The washing of regeneration and water baptism

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.

Billyray----T i t u s 3
4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Comments?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Comments?

T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Comments?

ESV Study Bible

T i t u s 3:5 The transformation described in vv. 3–7 (formerly … but now) is not based on human effort. “We … were once enslaved” (v. 3) but he saved us. God must act before salvation occurs. Salvation comes not because of works but by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Some have understood this as saying that baptism (“the washing”) causes salvation. However, in this context human deeds are clearly downplayed (“not because of works”) and the emphasis is on divine action and initiative (“he saved us”). The “washing” described here is the spiritual cleansing, which is outwardly symbolized in baptism.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

where is your Bible?

Where is YOUR Bible?. . .Comments?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Where is YOUR Bible?. . .Comments?

I have a comment, or question, about the verse you quoted

("he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.")

How much mercy do you believe Jesus has on all those people you believe He didn't love enough to die for, thus dooming them to having no hope of being saved?

a) a lot of mercy

b) a mediocre amount of mercy

c) zero mercy

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I have a comment, or question, about the verse you quoted

("he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.")

How much mercy do you believe Jesus has on all those people you believe He didn't love enough to die for, thus dooming them to having no hope of being saved?

a) a lot of mercy

b) a mediocre amount of mercy

c) zero mercy

Every sinner has the opportunity to place their faith in Christ and be justified by faith resulting in salvation. For some reason you seem to forget that fact. Or the other alternative is that every person has the opportunity to perfectly obey the commandments and be saved. Therefore a sinner can place his faith in Christ and be saved OR a person can obey the commandments perfectly---everyone has the opportunity to be saved. In the final judgement God will judge those who choose not to place their faith in Christ by God's perfect standard and they will be judged by their works and by their own deeds they will be condemned. This shows God's justice.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Every sinner has the opportunity to place their faith in Christ and be justified by faith resulting in salvation.

Even those God did not die for?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 ---***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.


Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.

Originally Posted by Billyray

Where is YOUR Bible?. . .Comments?

***us3:5 is a verse found in the Biblical text, Billyray.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

***us3:5 is a verse found in the biblical text, billyray.

? ? ? ? ?

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...got034331.html


what is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John wesley: "sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the holy ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of god" (one volume new testament commentary, wesley, clarke, henry, et. Al.).


Cambridge greek testament (j.h. Bernard): "that the 'washing of regeneration' is the water of baptism is undoubted; see eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical body of christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

the new bible commentary (a.m. Stibbs): "in status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the spirit."

the pulpit commentary (a.c. Hervey): "here we have the means through or by which god's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

william hendriksen: "it is clear from such p***ages as john 3:3,5 and especially ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (new testament commentary).

Albert barnes: "the word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (barnes' notes on the new testament).

Henry alford: "observe, there is here no figure: The words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." at hebrews 10:22, alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to christian baptism" and cites washing of water (eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (the greek new testament).

James macknight: "through the bath of regeneration: Through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (apostolical epistles).

G.r. Beasley-murray: Beasley-murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these epistles [1 timothy, 2 timothy, ***us], i can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "all things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of christ, the early church fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.

e

[dberrie2000]

dberrie-----***us3:5--"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"



http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT034331.html


What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this p***age, but they all agree as to what the "washing of regeneration" is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: "Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God" (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).


Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): "That the 'washing of regeneration' is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a 'state of salvation,' in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . ."

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): "In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit."

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): "Here we have the means through or by which God's mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called 'laver of regeneration,' because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained."

William Hendriksen: "It is clear from such p***ages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this 'washing of regeneration and renewing' stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in ***us 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament" (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: "The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: "Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth." At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water "refers directly to Christian baptism" and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (***. 3:5) as "****ogous expressions" (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: "Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called 'the bath of regeneration,' not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . " (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 "of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, ***us], I can find but one who denies" that this refers to baptism. He says, "All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . " (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the "washing of regeneration" by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The "washing of regeneration" in ***us 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase "washing of regeneration" with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.



Where does this leave faith alone theology? They carefully eliminate water baptism from anythinsalvational. But yet, if the testimonies of Christ, the Early Church Fathers, and the scholars are true--then it is the quite attached to regeneration.

Originally Posted by Billyray

T i t u s 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

That's not going to help your cause--if the "washing of regeneration" in ***us3:5 is defined as water baptism--then water baptism is connected to salvation:---"he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,"

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Every sinner has the opportunity to place their faith in Christ and be justified by faith resulting in salvation. ...everyone has the opportunity to be saved.

