Romans2 (and predestination)

[cygnusx1]

What caused you to say that, my friend?

a combination of things , including my choice but primarily God's absolute PREDESTINATION of all events!

 

[Ben johnson]

a combination of things , including my choice but primarily God's absolute PREDESTINATION of all events!

Ha ha! Ay-yay-yay.

 

[cygnusx1]

Matt5:48 --- please cite the verse.

We are to be "perfect", and we CAN be so by Christ IN us.

He is our perfection THROUGH us.

so is this progressive or what ?

It doesn't make sense. Writing all these words about "God will judge you for NOT repenting", but somehow we interpret that to mean "God decides whether we will repent or not"?

I see no conflict whatsoever between God's Mercy and man's inability to do what he ought to do , you should obey all God commands , but YOU don't!

How does that make sense?
He doesn't say "ought"; he says "God's patience is MEANT to lead you to repentance; but your stubborn and unrepentant heart is making God MAD".

see above.......

Please tell me why he condemns "stubborn unrepentance", if "stubborn unrepentance" is GOD'S choice FOR them?

have you never read that God would blind their eyes and give them ears that couldn't hear lest they turn (repent) and believe and be saved ? or did you forget ?


First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says, "God hath made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7:29). God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures. The responsibility and criminality is man's.
God's decree of Reprobation contemplated Adam's race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His Sovereign grace; the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity. In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong. They had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative; they are therefore born with a sinful nature, and in their sins He leaves them. Nor can they complain. This is as they wish; they have no desire for holiness; they love darkness rather than light. Where, then, is there any injustice if God "gives them up to their own heart's lusts" (Psa. 81:12).
Second, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God refuses to save those who earnestly seek salvation. The fact is that the reprobate have no longing for the Saviour: they see in Him no beauty that they should desire Him. They will not come to Christ-why then should God force them to? He turns away none who do come-where then is the injustice of God foredetermining their just doom? None will be punished but for their iniquities; where then is the supposed tyrannical cruelty of the Divine procedure? Remember that God is the Creator of the wicked, not of their wickedness; He is the Author of their being, but not the Infuser of their sin.
God does not (as we have been slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect that awful word, "Let them alone" (Matt. 15:14). He needs only to slacken the reins of providential restraint, and withhold the influence of saving grace, and apostate man will only too soon and too surely, of his own accord, fall by his iniquities. Thus the decree of reprobation neither interferes with the bent of man's own fallen nature, nor serves to render him the less inexcusable.
Third, the decree of Reprobation in nowise conflicts with God's goodness. Though the non-elect are not the objects of His goodness in the same way or to the same extent as the elect are, yet are they not wholly excluded from a participation of it. They enjoy the good things of Providence (temporal blessings) in common with God's own children, and very often to a higher degree. But how do they improve them? Does the (temporal) goodness of God lead them to repent? Nay, verily, they do but despise "His goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering," and "after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath" (Rom. 2:4, 5). On what righteous ground, then, can they murmur against not being the objects of His benevolence in the endless ages yet to come? Moreover, if it did not clash with God's mercy and kindness to leave the entire body of the fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4) under the guilt of their apostasy still less can it clash with the Divine perfections to leave some of fallen mankind in their sins and punish them for them.
Finally, let us interpose this necessary caution: It is utterly impossible for any of us, during the present life, to ascertain who are among the reprobate. We must not now so judge any man, no matter how wicked he may be. The vilest sinner, may, for all we know, be included in the election of grace and be one day quickened by the Spirit of grace. Our marching orders are plain, and woe unto us if we disregard them-"Preach the Gospel to every creature." When we have done so our skirts are clear. If men refuse to heed, their blood is on their own heads; nevertheless "we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are a savor of death unto death; and to the other we are a savor of life unto life" (2 Cor. 2:15, 16). A W PINK

 

[Ben johnson]

so is this progressive or what ?

I confess that I don't know what you mean.

I see no conflict whatsoever between God's Mercy and man's inability to do what he ought to do , you should obey all God commands , but YOU don't!

Why rebuke those who CANNOT change?

see above.......

"Above" does not answer the question.

How does that make sense?
He doesn't say "ought"; he says "God's patience is MEANT to lead you to repentance; but your stubborn and unrepentant heart is making God MAD".

God would not get mad at what He Himself decreed. If you disagree, please explain why He would?

have you never read that God would blind their eyes and give them ears that couldn't hear lest they turn (repent) and believe and be saved ? or did you forget ?

I didn't forget; I have many times refuted Mark4:11-12 (the Calvinistic understanding anyway) by quoting Matt 13:15 --- did you forget that they closed their OWN eyes and ears?

First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them.

