Romans2 (and predestination)

[Ben johnson]

Lookin' for that "when" word in there .... It looks like "who" to me.

It says, "Whoever believes, is born of God". It does not say "whoever believes was born of God so he COULD believe". Both statements are present; and combining with John1:12, which establishes the sequence, conflicts the "predestinary view".

"As many as received Him, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." Do you deny that "gave-right-become-children", succeeds "received"? Notice that "believe" is also present tense; but I assert that they HAD to be believing, WHEN they received Him.

See how the sequence is established? And that established sequence is as I recounted in 1Jn5:1. Whoever BELIEVES (present), IS born of God (present); was born when they RECEIVED Christ. Is there any error in this?

By that logic we're all dead. You can go home now. If you're right, you're sunk, too. You've resisted.

Not continually. You're right, all sin is resistance. Wait --- if sin is "resistance", then God is resistible. Tell me again what the "i" means in "TULIP"?

 

[Ben johnson]

Did faith come through our Savior Jesus or through ourselves? Which is it, Ben?

Uhmmm, Paul said (Rom10:10) from our hearts. Peter said (1:1:9) that OUR faith results in salvation. Have you any verse that even hints at "faith-coming-from-God"?

Saving-faith comes from learning from reading Scripture in 2Tim3:15.
Saving-faith is from man, which God receives in Heb11:6.

How can we overturn these verses?

You're begging your assumption. That's why you're reaching a conclusion about faith from a verse that doesn't even talk about faith.

Well, it says "regeneration is by the POURED Spirit". Please tell how "poured" does not mean "received"? It's the same word as in Acts10:45, where it MEANS "received", and where (11:17) it is after belief. And if "poured" is "through our Savior", how does that not mean "faith"?

No. The call is to believe, not to avoid disbelief. "Just suspend your incredulity for a bit, and God will save you." Find that verse.

There is "believe", and there is "disbelieve"; there is nowhere in between.

Verse. Looking for "don't disbelieve; but don't worry about believing."

John3:18, 1Jn5:10.

The word "propitiation" is used for one who propitiates. And that's "who turns aside wrath". That's tellingly obvious in 1 Jn 2:2. The entire world is propitiated because it's not utterly destroyed.

The world will absolutely be "utterly destroyed", if they do not belong to Jesus.

But to say nothing in the world is going to be burned up, laid bare, and re-created -- that's folly. God's made no such claim. Wrath remains.

Wrath is for those who seek unrighteousness; which is the same as "refuse to believe in Him".

Christ's propitiation is not comprehensive. It is given to the world -- that is, to creation. And it is given especially to us.

Through faith. Do you not remember "God is the Savior of the world, ABOVE-ALL (malista-specially/chiefly) believers."

No, no it doesn't. For how can someone be adopted into the Spirit's family who hasn't even been born? And if adoption is a declarative act, it's not even made any sense why the declaration shouldn't follow from our relying on God.

Look back at John1:12-13. In 12, "right to become adopted", follows "received Christ". Yes in 13 it says "who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" --- but that speaks of the BIRTH. ''Who were born". The begottenness is of God, but the right to BECOME begotten is by receiving Christ.

And you haven't really carried why adoption wouldn't precede faith -- though I agree with you, I disagree it's in this verse.

faith precedes adoption, in John1:12.

The verse makes adoption appear to precede, but it does not actually say such.

It does, if "poured", denotes "received-by-faith".

...it does...

It says those who believe have received the right to be God's children. It does not say the right follows on faith. It says one is distributed to the same extent as the other.

Both "received" and "gave" are written in "aorist" (lambano is second); but the concept "gave-right" is subordinate to "receiving". So unless you have some way to disconnect "receiving Jesus" from "faith", right follows faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

No, Scripture is unable to bring all people to wisdom to salvation

Why? What if --- because they can choose to resist? Isn't this the theme of Jesus' parable in Matt22:2-14? How many people were not truly called?

It's a necessity to understand your situation, and Scripture makes people wise to their salvation.

Not necessarily; notice how Jesus berates those who study the Scriptures, but REFUSE to believe in Him. John5:39-47. And there's nothing in there to indicate "He's only giving them the substance of their condemnation". It's a true rebuke towards belief and repentance.

Without the Spirit Scripture's not causal. As can be noted by the quantity of people reading the Bible who are not saved.

Problem, is that the Spirit's received by FAITH. And it's the received Spirit by which regeneration comes.