But you believe that Jesus refused to do anything to save most of the human race. How do people He didn't die for have the opportunity to be saved? Isn't it true that you believe that those people never had a chance, since Jesus never died for them? If some people were deliberately made to be pottery whose PURPOSE was to be shattered and thrown away, how can you say they had the opportunity to be saved?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

But you believe that Jesus refused to do anything to save most of the human race. How do people He didn't die for have the opportunity to be saved?

The Bible teaches that Jesus gave his life for his sheep, but you seem to be forgetting the part where I have said that the Bible also teaches that ANYONE who comes to Christ and places their trust in Him will be saved. Those who reject Christ do so based on their own choice and they are responsible for that choice.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Bible teaches that Jesus gave his life for his sheep

but it doesn't say ONLY for his sheep. You are reading that Calvinistic idea into the text but it's not really there.
Yesterday I paid for some milk at the store. Does that mean that milk was the ONLY thing I paid for at the store? If you ***ume that, then you are jumping to a conclusion that logic says you shouldn't jump to.

the Bible also teaches that ANYONE who comes to Christ and places their trust in Him will be saved.

So then you believe that ANYONE has the potential to be saved. But that contradicts your belief that Jesus didn't die for everyone.

Those who reject Christ do so based on their own choice and they are responsible for that choice.

How about those who ACCEPT Christ--did they do that based on their own choice and therefore get the credit for making a wise choice? Or do you have a double standard?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

but it doesn't say ONLY for his sheep.

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I am not asking you what it doesn't say I am asking you what this verse does say.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So then you believe that ANYONE has the potential to be saved. But that contradicts your belief that Jesus didn't die for everyone.

The Bible says that ANYONE who places their trust in Christ to save them they will be saved. Even you, but thus far you are still relying on your works to save you.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

How about those who ACCEPT Christ--did they do that based on their own choice and therefore get the credit for making a wise choice? Or do you have a double standard?

Those who come to Christ choose to come to Him. What credit is there for admitting you are a sinner, that you can't make it on your own, and that you are trusting in the completed work of Christ to save you?

[MacG]

Dosesn't this?:
Mt15:23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once." The chosen and the grafted.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Bible says that ANYONE who places their trust in Christ to save them they will be saved.

And that contradicts your belief that Christ failed or refused to die for most of humanity. If He failed or refused to die for most of us, then there is NO CHANCE for most of us to be saved, and makes Jesus a liar when He says that He wants everyone to be saved. If He wanted everyone to be saved, then He would have died for everyone, giving everyone an equal opportunity to benefit from that sacrifice. How can people benefit from a sacrifice that was never made for them? That is the huge, gaping hole in our Calvinism.

Even you, but thus far you are still relying on your works to save you.

Wrong. I am relying on Jesus to keep His promise that since He died for all of us, then eternal life is available to all of us, and all we have to do is obey Him.

Those who come to Christ choose to come to Him.

So you think it's a false doctrine that Calvinism teaches, that the only ones who come to Him did so NOT by their own free will, but were compelled to by God's irresistible grace?

What credit is there for admitting you are a sinner, that you can't make it on your own, and that you are trusting in the completed work of Christ to save you?

Simple: If all of us are free to choose either eternal life or eternal death, then one of those choices is an extremely wise choice, don't you think? So shouldn't those who make that wise choice get some credit for making the wise choice instead of the foolish choice? If they give all the credit to God because they believe He forced the decision on them, THAT'S when they would say they deserve none of the credit for choosing to obey God instead of choosing to reject Him.

So which group are you in, Billy? The "We get the credit or blame for our wise or foolish choices" group? Or the dysfunctional "We get all the blame if we end up in hell, but God gets all the credit if we end up in heaven" group, aka the Calvinists?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

And that contradicts your belief that [U]Christ failed or refused to die for most of humanity

Not at all but since you seem to think so tell me what contradiction you are speaking about?

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

If He failed or refused to die for most of us, then there is NO CHANCE for most of us to be saved, and makes Jesus a liar when He says that He wants everyone to be saved.

Each person has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for this choice. And this is clearly stated in the Bible.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

How can people benefit from a sacrifice that was never made for them? That is the huge, gaping hole in our Calvinism.

Those who reject Christ could benefit from the sacrifice of Christ is they placed their faith in Christ but they have refused to do so. And this is known by God before you are even born.


The problem you are having with this Jeff is you are trying to understand this from God's perspective and from his understanding but you or I can't fully understand it. But what we do know is what God has said in his word and we should believe his word. For example how do you explain how God knows every single thing you will do from the start of your life until you die and these events are fixed before you are even born YET you still claim to have free will (from your perspective)?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

The Bible says that ANYONE who places their trust in Christ to save them they will be saved. Even you, but thus far you are still relying on your works to save you.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Wrong. I am relying on Jesus to keep His promise that since He died for all of us, then eternal life is available to all of us, and all we have to do is obey Him.

