GABRIEL PROKSCH - 17 January 2008 10:34 AM

Gabriel, since these issues have been thorroughly discussed, the question becomes, what mutual ground do we have between our different views of reality where we could meet and discuss the lesser issues of adventisms pros and cons?

I’m not sure I fully understand your question, I raised only the question if it is for our benefit to do again what we previously did in responding to a challenge which was already dealt with. Inevitably we will repeat ourselves and when the information is already available, it is easy and less time consuming to look at the information already available.

I don’t know how much time others have, I only know that I have my time constraints and I can give only short replies.

Yes, you are not going to change your mind and I am not going to change my mind so are we wasting our time having this discussion?

You said

Only if it can also be shown that Jesus is restrictive with whom He reveals the Father to

Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.  For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.  This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Mat. 13:10-13

So only the 12 were elect? Obviously that is not the case considering that the gospels tell of many other people comming to faith in Jesus, often without having heard any preaching by Him. Those who came to Him with medical ailments are a case in point.

You said

Tell me, if I read Genesis 6:6 and explained it saying that God repented of making humans and wished He had not done so, am I then reading in my own ideas to get around the plain sense of the text? Or would I be reading around and trying to avoid the plain text if I say that Moses wrote this part as an antrophomorphism when he ascribed repentance to God?

Figures of speech are figures of speech, as far as I’m concerned I’m not interpreting John 6 by neglecting to recognize the figures of speech. I recognize what Jesus meant when he said that he’s the bread of life, and tell people to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Comparing John 6 with Genesis 6 is comparing apples with oranges.

Jesus calling Himself the bread of life and God telling us He repented of making humans are indeed apples and oranges. In the first case there is no reason to doubt it is a figgure of speach since Jesus is indeed a human and not a loaf of bread, in the second there is no indication that it would be a figgure of speach, that is unless we have already decided before reading the text that God cannot repent and any sentence indicating that God could repent therefore cannot be true by default. What we bring into the bible affects how we read it.

You said

I think that it is rather so that what you view as reading around and what you view as the plain reading of the text depends on what worldview and what view of God you are starting with. From a reformed point of view, every text or explanation of a text that does not account for God sovereignly electing some and not electing others implies figgure of speach or taking pains to explain away the clear meaning of the text. Not so for those who have a different startingpoint.

What for you means taking pains to explain away the clear meaning of the text is for us sound exegesis which takes in view the other elements presented in the narrative, context, the original language, linguistics, and what for you is the clear meaning of the text is for us a superficial look to the biblical text without depth.  Regarding the different startingpoints the reformed view had not started with predestination, but with total depravity.

The point of start is the depravity of man, if man has freedom of the will, or he had lost it after the fall. If man is indeed “dead in the trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), if the words of Jesus are true “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34), if men are “sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14) and “know that nothing good dwells in me” (Rom. 7:14) and they may “have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.” (Rom. 7:14), we have a biblical point of start in which predestination is not only good, but absolute necessary for salvation. Since man is not able to be saved by an act of his will, he can be saved only by an act of God’s will. On the other side, if we still think that we have the ability to come to Christ, to choose what is right instead of what is wrong in the spiritual realm, to choose Christ and do good instead of devil and sin, we will come to see predestination as a negation of man’s liberty, of his freedom to choose what he wants. 

Or then God elects everyone ever to be born for life and thus supplies the divine power for everyone to be saved, but some people reject God and resist His efforts to be saved.

I think that the sin and man’s lost condition is the point of start in discussing the gospel an what this involves, from what kind of situation we are saved, etc. etc.

That is a good place to start but the reformed path is neither the only nor do I think the best path to take from there.

Gabriel

.

västergötland - 17 January 2008 12:31 PM

That is a good place to start but the reformed path is neither the only nor do I think the best path to take from there.

västergötland, please tell us the superior path to take. What is the good news if it is not that God has completely secured the salvation of his children through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?