...unless you can deny that "poured" (Titus 3:6) does not mean "received".

As for Rom 2:6-8, Paul's already answered that assertion. "For by works of the law no one will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Rom 3:20

You cannot deny that "works" reflect "eternal destiny"; as they do in Rev20:12. AND, in context with the whole of Scripture, we are not saved by good deeds, but good deeds reflect a saved heart.

No view of the Last Day -- not even yours -- can escape this rhetoric of yours, by the way. You view makes the Last Day a "pageant", a "kangaroo court". There is no appeal. There is nothing you can do to escape judgment. You've lost all your choice on the Last Day.

The problem with your view, is that choice was lost before the world was created.

That's why it would be a "kangaroo court".

The facts are inexorable. The view you're espousing contradicts what Scripture says actually happens.

I think I've successfully overturned that.

Salvation is Spiritually passive (sovereignly predestined) and humanly active (the Spirit works through us).

How do you deny Matt7:24-27? Jesus said, "ACTS".

Ah. That view denies God knew and intended what He was creating. Of course it has everything to do with "just". God ordains ends and means. The way things work in this Creation, God has ordained! Sorry you feel that's unjust. That's Scripture for you. Unjust as you see it, isn't thereby unjust.

Men destroyed because they had no choice? How is that "just"?

 

[Ben johnson]

He can, and does; that's why man is responsible. Redemption is universal, AND man can choose to reject it.

A lie. God is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. 1 Cor 1:30

Look again at John1:12-13; I agree that He's our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 1Cor1:30 does not conflict "salvation is God's doing, but by our own faith/receiving-Jesus".

You haven't looked. You've simply said, "Oh, I see the one, therefore it can't be the other." Excluded middle.

Tell me where?

You haven't looked at what you just said. Even it's "to see if its true" -- which is identical to "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith."

And there's no "still in Christ" there. That's an injection into this verse.

"Examine yourselves to see if you are in Christ", doesn't convey "still"? He conspicuously uses the word "adokimos"; which they recognized as used with coins --- if the image impressed upon a coin was no longer visible, it was "adokimos-disqualified".

Do you think that there are coins who had NOT an image on them, once?

Now Pharaoh is a believer, eh?

Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart -- says so in Exodus 9:34. Please read Heb3:8-14, and tell me what it means to you when he says, "Do not harden YOUR heart"? (Notice context says "to falling away from the living God".)

It doesn't answer the question Paul's answering -- "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" so it's not a possible answer.

That's a response made by an arguing person, who doesn't like the idea of "also-Gentiles".

You only see two possibilities in this passage?

Tell me a third.

 

[Ben johnson]

Let's do a thought experiment. For the next dozen postings I'll post something against your position -- it'll be a blatant lie, so obvious you've mentioned it yourself in times past as not telling the truth. I'll insinuate that you really believe it even though you've said you don't. I'll be informed and aware of the fact. Yet I'll continue to persist in lying.

Is there a way to apologize for that? Why would I apologize for an emotion I'm generating -- quite obviously -- without seeking to correct it?

Please tell me how I've been "intentually lying, insinuating you believe something you don't", and I'll work to make ammends (perhaps explaining myself better). I do make statements about "Calvinism holds ____", but the point is not necessarily something Calvinists claim; it's an assessment, which can either be invalidated, or confirmed. It's not a "lie". Take Matt23:13; when I say "Calvinism claims that only the PREDESTINED can be considered 'are entering' ", is that valid or not? And then I say "Calvinism asserts that none whom God has predestined, CAN be 'stopped/shut-off' ", is that valid, or a lie?

Tell me how anything I've said is a "lie", and I very much would like to discuss it.

The quotes I'm pulling back I've cited before. They are nearly 400 years old and have been there, quoted and cited, for you to read.

Read them, refuted them; point by point. I love it when those quotes are posted; I often respond point by point, showing how Scripture conflicts "predestinary doctrine".

Moreover, the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.

One view is right. Either "Reformed Theology", or "Responsible Grace". If the latter, then how would that be "false testimony" and "prejudicial"?

Let's see if we can work through our differences; if we still disagree, perhaps we can celebrate both of us belonging to Jesus, and looking forward to fellowshipping with Him, some day, in person.

 

[Rick Otto]

"There is "believe", and there is "disbelieve"; there is nowhere in between."

