Understanding God’s election

[PaulThomson]

There's no text in scripture that teaches that man comes into this world in a state of innocence or moral/spiritual neutrality. That's your personal piece of fiction.

Psa 106:38
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Psa 58:3
The wicked turn aside (ZoR-U: qal perfect) since the womb (Me-RaCheM) they went astray (Tha'-U: qal perfect) as soon since the belly (Mi-BeTeN), speaking lies.

 

[PaulThomson]

Rufus said:
There's no text in scripture that teaches that man comes into this world in a state of innocence or moral/spiritual neutrality. That's your personal piece of fiction.

Paul Thomson:
The last verse was carelessly emended. I left "as soon" in the verse. There is no "as soon as" in the Hebrew.

Psa 106:38
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Psa 58:3
The wicked turn/turned aside (ZoR-U: qal perfect) since the womb (Me-RaCheM; not "in the womb" (Be-ReCheM) they go/went astray (Tha'-U: qal perfect) since the belly (Mi-BeTeN; not in the belly Bi-BeTeN), speaking lies.

Scripture makes no claim that we are born sinful, but says we depart from what we were in the womb to turn aside and go astray and become sinners.

 

[Rufus]

Mat 7:18
A good tree (agathon dendron) is not able (ou dunatai: present tense) to bring keep on bringing forth (poiein: present infinitive, has a continuous present sense) evil fruit (ponErous karpous), neither (oude) [is able] a corrupt tree (sapron dendron) to keep on bringing forth (poiein: present infinitive, has a continuous present sense) good fruit (kalous karpous).

the verse clearly does not say that a good tree is only able to be bringing forth good fruit, nor that the evil tree is only able to be bringing forth evil fruit. The point Jesus is making is that good trees produce mostly good fruit, and the evil trees produce mostly evil fruit.

So anyone can do good sometimes. Even the pharisees could give good gifts sometimes, to people like their own children.

Yes, "the Pharisees" could give "good" gifts even though there was no good thing in their flesh. This is because when they gave those "good gifts", their motive was not to glorify God, which is man's chief end. Moreover, have you never read:

Luke 13:6-9
6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'" ?
NIV

 

[Rufus]

Rufus said:
There's no text in scripture that teaches that man comes into this world in a state of innocence or moral/spiritual neutrality. That's your personal piece of fiction.

Paul Thomson:
The last verse was carelessly emended. I left "as soon" in the verse. There is no "as soon as" in the Hebrew.

Psa 106:38
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Psa 58:3
The wicked turn/turned aside (ZoR-U: qal perfect) since the womb (Me-RaCheM; not "in the womb" (Be-ReCheM) they go/went astray (Tha'-U: qal perfect) since the belly (Mi-BeTeN; not in the belly Bi-BeTeN), speaking lies.

Scripture makes no claim that we are born sinful, but says we depart from what we were in the womb to turn aside and go astray and become sinners.

The sons and daughters in Ps 106 are "innocent" only in the sense that they didn't have true experiential knowledge of good and evil. "Innocent" doesn't mean they didn't have a sin nature or that they didn't sin -- only that they were too young to understand what good and evil is.

And of course, the wicked don't sin when in the womb, they sin after they exit the womb, as all of us did. Since man cannot not sin, then this can only mean man is a sinner by nature. Of course, the sin nature itself is inherited at conception, but their sin is never manifested to the world until after they are born.

Ps 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
ESV

And, no, David is not teaching that his mother was a slut and bore him out of wedlock, or bore him by committing adultery, which is the standard FWT retort. And besides, it was God who made David to trust in Him! David's faith originated from God!

Ps 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
NIV

So...not only was Moses a Calvinist, but so was David. Kool, huh? I think so, even though you very likely read 9b as saying, "you FORCED me trust in you..." You coerced me to believe in you. You didn't give me an opportunity to exercise my own "freewill", but subverted it instead.

