Predestination and Election

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
As I've quoted to you before, even monergists make this same claim:
God alone regenerates. We alone believe. And we believe in Christ alone for salvation. John Murray, "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", "Faith and Repentance", p. 106​

But which is the "chicken", and which is the "egg"?

Do we believe BECAUSE we are regenerated, or are we regenerated THROUGH our faith?

Quote:
And that's no divided responsibility. That's actually an inseparable responsibility. God isn't being an individualist. He's not looking at you, "Well, until you gather up enough gumption to have faith, I'm not touching your soiled soul."

If He were, you'd never rely on Him enough to warrant His consideration.​

On what do you base your "absolute"?

Quote:
Again, wrong. It is 100% responsibility for men, 100% responsibility for God.​

Hmmm; let's see --- 100% + 100% --- recognizing that percent is really 1/100 --- therefore it's REALLY 1 + 1, that's TWO, isn't it?

The "whole" can never be "DOUBLE-whole". Probability can never exceed ONE.

Quote:
It's a derivative responsibility on the part of the new man, and it's empowered by the God Who is ultimately responsible for this man's New Birth.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes Rom 1:16​

In plainer words, God is NOT just and justifer of he who believes (in your doctrine), God authors faith in whom He ELECTS and jusifies.

QUote:
Two wills. Both required. One predestined.​

Not two wills; in your doctrine, God ordains HIS will, and God ordains MAN'S will. That's only ONE will.

There is no "obligation/responsibility/option" in your paradigm. Thus, the Final Judgment, is mere pageantry.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Well, that's your error. All I've said was simply that the will is created (easily demonstrated), and that it's controlled by a number of things (also easily demonstrated).​

Please tell us how a will that is predestined, still manages to sin.

We DO sin after being saved, right?

Quote:
As you yourself draw the conclusion from just these two statements that your position is opposed to these facts, your position is not factually based. Therefore it's not the truth.​

Your position asserts "choice/option/obligation/responsibility", though SOVEREIGNLY ORDAINED by God".
You just proposed that "responsibility is TWO HUNDRED PERCENT".

Your position doesn't really make sense, Mike.

Quote:
It's utterly wrong of you to say such a thing with not even the first shred of data.

We definitely see things differently, because we see that the heart is corrupt and desperately wicked.​

You're absolutely referring to Jeremiah 17:9. But here is verse 10:
"I, the Lord search the heart and test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds."

Tell me, Mike --- does that sound like "sovereign-predestined-faith", or does it sound like "God RESPONDING to men's hearts and deeds"?

Connect that now with Acts10:34-35, as we've oft quoted:
"God is not partial, BUT in every nation he who reveres God and does right is WELCOME".

Not only does God receive those who revere Him and seek righteousness, the OPPOSITE of that is called "PARTIALITY".

Mike --- what is the opposite of "God receiving those WHO revere/seek"?
It's "God receiving those who do NOT revere/seek". Deny this if you can.
Deny too that Calvinism asserts "men do NOT revere/seek UNTIL God regenerates".
Unless you can deny either point, then you must accept that "Calvinism is the partiality that Peter says "God is NOT".

 

[Ben johnson]

QUote:
I've no need to -- just your far-reaching gloss beyond it. Scripture says this heart is desperately wicked, and that God searches this desperately wicked heart. It doesn't say God finds something seeking Him.
God looks down from heaven on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good, not even one. Ps 53:2-3​

Is that speaking of every last man, or were the Psalms just making a generalization? Answer this --- in Genesis 6:5, God saw that every intent of man's heart was only wickedness and continual evil. But NOAH, was RIGHTEOUS!

How could Noah be righteous, if all men were ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY?

Quote:
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom 3:20​

And verse 26 says "God is just and justifier of he WHO BELIEVES".

How can there be "justice", if everything is ordained-by-God?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
They have the information. They consciously defy the information. Their own wills are clearly responsible for their defiance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize, the will is the point of individual responsibility whether it's controlled by another cause or not.

And it is controlled by another cause. Kids grow up to acquire myriad inclinations of their parents, their mentors, their experiences. The will is not free as you're representing it (or if you aren't representing it so, then you'll discover a lot more of your assertions fall pretty quickly).​

So we're "flotsam and jetsam" in the cosmic scheme of things, mere products of our own history and/or God's sovereign decrees.