Greg

Greg - 17 January 2008 12:49 PM

västergötland - 17 January 2008 12:31 PM

That is a good place to start but the reformed path is neither the only nor do I think the best path to take from there.

västergötland, please tell us the superior path to take. What is the good news if it is not that God has completely secured the salvation of his children through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus?

Greg

Let me ask, who is saying anything differently than that? I am not aware of any path that does not include your statement above.

The point I am trying to make is that I believe the Reformed understanding is truly the best “good news”, because it does not make you responsible for procuring your own salvation, instead, it asks you to receive salvation as a gift, by faith. This is certainly in sharp distinction to the gospel of John Wesley, Charles Finney, Ellen White, and many others. For example, where is the good news in Ellen White’s investigative judgment, where even one unconfessed sin will disqualify a sinner from eternity with Jesus?

Greg

Hi all, I was looking for something else entirely when I came up with this. I’ve been following the conversation on this thread so I thought I’d throw this in.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/tonyqa/tc02-140.htm

Question

Can an unregenerate man, a man with a fallen nature, make a decision for Christ with the assistance of the Holy Spirit?

Answer

Yes, and ONLY with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, for it is the Holy Spirit who enlightens and “gives” the faith to believe.  In fact, it is the ability of an unregenerate person to repent-believe-submit that gives clear evidence of a genuine Spirit led salvation.

Question (continued)

When the fallen man makes his decision for Christ, He is baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ and having been baptized by the Holy Spirit upon (not before) belief, he is now regenerate--is that right?

Answer (continued)

Yes, when the fallen man or woman, makes the decision for Christ (as guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit) then the Holy Spirit comes and indwells the new believer (like a Baptism, being completely immersed by the Spirit).  The timing of this is all very quick.  The person makes a genuine commitment to Christ by Faith, and instantly they are saved and indwelt.

Added to Bible Bulletin Board’s “Tony Capoccia’s Questions and Answers” by:
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Our websites: http://www.biblebb.com and http://www.gospelgems.com
Email:
Online since 1986

For what they’re worth, here are my thoughts

This seems to answer the question as to how unregenerate man with a fallen nature, makes a decision for Christ: by the assistance of the omnipotent, omniscient God, the Holy Spirit. Based on this answer I would surely accept, that with God’s assistance, ALL would make a decision for Christ - BUT THEY DON’T!

I see three possible answers (the object of this post is to find alternatives to these answers)

1. God is limited and cannot assist some to make a choice for Christ. Possibly all men are not equally unregenerate and sinful and God simply cannot assist the ‘hard cases’.

2. God is not limited but does not give the assistance necessary for unregenerate, sinful man to make a choice for Christ. God arbitrarily chooses to dispense or withhold sufficient assistance or possibly all men are not equally unregenerate and sinful and God simply refuses to assist the ‘hard cases’.

3. God is not limited and simply does not depend on unregenerate, sinful man to make a choice for Christ. We are all ‘hard cases’ and would never choose God, instead God chooses man. Why only some and not all? I haven’t a clue.

4. ?

John Douglas

Greg - 17 January 2008 01:53 PM

The point I am trying to make is that I believe the Reformed understanding is truly the best “good news”, because it does not make you responsible for procuring your own salvation, instead, it asks you to receive salvation as a gift, by faith. This is certainly in sharp distinction to the gospel of John Wesley, Charles Finney, Ellen White, and many others. For example, where is the good news in Ellen White’s investigative judgment, where even one unconfessed sin will disqualify a sinner from eternity with Jesus?

Greg

It asks? With an irresistable question? The problem as you are propably very well aware is not salvation as a gift by faith but that some are chosen for life and others are chosen for death and none of them really has any say in it. Another problem is that if noone can do anything outside of Gods will, it means that God is really sanctioning sin, even while saying that He absolutely abhors it. How does this not reduce consistency within God?

I don’t know much about the investigative judgement, but more interesting is how to fit with the controversy warfare view.

västergötland, have you considered that because of sin, nobody deserves forgiveness or salvation? Have you considered that God would be perfectly just in condemning all of us because of Adam’s original sin and our continued rebellion against Him?