Mr 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

 

[frumanchu]

"There is "believe", and there is "disbelieve"; there is nowhere in between."

Mr 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

D'OH!!

 

[Ben johnson]

"There is "believe", and there is "disbelieve"; there is nowhere in between."

Mr 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Let's see; he said "Lord", and he said "I believe". Sounds like "saving-belief" to me.

Why would he ask for greater faith, if he had no faith in the first place?

"Unbeliever", is "unrepentant", is "practicing sin", is "not-in-Christ", etcetera. That's why Peter's words in 2:1:5 are really "supply in your faith", not "add to your (saved) faith". He who lacks these qualities, does NOT have "saving-faith".

Oops --- if we read further, he's calling for us to be "all the more diligent about our calling and election, that the gates of Heaven be provided". That's the problem with "predestination" --- throughout Scripture belief is constantly a choice.


Mark9:24 would "help your case" if he had said, "I don't believe, make me believe."

...but then, if he HADN'T been a believer, he never woulda said that, would he?

 

[heymikey80]

Angels have a different position than we do; they are not "alive", as we are, so they cannot die. Redemption is provided to those who are alive; once we die then we no longer can be "saved". Combine Heb9:27 ("It is appointed once for men to die, and after this comes judgment"), with Rom2:6-8, and it's clear that death precedes judgment, which precedes eternity with God or eternity apart from Him.

Angels are alive. Angels do die spiritually. The construction you're making here has no support. Were Heb 9:27 so normative the Devil could not be judged -- as he never died, so there's no "after this comes judgment".

But Satan is condemned at the Last Day. So your argument collapses. Satan is alive. Repentance is not permitted him. So in your view God is unjust to Satan.

satan very much DID have a choice, when he chose to rebel and become prideful.

So as Satan has no choice now, and men have no choice now -- God is now unjust.

If men cannot avoid being evil, then the judgment is not just. That's an "absolute".

Then in your view the judgment of the Devil is absolutely not just.

I'm sorry, it doesn't read like "this is why you're gonna die". It reads like what Jesus said in Mark1:15, "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the Gospel."

What? "Woe to you, Bethsaida, Chorazin ...?" It does indeed read like, "For this you're gonna die.": "You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children"

And what Ezekiel wrote, 18:24, "God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live."
Which they cannot DO, right? That's why it makes no sense. Nor does it in any of the other "rebuking passages".

Of course they can't do it on their own, no. Neither can they do any thing good. It makes every bit of sense that God would call them to account for their neglect -- for they're in covenant with the God Who can do it; Who does do it.

In point of fact though, this is grabbing a national-legal passage and broadsiding it into soteriology. While God's example *may* be soteriological, the rebuke is clearly not soteriological.

Israel can't give its criminals eternal life.

The best "rebuke passage" for our discussion is probably Matt23:13; your position asserts that "Jesus is berating them, but Jesus knows they CANNOT repent, He's only informing them of the reasons for their condemnation --- which wasn't really their FAULT because there was no way in the Universe they could have AVOIDED it but Jesus tells them ANYWAY the substance of their condemnation (which really, even if by His choice NOT to interfere, was God's predestination for them.)"

Don't lie, and don't put words in my mouth.

It certainly was really their FAULT. There wasn't anything in the universe opposing their decision except their own faulty wills. In other words, it's their fault.

So in Matt23:13 when Jesus blasts the Scribes and Pharisees for REFUSING Heaven, and then for turning away those who ARE entering --- it just doesn't fit to perceive "oh He's just informing them of the nature of their CRIME". Focus on those who the Pharisees deceived; Jesus says "they ARE entering" --- per RT, that must mean "SOVEREIGN ELECT". No way to deny that. But they get deceived to NOT entering --- the Pharisees shut off Heaven from men. Who did? Pharisees, or God?

Do they enter or not? If they enter, then the Pharisees haven't prevented anything. If they don't enter what's the issue?

Your view can't even survive your critique. So your criticism is in error, even by your own estimate.

It's actually clear what's happening when you look at it. Jesus is addressing Pharisees within their own theology -- the view that allegiance to Israel and her Law is salvation. And so the Pharisees set the bar at Law.

So those who are in the process of entering the Kingdom on Pharisaical terms, the Pharisees are as yet still preventing them from entering the Kingdom on those terms. And they don't even enter on those terms.

