over choice and destiny, over fate and possibility is a matter of perspective. Perhaps, from God’s view it appears as no choice at all because the final outcome and everything leading to it is already known by God. Yet from the human perspective, all of the events are a cumulation of many choices over time. God knows, but we do not know how all things will play out. We only have His promise to accomplish His will and purpose. We can rely on that.

“And He said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how.’” (Mark 4:26)

Our job is to find ways to participate in the cultivating, sowing and irrigating needed to preach the gospel to all nations. It is interesting food for thought to consider the process by which germination and growth transpires. But it is not essential to understand how it works as long as we do the job we are assigned to do.

“People go to hell for only one reason — rejecting God’s free gift of salvation in His Son Jesus Christ. “

Why do you continue to tell me this as if I disagree with it? Didn’t I complain previously that you were wasting your time in telling me such things? This is two huge posts now where you waste your time telling me over and over again how people believe, or they don’t believe, or that some work, and that some don’t. It is simply your misconception that supposes that because God chooses not to elect one person over another, that the person passed by is no longer responsible for their personal rejection of Christ. This was, in fact, the same objection that Paul himself anticipated when he wrote:

Rom 9:19-21 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

When I pointed out to you that this was Paul quoting an objection, and not himself speaking, you reply:

“Or... “o anthrope, menounge su tis ei o antapokrinomenos to theo”, or so I read. The subsequent statement is in contradiction to the first. Paul is not saying, “yes, but...”, he is rather saying, “no, not at all”.

This doesn’t answer anything at all! What does it even mean? Are you saying that you have a different translation than the KJV to offer that is superior and supports your view? that somehow Paul is affirming that people resist God’s will, that he was not quoting the very same objection to the doctrines of grace you yourself have made?

What does it mean to say “You will say to me, why does he yet find fault? for who has resisted his will?” Do you have an answer for that that doesn’t involve taking a single phrase out of context? Can you explain how it fits in with anything you have said? Unless your reading of the preceding passages leads you to object “why doth he yet find fault?”, then it’s false, no matter how long you beat around the bush.

It is also your misconception that supposes that because God ordains some to eternal life, that those ordained do not necessarily believe.”

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

I simply read the scripture in its proper order. Those who are ordained, believe. Those who are quickened, are made to seek. I do not believe that no one believes in anything. I simply argue that the origin of the belief is in the “ordaining” or “appointing” of God, given to them before the world began. So what do I care if you quote a phrase that has someone seeking or believing, when I never denied that the elect seek and believe as a result of the working of God? How many times do I have to repeat this for you until you believe me and stop arguing with ghosts?

“Jacob and Esau, as we saw earlier, illustrate how that we must accept our lot in life because God will use us to accomplish whatever purpose He has designed us to fulfill. If we resist, He accomplishes His will through our destruction.”

This simply has no relation at all to the actual words of Romans 9. You say “as we saw earlier.” What I saw earlier was nothing more than unbiblical speculation without any specific address of the scripture.

Paul in this section is not talking about a moral illustration about free-will and how God regards our decisions to follow Him. Instead, Paul teaches that it is God’s decision made before “the children being... born, neither having done any good or evil,” so that “the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth” (Rom 9:11). This is why the reply to these passages from Paul’s hypothetical adversary is ‘Why doth he yet find fault?”, since they were elected by God to their fates before either had committed any faults to begin with! Therefore Paul’s adversary objects, “why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?”, because no one can resist the decree of God, so how can God blame them?

And instead of answering with some complicated nonsense explaining how it’s only a misconception based on perspective, like what you suggested, He replies with a rebuke for daring to talk back to God in the first place:

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

And instead of going into a man-exalting discussion of personal liberty, he declares God’s absolute sovereignty to “have mercy on whom [He] will have mercy, and... have compassion on whom [He] will have compassion” (Rom 9:15).

And instead of telling us how it is necessary for man to make that first step to believe in Christ, Paul tells you that it is NOT of Him who wills, nor of him who “runs,” but of God who has mercy:

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Your nonsense about this being an illustration in favor of personal liberty simply cannot survive a line by line analysis of this text.

“The object lesson in the garden of Eden”

This is why your entire argument is false. It’s based on this absurd false premise. In the garden of Eden, man did not fall until he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the fall, certain terrible changes occurred in mankind:

First, they are now spiritually dead.

Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Because of this death, unless they are quickened, they cannot enter the Kingdom of God:

Joh 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

And it is for this cause that it is necessary for the Holy Spirit to reveal that Jesus is the Christ:

1Co_12:3 ... no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Because, even in the presence of miraculous signs and wonders, it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of these things himself:

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Your argument is essentially that we have the same freedom that we had before we were dead in sin. But the truth is that we are a utterly depraved and dead race due to the sin of Adam:

Job 15:14-16 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Psa 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?