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and as such, had perfect freedom to obey or disobey God. They chose disobedience. Because of this original sin, all of humanity since has been in bondage to sin and as such, cannot choose to be free of it (see Romans 5:12-14, Romans 3:10-20).

Therefore, God is being supremely merciful to save people from the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. By saving some and not others, He is no way the source of sin! James 1:13-15 says that God tempts nobody, but it is our own desire that causes us to sin. Where did we get that desire? It came from Adam, not from God.

Our natural inclination is to label God as unfair for choosing to save some and not others. But God has already answered this objection: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” (Romans 9:14-15 ESV). And later: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:19-20 ESV). Before concluding that these passages only describe general groups of people rather than individuals, we must consider that the same chapter refers to Moses, Jacob, Esau and Pharoah as individuals who were bound by God’s sovereign choice.

To summarize: God would be perfectly fair if He saved nobody. If He saves some and is generous in this work, who are we to point the finger at Him as being unjust? If anything, we should point the finger at ourselves and our original parents for the sin that they embraced when they chose to believe the serpent’s lies about God (Genesis 3:1-7).

And last but not least, västergötland, I recommend that you study the only unique doctrine that the Adventist church can lay claim to—the investigative judgment. Ellen White said that this teaching (including the 1844 sanctuary message), is the platform of truth upon which the church rests. Don’t you think you owe it to yourself to discover the platform upon which your church rests? Would you be surprised if I told you that one of the most prominent Adventist theologians was barred from the ministry because he found biblical evidence to disprove Ellen White’s teaching on this subject? Would it upset you to know that many theologians and pastors since have lost their ability to work in the Adventist church because they cannot endorse what the prophet said on this subject? Would it concern you that the current president of the denomination says that the church has not moved an inch from this doctrine, even though it continues to be poorly understood by the majority of its members?

I don’t bring these things to your attention to upset you or even to win an argument. I bring them to your attention because I am sincerely troubled by the anti-gospel message of Adventism, and that the viability of the church and its prophet are more important than biblical truth.

Greg

The problem as you are propably very well aware is not salvation as a gift by faith but that some are chosen for life and others are chosen for death and none of them really has any say in it. Another problem is that if noone can do anything outside of Gods will, it means that God is really sanctioning sin, even while saying that He absolutely abhors it. How does this not reduce consistency within God?

Maybe, maybe not. If we allow our logic to dominate the scene, from our human limited and affected by sin perspective God ‘s sovereignty as it is revealed in the Bible does not fit our concepts of justice at all. I just finished the book of Job and watched job fighting with his unbelief, his doubts, and at the same time his friends accusing Job of being a willful sinner since they could not, in their mind, conceive that God could allow Job to suffer such things if Job would not be a willful sinner. Job acknowledges the validity of their objections but he is perplexed because he knows himself to be innocent of any sins his friends accused him, and asks for an explanation from God since he feels that he suffers unjustly. We can see his struggle with God at this point in his life when God appears to be unjust to Job.

For his friends the issue was black and white: Job is innocent and God is to be blamed, or God is innocent and Job is guilty. Because job could not raise above the rational thinking of his friends, he cannot defend himself in such a way to show God as just. What he did was not show his friends that he’s not the only case in which God’s justice is brought under question, and in this world often the wicked men are living a good life and the righteous men are living a miserable life. 

At the end, God steps on the scene and talks first with Job in such a way that Job recognizes his limits in understanding God’s justice, and kneels before God’s sovereignty, recognizing that the issue its above his head.

“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Job 42:2,3

When it comes to the subject of God’s sovereignty in election, and other questions related to God’s will, if we allow our rational thinking to dominate the scene instead of recognizing our limits and submit to God’s revelation in His written word, we will never be able to know God and worship him properly, because instead of trusting the revelation he gave about himself, we will judge him according to our standards of justice which are too limited and affected by sin.

When dealing with God’s sovereignty we are on holy ground and first of all we should bow our heads and kneel before the holy God.  Maybe this is not the case here, but I saw often the subject discussed without the proper reverence that it requires. Even if we differ on the answers, let us be united in our attitude toward the subject.