1. Those who ARE entering Heaven, are entering. Clear.

Not clear. They are prevented from entering. See 2. The Pharisees actually have no ability to prevent people from entering the Kingdom in the first place. Jesus is attacking their own faulty doctrine of the Kingdom.

2. Scribes/Pharisees stop them, shut off Heaven (can only mean "deceive them away from belief")

Nope. No Pharisee would agree with you that it "can only mean" unbelief.

 

[heymikey80]

It says, "Whoever believes, is born of God". It does not say "whoever believes was born of God so he COULD believe". Both statements are present; and combining with John1:12, which establishes the sequence, conflicts the "predestinary view".

The statements aren't both present tense Ben. The argument's invalidated by the error, and overthrown from the start.

Even if that were the case, to say "I'm driving down the road, I've got the top down" doesn't say diddly about whether I began driving down the road first, or put the top down first.

Not only is your argument in error about the tenses; it's not even logical.

 

[heymikey80]

There is "believe", and there is "disbelieve"; there is nowhere in between.
John3:18, 1Jn5:10.

Then it dooms your prior argument through self-contradiction:

Yes, Mike, everyone is redeemed. It must be that way, else infants and mentally handicapped people are doomed.
Suppose everyone is redeemed, until the moment they DISBELIEVE. Thus, they reject the redemption that they had. Make sense?

It doesn't make sense any more, no.

 

[heymikey80]

Through faith. Do you not remember "God is the Savior of the world, ABOVE-ALL (malista-specially/chiefly) believers."

Flitted from 1 John to a verse by another Apostle. At this point I must point out, Christ does not save everyone: His role is Savior of the world -- ie, creation. His role is specially to save believers. He's not charged with saving the neighbor's cat, or Satan.

 

[Ben johnson]

Angels are alive. Angels do die spiritually. The construction you're making here has no support. Were Heb 9:27 so normative the Devil could not be judged -- as he never died, so there's no "after this comes judgment".

They are immortal; we are not (yet). They are not "alive" in the sense that we are.

But satan is condemned at the Last Day. So your argument collapses. satan is alive. Repentance is not permitted him. So in your view God is unjust to satan.

This has nothing to do with the discussion; we debate what Scripture says about men. There is an opportunity to believe, and there is a "closure" after which there is no more chance of redemption. For men, the "closure" seems to be death; for angels, they were already immortal, so the "closure" seems to have been their rebellion. But one discussion cannot be "disqualified" with the other.

So as satan has no choice now, and men have no choice now -- God is now unjust.

Men have choice; and as Scripture says, God is in the position of receiving men's faith, not originating it.

The nature of salvation is love; the nature of love is "it cannot demand its own way". 1Cor13:5.

What? "Woe to you, Bethsaida, Chorazin ...?" It does indeed read like, "For this you're gonna die.": "You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children"

Tell me why the contemporary cities are to be judged harsher than Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom?

Why would Jesus say, "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have believed! It will go better for THEM in the judgment than for you!" It's 100% condemnation for willful unbelief, isn't it? What else, Mike?

Look at the exact same rebuke in John5:39-47. They said they were following Moses; but Jesus said, "IF you believed Moses, THEN you would beleive Me. You search the Scriptures, but they speak of Me --- and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life. How can you believe, WHEN you seek men's glory rather than God's?" There is zero of "predestined-depravity", and everything of "personal responsibility and willful unbelief".

Of course they can't do it on their own, no. Neither can they do any thing good. It makes every bit of sense that God would call them to account for their neglect -- for they're in covenant with the God Who can do it; Who does do it.

But if they cannot choose to BE in that covenant, then it's GOD'S fault they are sinful.

In point of fact though, this is grabbing a national-legal passage and broadsiding it into soteriology. While God's example *may* be soteriological, the rebuke is clearly not soteriological.

You'd better read the chapter (Ezk18) again. It speaks of "When a righteous man turns and does wickedness, his righteousness he has done will not be remembered; for his wickedness he will die. But when a wicked man turns and does righteously, his wicked deeds will not be remembered; he will live." Sure sounds "soteriological" to me. What else?

Don't lie, and don't put words in my mouth.

I said "your position"; I didn't say "you". It's fully possible for anyone to not recognize the full logic of his position...

It certainly was really their FAULT. There wasn't anything in the universe opposing their decision except their own faulty wills. In other words, it's their fault.

Fault cannot be assigned (and punished), to men who cannot choose else. Do you agree with this, or disagree?

