Gods Inability to save

[Complete]

'But what saith it?
The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart:
that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead,
Thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek:
for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard?
and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace,
and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel.
For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.'
(Rom 10:8-17)

Praise God!

 

[JoshebB]

With all due respect, that is an absolutely horrible analysis. It may well be that the entire passage is written about the already regenerate and the saved believer.

That is not a "may well be." It is an indisputable fact that defines the passage.

But that does not mean that nothing in it is the description about those very same regenerated and saved believers before they were regenerated and saved.

I never made any such claim. What I stated was it is about the saved, not the unsaved. Yes, the saved original readers had once been previously unsaved, but what Paul is describing is the "how" of the saved, not the how of the unsaved.

Go back to Ephesians 1.

Eph 1:1-14

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

And yet, Paul says there in that last sentence, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

There is no rational analysis of that other than having heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation and having believed in him had to have occurred prior to being sealed with the Holy Spirit, i.e., regenerated and saved.

That is clearly not monergism!!!

Incorrect. Understanding what is heard is dependent upon God enabling understanding. Hearing is not, in and of itself causal to salvation. The New Testament's use of Isaiah 6:9 explicitly states those hearing Jesus' teaching in parables could not understand what they were hearing because God had prevented them from doing so. He had not provided for them the "keys" or "mysteries" necessary to understand and He did so "lest they turn and be healed." You changed the font of the word "when," but it is the word, "you" that should have been emphasized. Paul did not say, "When anyone hears the word of truth." He wrote "when YOU, [the saved saints in Ephesus], heard the truth...." He did not say when those other people in Ephesus heard the word of truth. He never included those people in the same group as the saints. He is making an exclusionary statement and synergists always fail to correctly apply the contexts f the epistolary.


It is your analysis of the text that is wanting. You prove it with your own "analysis" by neglecting the audience identification and other stipulated contexts. This can be resolved with a few direct answers to a few simple questions.

1) Does anyone in the Bible ever get saved outside of the Christological covenant?

 

[Jim]

That is not a "may well be." It is an indisputable fact that defines the passage.

I never made any such claim. What I stated was it is about the saved, not the unsaved. Yes, the saved original readers had once been previously unsaved, but what Paul is describing is the "how" of the saved, not the how of the unsaved.

Incorrect. Understanding what is heard is dependent upon God enabling understanding. Hearing is not, in and of itself causal to salvation. The New Testament's use of Isaiah 6:9 explicitly states those hearing Jesus' teaching in parables could not understand what they were hearing because God had prevented them from doing so. He had not provided for them the "keys" or "mysteries" necessary to understand and He did so "lest they turn and be healed." You changed the font of the word "when," but it is the word, "you" that should have been emphasized. Paul did not say, "When anyone hears the word of truth." He wrote "when YOU, [the saved saints in Ephesus], heard the truth...." He did not say when those other people in Ephesus heard the word of truth. He never included those people in the same group as the saints. He is making an exclusionary statement and synergists always fail to correctly apply the contexts f the epistolary.

You are correct, the subjects under discussion were those who had been saved. And they were saved WHEN they heard the word of truth and believed in Jesus. The order of events is perfectly clear. They heard the word, they believed in Jesus and that resulted in their being saved.

It is your analysis of the text that is wanting. You prove it with your own "analysis" by neglecting the audience identification and other stipulated contexts. This can be resolved with a few direct answers to a few simple questions.

1) Does anyone in the Bible ever get saved outside of the Christological covenant?

When I write, "When you pushed the starter switch on your car, the engine started", you would interpret that as the engine having started before you pushed the switch? Apparently so. Absolutely ridiculous. But that is so often what the monergist is compelled to do in order to salvage the false doctrine.

 

[JoshebB]

You are correct, the subjects under discussion were those who had been saved. And they were saved WHEN they heard the word of truth and believed in Jesus. The order of events is perfectly clear. They heard the word, they believed in Jesus and that resulted in their being saved.