Meaning no disrespect, what does the term "fatalism" mean to you?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
By "sponsor" you're smuggling in the idea of advocacy, which is a lie as well as a poor tactic to reach the truth. Is that what you're basing your view on? Debate tactics?
The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Pr 16:4

The fact is, you're the person Paul is predicting will ask the question, and Paul answers this way:
You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Rom 9:19-21

Paul doesn't go into a schpiel about free will and your willingness being x%, God's response being y%. He focuses his answer directly and heavily on God's right to make you any way He wants.

You're making the exact same argument as Paul's hypothetical questioner. Paul answers it Live with it. It's Scripture.
​

What you deny about that passage in Scripture, is how translations like NASV understand "time" and "atimia", as BOTH SAVED. As in "honor", and "COMMON". The third vessels are prepared for wrath, and are NOT prepared so by God.

Quote:
Scripture points directly to the fact that this person doesn't produce fruit -- so even by your prior estimates of "Responsible Grace" he's not saved.

So another inconsistency you'll need to address.

Scripture puts these with the group in unproductive growth. So Calvinism agrees with Scripture that these people, because they're observed not to persevere, weren't saved.

And your "Responsible Grace" doesn't require fruit in good works? That's news to me.​

It doesn't say "didn't produce fruit"; in contrast with 15, the difference seems to be the fifteeners bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE.

Calvinism is as a loss to explain both how a NON-PREDESTINED person can believe joyfully, and how anyone can KNOW whether he's "joyfully-savingly-believing" or only "joyfully-FALSELY-believing-WILL-FALL" (some day before dying).

How do you know which one you are, Mike? Please tell me how it is possible to know for sure, until the actual moment of death.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
When the category of "temporary faith" is recognized as not being saving faith, then this fits perfectly. When someone with a temporary faith comes to unbelief, then that man has rejected Christ. James 1:14-16 doesn't address belief in Christ.​

It certainly does! By "beloved brethren", James can only be referring to "saved". By "soul-death", using "psuche-thanatos", James can only be presenting "unsalvation".

Quote:
James 5:19-20 says the person brought back from wandering is then saved (James said it).​

To assert "they were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place" (false-professing lurking amongst the saved) --- James would have to be asserting "They wandered away from faith they never really HAD, and were brought back to where they never WERE".

Brought-back, Mike; not "brought TO INITIAL salvation.

Quote:
Hebrews 3:14 points out that we've only come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.​

Does not! "Do not harden YOUR hearts!" 3:8

"Be careful lest YOUR hearts be hardened by deceitful sin to falling away from the living God"!

Only then does he say "we partner in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

His message is painfully clear, when we read verses 18-19 (the Israelites were denied entrance into their "rest" because of unbelief and disobedience) --- and then read 4:11:
"THEREFORE (against the Israelites), let us be diligent TO enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating their disobedience and unbelief."

Hmmmm; exactly WHAT can we fall from, by unbelief and disobedience?
Can anyone be "unbelievingly" or "disobediently" saved? No.

Any way that "GOD'S REST", cannot mean "salvation"? No.

Quote:
Temporary faith doesn't appear as saving faith in these verses.​

Tell us why you perceive them as "temporary/unsaved faith".

And to be credible, your answer must have somthing other than "because they fell away".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RTE:
There is no such thing as a backslidden Christian any more than there exists a half-pregnant woman.​

Excellent! "Backslidden", is "walking in sin" --- and cannot be "abiding in Christ".

Quote:
The idea of "backslidden" is that pushed by ignorant evangelists who propagate a doctrine of legalism in the name of the gospel. In other words, Arminians - they who are the laughing stock of the world not by reason of the perceived foolishness of the gospel, but by reason of their insular, prudish, morality-based minds.​

Not "legalism", but "permissiveness". In a word, Antinomianism.

Quote:
King David declared that if he made his bed in hell, God would still find him and love him.​

You just answered the Calvinists' objection they make with Rom8:38-39.. Didn't you?

Quote:
The only way one can fall from grace, is that he not acknowledge its all-energising, all encompassing, all-consumming, all-affecting, conclusive, power. In other words, if he be an Arminian or some other legalist.
​

No, in other words, "come to unbelief".