Do they enter or not? If they enter, then the Pharisees haven't prevented anything. If they don't enter what's the issue?

Jesus said "ARE ENTERING". So that only means "are entering". There is no way to change that into "not really entering".

Your view can't even survive your critique. So your criticism is in error, even by your own estimate.

Jesus said "are entering", then He said "stopped/shut-off-Heaven". Further, He said "you make them twice the child of Hell that you are."

There is no way to accommodate "ARE entering", then "stopped/shut-off/twice-child-Hell" with Predestination. The only way RT can continue, in light of even this one verse, is to impose "not really" somewhere on Jesus' words.

1. (not really) entering
2. (not really) shut off, at least not forever.

One of those is what must be chosen to continue in "sovereign predestined election"; and both of them change Jesus' words.

It's actually clear what's happening when you look at it. Jesus is addressing Pharisees within their own theology -- the view that allegiance to Israel and her Law is salvation. And so the Pharisees set the bar at Law.

I'm sorry, Jesus plainly spoke of their "deceiving the BELIEVING, to UNBELIEF". That's what was happening, Mike.

So those who are in the process of entering the Kingdom on Pharisaical terms...

See? "NOT REALLY ENTERING". Had Jesus meant "on your terms", He woulda said "on your terms".

He said, "Those who ARE ENTERING, you stop." You cannot impose "not really" anywhere in the verse.

the Pharisees are as yet still preventing them from entering the Kingdom on those terms. And they don't even enter on those terms.

They really were entering, Mike; and the Pharisees really stopped/shut-them-off. When Jesus said something, we must take Him at His word.

Not clear. They are prevented from entering. See 2. The Pharisees actually have no ability to prevent people from entering the Kingdom in the first place.

Excuse me? Please cite the Scripture that says that. It appears to me that concept is imposed by "Reformed Theology"; it certainly wasn't in Jesus' words. "They ARE entering, you STOP them". Face value, Mike; neither you nor I can write in additional meaning.

Jesus is attacking their own faulty doctrine of the Kingdom.

No, He's saying "you stop those who ARE ENTERING". Cut and dried.

Nope. No Pharisee would agree with you that it "can only mean" unbelief.

Do you know any other way to Heaven, but by faith in Jesus? Do you know any other way to destruction, but by unbelief? If "yes" to either, please cite the verse.

The statements aren't both present tense Ben. The argument's invalidated by the error, and overthrown from the start.

You're needing it to say "whoever believes, WAS born of God". It doesn't.

Even if that were the case, to say "I'm driving down the road, I've got the top down" doesn't say diddly about whether I began driving down the road first, or put the top down first.

Perhaps; but if "born of God", equates to "become adopted children" (and it does), then "received Christ" precedes "become adopted" in John1:12.

Do you know any way to "receive Christ", except through belief?

Not only is your argument in error about the tenses; it's not even logical.

Do you see the logic now?

Flitted from 1 John to a verse by another Apostle. At this point I must point out, Christ does not save everyone: His role is Savior of the world -- ie, creation. His role is specially to save believers. He's not charged with saving the neighbor's cat...

Adam's cat did not sin.

or satan.

All we know about "fallen angels", is that they are already judged.

We (men) are not...
[/quote]

 

[cygnusx1]

ben has been refuted on these comments but continues regardless ....... had they entered salvation or were they entering , we had a couple of weeks overv that one

I recall ...................

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben johnson
"your post is full of confusion ben , you say we were chosen from the beginning through faith , so did you have faith before time began" ? cygnusx1


[/quoteWe were "chosen from the beginning, according to the kind intention of His will, WHICH He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

There is no confusion in understanding that "all WHO believe, ARE saved".

There is confusion in trying to fit your understanding into the whole of Scripture.

The "kind intention of His will", is that "He sent Jesus --- that all who see and believe may be saved".

Your understanding conflicts the rest of Scripture.
Mine doesn't.
"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

"YOUR FAITH has saved you". Lk7:50
Correct --- He only choose believers. Rm3:26
ACCORDING to the kind intention of His will. What is "the kind intention of His will", Cygnus? (Hint --- Jn6:40!)
If THAT was true, then no saved person can become UNSAVED.

and we know they can.
Correct --- chosen, by grace through faith.

Grace is GOD'S part, faith is OURS...

It's called "harmonizing".

Your view, doesn't harmonize verses like Matt23:13 --- does it?

