Poll - Once Saved Always Saved

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Ben-

It has been a while since I responded about John 3:3, because I have been studying it. And, I believe that the support I have found will completely prove my point, that is, that Jesus taught in John 3:3 that regeneration must precede justification.​

Hi, "JF". What is your goal? To correctly understand the intent of the speaker (Jesus in this case), or to support a prior position you had? No disrespect intended.

Quote:
We left off at your defense of "idien" as meaning "physically behold". You had a very strong reason for interpreting idien that way, because in all other biblical texts, idien does refer to physically seeing or experiencing something. The problem though, is that by your own profession, the word can very well mean "perceive".​

Where did I say that? Let's list all occurrances:
Mar 5:32 But 1 he looked around to see who had done it.
Mat 11:9 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
Luk 7:26 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
Act 13:35 Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.’
Act 15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter.
2Ti 1:4 As I remember your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy.
Luk 23:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some miraculous sign.
Mat 12:38 Then some of the experts in the law along with some Pharisees answered him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
Luk 8:20 So he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”
Act 2:27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
Rom 1:11 For I long to see you, so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you,
Phi 2:26 Indeed, he greatly missed all of you and was distressed because you heard that he had been ill.
Mat 11:8 What 1 did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes are in the homes of kings!
Mat 26:58 But Peter was following him from a distance, all the way to the high priest’s courtyard. After 1 going in, he sat with the guards to see the outcome.
Mar 5:14 Now the herdsmen ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened.
Luk 2:26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
Luk 7:25 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury are in kings’ courts!
Luk 9:9 Herod said, “I had John beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?” So Herod wanted to learn about Jesus.
Luk 17:22 Then he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.
Luk 19:3 He was trying to get a look at Jesus, but being a short man he could not see over the crowd.
Joh 3:3 Jesus replied, 1 “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Joh 12:21 So these approached Philip, 1 who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.”
Act 22:18 and saw the Lord 1 saying to me, ‘Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’
Act 28:20 So for this reason I have asked to see you and speak with you, for I am bound with this chain because of the hope of Israel.”
1Co 16:7 For I do not want to see you now in passing, since I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord allows.
1Th 2:17 But when we were separated from you, brothers and sisters, for a short time (in presence, not in affection) we became all the more fervent in our great desire to see you in person.
Th 3:10 We pray earnestly night and day to see you in person and make up what may be lacking in your faith.
Ti 6:16 He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.
1Pe 3:10 For the one who wants to love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from uttering deceit.
3Jo 1:14 But I hope to see you right away, and we will speak face to face. (1:15) Peace be with you. The friends here greet you. Greet the friends there by name.
Mat 13:17 For I tell you the truth, 1 many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Lk 8:35 So 1 the people went out to see what had happened, and they came to Jesus. They found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid.
Luk 10:24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.”
Luk 14:18 But one after another they all 1 began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please excuse me.’
Act 19:21 Now after all these things had taken place, 1 Paul resolved to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. He said, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.”
Act 22:14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has already chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear a command from his mouth,
1Th 3:6 But now Timothy has come to us from you and given us the good news of your faith and love and that you always think of us with affection and long to see us just as we also long to see you!
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death, and he was not to be found because God took him up. For before his removal he had been commended as having pleased God.

Why would you cling to "perceive", when 100% of all the other occurrances is "physically-see/experience"?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
If this is the case, then your proof isn't a proof at all, only a support. What will prove whether the word actually means "physically behold" or "perceive" will be the context.

I hope you agree with me on this point, that if it is possible for the word to mean two different things...​

Show me where it means "perceive".

QUote:
then the context MUST determine which meaning it is. Just because it is mentioned in every other instance in Scripture as referring to one specific meaning doesn't mean that it always does or has to. If this is the case, then I can prove to you BY THE CONTEXT that idien MUST be interpretted as perceive in John 3:3.

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

For some reason I didn't think of this before... the problem with your interpretation is that you assume "the kingdom of God" to refer to a place. If it wasn't an actual place, then there would be nothing to physically behold, correct? I would assume that you believe "kingdom of God" is referring to either the millennial kingdom or the heavenly kingdom or something that is literally a visible kingdom. If it isn't a visible kingdom, then Jesus couldn't have possibly meant "physically behold". And I think I can prove that "the kingdom of God" is not visible.​

How can context, not include verse 5?
"Unless you are BORN OF THE SPIRIT, you cannot ENTER INTO the kingdom of God." Right in the same context (literally the same breath), "kingdom" is "entered". Back to the "double-narrative".

It is as if we're examining Jn3 on the table in front of us (and we just stacked all those other occurrances of "Idein" on that table) --- and you're reaching across the room to another table to try to prove your prior view. But not only does the stuff from that other table accommodate "behold", every bit on THIS table completely supports "behold".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Luk 17:20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, 'Look, here {it is!}' or, 'There {it is!}' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."​

Yet the context of John3:3, is John3:5; and "enter-into", describes a physical place.

QUote:
In you midst, or INSIDE YOU

evtos su trans. entos humon

entos -

1) within, inside
a) within you i.e. in the midst of you
b) within you i.e. your soul

humon

1) of yours

The kingdom of God is salvation. It is not a literal place. One cannot say "here it is or there it is", it is something within you, i.e. SALVATION. Jesus proclaimed this HIMSELF.

Therefore, the text is clear once put into context-

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [regenerated] he cannot see [perceive] the kingdom of God [be saved]."