That is incomplete. It is not whole scripture. They were chosen by God. They were dragged to Christ by his Father. They were called by God. They were given the keys or mysteries by which they could understand what they heard. They were gifted the faith that the gifted Spirit empowered them to apply. If all they had was their flesh, then any and all assertion of any human faculty would simply be a function or product of sinful flesh. Paul (and Jesus, and all the other NT writers) assigned causality to God and never the faculties of the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate sinner's flesh.

When I write, "When you pushed the starter switch on your car, the engine started", you would interpret that as the engine having started before you pushed the switch?

No, I would reject the analogy as utterly irrelevant.

But that is so often what the monergist is compelled to do in order to salvage the false doctrine.

How about keeping the comments limited to what you can prove and not post baseless ad hominem insinuations? Better yet, how about answering the question asked?

Does anyone in the Bible ever get saved outside of a Christological covenant?


.

 

[Jim]

Does anyone in the Bible ever get saved outside of a Christological covenant?
.

What is the Christological covenant? I know about biblical covenants, but I have not come across that one in the scriptures. Nor has anyone else I know of or anyone that I have read from. I tried to google it. Nothing came up. So, I have no way to answer that question.

 

[Presby02]

With all due respect, that is an absolutely horrible analysis. It may well be that the entire passage is written about the already regenerate and the saved believer. But that does not mean that nothing in it is the description about those very same regenerated and saved believers before they were regenerated and saved.

Go back to Ephesians 1.

Eph 1:1-14

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

And yet, Paul says there in that last sentence, "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

There is no rational analysis of that other than having heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation and having believed in him had to have occurred prior to being sealed with the Holy Spirit, i.e., regenerated and saved.

That is clearly not monergism!!!

So sealing with the Spirit is regeneration? Is that your position?

 

[Jim]

So sealing with the Spirit is regeneration? Is that your position?

I don't see how it could be anything other than the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit, i.e., regeneration. If not regeneration, itself, then clearly one of the immediate benefits of regeneration (Compare verses such as 2 Cor 1:22). If you think otherwise, present your case and let's discuss it.

 

[JoshebB]

What is the Christological covenant? I know about biblical covenants, but I have not come across that one in the scriptures. Nor has anyone else I know of or anyone that I have read from. I tried to google it. Nothing came up. So, I have no way to answer that question.

Hmmm.... I sincerely thank you for both the honesty and the forthcomingness exhibited in that post and genuinely commend it. I hope others will learn from your example. However, I suspect your appraisal is not the case and you simply have not yet sufficiently put the pieces of scripture together. Once you and examine the particulars of scripture the result will likely be a face palm moment accompanied by the words, "Of course! Yes, proceed!"

I can start in any one of a number of places but let's start with the covenant God initiated with Abraham. God called Abram out of his home country, Ur. This is stated in Genesis 12. It is not until Genesis 15 that we read the statement, "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." but the eventual covenant relationship was initiated by God calling Abram out of Ur.

Yes?

 

[Presby02]

I don't see how it could be anything other than the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit, i.e., regeneration. If not regeneration, itself, then clearly one of the immediate benefits of regeneration (Compare verses such as 2 Cor 1:22). If you think otherwise, present your case and let's discuss it.

This is called shifting the burden of proof. Because YOU dont see it any other way does mot mean you are correct. Thats like me saying regeneration precedes faith and i dont see how it can be any other way. You would accrpt that? I think not.

 

[Jim]

This is called shifting the burden of proof. Because YOU dont see it any other way does mot mean you are correct. Thats like me saying regeneration precedes faith and i dont see how it can be any other way. You would accrpt that? I think not.

No, I wouldn't accept that. But I would try to give my answer of what it is and try to support it with scripture. Maybe you could do that.

 

[civic]

Hmmm.... I sincerely thank you for both the honesty and the forthcomingness exhibited in that post and genuinely commend it. I hope others will learn from your example. However, I suspect your appraisal is not the case and you simply have not yet sufficiently put the pieces of scripture together. Once you and examine the particulars of scripture the result will likely be a face palm moment accompanied by the words, "Of course! Yes, proceed!"

I can start in any one of a number of places but let's start with the covenant God initiated with Abraham. God called Abram out of his home country, Ur. This is stated in Genesis 12. It is not until Genesis 15 that we read the statement, "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." but the eventual covenant relationship was initiated by God calling Abram out of Ur.