Nevertheless, their condemnation is absolutely God's choice.

Scripture says, "God hath made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7:29). God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures.

He got that one right...

The responsibility and criminality is man's.

Completely correct --- and at odds with "predestination". Under PE, man has no responsibility, for it is GOD who chooses everything.

God's decree of Reprobation...

Excuse me!
1. God did not creat sinful creatures to destroy them.
2. God is not charged with the sin of His creatures.
3. The responsibiloity and criminality is MAN'S.
4. God decreed reprobation for the unelect...

... contemplated Adam's race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His Sovereign grace...

So --- at the Final Judgment the POINT, is "to display the monuments of His Sovereign Grace"!

...and I thought it was "to reward men the consequences of their actions". Rom2:6-8

...the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity.

"Justice"? Destroying those who COULD NOT believe? Severity? We need look only at Rom11 to see how far off Pink is:
"Behold the kindness and severity of God; to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness, else you also will be CUT OFF; and to those WHO fell, severity; but if they do not CONTINUE in unbelief, they will be grafted in to Him again..."

Whether we receive God's "kindness", or His "severity", is man's choice, isn't it?

In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong.

How could it not be wrong, to "destroy men who could never evade His destruction"?

They had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative; they are therefore born with a sinful nature, and in their sins He leaves them.

So --- contemporary man perishes for the sin of their ANCESTOR? Is that "just"?

Nor can they complain. This is as they wish; they have no desire for holiness...

Come now; under Calvinism, "desire" is completely dependant on God's election, or not. One cannot be condemned for desires which he was helpless to choose.

... they love darkness rather than light.

That's not what John3:20-21 says; it says "Men WHO love the darkness, avoid the light; men WHO love righteousness come to the Light..."

Where, then, is there any injustice if God "gives them up to their own heart's lusts" (Psa. 81:12).

Because they CHOSE to rebel and not repent. As Ezekiel records (19:24), "God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

Second, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God refuses to save those who earnestly seek salvation...

Oh, catch-22. Under Calvinism, no one CAN "earnestly seek salvation" unless sovereignly CHOSEN; and of those who ARE chosen, all "seek Him".

...Scripture rather says that "God receives those WHO seek Him by faith". Heb11:6

The fact is that the reprobate have no longing for the Saviour: they see in Him no beauty that they should desire Him.

Calvinism, not Scripture...

They will not come to Christ-why then should God force them to? He turns away none who do come-where then is the injustice of God foredetermining their just doom?

Because (under Calvinism) coming, AND refusing, are God's dictate. THAT is "injustice".

None will be punished but for their iniquities; where then is the supposed tyrannical cruelty of the Divine procedure? Remember that God is the Creator of the wicked, not of their wickedness; He is the Author of their being, but not the Infuser of their sin.

Yet --- even if only by negligence, He DOES choose their demise. They had no chance.

God does not (as we have been slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect that awful word, "Let them alone" (Matt. 15:14). He needs only to slacken the reins of providential restraint, and withhold the influence of saving grace, and apostate man will only too soon and too surely, of his own accord, fall by his iniquities. Thus the decree of reprobation neither interferes with the bent of man's own fallen nature, nor serves to render him the less inexcusable.

Men are enslaved to sin, and cannot escape without God's sovereign intervention, and men will NOT "have a great excuse at the Final Judgment"? Yes, they will!

Third, the decree of Reprobation in nowise conflicts with God's goodness.

Sure it does; God walks into a room (the Earth) in which are standing MANY people, all of whom are "hopelessly depraved and condemned". He selects a few thousand, and abandons the REST (willing their inescapable, hopeless perishing); and this is a God who is GOOD? What "goodness" is there in condemning the majority of mankind, without giving ANY of them ANY chance?

Though the non-elect are not the objects of His goodness in the same way or to the same extent as the elect are, yet are they not wholly excluded from a participation of it. They enjoy the good things of Providence (temporal blessings) in common with God's own children, and very often to a higher degree. But how do they improve them? Does the (temporal) goodness of God lead them to repent? Nay, verily, they do but despise "His goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering," and "after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath" (Rom. 2:4, 5).

Pink seems not to have read Hebrews; "do not harden YOUR heart". In the same context, follows the words "to falling away from the living God".

On what righteous ground, then, can they murmur against not being the objects of His benevolence in the endless ages yet to come? Moreover, if it did not clash with God's mercy and kindness to leave the entire body of the fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4) under the guilt of their apostasy...

They were not alive, on Earth; they have already been judged. and they each CHOSE (themselves!) to rebel, didn't they!

... still less can it clash with the Divine perfections to leave some of fallen mankind in their sins and punish them for them.

Because it is not "JUST".