Here's my paraphrase-

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is regenerated he cannot understand the things which lead to salvation.

On the other hand, we have your interpretation-

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [regenerated] he cannot see [physically behold] the kingdom of God [be saved]."​

What is your "interpretation" of verse 5?

Quote:
Your interpretation makes no sense Ben. Here we have a perfect proof text for regeneration preceding justification straight out of Jesus' mouth​

A "proof text" founded on the presumption that "Idein" can mean "perceive". Where else in Scripture, does it?

Your position is also founded on "kingdom is not a place"; but only two verses later, Jn3:5, it is.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Excellent! Put a lock on it, the Truth has been revealed!​

Is this because of the validity of the content, or just because it's in agreement with "RT"?

Quote:
Regeneration does precede justification, which is by faith, therefore, regeneration indeed does precede faith just as Calvinism and Reformed theology have taught for centuries. ​

Cite some Scripture.
Or better, refute what I just posted.
BEST --- give me permission to post what you said to me in PM.

Quote:
And the funny thing is, that fact would not materially alter the rest of Ben's theology at all. The reason he resists, is because it removes any claim of playing a part in one's own salvation...​

The reason is "it" fully conflicts Scripture.

Quote:
and places all of the glory and credit to God, where it rightfully belongs. The free will advocates can't countenance that. ​

Hmmm; men refuse to believe BECAUSE they seek their own glory rather than God's (Jn5:39-47) --- but having GOD decide everything (giving MUST men no chance at all) --- and Him tossing them in to Hell just because He FELT like it (running a "Final Judgment" for their unbelief, when in fact it was HE HIMSELF who sovereignly decreed their destruction) --- this is "glorfying to God".

Is it really glorifying to God when someone (any one) perishes? "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE." Ezk18:32

Quote:
The free will-ers want to say "Jesus saved me because I believed!" ​

Jesus said it. Paul said it. Peter said it. James said it. Who are we to disagree?

Quote:
The Calvinists and RT folk say "I believe because Jesus saved me!" ​

And the Calvinists/RT-folk say "those who are condemned, God WANTED them to die."

Quote:
One glorifies man, the other, God.​

No; one glorifies God, the other portrays Him as "unjust", "unrighteous", and "unloving".

No matter which of the three OSAS views, all of them merely repeat what was said in the Garden of Eden:

"You won't REALLY die"...​

"I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve with his craftiniess, YOU ALSO should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ..." 2Cor11:3

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It is as if we're examining Jn3 on the table in front of us (and we just stacked all those other occurrances of "Idein" on that table) --- and you're reaching across the room to another table to try to prove your prior view. But not only does the stuff from that other table accommodate "behold", every bit on THIS table completely supports "behold".

I admitted that your support was a good one; however, it is not conclusive, and you must admit that. The bottom line is that biblical usage of a word doesn't necessarily define it. We know this because ALL koine greek scholars use extra biblical texts to find meanings of words. Just because a word isn't used a certain way in scripture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your argument is from silence on this Ben. First, you must admit that idien CAN MEAN "to perceive". It really doesn't matter whether scripture uses it to mean "physically behold" EVERYWHERE ELSE, the fact is that it is possible that it can mean "perceive" here. If this is the case, then you cannot simply conclude that it means "physically behold" based on this evidence ALONE. Context must be the decider.

If you do not accept this argument, then you are either being hard headed or not understanding. If the word can possibly mean perceive (no matter how many times in scripture it DOESNT MEAN perceive), then we must evaluate the context and not just assume.

Yet the context of John3:3, is John3:5; and "enter-into", describes a physical place.

What is your "interpretation" of verse 5?

A "proof text" founded on the presumption that "Idein" can mean "perceive". Where else in Scripture, does it?

Your position is also founded on "kingdom is not a place"; but only two verses later, Jn3:5, it is.

Did you just forget what I posted???

In John 3:5 the same terminology is used-

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

It DOES NOT say "kingdom of heaven", nor does it say anything referring to the "millennial kingdom". Rather, it is speaking of salvation (See last post concerning Luke 17:20-21). For one to enter into the family of God, to become "saved" if you will, one must be born again. Based on this context, idien MUST MEAN PERCEIVE in verse 3. Your interpretation CANNOT be reconciled here unless you take the phrase "kingdom of God" to mean something other than what Jesus said it was. You are claiming it is a physical place, Jesus seemed to express that it was quite the contrary, "neither here nor there".

I think your confusion is similar to that of Nicodemus. He thought Jesus was speaking of the physical; rather Jesus is speaking of the immaterial. Yet you want to make this physical...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
I admitted that your support was a good one; however, it is not conclusive, and you must admit that.​

Hi, "JF". Why must I admit that? I just listed every occurrance of "idein" --- and it's 100% "look-at". That's pretty "conclusive"...

Quote:
The bottom line is that biblical usage of a word doesn't necessarily define it. We know this because ALL koine greek scholars use extra biblical texts to find meanings of words. Just because a word isn't used a certain way in scripture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your argument is from silence on this Ben. First, you must admit that idien CAN MEAN "to perceive".​

I'm not a Greek scholar; yet when all of the occurrances mean "look-at", when the context relates "enter", on what grounds can we reverse that and understand "perceive"?

Quote:
It really doesn't matter whether scripture uses it to mean "physically behold" EVERYWHERE ELSE, the fact is that it is possible that it can mean "perceive" here. If this is the case, then you cannot simply conclude that it means "physically behold" based on this evidence ALONE. Context must be the decider.​

In addition to context, to all the other occurrances, we have commentaries by such as A.T.Robertson, who taught doctoral-level Greek. And he plainly defines the usage, as "participate".