Yes?

Since Messiah ( Christ ) was human then it stands to reason in the O.T. there was no Messiah Covenant. It was a Covenant made by YHWH pre Incarnation ( Messiah, Christ ). So lets be precise about the Covenant Maker being YHWH. Jesus as YHWH Incarnate, the Divine Messiah(Christ )in the N.T. established the New Covenant made in His blood. Lets get out Theology and terminology correct about God.

 

[Presby02]

No, I wouldn't accept that. But I would try to give my answer of what it is and try to support it with scripture. Maybe you could do that.

So why would you expect me to?

And maybe you could resist the temptation to make baseless claims.

 

[Jim]

So why would you expect me to?

I don't expect anything from you.

And maybe you could resist the temptation to make baseless claims.

What baseless claims?

 

[JoshebB]

Since Messiah ( Christ ) was human then it stands to reason in the O.T. there was no Messiah Covenant.

No, that does not stand to reason.

It was a Covenant made by YHWH pre Incarnation ( Messiah, Christ ).

Yes. That does not preclude the Messiah's humanity (as was just asserted).

So lets be precise about the Covenant Maker being YHWH.

Yes, let's be precise. Go back and correct the first sentence in Post #411.

Jesus as YHWH Incarnate, the Divine Messiah (Christ) in the N.T. established the New Covenant made in His blood.

If you mean to say YHWH made the covenant and it was established by Christ during the NT era, that is incorrect. The problem may be one of thinking temporally about an eternal matter. As far as time or human history goes, the covenant was both "made" and" established" long before the New Testament. Abram's vision established the covenant's existence, its being made and established at least as far back as Genesis 15.

Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.....

I haven't visited this thread in a while so I am not sure but haven't I already explained this? Paul explained the relevance of the promises made to Abram/Abraham. Do I need to go through that again?

Lets get out Theology and terminology correct about God.

Waiting on you because you're making a mess of everything, trying to dodge the salient points broached many, many posts ago and obfuscating this discussion under the auspices of precision and correctness. We are 400+ posts into the discussion of this op and you have yet to show anyone stating God is unable to save. This op is built on a strawman and until that strawman is corrected the op has no merit. If you, @civic, are going to have any integrity with your own claims of precision and correctness then either post the proof someone claims God is unable to save or correct the op.

• Posting a factual error by mistake is called a mistake.
• Posting a factual error knowingly is called a falsehood.
• Posting a factual error knowingly with an intent to deceive is called a lie.

Reformed doctrine never teaches God is unable to save. That is not something asserted by the doctrine of Total Depravity or the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty (as is asserted in this op). If you do not know that then this op is a mistake. If you do know that and posted this op anyway then the op is a falsehood. If you know Reformed doctrine never teaches God is unable to save and posted this op with an intent to deceive then this op is a lie. Either post the proof Reformed doctrine teaches God is unable to save or correct the op accordingly. Let's not wait another 400 posts before getting a precise and correct response. No more delays. No more changes of topic. No more obfuscation of any kind.


Where is the proof Reformed doctrine teaches God's inability to save?

 

[civic]

No, that does not stand to reason.

Yes. That does not preclude the Messiah's humanity (as was just asserted).

Yes, let's be precise. Go back and correct the first sentence in Post #411.

If you mean to say YHWH made the covenant and it was established by Christ during the NT era, that is incorrect. The problem may be one of thinking temporally about an eternal matter. As far as time or human history goes, the covenant was both "made" and" established" long before the New Testament. Abram's vision established the covenant's existence, its being made and established at least as far back as Genesis 15.

Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.....

I haven't visited this thread in a while so I am not sure but haven't I already explained this? Paul explained the relevance of the promises made to Abram/Abraham. Do I need to go through that again?

Waiting on you because you're making a mess of everything, trying to dodge the salient points broached many, many posts ago and obfuscating this discussion under the auspices of precision and correctness. We are 400+ posts into the discussion of this op and you have yet to show anyone stating God is unable to save. This op is built on a strawman and until that strawman is corrected the op has no merit. If you, @civic, are going to have any integrity with your own claims of precision and correctness then either post the proof someone claims God is unable to save or correct the op.