Mormon speak for works based salvation.

Let me ask you who perfectly obeys the commandments? Certainly not you. Right?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So you think it's a false doctrine that Calvinism teaches, that the only ones who come to Him did so NOT by their own free will, but were compelled to by God's irresistible grace?

Jeff you keep bringing up "free will" can you tell me how you are defining this term because everyone seems to define it differently?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Simple: If all of us are free to choose either eternal life or eternal death, then one of those choices is an extremely wise choice, don't you think? So shouldn't those who make that wise choice get some credit for making the wise choice instead of the foolish choice? If they give all the credit to God because they believe He forced the decision on them, THAT'S when they would say they deserve none of the credit for choosing to obey God instead of choosing to reject Him.

So which group are you in, Billy? The "We get the credit or blame for our wise or foolish choices" group? Or the dysfunctional "We get all the blame if we end up in hell, but God gets all the credit if we end up in heaven" group, aka the Calvinists?

We all make choices and each one of us has the choice to accept Christ or reject him. God is not forcing you to reject Him or His gospel. Do you feel forced?

[MacG]

So is Tytus 3:6 "whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Each person has a choice to either accept Christ or reject him and they are responsible for this choice.

So you are saying that Calvin was a false teacher and he taught a false, heretical, unChristian doctrine when he taught that every choice we make, whether good or evil, was ordained and decreed by God?

Those who reject Christ could benefit from the sacrifice of Christ is they placed their faith in Christ but they have refused to do so.

In what ways do people who Christ refused--or failed--to die for, benefit by placing their faith in Him? If He didn't care enough about them to die for them, then they have no hope for salvation, no matter who they place their trust in.

The problem you are having with this Jeff is you are trying to understand this from God's perspective and from his understanding

Actually, I am trying, and succeeding, to understand how loving, merciful, and fair God and His Son are. And I am using common sense when I read the Bible, which helps immensely in that undertaking.

But what we do know is what God has said in his word and we should believe his word.

I do believe His word, since I believe Him where He says that He wants all of us to come to Christ, and He doesn't want any of us to perish. Plus all those other Bible verses that Dberrie quoted for you, that support such an idea. Yes, I believe those verses. The question is why you don't want to believe them, and instead want to interpret the Bible so it makes God seem like a capricious tyrant, like Calvin and Edwards portrayed Him to be.

For example how do you explain how God knows every single thing you will do from the start of your life until you die and these events are fixed before you are even born YET you still claim to have free will (from your perspective)?

That's not such a hard thing to explain. Anyone who can see into the future can see what a person will do in certain situations. That doesn't mean that the person is rendered unable to make choices. This is simple logic.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So you are saying that Calvin was a false teacher and he taught a false, heretical, unChristian doctrine when he taught that every choice we make, whether good or evil, was ordained and decreed by God?

Jeff the Bible teaches that we each have a choice to make in either accepting Christ or rejecting him and that we are responsible for that choice.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Actually, I am trying, and succeeding, to understand how loving, merciful, and fair God and His Son are. And I am using common sense when I read the Bible, which helps immensely in that undertaking. . .

. . .That's not such a hard thing to explain. Anyone who can see into the future can see what a person will do in certain situations. That doesn't mean that the person is rendered unable to make choices. This is simple logic.

If God knows everything you will do in the future, before you were even born, can you choose anything different then what has already set in stone?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff the Bible teaches that we each have a choice to make in either accepting Christ or rejecting him and that we are responsible for that choice.

So Calvin was a false teacher who the Bible warned us to beware of because he would decimate the flock like a wolf in sheep's clothing?

If God knows everything you will do in the future, before you were even born, can you choose anything different then what has already set in stone?

The answer, of course, is the simple tautology: You WON'T choose anything other than the choices that you WILL make.

That doesn't mean that you have no freedom to make choices, silly.

This is one of Calvin's big logical mistakes: He jumped to the incorrect conclusion that if God can see into the future, just like a prophet can, and if God is omnipotent, then God forces us to make the choices we will make, and we have no freedom to choose any thought or action other than what God has decreed that we will do. Which makes us all mere puppets, with God's hand inside us, directing everything we do, and we are unable to act in opposition to that script that God wrote for us.

Thus the idea of predestination, where if God designed/programmed you be one of the elect, then there's no way you can choose the devil because that would defy God's sovereignty. And if God designed/programmed you to end up in hell, then there is literally nothing you can do to change your fate. It is impossible for you to end up in heaven. You have no hope, because if there was a CHANCE that you could end up in heaven, it would defy God's sovereignty as the puppet master. Letting US decide where we will end up would make US the script writers. And that is not allowed in Calvinism.