Quote:
If you do not accept this argument, then you are either being hard headed or not understanding. If the word can possibly mean perceive (no matter how many times in scripture it DOESNT MEAN perceive), then we must evaluate the context and not just assume.​

If it means going against context (immediate, and the-whole), if Greek scholars assert "participate", then I see no reason to still consider the other.

Quote:
Did you just forget what I posted???

In John 3:5 the same terminology is used-

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

It DOES NOT say "kingdom of heaven", nor does it say anything referring to the "millennial kingdom". Rather, it is speaking of salvation (See last post concerning Luke 17:20-21). For one to enter into the family of God, to become "saved" if you will, one must be born again. Based on this context, idien MUST MEAN PERCEIVE in verse 3. Your interpretation CANNOT be reconciled here unless you take the phrase "kingdom of God" to mean something other than what Jesus said it was. You are claiming it is a physical place, Jesus seemed to express that it was quite the contrary, "neither here nor there".​

The footnotes in NASV for "kingdom of God", in both verses, are:
Matt19:24 (rich man ENTER kingdom-of-God)
Matt21:32 (tax gatherers and harlots will GET INTO the kingdom-of-God before you)
Mark9:47 (better enter kingdom-of-God with one eye, than cast into Hell with two eyes)
Mark 10:14 (Kingdom of God belongs to children)

Quote:
I think your confusion is similar to that of Nicodemus. He thought Jesus was speaking of the physical; rather Jesus is speaking of the immaterial. Yet you want to make this physical...​

Nicodemus understood "see", as "enter".

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Hi, "JF". Why must I admit that? I just listed every occurrance of "idein" --- and it's 100% "look-at". That's pretty "conclusive"...

I love how you just totally disregard what I say. Here is your answer-

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000The bottom line is that biblical usage of a word doesn't necessarily define it. We know this because ALL koine greek scholars use extra biblical texts to find meanings of words. Just because a word isn't used a certain way in scripture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your argument is from silence on this Ben.Quote

There are times when word are used in scripture ONCE, and only once. There are times when words are used dozens of other times, but only used ONCE to mean something specific. Just because a word is typically used to mean "see" does NOT conclude that's what it means. The context must also show that is what it means. And my argument is that "see" makes no sense when THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE.

Jesus would not have said "idein" if He meant "eiserchomai". He meant what he said. He did not mean "enter", because that is not what He said. Don't try to lighten His words, and say that what He actually meant was what He said two verses later. They are two very true statements within themselves. "idein" should NOT be substituted for "eiserchomai", nor vice versa, yet that is what you are doing-

Nicodemus understood "see", as "enter".

First of all, Nicodemus didn't understand a thing Jesus said. Second of all, Jesus didn't mean "enter" when He said idein. He meant "perceive".

I'm not a Greek scholar; yet when all of the occurrances mean "look-at", when the context relates "enter", on what grounds can we reverse that and understand "perceive"?

You have no argument here. There is absolutely no reason why perceive doesn't fit the context. Once again, you are assuming the physical; yet Jesus taught the opposite about "the kingdom of God". You still have yet to answer me on what you think "the kingdom of God" is in light of Luke, and why it should be considered physical. It fits just as well that one must be born again to be able to "perceive" the things which allow him to "enter" into the Kingdom of God (salvation). Nowhere does the context disable that view and in fact, they support it. YOUR view doesn't make sense Ben. If the kingdom of God is not physical then there is nothing to behold. Sorry, it just can't make sense.

In addition to context, to all the other occurrances, we have commentaries by such as A.T.Robertson, who taught doctoral-level Greek. And he plainly defines the usage, as "participate".

Well I took care of context and other occurances...

Look, there is not one translation out there that has the translation "perceive". But how many other verses are there that have been falsely, or let's say "not totally accurately" translated? Just because the scholars don't see the context doesn't mean they are right. Some of the Greek scholars interpret solely on etymology and their biased opinions. The fact is that context cannot be reconciled with your opinion. Once you understand just what "the kingdom of God" is, you cannot possibly understand idein to mean "physically behold", because there is nothing to physically behold. The Kingdom of God is internal, inside of you. You can't see it; it is neither here nor there, yet you do not respond to that. I think you don't have an answer...

If it means going against context (immediate, and the-whole), if Greek scholars assert "participate", then I see no reason to still consider the other.

Well the context necessitates "see" to be "perceive" based on the idea of "the kingdom of God". The word "eiserchomai" or "enter" has nothing to do with this. That word works fine with either "physically behold" or "perceive". The issue is what "the kingdom of God" is, not whether see means enter.

The footnotes in NASV for "kingdom of God", in both verses, are:
Matt19:24 (rich man ENTER kingdom-of-God)
Matt21:32 (tax gatherers and harlots will GET INTO the kingdom-of-God before you)
Mark9:47 (better enter kingdom-of-God with one eye, than cast into Hell with two eyes)
Mark 10:14 (Kingdom of God belongs to children)

And? I "entered" into the kingdom of God and so did you Ben... when we became justified by faith we became a part of it. Enter doesn't necessitate physical action. You can "enter" into a covenant with someone just the same, can't you? That's not something physical. Your argument is weak.