• Posting a factual error by mistake is called a mistake.
• Posting a factual error knowingly is called a falsehood.
• Posting a factual error knowingly with an intent to deceive is called a lie.

Reformed doctrine never teaches God is unable to save. That is not something asserted by the doctrine of Total Depravity or the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty (as is asserted in this op). If you do not know that then this op is a mistake. If you do know that and posted this op anyway then the op is a falsehood. If you know Reformed doctrine never teaches God is unable to save and posted this op with an intent to deceive then this op is a lie. Either post the proof Reformed doctrine teaches God is unable to save or correct the op accordingly. Let's not wait another 400 posts before getting a precise and correct response. No more delays. No more changes of topic. No more obfuscation of any kind.


Where is the proof Reformed doctrine teaches God's inability to save?

The OP stands as the scriptures speak for themselves. You can’t see past Calvinism and you view scripture through that lens.

If used your same logic and reasoning then you would have to reject tulip since it’s the doctrine was formed well after the reformation by Hodge just like you reject Premillennialism because it’s latest doctrine formed in church history.

And I’ll toss in PSA too as the latest doctrine in church history on the atonement. So it must also be false and a lie just like you try and argue against premillennialism. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too as the saying goes.

And I’ll ignore all of your ad hominems in your post.

 

[civic]

No, that does not stand to reason.

Yes. That does not preclude the Messiah's humanity (as was just asserted).

Yes, let's be precise. Go back and correct the first sentence in Post #411.

If you mean to say YHWH made the covenant and it was established by Christ during the NT era, that is incorrect. The problem may be one of thinking temporally about an eternal matter. As far as time or human history goes, the covenant was both "made" and" established" long before the New Testament. Abram's vision established the covenant's existence, its being made and established at least as far back as Genesis 15.

Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram.....

I haven't visited this thread in a while so I am not sure but haven't I already explained this? Paul explained the relevance of the promises made to Abram/Abraham. Do I need to go through that again?

Waiting on you because you're making a mess of everything, trying to dodge the salient points broached many, many posts ago and obfuscating this discussion under the auspices of precision and correctness. We are 400+ posts into the discussion of this op and you have yet to show anyone stating God is unable to save. This op is built on a strawman and until that strawman is corrected the op has no merit. If you, @civic, are going to have any integrity with your own claims of precision and correctness then either post the proof someone claims God is unable to save or correct the op.

• Posting a factual error by mistake is called a mistake.
• Posting a factual error knowingly is called a falsehood.
• Posting a factual error knowingly with an intent to deceive is called a lie.

Reformed doctrine never teaches God is unable to save. That is not something asserted by the doctrine of Total Depravity or the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty (as is asserted in this op). If you do not know that then this op is a mistake. If you do know that and posted this op anyway then the op is a falsehood. If you know Reformed doctrine never teaches God is unable to save and posted this op with an intent to deceive then this op is a lie. Either post the proof Reformed doctrine teaches God is unable to save or correct the op accordingly. Let's not wait another 400 posts before getting a precise and correct response. No more delays. No more changes of topic. No more obfuscation of any kind.


Where is the proof Reformed doctrine teaches God's inability to save?

Sorry it’s called the New Covenant by Jesus because it was new. There was no covenant with his blood and death until He gave His life as a ransom for sin. You are stuck in your systematic reformed theology and making void the word of God by your reformed traditions.

The entire book of Hebrews refutes your covenant theology and it affirms what I have said about Christs new covenant.

 

[brightfame52]

There was no covenant with his blood and death until He gave His life as a ransom for sin.

So what is the blood of the everlasting covenant all about ? Heb 13:20

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

 

[civic]

So what is the blood of the everlasting covenant all about ? Heb 13:20

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

That’s from the time He died forward

Just the same as eternal life is from the time one is saved forward.

Next fallacy

 

[civic]

You guys need to stop reading your reformed theology into the Bible that’s eisegesis.

 

[brightfame52]

That’s from the time He died forward

Just the same as eternal life is from the time one is saved forward.

Next fallacy

You dont believe there was a everlasting covenant made before the world began ? Made within the Godhead