Finally, let us interpose this necessary caution: It is utterly impossible for any of us, during the present life, to ascertain who are among the reprobate. We must not now so judge any man, no matter how wicked he may be. The vilest sinner, may, for all we know, be included in the election of grace and be one day quickened by the Spirit of grace. Our marching orders are plain, and woe unto us if we disregard them-"Preach the Gospel to every creature." When we have done so our skirts are clear. If men refuse to heed, their blood is on their own heads;

Yes --- IF their refusal is their own responsibilitu. Too bad Mr. Pink cannot answer, "whose responsibility is it? The men's, or God's?"

nevertheless "we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are a savor of death unto death; and to the other we are a savor of life unto life" (2 Cor. 2:15, 16). A W PINK

An excellent citation of Calvinistic thought, Cygnus; I replied to nearly every point, and overturned his whole platform.

Not I, but Scripture.

 

[frumanchu]

First, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God purposed to take innocent creatures, make them wicked, and then damn them. Scripture says, "God hath made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7:29). God has not created sinful creatures in order to destroy them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures. The responsibility and criminality is man's.
God's decree of Reprobation contemplated Adam's race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His Sovereign grace; the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity. In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong. They had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative; they are therefore born with a sinful nature, and in their sins He leaves them. Nor can they complain. This is as they wish; they have no desire for holiness; they love darkness rather than light. Where, then, is there any injustice if God "gives them up to their own heart's lusts" (Psa. 81:12).
Second, the doctrine of Reprobation does not mean that God refuses to save those who earnestly seek salvation. The fact is that the reprobate have no longing for the Saviour: they see in Him no beauty that they should desire Him. They will not come to Christ-why then should God force them to? He turns away none who do come-where then is the injustice of God foredetermining their just doom? None will be punished but for their iniquities; where then is the supposed tyrannical cruelty of the Divine procedure? Remember that God is the Creator of the wicked, not of their wickedness; He is the Author of their being, but not the Infuser of their sin.
God does not (as we have been slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect that awful word, "Let them alone" (Matt. 15:14). He needs only to slacken the reins of providential restraint, and withhold the influence of saving grace, and apostate man will only too soon and too surely, of his own accord, fall by his iniquities. Thus the decree of reprobation neither interferes with the bent of man's own fallen nature, nor serves to render him the less inexcusable.
Third, the decree of Reprobation in nowise conflicts with God's goodness. Though the non-elect are not the objects of His goodness in the same way or to the same extent as the elect are, yet are they not wholly excluded from a participation of it. They enjoy the good things of Providence (temporal blessings) in common with God's own children, and very often to a higher degree. But how do they improve them? Does the (temporal) goodness of God lead them to repent? Nay, verily, they do but despise "His goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering," and "after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath" (Rom. 2:4, 5). On what righteous ground, then, can they murmur against not being the objects of His benevolence in the endless ages yet to come? Moreover, if it did not clash with God's mercy and kindness to leave the entire body of the fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4) under the guilt of their apostasy still less can it clash with the Divine perfections to leave some of fallen mankind in their sins and punish them for them.
Finally, let us interpose this necessary caution: It is utterly impossible for any of us, during the present life, to ascertain who are among the reprobate. We must not now so judge any man, no matter how wicked he may be. The vilest sinner, may, for all we know, be included in the election of grace and be one day quickened by the Spirit of grace. Our marching orders are plain, and woe unto us if we disregard them-"Preach the Gospel to every creature." When we have done so our skirts are clear. If men refuse to heed, their blood is on their own heads; nevertheless "we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are a savor of death unto death; and to the other we are a savor of life unto life" (2 Cor. 2:15, 16). A W PINK

Excellent quote, cygnus, from someone who accurately understands and explains what Calvinists actually believe.

 

[heymikey80]

Hm, my posting in response apparently disappeared, or is it on another thread?

I see "God's kindness, patience and forebearance, are MEANT to lead you to repentance; but your stubborn resisting is making God MAD".

Why would God get mad at what He Himself decreed?
Can we deny their "willful neglect"?

No need to. God creates the will. He made it.

If God chooses NOT to save people, then His wrath is on them because of His sovereign choice NOT to save them. Conflict.

See the ending answer. No conflict.

Yes they are: "...receive the reward of the inheritance..." Col3:25
"To those who by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life..." Rom2:7

Combining the two is horseplay. The first cite points out that believers know they're receiving a great inheritance, and so they work heartily as for the Lord Who is giving it to them.

The second cite is really ambiguous, for shortly after pointing this out Paul points out Romans 3:9-19 -- that the Law condemns all under sin. This is a recurring theme in Romans. Romans 4:1-4 points it out again, as if to emphasize, doing good doesn't get you there. It's also stated at the end of Romans 11. And alluded to in Romans 8.