You need to prove that the kingdom of God is a physical place, otherwise I have the stronger argument.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Also, to add more support to my view of "enter" not having to be physical entrance-

enter-
Gr. eiÎseÑrxomai
trans. Eiserchomai


to go out or come in: to enter
of men or animals, as into a house or a city
of Satan taking possession of the body of a person
of things: as food, that enters into the eater's mouth
metaph.
of entrance into any condition, state of things, society, employment
to arise, come into existence, begin to be
of men, to come before the public
to come into life
of thoughts that come into the mind

Luke 22:40-
When He arrived at the place, He said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation."

genomenov de epi tou topou eipen autoiv, Proseuxesqe mh eiselqein eiv peirasmon.

Here is an instance where "entrance" is not physical. While there may be some physical connotations to "entering into temptation", it defintely more internal than external. Our temptation since the fall has been one of internal significance, one that we cannot avoid. It is in our flesh, our fallen nature, nothing physical whatsoever. Any external temptation that we experience automatically becomes internal, due to that sin nature. So I believe this verse is a perfect example of "Eiserchomai", or "enter" being used to enter into something that is not physical, but spiritual. I believe the same idea is used in John 3:5.

 

[nobdysfool]

You don't really expect Ben to concede the point, do you? Never mind that you have more than adequately established the point beyond any reasonable doubt. Ben will not concede. He never does. He never has. Why? Because he knows intuitively just how shaky his theology is, so he will not concede any point, no matter how minuscule, that would have the effect of undermining his view. He will bluff and bluster his way around this, and then claim that this point has never been established. What he means is, he has never acknowledged that the point HAS been established, because in his mind, nothing is established unless he says it is. He claims he has refuted many things, just because he says he has. when you go back and look, he has been refuted, multiple times. but, when confronted, he denies that has happened, and demands that we "try" to do so again. Such is the actions of a false teacher.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You don't really expect Ben to concede the point, do you? Never mind that you have more than adequately established the point beyond any reasonable doubt. Ben will not concede. He never does. He never has. Why? Because he knows intuitively just how shaky his theology is, so he will not concede any point, no matter how minuscule, that would have the effect of undermining his view. He will bluff and bluster his way around this, and then claim that this point has never been established. What he means is, he has never acknowledged that the point HAS been established, because in his mind, nothing is established unless he says it is. He claims he has refuted many things, just because he says he has. when you go back and look, he has been refuted, multiple times. but, when confronted, he denies that has happened, and demands that we "try" to do so again. Such is the actions of a false teacher.

Well, I actually disagree with you about Ben. While you may have discussed more with him than I, I must give him credit. He gives better arguments than the majority of Arminians/free-willers/semi-pelagians. He also doesn't make discussions personal (at least he hasn't yet). He also displays a loving attitude and kindess that most Christians don't. He discusses point-by-point, which is something to be admired. I think the majority of Calvinists get mad at him because he has good arguments and they don't know how to refute them. While I disagree with Ben on the majority of issues, we agree on the fundamentals and therefore, he is my brother in Christ. This means I ought to show him respect and not just accept what other people say about him. Honestly, many people have PM'ed me to try and "warn" me about Ben, yet I have been discussing with him now for quite some time and have yet to see any sort of unacceptable behavior.

I am not discussing with Ben simply so he will concede my point. While I may hope and pray that he will see the error in his thinking, there is more to a discussion than just proving someone wrong. First of all, I learn to develop my beliefs and support for them more and more. That is probably the main reason I discuss with people is because it teaches me more, in that I see contradictions in my thinking, and I am forced to dig deeper for support. Secondly, I have had multiple people PM me and tell me that they have been watching my discussion with Ben and have learned a lot from it. When you go back and look at the forum, it looks like Ben and I have been discussing with no one else peeking in at all. Yet others are watching and reading our discussions daily. I may not be able to persuade Ben to see the errors in his thinking, but I very well may be able to persuade or strengthen readers just passing through.

 

[beloved57]

Well, I actually disagree with you about Ben. While you may have discussed more with him than I, I must give him credit. He gives better arguments than the majority of Arminians/free-willers/semi-pelagians.

Out of all the boards I have been on, and its been plenty, ben is the worst poster I have ever laid eyes on..he just paste verses together like a machine gun that has gone berserk lol. he is the best worst poster I have seen..lol

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Out of all the boards I have been on, and its been plenty, ben is the worst poster I have ever laid eyes on..he just paste verses together like a machine gun that has gone berserk lol. he is the best worst poster I have seen..lol

You're honestly telling me Ben is the worst poster ever? Why don't you go over to the eschatology forums and check out the posters there. Trust me, Ben is not that bad.

When Ben posts his biblical exegesis on why Barack Obama is the Antichrist, then I'll join you in asserting he is not that great.

 

[nobdysfool]

You're honestly telling me Ben is the worst poster ever? Why don't you go over to the eschatology forums and check out the posters there. Trust me, Ben is not that bad.

When Ben posts his biblical exegesis on why Barack Obama is the Antichrist, then I'll join you in asserting he is not that great.

You mean Obama isn't????

And I was so sure!

 

[nobdysfool]

Well, I actually disagree with you about Ben. While you may have discussed more with him than I, I must give him credit. He gives better arguments than the majority of Arminians/free-willers/semi-pelagians. He also doesn't make discussions personal (at least he hasn't yet). He also displays a loving attitude and kindess that most Christians don't. He discusses point-by-point, which is something to be admired. I think the majority of Calvinists get mad at him because he has good arguments and they don't know how to refute them. While I disagree with Ben on the majority of issues, we agree on the fundamentals and therefore, he is my brother in Christ. This means I ought to show him respect and not just accept what other people say about him. Honestly, many people have PM'ed me to try and "warn" me about Ben, yet I have been discussing with him now for quite some time and have yet to see any sort of unacceptable behavior.