Or James5:19-20, 1Tim2:1-4 (and 4:1 and 4:16), or 2Pet3:17, or Col2:6-8, or 2Cor11:3, or...

harmonising is that what you call it ..... it is adulterating God's word ..... adding to it to uphold certain unfounded assumptions.

I notice where you are going wrong .

You are reading the text , then ignoring the middle bit , and inserting your own word , then you read it as though it is a faithful rendering ..... it is not ......

also you are confusing things that differ ....... you are saying 'chosen by Grace through faith ....... lumping two distinct ideas together out of context .......

1. We are saved by faith (but you really do not accept that) How can you even use the phrase 'saving faith' ?

You don't believe faith is enough to save anyone ..... you believe that there are many who had saving faith who are now and forevermore in Hell !


2. We are Chosen from the beginning for salvation.

you are ripping and splicing these two concepts together in a most underhanded way .... to uphold human free-will even though man is a slave of sin.

look

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben
Correct --- chosen, by grace through faith.

the true rendering is Chosen by Grace and saved through faith , not chosen by Grace through faith!!!


http://www.christianforums.com/t2479011&page=53

 

[Markea]

Let me post this again so I can clarify:

"However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD." - 2 Chron 30:11-12​

Was the hand of God on Judah because they heeded the word of the LORD, or so that they would heed the word of the LORD? It says His hand was upon them TO give them one heart to do so.

I think that it's a pretty well defined biblical principle that all things work together for good to them that love God, and who are the called according to His purpose.. God's hand would not necessarily be upon those who reject Him.

Not only that, but it says His hand was ALSO upon Judah. So who else was His hand upon? Obviously, the men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun. Taken in total, it clearly shows God's sovereign action in bringing about the obedience these people.

Clearly..? You're taking a portion of scripture here and fabricating an immense doctrine which basically reduces God's creation of men into nothing more than robots..

A broad theme of the scriptures is God calling men to repentance and faith, in connection with men responding to or rejecting that command.. although bringing about obedience as if it's some mechanical process is completely foreign to it. There would be no need for a call to it if it was Lord initiating it..

No, not at all. I believe the Gospel is both simple and complex. As one of my favorite songs puts it, "the Truth is a river where the strong can swim in deep and the weak and the broken can walk across so easily."

The fundamental principles of the gospel are not difficult to grasp though.. that's the point which I'm trying to make.. ie, after a person is saved and begins to walk with the Lord.. we're not teaching them that they need to be saved and to walk with the Lord in fellowship with Him..

I agree that these things are very indepth as we grow in the grace and in the knowledge of the Lord.. although we're not continuously building a foundation.. it's already in place so to speak.

The issue is not with volitional capacity, but rather with value judgement. There's an easily demonstrable principle at work that applies not only to the Gospel but to many aspects of our world, and that is that a man can hear something that is true and even accept the fact that it is true, but still be unwilling to put their trust in it because of the implications it carries for the things which are important to them.

Consider the following example:

During the late 19th century a French tightrope walker made quite a stir by repeatedly crossing over Niagara Falls on rope stretched between the two banks of the river. Reportedly, he once singled out a member of the audience before one of these "trips" and asked him several questions along the following lines:


"Sir", he asked, " do you believe I can walk over the falls on this little rope?"
"Sure", answered the man, "I've seen you do it before."
"And do you also believe that I could push this wheelbarrow across?"
"Yes, I do."
"And do you also believe that I could do it with a man sitting in the wheelbarrow?"
"Yeah, I'm positive you could."
"Then, kind sir, would you mind assisting me by getting into the wheelbarrow?"
"Not on your life!", answered the man.


This man knew he had walked across the tightrope before and believed he could do it again with the wheelbarrow, but stopped short of putting his trust in that theoretical assent.

I wouldn't place my trust in something which provides me with no real benefit on the other end.. ie, we're standing on the promises of gaining everything IN CHRIST.. not making it across a waterfall.. the analogy is weak as it completely ignores the object of true faith..

The Lord Jesus Christ IS our exceeding and great reward, and His promises to us are exceedingly precious.. in that we can escape the corruption that is in the world through its lust..

Yes and no. The Pauline epistles in particular are full of difficult sayings and teachings which are likened to "meat" (as compared to "milk").

Absolutely.. the word of God is infinitely rich in its abilty and power to speak to our hearts and minds.. although with respect to the basic fundamentals of our faith.. it is basic.. that's why it's called milk, and not meat.. we can't eat the good stuff 'til we're weaned from the simple..