Given it by grace; do we receive it by GOD'S faith, or do we receive it by OUR faith?

"Receiving as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

Grace brings us to new birth -- new birth relies on God (the Spirit).

Please explain how that makes sense.

God's sovereign decree ordains the ends; it also ordains the means.

The means are the order of salvation: Foreknowledge, predestination, calling, new birth, faith, justification, eternal life, adoption, sanctification, assurance, glorification.

God's kindness is MEANT to lead us to repentance (and salvation).
But stubborn refusal makes God MAD, and He will JUDGE those who refuse.
...but repentance and salvation are by election based on God's sovereign decree.

How does that make sense?

Why does God get MAD, at what He Himself decreed???

Why would god get angry at what He decreed? Because what He decreed is intermittently inconsistent with His moral satisfaction.

That's the way it is with a God Who is in the business of redemption.

As everyone can tell, God isn't in the business of satisfying Himself. He's about a very different purpose. You and I, we may want to decree the ultimate Barcalounger. But thankfully, we aren't like God. We don't take our ease as paramount.

You who have kids: do you do everything for your own ease? If so, how are those kids turning out? If you begin to redeem those kids, what's it take from you? Do you need to have wrath sometimes, and intentionally so? Do you think you could redeem your kids and never have wrath?

Well, either way I say everyone can tell, because why else would the God of the Universe empty Himself, become man, a poor man, a criminal, capitally executed for subversion, and killed in a horrible way? Nobody can tell me this would make God giddy with happiness. There's quite a bit of horror involved.

Or do you think God didn't do the Atonement with His absolute decree?

Instead of lying back in comfort God accomplished His redemptive purposes -- for the joy set before Him. Not that lack and Crucifixion was joyful -- but its goal was God's glory.

So why God would do something that would make Him mad? To show His glory. As Paul pointed out, (this should be quite familiar):

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called Rom 9:22-24a
​

Again, it says as much: "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"

 

[Ben johnson]

No need to. God creates the will. He made it.

Sooo --- if Heaven or Hell is God's choice, why would He get mad?

And why would He hold a "Final Judgment", at all?

And why would Jesus rebuke so many for NOT believing (Matt11:21-24 for instance)?

Grace brings us to new birth -- new birth relies on God (the Spirit).

Your position nevertheless stands on "salvation by God's faith"...

God's sovereign decree ordains the ends; it also ordains the means.

That is how Calvanism/Reformed-Theology perceives; but why would God get mad at what He decreed, and why would He hold a "Judgment", at all? Men will be judged for what God DECIDED???

The means are the order of salvation: Foreknowledge, predestination, calling, new birth, faith, justification, eternal life, adoption, sanctification, assurance, glorification.

Please show me anywhere that "regeneration precedes faith". In Titus3:5-6, can anyone deny that "regeneration is by the poured Spirit"? And if that's not denied, then can we deny that "poured" is "received" is "by belief"?

1. Regeneration is by the POURED-BY-BELIEF (on us) Spirit
2. Regeneration is by the Spirit-poured-to-OTHER-SAVED (and THEN He's poured on the regenerated)
3. "Poured" doesn't mean "received"

What is your understanding of Titus3:5-6? Does it reflect one of the views I just listed?

Why would god get angry at what He decreed? Because what He decreed is intermittently inconsistent with His moral satisfaction.

How is the credible, Mike? Does God suffer fractures in His nature? Why would God's moral satisfaction, be at odds with His sovereign decree?

That's the way it is with a God Who is in the business of redemption.

What if His redemption, is universal?

As everyone can tell, God isn't in the business of satisfying Himself. He's about a very different purpose. You and I, we may want to decree the ultimate Barcalounger. But thankfully, we aren't like God. We don't take our ease as paramount.

You who have kids: do you do everything for your own ease? If so, how are those kids turning out? If you begin to redeem those kids, what's it take from you? Do you need to have wrath sometimes, and intentionally so? Do you think you could redeem your kids and never have wrath?

In John1:12, whoever believes and receives Jesus, become adopted children.

In Heb12, whoever REFUSES God's discipline is illegitimate and NOT a child; hence, "SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND live?"

Well, either way I say everyone can tell, because why else would the God of the Universe empty Himself, become man, a poor man, a criminal, capitally executed for subversion, and killed in a horrible way? Nobody can tell me this would make God giddy with happiness. There's quite a bit of horror involved.

And why WOULD He do that, if salvation was God's decree ANYWAY?

Or do you think God didn't do the Atonement with His absolute decree?

Of course He did; but it is "universal atonement" --- it is received by belief, or rejected. Man's decision, not God's.