 

[Rufus]

Without regard to the source of its origin, I think we would all agree that faith brought forth good fruit in Abel, and specifically faith in Christ since Abel likely heard Adam and Eve's account of God's word even if he, Abel, didn't hear from God Himself. But scripture clearly lets us know that Cain, himself, did hear directly from God, i.e. "if you do well...but if not, sin crouches...and its desire is for you..." but his, Cain's, deeds were fleshly, led by his jealousy or hatred or whatever physical emotion. Cain's work was not at all compelled by faith (which he would've done well to do) faith is spiritual in nature because one goes by that which one does not see when one walks by faith.
Why would waste time explaining to Cain, "IF you do well...then" if God was fully aware that Cain could not do well even if he'd wanted, i.e. willed, to? Cain paid homage to his own emotional desire to sin rather than to God's, and so sin owned him.

How did Abel's flesh (sin nature) produce this faith; for those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8)?

Re your question I bolded: Ask yourself why God would give His Holy Law to Israel and require them to keep his covenant of law perfectly, even though He knew perfectly well they would never be able to do what He commanded?

 

[wwjdmichael101]

"He chose us in him before the creation of the world" is understood in the context of God's foreknowledge. I believe that God, in His omniscience, knew who would choose to accept or reject His offer of salvation before the world was created. This foreknowledge doesn't negate human free will but rather acknowledges it.

 

[PaulThomson]

The sons and daughters in Ps 106 are "innocent" only in the sense that they didn't have true experiential knowledge of good and evil. "Innocent" doesn't mean they didn't have a sin nature or that they didn't sin -- only that they were too young to understand what good and evil is.

And of course, the wicked don't sin when in the womb, they sin after they exit the womb, as all of us did. Since man cannot not sin, then this can only mean man is a sinner by nature. Of course, the sin nature itself is inherited at conception, but their sin is never manifested to the world until after they are born.

Ps 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
ESV

And, no, David is not teaching that his mother was a slut and bore him out of wedlock, or bore him by committing adultery, which is the standard FWT retort. And besides, it was God who made David to trust in Him! David's faith originated from God!

Ps 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
NIV

So...not only was Moses a Calvinist, but so was David. Kool, huh? I think so, even though you very likely read 9b as saying, "you FORCED me trust in you..." You coerced me to believe in you. You didn't give me an opportunity to exercise my own "freewill", but subverted it instead.

Calvinists have spent centuries devising post hoc rationalisations for why the bible does not mean what it says according to common parlance. I was brought forth in a hospital and conceived in a bedroom. That does not mean I have had a bedroom and a hospital in me since I was conceived and born respectively.

A fish may be conceived in a kelp bed and hatch in the open sea, but that does not mean the fish has had a kelp bed and the open sea inside of it since it was conceived and hatched respectively. Any reasonable person can see from this that your proof text just does not affirm what you so confidently assume it does because your Calvinist coaches confidently programmed you to believe it does.

Have you ever made someone trust you? Did you do that by monergistically imparting your own trust in yourself into the other person? Or did you do and say things that showed your integrity to the other person so that you persuaded them to trust you. Words and phrases so often have a special uncommon meaning when applied to God in Calvinism in order to make scripture say what the calvinist wants it to say to support his/her LOUPI tenets.

 

[PaulThomson]

Yes, "the Pharisees" could give "good" gifts even though there was no good thing in their flesh. This is because when they gave those "good gifts", their motive was not to glorify God, which is man's chief end. Moreover, have you never read:

Luke 13:6-9
6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.'" ?
NIV

You have fallen into the hasty generalisation fallacy again, friend.

This is one particular tree which the archardist is asserting has not been producing any good fruit for three years. Can we reasonably assume that the orchardist is speaking literally and means absolutely no good fruit for three the last three years, or is he using hyperbole to express his frustration and there was a smattering of edible fruit among mostly diseased fruit? Can we reasonably assume the tree is only three years old, so has never produces any good fruit during its lifetime? Can we assume the tree is a lot older than three years, and has never had a year where most of the fruit was good. Is the parable about Jesus' tree years of ministry to Israel, and about Judaism not producing any faith during those three years (literally), or producing very little faith in those three years (hyperbolically).
Can we reasonably assume that because this one tree has failed to produce sufficient good fruit to justify it being kept alive, therefore no trees in the orchard have ever produced any good fruit?