I may be misunderstaning your point here, but to what end if we're not talking about salvation? The ability of the unsaved to comprehend the fundamentals of Gospel at an intellectual level means little unless we put it in the context of salvation. The question is whether or not that intellectual comprehension is itself sufficient to save a person, or if something more is required. I believe Scripture indicates that something more is required.

Again, in my estimation.. the overwhelming theme of the scriptures is an interaction with man, not some automatic process of turning this one on, and this on stays off.. it's infinitely more interactive than that.. and savation is when there's a connection between the promise and the one receiving or embracing that promise.. the deal is not closed for those that reject the free gift.

Precisely, and the reason for that is not an intellectual issue but rather a moral issue. It's not a problem with their capacity for rational thought in and of itself, but rather a problem with their desire affecting their decision making.

So this goes back to you thinking that the gospel in its fundamental principles is beyond the capacity of man understanding it..? I simply disagree...

Yes, but we cannot ignore the Fall and its significant impact upon man.

As mentioned.. this is often a centerpiece to these type of discussions. imo.. totally depravity goes too far in its premise.. because men can think things through.. they can take in information, they can evaluate information.. then they can adjust and react to that information.. it happens all the time.. and it's not simply some automatic type of interaction.. there are vast moral dynamics which come into play as well.. all kinds of circumstances and situations which play into the bottom line.

 

[nobdysfool]

I think that it's a pretty well defined biblical principle that all things work together for good to them that love God, and who are the called according to His purpose.. God's hand would not necessarily be upon those who reject Him.

And what do you base this on? Yes, all things work together for good to them that love God. What does "work together for good " mean?

Clearly..? You're taking a portion of scripture here and fabricating an immense doctrine which basically reduces God's creation of men into nothing more than robots..

Actually, he's not doing anything of the kind. His point was clear, that God's Hand was not only on Judah, but also on the specific men mentioned. That little word "also" ties them together.

As for the "robot" jibe, that is ludicrous. It comes from not really listening to and considering what we Calvinists say, especially when we explain at great length what we mean. You may be comfoprtable with fluid, ever-changing definitions, but we are not. We define things in a definite, consistent manner, and if you want to understand what we are saying, then you must understand the underlying definitions of terms, and stop filtering our words through the fluid and ever-changing definitions that non-Calvinists like to employ to resolve the inconsistencies in their beliefs.

The fundamental principles of the gospel are not difficult to grasp though.. that's the point which I'm trying to make.. ie, after a person is saved and begins to walk with the Lord.. we're not teaching them that they need to be saved and to walk with the Lord in fellowship with Him..

I agree that these things are very indepth as we grow in the grace and in the knowledge of the Lord.. although we're not continuously building a foundation.. it's already in place so to speak.

It is dangerous to equate intellectual understanding with faith as you're doing here. Much of the Gospel is counter-intuitive to the natural man (the unregenerate, "unsaved"), and that is the basis for the natural man seeing the things of God as foolishness. Yes, man can reason, think, and search things out, no one denies that. However, such a quest for knowledge and understanding does not in and of itself guarantee knowledge of the Lord, because knowledge of the Lord is spiritual, not intellectual. Churches are filled with people who "know about" the Lord, and give intellectual assent to the historicity, and validity of Jesus Christ, the Crucifixion, His Resurrection, and the necessity of living life to honor and obey Him, but they are not truly Christians. Simply mumbling a few words at the altar, saying the "sinner's prayer" does not make one a Christian. To believe that "saying the words" confers salvation is akin to a belief in magic and incantations. Far too many pulpits teach such nonsense.

I wouldn't place my trust in something which provides me with no real benefit on the other end.. ie, we're standing on the promises of gaining everything IN CHRIST.. not making it across a waterfall.. the analogy is weak as it completely ignores the object of true faith..

And therefore you totally missed the point.

The Lord Jesus Christ IS our exceeding and great reward, and His promises to us are exceedingly precious.. in that we can escape the corruption that is in the world through its lust..

Yes, those of us who are saved, who are truly born of him, know that, and we take great comfort in that. However, the unregenerate, unsaved, natural men do not know that, they do not accept that, and it means nothing to them. Why? Because their minds and hearts have not been renewed by the Spirit of God, and therfore cannot either truly grasp, or even understand correctly what Jesus as our "exceeding and great reward" actually means. To ignore that, or to downplay that, is a form of denial of the true depths of sin and its effect on men. Most non-Calvinists would rather see men as "spiritually sick" than really accept that sin effects every aspect of man's life, and renders him spiritually dead, not just "sick".