Instead of lying back in comfort God accomplished His redemptive purposes -- for the joy set before Him. Not that lack and Crucifixion was joyful -- but its goal was God's glory.

So --- shall WE "lie back in comfort", or are we "charged with diligence"?

Think about it --- if only God's sovereign decreed elect WILL be saved, and nothing can THWART that decreed-will, then diligence is GOD'S responsibility.

...and I don't see diligence as anything but "admonished to US"...

So why God would do something that would make Him mad? To show His glory. As Paul pointed out, (this should be quite familiar):
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called Rom 9:22-24a

Again, it says as much: "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"

You do understand that "katartizo" in Rom9:22 is "passive perfect participle", and is MIDDLE-passive? "They fitted THEMSELVES for destruction".

I bet no Calvinist here will profess that "GOD fitted them for destruction (caused their sin)".

 

[cygnusx1]

I bet no Calvinist here will profess that "GOD fitted them for destruction (caused their sin)".

there is only ONE potter , God makes two vessels , sure you can wrangle over words , but it's forbidden .....

 

[Ben johnson]

there is only ONE potter , God makes two vessels , sure you can wrangle over words , but it's forbidden .....

Actually, there are three vessels in Rom9; "honor", "dishonor" or "common", and "wrath fitted for destruction". That the "common" vessels (as NASV translates "atimia") are on the Potter's wheel, with the "honor" (time) vessels, demonstrates their faith.

...the third, "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", aren't on His wheel at all.

God is not responsible for a man's sin, nor for his perishing; both are his choice...

 

[cygnusx1]

Actually, there are three vessels in Rom9; "honor", "dishonor" or "common", and "wrath fitted for destruction". That the "common" vessels (as NASV translates "atimia") are on the Potter's wheel, with the "honor" (time) vessels, demonstrates their faith.

...the third, "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", aren't on His wheel at all.

God is not responsible for a man's sin, nor for his perishing; both are his choice...

Equal ultimacy ? NO ..........

No one said God is responsible for mans sin , even if you wish to always argue God is not responsible for man's salvation!

 

[Ben johnson]

How can God be "fully responsible for man's salvation" (man has no part or choice), but NOT be "fully responsible for the destruction of those who perish"?

1. No man can ever savingly-believe, it is beyond his capability
2. God monergistically saves SOME, He bears the responsibility
3. God ignores the REST to succumb to desctruction they could not resist nor escape
4. ...but it's not GOD'S responsibility that some perish


If "only God can escape anyone, and He acts APART from man's faith (faith following God's action), then man perishing from what he could never avoid is also God's choice, not man's.

Your view casts man as "fully passive in God's sovereign decision"; while Jesus plainly said "man is active in his own salvation".

"He who hears My words and ACTS on them, is like a wise man who...
...and he who hears and DOES NOT ACT is like a foolish man who..." Matt7:24-27

 

[cygnusx1]

How can God be "fully responsible for man's salvation" (man has no part or choice), but NOT be "fully responsible for the destruction of those who perish"?

1. No man can ever savingly-believe, it is beyond his capability
2. God monergistically saves SOME, He bears the responsibility
3. God ignores the REST to succumb to desctruction they could not resist nor escape
4. ...but it's not GOD'S responsibility that some perish


If "only God can escape anyone, and He acts APART from man's faith (faith following God's action), then man perishing from what he could never avoid is also God's choice, not man's.

Your view casts man as "fully passive in God's sovereign decision"; while Jesus plainly said "man is active in his own salvation".

"He who hears My words and ACTS on them, is like a wise man who...
...and he who hears and DOES NOT ACT is like a foolish man who..." Matt7:24-27

here we have it ^ , man is his own saviour , man is not responsible for sin , God is , but man is responsible for his own salvation ! that is some heresy you carry about with you there ben!

 

[Ben johnson]

here we have it ^ , man is his own saviour

Never said it, don't believe it...

man is not responsible for sin

That's Calvinism's position (whether admitted, or not)

God is

If only "monergistic election" can save anyone, how could God not be responsible for NOT saving most?

but man is responsible for his own salvation!

Man bears responsibility in 1Tim4:16. In 2Pet1:5-10. In 1Pet1:9. In 1Jn5:10-12. And in many other passages.

that is some heresy you carry about with you there ben!

Demonstrate with Scripture why it is "heresy" rather than "Scriptural truth".

Let's discuss just ONE: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your doctrine; PERSEVERE in these things; as you do you will save yourselves and those who hear you." 1Tim4:16

How does Paul not include our own perseverance, in "saving ourselves"? And how can "save yourselves" not convey participation in salvation?

 

[frumanchu]

there is only ONE potter , God makes two vessels , sure you can wrangle over words , but it's forbidden .....