I am not discussing with Ben simply so he will concede my point. While I may hope and pray that he will see the error in his thinking, there is more to a discussion than just proving someone wrong. First of all, I learn to develop my beliefs and support for them more and more. That is probably the main reason I discuss with people is because it teaches me more, in that I see contradictions in my thinking, and I am forced to dig deeper for support. Secondly, I have had multiple people PM me and tell me that they have been watching my discussion with Ben and have learned a lot from it. When you go back and look at the forum, it looks like Ben and I have been discussing with no one else peeking in at all. Yet others are watching and reading our discussions daily. I may not be able to persuade Ben to see the errors in his thinking, but I very well may be able to persuade or strengthen readers just passing through.

I see your point, and I actually hope to meet him face to face at some point, if my work ever takes me to Tulsa. We have an appointment for a steak dinner at a good restaurant if I ever get there. I don't have any personal problems with Ben, but I have major problems with his doctrinal stance, and I also have problems with his method of delivery, which someone described as "machine gun" posting of scriptures. He simply buries people with way more than he needs to, probably having found that he can eliminate many opponents by that method. He tends to ramble, and bring in things not germain to the discussion, peripheral things that tend to sidetrack the discussion when it gets a little tight for him.

One tell-tale thing he does is to disappear when he's cornered. I know his methods well. I can always tell when I've cornered him, because suddenly he won't answer my questions, and/or stops posting in the thread. Just in several of the threads recently, I have asked pointed questions, and he has yet to answer any of them.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I see your point, and I actually hope to meet him face to face at some point, if my work ever takes me to Tulsa. We have an appointment for a steak dinner at a good restaurant if I ever get there. I don't have any personal problems with Ben, but I have major problems with his doctrinal stance, and I also have problems with his method of delivery, which someone described as "machine gun" posting of scriptures. He simply buries people with way more than he needs to, probably having found that he can eliminate many opponents by that method. He tends to ramble, and bring in things not germain to the discussion, peripheral things that tend to sidetrack the discussion when it gets a little tight for him.

One tell-tale thing he does is to disappear when he's cornered. I know his methods well. I can always tell when I've cornered him, because suddenly he won't answer my questions, and/or stops posting in the thread. Just in several of the threads recently, I have asked pointed questions, and he has yet to answer any of them.

Well I noticed that he does tend to quote way more than he needs to. That's why I decided to pick one passage (John 3) and leave everything else aside, otherwise nothing gets accomplished and you can always just dodge points. If you keep the discussion aimed at one particular minute point then it is harder to dodge questions.

I doubt he has ducked out yet, I did the same to him earlier but came back when I had a sure fire answer. I don't claim to know everything, but I know I can come up with an educated answer with a little bit of time and study.

Hopefully that is what Ben is doing...

And yeah Obama isn't the antichrist sorry. lol.

 

[moonbeam]

Well, I actually disagree with you about Ben.

You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine...and I strongly disagree with yours..and I am a JesusFreak as well.

While you may have discussed more with him than I, I must give him credit. He gives better arguments than the majority of Arminians/free-willers/semi-pelagians.

My following comments are generic in nature, not specific to any person.

The true opponent of Gods Truth in reality is Satan, he is the true adversary, the spiritual forces of darkness penetrate into the physical realm [and so exert their destructive influence within the "church" and out] through the intangible medium of thoughts, that in turn form ideas and perceptions which are then materialized in the physical world through speech, books etc, and internet forums where words and ideas are presented to others as being representative of the truth and indeed THE truth of God...though in FACT they are Satanic in ORIGIN and opposed to THE Truth of God...now it would be true to say [in most cases] of those who propogate Satans lies in opposition to The Truth that they are unaware of their position ie they have swallowed the lies and deceptions of Satan [not realizing they are such] and believe they are in fact promoting the true gospel...some of these will be elect children of God who have yet to receive the full understanding of the true facts concerning their personal salvation [that is accepted and within the bounds of their sanctification according to Gods purposes for them personally]...others however are not of the elect...hence their opposition is fully sourced and grounded in the Satanic realm [where we ourselves once roamed under Satans thralldom] with NO dimension of the sanctifing purposes of God contained within their experiential paradigm concerning spiritual matters as they are not chosen [elect] to experience the salvic grace of God...these are the cold hard facts of the matter...this is the inherent nature and ordained destiny of the wolves in sheeps clothing, the tares among the wheat, that are an existent fact within the visible "church"...it has to be acknowledged and recognized that such IS the case...it is foolish and in direct opposition to the revealed facts contained in scripture to accept every professing person [especially with the anonymity inherent in cyberspace] as a Spirit filled child of God...we are instructed in scripture to test every spirit that professes Christ because we know that there are wolves in the flock who masquerade as messangers of light [but in fact are messangers of Satan and hence are anti-Christ]...scripture tells us that we will know them by their fruit...that being their doctines, as well as their moral conduct...on the internet it is neccessary imo to give much greater weight to the doctrine espoused by professing persons over and above their personal moral conduct...Why?...because in fact, and in truth, to a massive degree it remains hiden from us through the anonymity afforded by cyberspace...and hence easily fabricated and mimiced ie a sheeps bleating and clothing hiding the wolf [much to Satans delight]..thats the anonymity cyberspace affords...and every charlatan and fraudster on the face of the earth absolutely glories in that fact [much to Satans delight and intent]

He also doesn't make discussions personal (at least he hasn't yet). He also displays a loving attitude and kindess that most Christians don't.