I recognize that this subject is a “hot” subject and a lot of sentiments are involved, with a hight potential of conflict, and also potential of misunderstanding. Maybe Greg and Stan are willing to engage in debating the subject, I will not engage at this moment because I had eaten my portion of insults in debating predestination. Sorry ...

Gabriel

Greg - 18 January 2008 08:13 AM

västergötland, have you considered that because of sin, nobody deserves forgiveness or salvation? Have you considered that God would be perfectly just in condemning all of us because of Adam’s original sin and our continued rebellion against Him?

Yes I have.

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and as such, had perfect freedom to obey or disobey God. They chose disobedience. Because of this original sin, all of humanity since has been in bondage to sin and as such, cannot choose to be free of it (see Romans 5:12-14, Romans 3:10-20).

Therefore, God is being supremely merciful to save people from the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. By saving some and not others, He is no way the source of sin! James 1:13-15 says that God tempts nobody, but it is our own desire that causes us to sin. Where did we get that desire? It came from Adam, not from God.

Indeed God is mercifull and His alone is the decision to save people. And ours is the blame for the sin we choose to do. This of course depends upon our having the capacity to choose. (A choise requires at least two options to be a choise).

Our natural inclination is to label God as unfair for choosing to save some and not others. But God has already answered this objection: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” (Romans 9:14-15 ESV). And later: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:19-20 ESV). Before concluding that these passages only describe general groups of people rather than individuals, we must consider that the same chapter refers to Moses, Jacob, Esau and Pharoah as individuals who were bound by God’s sovereign choice.

Not I alone making that conclusion but the context itself.

To summarize: God would be perfectly fair if He saved nobody. If He saves some and is generous in this work, who are we to point the finger at Him as being unjust? If anything, we should point the finger at ourselves and our original parents for the sin that they embraced when they chose to believe the serpent’s lies about God (Genesis 3:1-7).

Yes, God could have chosen not to save anyone, and yes He could have chosen to save only a few. But neither of those two are the God we meet in the scriptures.

And last but not least, västergötland, I recommend that you study the only unique doctrine that the Adventist church can lay claim to—the investigative judgment. Ellen White said that this teaching (including the 1844 sanctuary message), is the platform of truth upon which the church rests. Don’t you think you owe it to yourself to discover the platform upon which your church rests? Would you be surprised if I told you that one of the most prominent Adventist theologians was barred from the ministry because he found biblical evidence to disprove Ellen White’s teaching on this subject? Would it upset you to know that many theologians and pastors since have lost their ability to work in the Adventist church because they cannot endorse what the prophet said on this subject? Would it concern you that the current president of the denomination says that the church has not moved an inch from this doctrine, even though it continues to be poorly understood by the majority of its members?

None of what you tell me is news, but it does not concern me because I claim only one platform for my church. And that is Jesus Christ. No better foundation can be found and none can make it any better than it already is.

I don’t bring these things to your attention to upset you or even to win an argument. I bring them to your attention because I am sincerely troubled by the anti-gospel message of Adventism, and that the viability of the church and its prophet are more important than biblical truth.

Greg

Your concern is appreciated.

First, I am sorry some would get down to insults when discussing. I hope I have not said anything that have insulted you, if I have, let me appologize.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 18 January 2008 09:34 AM

Maybe, maybe not. If we allow our logic to dominate the scene, from our human limited and affected by sin perspective God ‘s sovereignty as it is revealed in the Bible does not fit our concepts of justice at all.

But when it is not a question of logic dominating over revelation but a question of consistency within the revelation itself. Surely you will agree that Gods revelation is selfconsistent and rational?

I just finished the book of Job and watched job fighting with his unbelief, his doubts, and at the same time his friends accusing Job of being a willful sinner since they could not, in their mind, conceive that God could allow Job to suffer such things if Job would not be a willful sinner. Job acknowledges the validity of their objections but he is perplexed because he knows himself to be innocent of any sins his friends accused him, and asks for an explanation from God since he feels that he suffers unjustly. We can see his struggle with God at this point in his life when God appears to be unjust to Job.