IIRC, the verb in question is in the same form as the verb rendered "ordained" in Acts 13:48. That form is NEVER translated as a direct middle in all the NT, so linguistically it cannot be said that the vessels "prepared themselves."

 

[cygnusx1]

Originally Posted by Cygnus
here we have it ^ , man is his own saviour

Never said it, don't believe it...

That's Ben's position (whether admitted, or not)


man is not responsible for sin even though Calvinists say that is rubbish .... ben wishes to put words and ideas in our mouths and other peoples minds ... .

That's Calvinism's position (whether admitted, or not)

strange that!

If only "monergistic election" can save anyone, how could God not be responsible for NOT saving most?

How could He be responsible for saving anyone! therefore ben thinks God is not responsible for his salvation (whether admitted or not)

Man bears responsibility in 1Tim4:16. In 2Pet1:5-10. In 1Pet1:9. In 1Jn5:10-12. And in many other passages.

Calvinist's maintain all men are responsible for sin , and accountable for disobeying all God commands .... but ben wishes that Calvinists did not then he would be able to carry some weight in a post.... it would make a change.

Demonstrate with Scripture why it is "heresy" rather than "Scriptural truth".

that's been done on these boards for over two years , so don't act innocent or coy , your method is transparent and predictable , bordering on baiting .

Let's discuss just ONE: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your doctrine; PERSEVERE in these things; as you do you will save yourselves and those who hear you." 1Tim4:16

Amen! no problems here , if you have a problem with that text just let us know and we can help you out

How does Paul not include our own perseverance, in "saving ourselves"? And how can "save yourselves" not convey participation in salvation?

how many times is it now ? , must be a dozen , perhaps you will listen this time ..........(*I wouldn't bank on it Cyg* ) .... man does "participate in salvation , it is man who excercises faith , repents and gets Baptised , it is man who humbles himself and obeys the Gospel , it is man who puts on Christ and performs "good works" .... No Calvinist will argue that men participate , correct Soteriology is not that every part of salvation is Monergistic , that is a fallacy and a most ignorant heresy , , Monergism is reserved for REGENERATION , and after that the process of salvation is synergistic , got that ben !!!...... so there is no compromise , or confusion , except in your unwillgness to accept what Calvinists have maitained (and I have seen Mikey ages ago spell this out so you have no excuse for being ignorant) since the beginning..... the truth once delivered to the Saints.

 

[Ben johnson]

IIRC, the verb in question is in the same form as the verb rendered "ordained" in Acts 13:48. That form is NEVER translated as a direct middle in all the NT, so linguistically it cannot be said that the vessels "prepared themselves."

And yet it is perfectly consistent with the idea that "their chosen sin prepared them for destruction". It is identical to the verses that say "save yourselves" (1Tim4:16 for instance) --- clearly there is one Savior, Jesus, and HE saves us, we don't save ourselves;[/b] but the concept of "save ourselves" reflects our choice to follow Jesus and thus "save ourselves by choosing for Him to save us".

If we can "save ourselves" as Paul wrote, then it is the exact same logical consistency to say "fitted themselves for destruction".

And Calvinists cannot assert that "God sovereignly fitted them for sin and destruction", because of the unavoidable reality that "God would be causing sin".

RE Acts13:48 --- in verse 46, "The Jews considered themselves unworthy for eternal life" --- if the Jews unelected themselves, then it is logically consistent to understand that the Gentiles "positioned themselves" (or were positioned by their belief) to eternal life. God could not "sovereignly ordain ONE" (to life), without "sovereignly ordaining the OTHER" (to death), and again God does not cause sin and unbelief.

One need not have a doctorate in Greek to understand what was just stated; God does not decree sin nor death, nor does He decree life. We save ourselves by our faith, and we condemn ourselves by our unbelief.

"I (Lord God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and LIVE." Ezk18:24

 

[cygnusx1]

IIRC, the verb in question is in the same form as the verb rendered "ordained" in Acts 13:48. That form is NEVER translated as a direct middle in all the NT, so linguistically it cannot be said that the vessels "prepared themselves."

also , I have heard of men preparing to meet the Lord and make ready , but never have I heard of anyone preparing themselves for damnation , I mean there are no instructions , they are fitted by the potter , just as Pharoah was fitted ............ "but 'some' will say why does God still find fault , for who has resisted His will "


21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom 9

 

[Ben johnson]

here we have it ^ , man is his own saviour

That's Ben's position (whether admitted, or not)

man is not responsible for sin even though Calvinists say that is rubbish .... Ben wishes to put words and ideas in our mouths and other peoples minds ...

"Saving ourselves", is how my previous post states it. There was a reason why they wrote "save yourselves".