To continue with my theme above [my comments being generic not specific to any person] concerning the anonymity that cyberspace affords the Satanic design in corrupting the visible "church" through his human agencies and the varied methodologies employed by Satan...in regards to fair speech [words that are smoother than oil...being a scriptural equivalent]...such as you have described...that being words that convey "a loving attitude and kindness" which you go on further to say "most Christians don't"

Let me illustrate the duplicity that can be employed as a methodology by using fair speech and words that help to convey "a loving attitude and kindness"...something far from the motive and intent of the sender [Satan in regards lies propogated in the visible "church"]

Take for example the pedophile...perhaps in your country you have similar advertisments as I will describe here...the scene is a young person [early teens] in there bedroom typing away on their computer in response to a message from some anonymous person who really appears to radiate a high degree of empathy and concern...Why?...because the words they employ are designed to mimic the genuine article...so it is neccessary that their words display, and convey, what is required to pull of the intended deception...hence words and phraseology is chosen which will be attractive and project an attitude which exudes 'a loving attitude and kindness"....thats the bait...which is so easily swallowed...of course we know the sad end to this story...but it helps illustrate the folly of accepting emotive, atmospheric language, dripping with the seductive elements ie "a loving attitude and kindness" as being a TRUE INDICATOR of a persons true moral character [in terms of being SPIRIT filled] in internet forums such as ChristianForums...it is for this reason that DOCTRINAL INTEGRITY should be utilized as the primary TRUE INDICATOR of being in fact Spirit filled.

He discusses point-by-point, which is something to be admired.

In regards mr johnson...let me demonstrate something for which he is not to be admired... I challenge you to ask him these two questions exactly as I have worded them and also to insist on a simple unambiguous answer as asked [ie Yes or No] with no other additional comment at all....then you will see if he is to be "admired" or not.

#1 mr johnson...did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture "Let there be light" (Gen 1) Yes or No?

#2 mr johnson...did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture "I will harden his heart, so that he will" (Ex 4:21 esv) Yes or No?

You say he discusses point by point...ask him to clarify those two points above JesusFreak5000 and watch him freakout...ask him these two questions exactly as I have worded them...I call the last question the Hound of Heaven...mr johnson does not like to play with the Hound of Heaven...so he avoids answering the first...there by avoiding the obvious answer to the second...because of the obvious response that follows...ie Why don't you believe Him then?

I wonder what there is to "admire" about a man who professes Christ yet is unable to answer those two questions as asked...imo absolutely less than nothing.

I think the majority of Calvinists get mad at him because he has good arguments and they don't know how to refute them.

Incorrect...most Calvinists who have posted in this forum have completely and utterlly refuted mr johnsons arguments countless times, over and over again [I have witnessed it for myself for about the last 4 yrs and have done so myself]...your comments are ill-informed...let me illustrate...Have you not overthrown his argument?...of course you have, have you not?...it is not neccessary that mr johnson accept your refutation for you to know that you have defeated his argumentation, is it?...no...why?...because you know [as well as we do] that you have in fact overthrown his argument...of course this will never be acknowledged by mr johnson, not in the slightest degree, that is why a majority of Calvinists "get mad" at him...that is one of the reasons I have ZERO admiration for him...thats a zero to the tenth power negative as well.

While I disagree with Ben on the majority of issues, we agree on the fundamentals and therefore, he is my brother in Christ.

You are welcome to your opinion [as am I] and I beg to differ.

This means I ought to show him respect and not just accept what other people say about him. Honestly, many people have PM'ed me to try and "warn" me about Ben, yet I have been discussing with him now for quite some time and have yet to see any sort of unacceptable behavior.

Don't you consider propogating FALSE doctine as unacceptable behaviour?...to bad...because the Lord and His Appostles and Prophets all did...and so should we...and so should you.

You only seem to recognize harsh words and hard sayings as being representative of "unacceptable behaviour" regardless of the factual content contained in such language...you seem to be a man who is most impressed with fair weather and fair speech regardless of its factual content...the Truth is contained in True FACTS...whether the speech is fair or rough is irrelevant...what is RELEVANT...is that True Facts are presented in the speech...thats whats important...far more important than the tone of ones speech.

Hows this for fair speech...the Lord calling those persons who where teachers and propogaters of false doctrines SNAKES and VIPERS...the Apostle Paul twice proclaiming teachers of a false gospel ETERNALLY DAMNED TO HELL...how is that for fair speech...are you suitably impressed with their "fair speech"...it seems all you are impressed with.

You seem to think fair speech is what really matters...fair speech is the substance of the matter...fair speech proves the indwelling of the Spirit...fair speech is what identifies a Spirit born child of God...fair speach is what Christ died for...What about TRUE DOCTRINE...what about TRUE FACTS...What about the TRUE GOSPEL once delivered to the saints?

The scripture is concerned with propositions that present TRUE FACTS and TRUE DOCTRINES...not fancy speech...you seem to have missed the substance of the revelation of God...that being propositions of Truth set forth in True FACTS...TRUE DOCTRINES...you seem more impressed with fair speech than the content of that fair speech.