For his friends the issue was black and white: Job is innocent and God is to be blamed, or God is innocent and Job is guilty. Because job could not raise above the rational thinking of his friends, he cannot defend himself in such a way to show God as just. What he did was not show his friends that he’s not the only case in which God’s justice is brought under question, and in this world often the wicked men are living a good life and the righteous men are living a miserable life. 

The narrator adds satan to the picture, putting the blame on him. Job and his friends of course know nothing about this, but what are we who read to make out of it?

At the end, God steps on the scene and talks first with Job in such a way that Job recognizes his limits in understanding God’s justice, and kneels before God’s sovereignty, recognizing that the issue its above his head.

“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Job 42:2,3

What Job does not say is that everything that happens would be Gods purpose, because if that would be the case Jobs missery would also have been Gods purpose.

When it comes to the subject of God’s sovereignty in election, and other questions related to God’s will, if we allow our rational thinking to dominate the scene instead of recognizing our limits and submit to God’s revelation in His written word, we will never be able to know God and worship him properly, because instead of trusting the revelation he gave about himself, we will judge him according to our standards of justice which are too limited and affected by sin.

I think that everything I have said is backed by Gods selfrevelation in scripture. You also think that everything you have said is backed by the same revelation. Yet we have opposite understandings on some issues. How can that be? And who is to judge between us to say that your understanding is supperior to mine or mine to yours?

When dealing with God’s sovereignty we are on holy ground and first of all we should bow our heads and kneel before the holy God.  Maybe this is not the case here, but I saw often the subject discussed without the proper reverence that it requires. Even if we differ on the answers, let us be united in our attitude toward the subject.

I recognize that this subject is a “hot” subject and a lot of sentiments are involved, with a hight potential of conflict, and also potential of misunderstanding. Maybe Greg and Stan are willing to engage in debating the subject, I will not engage at this moment because I had eaten my portion of insults in debating predestination. Sorry ...

Gabriel

Be blessed

Just wondering:

Did Adam & Eve exercise free will?

Is it fair to use the example of sinless Adam and Eve in their exercise of free will to choose, when they chose against God?

Given their total failure, is this an object lesson to reveal that even sinless man, in exercising his free will, will inevitably make the wrong choice?

Can we compare the exercise of free will by sinless Adam and Eve to that of sinful man?

Is the result of the sinless Adam & Eve’s exercise of their free will always applicable to the free will choice of sinful man?

Or, will the exercise of free will by sinful man produce better results than that of sinless man? 

If so, is our exercise of free will somehow superior to Adam & Eve’s?

Does sinful man have an innate ability to ‘see through’ Satan’s deceptions that they lacked?

Is our knowledge of God superior to that of Adam & Eve’s thereby aiding us to make the ‘right’ choice?

Is there something more He is revealing to us through the assistance of the Holy Spirit to cause us to choose for God that Adam and Eve lacked?

Where is the evidence that, in exercising free will, sinful man succeeds where sinless Adam & Eve failed?

John Douglas

John, those are some tough questions. But I think your question about our free will compared to Adam and Eve’s is particularly insightful. Because of Adam’s sin, all have inherited the sin nature and as such, are spiritually “dead” in sins. Sinners are not merely “wounded” or even “mortally wounded”, they are described in Scripture as “dead” (Ephesians 2:5). Dead people don’t need a medical remedy to be resuscitated, they need a miracle.

The gospel is not like a simple medical remedy, nor is it a sophisticated life-support mechanism to keep people alive until they can make a choice to live. The gospel is miraculous, and anyone who sees Jesus as the only One who can rescue them from sin has received the miracle.