How could He be responsible for saving anyone! therefore Ben thinks God is not responsible for his salvation (whether admitted or not)

See previous post.

Calvinist's maintain all men are responsible for sin , and accountable for disobeying all God commands .... but ben wishes that Calvinists did not then he would be able to carry some weight in a post.... it would make a change.

How can man be "accountable", if he could never avoid sinning/disobeying/unbelief? He could not...

How could WE be warned "not to fall and miss God's rest, by imitating their disobedience and unbelief, if obedience and belief where not choices, both before and after salvation? We could not. Heb4:11

Demonstrate with Scripture why it is "heresy" rather than "Scriptural truth".

that's been done on these boards for over two years...

No, it hasn't; on another thread you just cited Ezk36:26-27, as if we've never given Ezk11:18-21; man turns to God and away from abominations, and THEN God gives them new hearts --- OR they continue AFTER abominations and they are in trouble.

You see, my friend, each assertion has been fully refuted, point by point, and line by line. There are posted commentaries from Pink and other Calvinistic writers --- and I respond to every point. The responses seem to be ignored, the same assertions are made (as if they weren't previously refuted), and Ben is condemned for "lengthy/rambling/flooding posts".

The length is simply responding to every point.

so don't act innocent or coy , your method is transparent and predictable , bordering on baiting .

Tell me why Ezk36:26-27 is still cited, when Ezk11:18 clearly speaks of "Turning to God and away from abomintations", before "new hearts", and Ezk11:21 says "but those who remain IN abominations, God will bring their behavior down on their heads"?

Amen! no problems here , if you have a problem with that text just let us know and we can help you out

Please see previous post.

how many times is it now ? , must be a dozen , perhaps you will listen this time ..........(*I wouldn't bank on it Cyg* ) .... man does "participate in salvation , it is man who excercises faith...

No, man does not participate IN saving-faith (per Calvinism), either faith is gifted or it is the "unavoidable consequence of God's monergistic regeneration". Thus, it is not man's faith that saves, but GOD'S faith IN the man.

repents...

Does man repent, or is repentance gifted to man? How do you really understand 2Tim2:25? "...if perhaps God may GRANT them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth..."

and gets Baptised , it is man who humbles himself and obeys the Gospel...

Does God receive man's faithful humility? Or is He "first cause" of it?

it is man who puts on Christ and performs "good works" .... No Calvinist will argue that men participate , correct Soteriology is not that every part of salvation is Monergistic...

It's a "catch 22"; you may say that "belief and repentance are of man's free will", but you firmly believe that FREE WILL is bound to God's sovereign predestination (or not).

... that is reserved for REGENERATION , and after that it is synergistic

There is no "synergism" if there is only one choice; can a "sovereignly-regenerated-man" resist God's grace, or not? Can a "non-regenerated man" resist his own depravity, or not?

...... so there is no compromise , or confusion , except in your unwillgness to accept what Calvinists have maintained (and I have seen Mikey ages ago spell this out so you have no excuse for being ignorant) since the beginning..... the truth once delivered to the Saints.

What Calvinists maintain, is as stated here. Grace is irresistible, condemnation is equally irresistible; and that removes man's responsibility.

He cannot choose, either way (per Calvinism).

 

[cygnusx1]

"Saving ourselves", is how my previous post states it. There was a reason why they wrote "save yourselves".
See previous post.
How can man be "accountable", if he could never avoid sinning/disobeying/unbelief? He could not...

How could WE be warned "not to fall and miss God's rest, by imitating their disobedience and unbelief, if obedience and belief where not choices, both before and after salvation? We could not. Heb4:11
No, it hasn't; on another thread you just cited Ezk36:26-27, as if we've never given Ezk11:18-21; man turns to God and away from abominations, and THEN God gives them new hearts --- OR they continue AFTER abominations and they are in trouble.

You see, my friend, each assertion has been fully refuted, point by point, and line by line. There are posted commentaries from Pink and other Calvinistic writers --- and I respond to every point. The responses seem to be ignored, the same assertions are made (as if they weren't previously refuted), and Ben is condemned for "lengthy/rambling/flooding posts".

you said it , and here is the proof !!

The length is simply responding to every point. Tell me why Ezk36:26-27 is still cited, when Ezk11:18 clearly speaks of "Turning to God and away from abomintations", before "new hearts", and Ezk11:21 says "but those who remain IN abominations, God will bring their behavior down on their heads"?
Please see previous post.

but we don't disagree that man is responsible for all his sin so why bore everyone to death with imaginary disputes ?