I am not discussing with Ben simply so he will concede my point. While I may hope and pray that he will see the error in his thinking, there is more to a discussion than just proving someone wrong. First of all, I learn to develop my beliefs and support for them more and more. That is probably the main reason I discuss with people is because it teaches me more, in that I see contradictions in my thinking, and I am forced to dig deeper for support. Secondly, I have had multiple people PM me and tell me that they have been watching my discussion with Ben and have learned a lot from it. When you go back and look at the forum, it looks like Ben and I have been discussing with no one else peeking in at all. Yet others are watching and reading our discussions daily. I may not be able to persuade Ben to see the errors in his thinking, but I very well may be able to persuade or strengthen readers just passing through.

I understand your thinking here...as I once posted in this forum...he is a stone of stumbling against which we sharpen our swords....scripture tells us that it is neccessary for heresies to exist for it is by them [those heresies] that those who are approved of God are made manifest in the church....so I agree with you that there is a utility that is extracted by God, for His people, through such means.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am entitled to mine...and I strongly disagree with yours..and I am a JesusFreak as well.

My following comments are generic in nature, not specific to any person.

The true opponent of Gods Truth in reality is Satan, he is the true adversary, the spiritual forces of darkness penetrate into the physical realm [and so exert their destructive influence within the "church" and out] through the intangible medium of thoughts, that in turn form ideas and perceptions which are then materialized in the physical world through speech, books etc, and internet forums where words and ideas are presented to others as being representative of the truth and indeed THE truth of God...though in FACT they are Satanic in ORIGIN and opposed to THE Truth of God...now it would be true to say [in most cases] of those who propogate Satans lies in opposition to The Truth that they are unaware of their position ie they have swallowed the lies and deceptions of Satan [not realizing they are such] and believe they are in fact promoting the true gospel...some of these will be elect children of God who have yet to receive the full understanding of the true facts concerning their personal salvation [that is accepted and within the bounds of their sanctification according to Gods purposes for them personally]...others however are not of the elect...hence their opposition is fully sourced and grounded in the Satanic realm [where we ourselves once roamed under Satans thralldom] with NO dimension of the sanctifing purposes of God contained within their experiential paradigm concerning spiritual matters as they are not chosen [elect] to experience the salvic grace of God...these are the cold hard facts of the matter...this is the inherent nature and ordained destiny of the wolves in sheeps clothing, the tares among the wheat, that are an existent fact within the visible "church"...it has to be acknowledged and recognized that such IS the case...it is foolish and in direct opposition to the revealed facts contained in scripture to accept every professing person [especially with the anonymity inherent in cyberspace] as a Spirit filled child of God...we are instructed in scripture to test every spirit that professes Christ because we know that there are wolves in the flock who masquerade as messangers of light [but in fact are messangers of Satan and hence are anti-Christ]...scripture tells us that we will know them by their fruit...that being their doctines, as well as their moral conduct...on the internet it is neccessary imo to give much greater weight to the doctrine espoused by professing persons over and above their personal moral conduct...Why?...because in fact, and in truth, to a massive degree it remains hiden from us through the anonymity afforded by cyberspace...and hence easily fabricated and mimiced ie a sheeps bleating and clothing hiding the wolf [much to Satans delight]..thats the anonymity cyberspace affords...and every charlatan and fraudster on the face of the earth absolutely glories in that fact [much to Satans delight and intent]

To continue with my theme above [my comments being generic not specific to any person] concerning the anonymity that cyberspace affords the Satanic design in corrupting the visible "church" through his human agencies and the varied methodologies employed by Satan...in regards to fair speech [words that are smoother than oil...being a scriptural equivalent]...such as you have described...that being words that convey "a loving attitude and kindness" which you go on further to say "most Christians don't"

Let me illustrate the duplicity that can be employed as a methodology by using fair speech and words that help to convey "a loving attitude and kindness"...something far from the motive and intent of the sender [Satan in regards lies propogated in the visible "church"]

Take for example the pedophile...perhaps in your country you have similar advertisments as I will describe here...the scene is a young person [early teens] in there bedroom typing away on their computer in response to a message from some anonymous person who really appears to radiate a high degree of empathy and concern...Why?...because the words they employ are designed to mimic the genuine article...so it is neccessary that their words display, and convey, what is required to pull of the intended deception...hence words and phraseology is chosen which will be attractive and project an attitude which exudes 'a loving attitude and kindness"....thats the bait...which is so easily swallowed...of course we know the sad end to this story...but it helps illustrate the folly of accepting emotive, atmospheric language, dripping with the seductive elements ie "a loving attitude and kindness" as being a TRUE INDICATOR of a persons true moral character [in terms of being SPIRIT filled] in internet forums such as ChristianForums...it is for this reason that DOCTRINAL INTEGRITY should be utilized as the primary TRUE INDICATOR of being in fact Spirit filled.

In regards mr johnson...let me demonstrate something for which he is not to be admired... I challenge you to ask him these two questions exactly as I have worded them and also to insist on a simple unambiguous answer as asked [ie Yes or No] with no other additional comment at all....then you will see if he is to be "admired" or not.

#1 mr johnson...did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture "Let there be light" (Gen 1) Yes or No?

#2 mr johnson...did the LORD speak these words as recorded in scripture "I will harden his heart, so that he will" (Ex 4:21 esv) Yes or No?

You say he discusses point by point...ask him to clarify those two points above JesusFreak5000 and watch him freakout...ask him these two questions exactly as I have worded them...I call the last question the Hound of Heaven...mr johnson does not like to play with the Hound of Heaven...so he avoids answering the first...there by avoiding the obvious answer to the second...because of the obvious response that follows...ie Why don't you believe Him then?