Most of the Christian world paints the gospel as a simple remedy, in essence, diluting it of its power. At the same time, the utter sinfulness of sin and the depravity of man that the Bible describes as “death” is reduced to merely a spiritual illness that can be reversed if only the sinner can take the right steps to begin the healing process. What results is a cheapened view of God’s grace and a diluted view of our sin problem, and worse, a Christian life that can be filled with sickness, wellness, and all other emotions depending on how “connected” one may feel at any given time. If we could see that God connects to us and fills us with His grace, our lives would be transformed. Sadly, most don’t believe this.

Stan talked about the practical aspects of clinging to God’s sovereignty. I just want to recall the testimony of a quadraplegic named John Farese, whose entire existence is spent confined to a bed, utterly dependent upon others for help. Given his circumstances, it would not be surprising if he lashed out at the world and at God, but instead his life is filled with gratitude. You can read about it and watch a video clip of his testimony here.

I praise God for men like John Farese who put my faith to shame and who demonstrate the awesome power of God’s sovereign grace.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Greg

I just discovered that the guy who had talked with James White has transcribed the conversation he had and it is available on his site, at this link

http://biblelight.net/JP2-in-heaven.htm

His name is Michael Scheifler and you can see what is his background.

Gabriel

Interesting find, Gabriel. Check out this page on his site: http://biblelight.net/Whats-new.htm

Look at the picture at the top of the page and see the advertisement for Doug Batchelor’s new series entitled, “Here we Stand”. Borrowing (stealing) this title from Luther’s famous defense of justification by faith alone, Batchelor’s presentation is billed as follows:

“Join speaker Pastor Doug Batchelor for 10 thrilling messages of restoration and reformation that will cover crucial Bible teachings such as the law and the gospel, the Sabbath, state of the dead, spirit of prophecy, true revival, and more! These messages will present an exciting opportunity to fortify your faith, ignite your passion for soul-winning, and brace your heart to stand for truth in the last days.”

I’m alarmed at the ease with which Batchelor co-opts the terminology of the Protestant Reformation to teach the heterodox brand of Christianity that is Seventh-day Adventism. “True revival” apparently must include teaching on the Sabbath, state of the dead and the spirit of prophecy. I guess Martin Luther only had a fraction of the story when he stood for biblical truth against the Roman Catholic church, and Batchelor’s new reformation adopts Luther’s words to stand against the very movement he began.

Greg

JONVIL - 19 January 2008 08:43 AM

Just wondering:

Did Adam & Eve exercise free will?

Is it fair to use the example of sinless Adam and Eve in their exercise of free will to choose, when they chose against God?

Given their total failure, is this an object lesson to reveal that even sinless man, in exercising his free will, will inevitably make the wrong choice?

Can we compare the exercise of free will by sinless Adam and Eve to that of sinful man?

Is the result of the sinless Adam & Eve’s exercise of their free will always applicable to the free will choice of sinful man?

Or, will the exercise of free will by sinful man produce better results than that of sinless man? 

If so, is our exercise of free will somehow superior to Adam & Eve’s?

Does sinful man have an innate ability to ‘see through’ Satan’s deceptions that they lacked?

Is our knowledge of God superior to that of Adam & Eve’s thereby aiding us to make the ‘right’ choice?

Is there something more He is revealing to us through the assistance of the Holy Spirit to cause us to choose for God that Adam and Eve lacked?

Where is the evidence that, in exercising free will, sinful man succeeds where sinless Adam & Eve failed?

John Douglas

Excellent questions Jonvil. You are ready to start a Reformed movement in your SDA Sabbath SChool class (smiley!)

SDAs like the Pastor Williams who was trying to defend the sanctuary doctrine on another thread, keep using the argument of Adam and Eve’s free will before the fall to compare man’s free will after the fall.

This type of thinking shows how fatally flawed many SDAs view on salvation is. Since they deny the existence of the human spirit that must be regenerated, they somehow think that the fall of man only affected his mind to a certain degree, and therefore the human mind can use the free will which God gave originally to Adam and EVe in the pre-fall state, and use this God created free will to come to Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit prompting them.

They totally deny what Jesus said in John 6, and they don’t understand what the new birth means that Jesus spoke about in John 3, which is the context of the famous verse taken out of context John 3:16.

Stan