Your interpretation of the parable makes a lot of rash assumptions and generalisations in order to make it fit the O of the Calvinist LOUPI doctrines, i.e.
Limited atonement
Omnifaceted imperfection.
Unconditional election
Perseverance of the saints
Irresistible grace.

 

[PaulThomson]

How did Abel's flesh (sin nature) produce this faith; for those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8)?

Re your question I bolded: Ask yourself why God would give His Holy Law to Israel and require them to keep his covenant of law perfectly, even though He knew perfectly well they would never be able to do what He commanded?

Original sin is a Fifth Century Augustinian/Roman Catholic invention. Those who do not see Original sin in scripture will not be persuaded by appeals to Original sin in order to bolster other claims about what scripture teaches. Abel was not always being controlled by His flesh. Sometimes Abel was looking at life from the perspective of His spirit and acting according to that perspective, which meant He was sometimes able to act with a faith that pleased God.

 

[PaulThomson]

Your original observation re: J6:35 was a good one IMO. I'd ask you to rethink this one. Look at all the wording in 6:35. Here's why:

► c. Emphatic Negation Subjunctive

1) Definition

Emphatic negation is indicated by οὐ μή plus the aorist subjunctive or, less frequently, οὐ μή plus the future indicative (e.g., Matt 26:35; Mark 13:31; John 4:14; 6:35). This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek.

One might think that the negative with the subjunctive could not be as strong as the negative with the indicative. However, while οὐ + the indicative denies a certainty, οὐ μή + the subjunctive denies a potentiality. The negative is not weaker; rather, the affirmation that is being negatived is less firm with the subjunctive. οὐ μή rules out even the idea as being a possibility: “ου μή is the most decisive way of negativing someth. in the future.”58

Emphatic negation is found primarily in the reported sayings of Jesus (both in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse); secondarily, in quotations from the LXX. Outside of these two sources it occurs only rarely. As well, a soteriological theme is frequently found in such statements, especially in John: what is negatived is the possibility of the loss of salvation.

2) Illustrations

Matt 24:35
οἱ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν59

My words will not at all pass away.

John 10:28
δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

I give them eternal life, and they will not at all perish.

John 11:26
πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ

Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

Rom 4:8
μακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν

Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not at all count.

Heb 13:5
οὐ μη´ σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾽ οὐ μη´ σε ἐγκαταλίπω60

I will not at all fail you nor will I ever leave you.

Cf. also Matt 5:18, 20; 13:14; Mark 9:1, 41; 13:2; Luke 6:37; 18:7; 21:18; John 6:37; 8:12, 51; 20:25; Acts 13:41; Gal 5:16; 1 Thess 5:3; Heb 8:12; 1 Pet 2:6; Rev 2:11; 3:5, 12; 21:27.

From Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace

I should respond to this. Yes, I concede your point, having looked at the examples of ou me + the aorist subjunctive. That construction does express "it's not possible in any way."

 

[Mem]

How did Abel's flesh (sin nature) produce this faith; for those controlled by the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8)?

Re your question I bolded: Ask yourself why God would give His Holy Law to Israel and require them to keep his covenant of law perfectly, even though He knew perfectly well they would never be able to do what He commanded?

Because Israel said they couldn't approach God for fear, but they told Moses, "Whatever God says, we will do..." So, effectively, they were asking for a way to approach God other than by trusting in His Grace.

 

[studier]

I should respond to this. Yes, I concede your point, having looked at the examples of ou me + the aorist subjunctive. That construction does express "it's not possible in any way."

Thanks Paul. As long as we're both conceding to the Truth we're doing well. You've had me rethinking a few things also.

 

[Rufus]

Calvinists have spent centuries devising post hoc rationalisations for why the bible does not mean what it says according to common parlance. I was brought forth in a hospital and conceived in a bedroom. That does not mean I have had a bedroom and a hospital in me since I was conceived and born respectively.