So this goes back to you thinking that the gospel in its fundamental principles is beyond the capacity of man understanding it..? I simply disagree...

You can disagree 'til the cows come home, but your disagreement doesn't make it so.

What is the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian? The Christian has a changed heart. He didn't change it himself, it was changed for him by God. Man can change his mind, but only God can change his heart. And without the changed heart, man can give intellectual assent to, and believe on an intellectual level, any and all of the Gospel that he wants, but that knowledge won't save him. As for the deeper things of God, they are only revealed by the Spirit, and will therefore never be available to, or understood, by the carnal mind.

As mentioned.. this is often a centerpiece to these type of discussions. imo.. totally depravity goes too far in its premise.. because men can think things through.. they can take in information, they can evaluate information.. then they can adjust and react to that information.. it happens all the time.. and it's not simply some automatic type of interaction.. there are vast moral dynamics which come into play as well.. all kinds of circumstances and situations which play into the bottom line.

Total Depravity has nothing to do with man's reasoning abilities. Depravity is a condition of the heart, not the head.

What moral dynamics are you speaking of? Man's natural condition is one of moral bankruptcy. That is the effect of sin on the heart of man, it renders him morally bankrupt. Total Depravity speaks of the moral depravity of mankind as a whole, and individuals in specific. Morality is not defined by man, it is defined by God.

 

[CCWoody]

Do calvinists recognize the scriptural fact that ALL OF ADAM's race are vessels fit for destruction..?

In the sense and tense of which YOU speak: yes!!!

In the sense and tense of which Romans 9:22 speaks: I'll stick with the Bible that teaches that not all of the Adamic race is fitted for destruction.

Just curious... because when we realize that Romans 9 is speaking about election (elder serving the younger), we can then recognize that ALL in Adam are condemned (old man) and that ALL may be justified freely in Christ (new man)..

What think ye...?

All in Adam; condemned. Yes, in terms of Augustianian Traducianism & Federal Headship.

All in Christ; justified. Again, yes, in terms of Federal Headship.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you mean in the sense of Covenant Theology.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[CCWoody]

obviously not all are "fitted for destruction" in the ultimate sense that that phrase was offered. The ones placed "in Christ" suffer the fall, but escape the destruction.
No confusion.

Unfortunately, unless you can be teachable in the meaning of the passive perfect participle, which is what we are discussing in Romans 9:22, then you will not make any progress with our non-Calvinist opponents. They are obviously attempting to force modern day language and meaning INTO the script instead of reading the real meaning out of it.

Besides, the context of Romans 9:22 makes it clear that not all men are vessels of destruction. Some of us are vessels of mercy, who will be blessed to see God show his wrath and make his power known upon those he fitted for destruction.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[CCWoody]

You can deny it til the cows come home Rick.. it's not going to change the truth.. ie, like this..

[bible]Ephesians 2:2-3[/bible]

The Ephesians cite has nothing whatsoever to do with Romans 9:22. Yes, some of those in Ephesians 2 are vessels of wrath in the sense of Romans 9. But, some of those in Ephesians 2 are vessels of mercy. The vessels of wrath in Ephesians 2 are not the same as the vessels of destruction in Romans 9.

Your confusion is that you have NO IDEA what Romans 9:22 actually says. It is a perfect passive participle. It is not the tense which you are trying to force into Romans 9.

I did spend some amount of time explaining what the perfect tense is in one of my earlier posts. If you are willing to learn, then it does explain it.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[CCWoody]

It says, "Whoever believes, is born of God". It does not say "whoever believes was born of God so he COULD believe". Both statements are present; and combining with John1:12, which establishes the sequence, conflicts the "predestinary view".

Good grief, BEN!!!!

Again, you are 100% wrong!!!!

Those that received him (lambano): 2nd Aorist, Active, Indicative (Most definitely NOT present). And, those that are born (gennao) of God: Aorist, Passive, Indicative.

Now, granted, those that believe are viewed in the present tense, but given the fact that everything else is Aorist simply renders your assertions 100% false about this passage.

BTW, since you have abandoned your attempts to assert that Romans 9:22 is a middle voice, can I assume that you now concede that you are wrong?

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​