Psa 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

Pro 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Now to Romans 3:

Rom 3:9-12 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

In objection to this above passage, you wrote that Paul was not speaking permanently. That no man “seeks” God, until they eventually do (so why did Paul even bother to say it in his indictment of ALL mankind?). So then it follows that all men sin, until they choose to stop sinning. All men are wicked, until they choose to be righteous. Or, that all men are wicked, until they become righteous. But the scriptural response is, it is God who works in us both to will and to do, contrary to our nature, and therefore our righteousness is not our own, but God’s:

Php_2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Isa_26:12 LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

And in this way there is no contradiction to the passage with other scriptures, and the passage again has a rational purpose in its demonstration of man’s total depravity without God, which your reading steals from it.

“But again, Christ is using a figure of speech for emphasis. We are not saved because we a smart enough, wise enough, clever enough, righteous enough, or some other enough to CHOOSE. We are saved because He chose to save us. He did not have to. He chose to”

What is the figure of speech? You haven’t actually bothered to explain it. You just say it’s a “figure of speech” because you can’t explain it. You then assert, without addressing the actual words of the scripture, that it is about God’s general decision to die for our sins. But the words of the scripture show it is a personal decision on Christ’s part on behalf of the individual saint, to ordain them to faith and good works (fruit).

“Ye have not chosen me,” Christ declares. You, personally, have not chosen Jesus Christ. He corrects them from falsely believing that they came to Him of their own accord, that they believed through their own “flesh and blood.” This is the same point Christ makes when He responds to Peter’s confession in Matt 16:17. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

Christ goes on, “but I have chosen you.” He emphasizes the fact that they did not really choose Him. It was Christ who chose them, which directly led to their following. Because “the sheep hear my voice, and follow me.”

“And ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” How can anything man do remain? Our total depravity makes it impossible for us to to any good work that can remain eternally:

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Therefore, if our work is to remain, it is necessary that the work comes from God, and not of ourselves. It is “ordained... that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, He may give it to you” (John 15:16). We are reconciled to God, by God’s own sovereign choice, so that we should Be His people, and He our God.

“They could not believe at that time and onward. This is the result of their hardening their hearts to the truth.”

As is usual, you wrest the scripture, giving only one sentence in reply to a passage that is fatal to your long-winded post, and then going off on with endless paragraphs about things I have neither argued for or against in a vain attempt to escape it.

This is not a case of someone receiving it from the Father, and then rejecting it, and therefore they become hardened. They simply weren’t given it at all:

“But there are some of you that believe not,” says Christ, “Therefore,” as a result, because of, an explanation for their unbelief, “said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” Unless God gives it to Him, He cannot believe. He does not say “my Father gave it to them and they resisted it.” He says that it was never given to them at all, and that is the reason they do not believe.

It is because of these scriptures that your endless paragraphs, your random arguments against things that I never said in the first place, simply cannot stand.

“Who does the Holy Spirit convict of sin? Just the elect? No. The world is convicted. This is a spiritual revelation to the natural realm.”

Joh 16:8-10 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (9) Of sin, because they believe not on me; (10) Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

Your arguments here, as usual, don’t actually even touch upon the doctrines of grace. It says nothing about election. It says “of sin, because they believe not on me.” This is their great sin, their unbelief in Jesus Christ despite His many works and wonders, the Prophets, and His righteousness. Light has come “into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” But it does not follow that because they are in condemnation for their own sins, that suddenly the elect elect themselves, rather than by the will of God:

Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

“We do not read of hell being prepared for the Devil, his angels, AND the non-elect humans.”

Rom 9:21-22 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Jud_1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:7-8 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, (8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

“He doesn’t create them to be destroyed.”

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom 9:20-21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

“It is a result of uncooperative clay. “

Completely ridiculous! Why would Paul use the metaphor of the clay to begin with? The purpose of likening us to clay is to demonstrate the power and sovereign right of the potter to “form” us for whatever purpose He desires. Either, in the case of the damned, to make them vessels “fitted for destruction.” Or in the case of the elect, to make them “vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” The “afore prepared,” really, is the only real difference between the elect and those who are not elect. The elect are chosen before the world began; the damned are merely fitted for destruction, “prepared” for it, as they need no particular work on God’s part to make them sinners. They are, by nature, the enemies of God, by their own sinful choices.

“If you go back and read what I said carefully,”

Suppose I read everything you wrote very carefully, and took the time to write up a reply to every little thing you wrote, what would be the purpose? It is only because you misunderstand my argument that your posts are so long.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.