A fish may be conceived in a kelp bed and hatch in the open sea, but that does not mean the fish has had a kelp bed and the open sea inside of it since it was conceived and hatched respectively. Any reasonable person can see from this that your proof text just does not affirm what you so confidently assume it does because your Calvinist coaches confidently programmed you to believe it does.

Have you ever made someone trust you? Did you do that by monergistically imparting your own trust in yourself into the other person? Or did you do and say things that showed your integrity to the other person so that you persuaded them to trust you. Words and phrases so often have a special uncommon meaning when applied to God in Calvinism in order to make scripture say what the calvinist wants it to say to support his/her LOUPI tenets.

Can anyone born of a woman be pure? (Hint: Rhetorical question).

Job 4:17
17'Can mankind be just before God?
Can a man be pure before his Maker?
NAS

Job 25:4-6 / Ps 51:5 / Isa 48:8
4 "How then can a man be just with God?
Or how can he be clean who is born of woman?
5 "If even the moon has no brightness
And the stars are not pure in His sight,
6 How much less man, that maggot,
And the son of man, that worm!"
NASB

Isa 48:8
8 You have neither heard nor understood;
from of old your ear has not been open.
Well do I know how treacherous you are;
you were called a rebel from birth.
NIV

Job 15:14-16
14 "What is man, that he should be pure,
Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones,
And the heavens are not pure in His sight;
16 How much less one who is detestable and corrupt,
Man, who drinks iniquity like water!
NASB

Mankind is a rotten egg by NATURE! By NATURE the sons of men are objects of God's WRATH!

Eph 2:3
3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
NIV

And mankind doesn't acquire its nature after we're born. We are born WITH the sinful nature -- a nature inherited from Adam. Predators kill and eat their prey because it's their nature to do so. They don't acquire the predatory nature after they kill.

 

[Rufus]

Because Israel said they couldn't approach God for fear, but they told Moses, "Whatever God says, we will do..." So, effectively, they were asking for a way to approach God other than by trusting in His Grace.

And how did that promise Israel made work out historically for Israel? Were they covenant keepers or covenant breakers?

And you do realize that the Mosaic Law Covenant was in fact a conditional, bilateral covenant, right? But what kind of covenant is the New Covenant?

 

[Rufus]

Original sin is a Fifth Century Augustinian/Roman Catholic invention. Those who do not see Original sin in scripture will not be persuaded by appeals to Original sin in order to bolster other claims about what scripture teaches. Abel was not always being controlled by His flesh. Sometimes Abel was looking at life from the perspective of His spirit and acting according to that perspective, which meant He was sometimes able to act with a faith that pleased God.

That's your personal, subjective, wildly crazy assumption. Explain to me how Abel was able to trust God apart from GRACE! What made Abel different from the people in this passage:

Acts 18:27
27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.
NIV

What made Abel so different from the first century believers in the above text that Abel didn't need God's grace to believe?

And if you don't believe in Original Sin, then you're still dead in your sins! If Adam's sin was not imputed to all his posterity, then neither is the Second Adam's righteousness imputed to his people.

And by the way, the "innocent" children" you talked about earlier are those I described! They were not innocent because they were born righteous, holy and good. Rather, they were "innocent" in the sense of not attaining to a true knowledge of good and evil. And because they didn't have sufficient knowledge/understanding of good evil, God allowed them to enter the Land.

Deut 1:39
39 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them, and they shall possess it.
NASB

God allowed them into the Land even though foolishness (or folly) is bound up in children's hearts!

Gen 8:21
21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.
NIV

And,

Ps 58:3
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
NIV

And,

Job 14:4
4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure?
No one!
NIV

Just like no bad tree can bear good fruit!

 

[PaulThomson]

Can anyone born of a woman be pure? (Hint: Rhetorical question).

Job 4:17
17'Can mankind be just before God?
Can a man be pure before his Maker?
NAS

LOL you are citing the opinion of Eliphaz to support your position?

Job 4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said... "
17'Can mankind be just before God?
Can a man be pure before his Maker?

LOL. You are citing the opinion of a man about whom God said,

Job 32:3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

Job 42:7 ¶
And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right (Niphal/ Passive participle of KUN, to ascertain, to establish hence, something ascertained/established), as my servant Job hath.