I wonder what there is to "admire" about a man who professes Christ yet is unable to answer those two questions as asked...imo absolutely less than nothing.

Incorrect...most Calvinists who have posted in this forum have completely and utterlly refuted mr johnsons arguments countless times, over and over again [I have witnessed it for myself for about the last 4 yrs and have done so myself]...your comments are ill-informed...let me illustrate...Have you not overthrown his argument?...of course you have, have you not?...it is not neccessary that mr johnson accept your refutation for you to know that you have defeated his argumentation, is it?...no...why?...because you know [as well as we do] that you have in fact overthrown his argument...of course this will never be acknowledged by mr johnson, not in the slightest degree, that is why a majority of Calvinists "get mad" at him...that is one of the reasons I have ZERO admiration for him...thats a zero to the tenth power negative as well.

You are welcome to your opinion [as am I] and I beg to differ.
Don't you consider propogating FALSE doctine as unacceptable behaviour?...to bad...because the Lord and His Appostles and Prophets all did...and so should we...and so should you.

You only seem to recognize harsh words and hard sayings as being representative of "unacceptable behaviour" regardless of the factual content contained in such language...you seem to be a man who is most impressed with fair weather and fair speech regardless of its factual content...the Truth is contained in True FACTS...whether the speech is fair or rough is irrelevant...what is RELEVANT...is that True Facts are presented in the speech...thats whats important...far more important than the tone of ones speech.

Hows this for fair speech...the Lord calling those persons who where teachers and propogaters of false doctrines SNAKES and VIPERS...the Apostle Paul twice proclaiming teachers of a false gospel ETERNALLY DAMNED TO HELL...how is that for fair speech...are you suitably impressed with their "fair speech"...it seems all you are impressed with.

You seem to think fair speech is what really matters...fair speech is the substance of the matter...fair speech proves the indwelling of the Spirit...fair speech is what identifies a Spirit born child of God...fair speach is what Christ died for...What about TRUE DOCTRINE...what about TRUE FACTS...What about the TRUE GOSPEL once delivered to the saints?

The scripture is concerned with propositions that present TRUE FACTS and TRUE DOCTRINES...not fancy speech...you seem to have missed the substance of the revelation of God...that being propositions of Truth set forth in True FACTS...TRUE DOCTRINES...you seem more impressed with fair speech than the content of that fair speech.


I understand your thinking here...as I once posted in this forum...he is a stone of stumbling against which we sharpen our swords....scripture tells us that it is neccessary for heresies to exist for it is by them [those heresies] that those who are approved of God are made manifest in the church....so I agree with you that there is a utility that is extracted by God, for His people, through such means.

You may know Ben better than I do.. but don't you understand my hesitation to just denounce him based on what other people say about him?

Further, I think it is over the line for you to conclude him as a false teacher. Everyone is a "false teacher" about something... it's those that go around purposely choking the truth of God, not those who have been mislead. I wouldn't call Ben a "snake or viper" or someone who has even necessarily been mislead by the devil... one need not be mislead by a supernatural power in order to come to an incorrect conclusion. We have a sin nature which always taints our thoughts, and one can arrive at incorrect conclusions, just as you and I do all of the time (don't try to claim that you don't ever).

Whether Ben runs every time he gets backed into a corner or not has nothing to do with it. If you got backed into a corner about your beliefs, and there was something you couldn't answer, I doubt you would totally concede. All of us would run to our Bibles and commentaries in hopes of finding a refutation to maintain our initial statement. Sometimes, you just have to say "I don't know", and leave it at that, or say "I need to go study more". That doesn't make you a false teacher. You don't know what Ben is doing after you back him into a corner. He very well may be considering his position, and all you need to do is show him love instead of calling him a snake.

He is our brother in Christ, one of the elect. Many of you need to grow up and get above the rude comments you throw at him.

 

[moonbeam]

You are entitled to your opinion [as am I]...my comments were intended to be generic in nature not specific as I said...though it would be true to say that when generic comments are applied to any individual they become specific in regards that person...you seem to have applied all my comments in that way...I accept that you have the right to do so, and have no comment to add in that regard.

I did leave you a challenge, that being to ask mr johnson my questions [ie the Hound of Heaven]...if you decline to do so...I understand that is your business, not mine...though I have my suspicions you will choose to refrain from doing so, so as to save him the embarassment of proving my point.

You may consider mr johnson a brother in Christ and one of the elect if you like....as for me, in regards mr johnson....I pray...the LORD rebuke you.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

It is kind of hard for me to believe your response is generic when you take my post and defragment it point by point in a response. It WAS directed towards me. I am not taking offense to it in any way; but it definitely wasn't generic.

 

[moonbeam]

It is kind of hard for me to believe your response is generic when you take my post and defragment it point by point in a response. It WAS directed towards me. I am not taking offense to it in any way; but it definitely wasn't generic.

It was generic and not specific in the portions were I indicated so...there where other portions where I spoke in particular of mr johnson as can be seen.

As I said previously, generic terms become specific when applied by individuals to another individual...which is how you applied my generic comments...is that not so?....is that my fault?

When I speak in generic terms it is true that I may have had certain individuals in mind upon which I based my generic comments [this is normal practice when making a generic comment]...but that does not mean my comments where not inclusive of other persons in general who use similar methodologies...after all...wolves hunt in packs...not as individuals...generally speaking.

Don't forget to ask mr johnson my questions...should you feel so inclined that is...to test the validity of your admiration for him.