No, man does not participate IN saving-faith (per Calvinism), either faith is gifted or it is the "unavoidable consequence of God's monergistic regeneration". Thus, it is not man's faith that saves, but GOD'S faith IN the man. Does man repent, or is repentance gifted to man? How do you really understand 2Tim2:25? "...if perhaps God may GRANT them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth..." Does God receive man's faithful humility? Or is He "first cause" of it? It's a "catch 22"; you may say that "belief and repentance are of man's free will", but you firmly believe that FREE WILL is bound to God's sovereign predestination (or not). There is no "synergism" if there is only one choice; can a "sovereignly-regenerated-man" resist God's grace, or not? Can a "non-regenerated man" resist his own depravity, or not?What Calvinists maintain, is as stated here. Grace is irresistible, condemnation is equally irresistible; and that removes man's responsibility.

He cannot choose, either way (per Calvinism).

Yes , man does participate in saving faith , I already told you man has faith in God , man exercises faith ........ ahhhhhh but you don't like it even when we agree!!!!!!

secondly , false dichotomy ....... ben thinks if someone is given faith they have no need to use it ...... for if they use it it cannot be given ! false!


Yes , God has it in His power to grant men repentance , just as it says. but man still does the repenting , not God.

You ask is God the first cause of man's faith and repentance and humility ..... YES! For from Him and through Him and unto Him are all things .... Romans 11

A Sovereignly regenerated man has obviosly not resisted God grace ......... the question needs rephrasing , methinks.

also One choice indicates that there is choice ,, just think about that one for a few mins

Calvinism never denies man's choice , it merely recognises no choice exists in a vacuum. There are reasons why we choose the things we choose.


and here we have it , ample proof should proof be required that ben is NOT listening to anyone but himself , you ask questions , you get answers , you don't like the answers , PARTLY because you don't even understand the answers , so you resort , out of desporation and a need to be right , to falsifying and defaming what Calvinist believe , and you hope to carry this off as "refutation" instead of what it is , pitiful putting words into other fellow believers mouths .... ben , REPENT!

 

[frumanchu]

And yet it is perfectly consistent with the idea that "their chosen sin prepared them for destruction". It is identical to the verses that say "save yourselves" (1Tim4:16 for instance) --- clearly there is one Savior, Jesus, and HE saves us, we don't save ourselves;[/b] but the concept of "save ourselves" reflects our choice to follow Jesus and thus "save ourselves by choosing for Him to save us".

If we can "save ourselves" as Paul wrote, then it is the exact same logical consistency to say "fitted themselves for destruction".

The glaring problem here, Ben, is that you are letting your doctrinal views justify an unjustifiable grammatical error. Doctrinal preconceptions are no excuse for changing what the text actually says, no matter how much you want them to. Regardless of how having translate as a direct middle would conveniently tie in with your theology, the fact remains that it does not translate to a direct middle.

And Calvinists cannot assert that "God sovereignly fitted them for sin and destruction", because of the unavoidable reality that "God would be causing sin".

Not true. There is a perfectly reasonable understanding of how they may be sovereignly fit for destruction which does not make him the author of sin. Just because it does not fit with your paradigm does not make it impossible, Ben.

RE Acts13:48 --- in verse 46, "The Jews considered themselves unworthy for eternal life" --- if the Jews unelected themselves, then it is logically consistent to understand that the Gentiles "positioned themselves" (or were positioned by their belief) to eternal life. God could not "sovereignly ordain ONE" (to life), without "sovereignly ordaining the OTHER" (to death), and again God does not cause sin and unbelief.

Notice the clear eisegesis here, Ben. Verse 46 does not say they "unelected themselves." That is your forcing the concept of election upon a specific phrase with no justification.

On the one hand you have the Jews who rejected the Gospel. As Robertson puts it, "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]By their action and their words they had taken a violent and definite stand.[/FONT]" On the other hand you have the Gentiles reacting favorably, and the text is explicitly clear that those who believed were those who had been appointed (NOT who had "appointed themselves").

One need not have a doctorate in Greek to understand what was just stated; God does not decree sin nor death, nor does He decree life. We save ourselves by our faith, and we condemn ourselves by our unbelief.

"I (Lord God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and LIVE." Ezk18:24

Your reliance upon the finer points of New Testament Greek seems rather selective, Ben. When it suits you well, you force the issue...yet when it suddenly directly contradicts you, it's unnecessary to understanding the text.

I do find it ironic that you are citing the issue of "saving yourselves" in contrast to Christ saving us as it was precisely this point that I labored with you previously. It is a perfect demonstration of the differences between the various types of causality. Unfortunately, this too seems to be selective on your part since you don't accept the fact that God can sovereignly fit the vessels of His wrath for destruction and yet still not be the author of the sin by which they incur that wrath. The "logical consistency" you are touting seems to be exactly what your argument and method is lacking.