You are using the words of a fool to support your position. What does that say about your position, friend?

Job 25:4-6
4 "How then can a man be just with God?
Or how can he be clean who is born of woman?
5 "If even the moon has no brightness
And the stars are not pure in His sight,
6 How much less man, that maggot,
And the son of man, that worm!"
NASB

LOL Now, to support your position, you are citing the opinion of a man who confesses later on He was speaking foolishly.

Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 40:4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
Job 40:5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

Job 42:3
Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Job 15:14-16
14 "What is man, that he should be pure,
Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones,
And the heavens are not pure in His sight;
16 How much less one who is detestable and corrupt,
Man, who drinks iniquity like water!
NASB

And you are citing the opinion of the fool Eliphaz again to support your position?

Job 15:1 Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said...
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

 

[PaulThomson]

That's your personal, subjective, wildly crazy assumption. Explain to me how Abel was able to trust God apart from GRACE!

You are like your father, Augustine who lied about Pelagius, falsely asserting that Pelagius claimed that grace was not needed to do what pleases God. I have never said any such thing.

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:



Have you ever made someone trust you? Did you do that by monergistically imparting your own trust in yourself into the other person? Or did you do and say things that showed your integrity to the other person so that you persuaded them to trust you. Words and phrases so often have a special uncommon meaning when applied to God in Calvinism in order to make scripture say what the calvinist wants it to say to support his/her LOUPI tenets.

Nope, I never have. But God has! I quoted the following passage yesterday, but you just let it fly over the hat rack that sits on top of your shoulders. I suppose it was just too inconvenient of a truth for you?

Ps 22:9-10
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
NIV

Wow! Imagine that! God FORCED David to trust in him!

So now the question becomes: Was God this evil dictator who "forced" his will upon David for evil purposes, or did God make David to trust in him for his own eternal spiritual good?

I know you're desperately trying to make God over in your image (which is very obvious with all your lame analogies) but you really should take Isa 55 to heart and understand that God doesn't think like you nor are his ways like yours.

 

[Rufus]

LOL you are citing the opinion of Eliphaz to support your position?

Job 4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said... "
17'Can mankind be just before God?
Can a man be pure before his Maker?

LOL. You are citing the opinion of a man about whom God said,

Job 32:3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

Job 42:7 ¶
And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right (Niphal/ Passive participle of KUN, to ascertain, to establish hence, something ascertained/established), as my servant Job hath.

You are using the words of a fool to support your position. What does that say about your position, friend?




LOL Now, to support your position, you are citing the opinion of a man who confesses later on He was speaking foolishly.

Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Job 40:4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
Job 40:5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

Job 42:3
Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.



And you are citing the opinion of the fool Eliphaz again to support your position?

Job 15:1 Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said...
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Yes, yes, I know you're not a big fan of the Book of Job. But just because Job's three buddies didn't understand that God doesn't operate on the Law of Retribution principle, and just because Job also subscribed to that error which, in turn led him to wax self-righteous, doesn't give you license to scrap the entire book of Job from the canon of scripture because there are too many inconvenient truths in the book that you despise. Just because Job and his three buddies were wrong in one specific area of theology doesn't mean they didn't understand any spiritual truth!

 

[Rufus]

You are like your father, Augustine who lied about Pelagius, falsely asserting that Pelagius claimed that grace was not needed to do what pleases God. I have never said any such thing.

But neither did you explicitly state it in Abel's case, Mr. Duplicitous. If Abel NEEDED God's grace in order to trust in Him -- just like those first century believers in Acts 18 did -- then how can that grace not be efficacious? I know you want to argue that God's saving grace is nothing more than a mere opportunity for smart, savvy, capable, deep-thinking, God-loving, God-fearing sinners to capitalize on it but Paul didn't say that in chapter 18. He said they actually believed BY his grace. Not by their freewill. Not by their free choice. Not by their own decision. But by God's grace. Here's a novel idea for you: Just as helpless sinners are saved by God's grace (Eph 2:8-9), so too powerless sinners believe by that same grace!