In Paul's words, "They were broken off for unbelief, but you stand by our faith. Do not be conceited, but FEAR; if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare YOU. Behold then the kindness and severity of God --- to those who fell, severity; but to you God's kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness otherwise YOU TOO will be cut off! And if they do not contin ue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again..." Rom11:20-23

Paul makes it really really clear...

 

[Ormly]

Yeah, and I know of Benny Hinn supposedly "slaying whole crowds in the Spirit," causing them all to fall back.

The same Benny Hinn who has promoted numerous heresies and taught against fundamental orthodox doctrines.

Lots of strangs things happen around false teachers. Attributing them to the Holy Spirit is a common error.

No such comparison can be made between Hinn and Finney. Finney never let himself open to that, to what Hinn does. But then you haven't read the Auto-biography of Finney and are just making wild accusations. It would helpful to everyone if you would read the book.

 

[Ormly]

Ben wrote:



". . . . . Calvinism asserts "men do NOT revere/seek UNTIL God regenerates"."



What is preached today is that we must receive Christ as savior if we are to be ‘saved’. That requires a conversion of the mind and, a confession from the mouth, meaning it from the heart is assumed. . . . . The Blood of Jesus does the rest. That is redemption made complete to any individual whose mental faculties permit him to make choices. It does not require regeneration. The account of Jesus while on earth testifies to that being so. Folk even became His Disciples and those 11 that remained with Him did so because He kept them, intimating it was something outside themselves that kept them, not regeneration that would soon be available that would ‘cause’ them to keep themselves ‘in the most Holy Faith’, See John 20:22. Regeneration wasn’t possible before the resurrection.
What I tend to believe is that for God to receive us into the His plan of adoption, regeneration, a new birth, can only be that which makes it possible. In this do I see Christ doing the choosing from the ‘saved’ those from obedience who truly desire Him; to be like Him and then imputing the Nature of the Father in them making them His children for to become His possession. In other words: We choose and receive and then He chooses upon His review of our motive.
I believe the account of the rich young ruler gives us this as an example. No where in the account do we read he wasn’t justified. I believe he was. He had received all that God was permitted to give him. He had faith in God that, by his convictions, guided him in life as he had been taught. No doubt, with much sorrow he went back to observe that way. We don’t ever read where he lost his justification or where he might even have returned in repentance to Jesus the following week. What we do see in the account is that He was not willing to 'forsake all' and follow Jesus but simply wanted eternal life, not believing the way of Jesus sufficiently that he was willing to give up his worldly possessions. Don’t we all know a lot of church goers like that and wonder how it can be? If you aren't in the "herd" with its mentality, you have to wonder at the scene.

1 John tells us what we should look for from such a one who claims the Name of Jesus and IS new born of Him. If we neglect the salvation we have ‘received’, i.e., not to desire Jesus beyond the securing of eternal life, how shall we escape what the unbeliever will pass through from God’s soon coming judgment upon the earth.. Jesus and Paul tell us as much in the word, we won’t. Not only that but it will be worse for us. Forget about the rapture being for all “believers”. If there is one, only those in the adoption process; becoming sons, will be in it. They will be the ones who have been proving the truth of Jesus Christ to the nations and not those who have just paid Him lip service. Thus in this, I do make the distinction between being saved and being born again.

 

[frumanchu]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Sorry, not true. I'm free. I've also only made ONE CHOICE.

The options are open. But the will may only make ONE CHOICE.
​

"OPTION" --- something that is or can be chosen.
Mikey: "The will can only make ONE CHOICE."

There is no other option in your doctrine, Mike. Fatal conflict.

This is a classic fallacy in opposing the Reformed doctrine. You are confusing between the options which are available to be chose from, and the option to choose other than what you will choose.

It is an irrefutable fact that you will choose what you will choose. Such is true by definition. That doesn't mean that you only had one option available to you. Thus the fallacy.

So --- how is it that your will, still SINS? You have no answer for that...

Of course we do. Our answer as to why believers continue to sin is the same as yours. God's regeneration of man's heart (regardlesss of whether it occurs before or after faith) does not remove all the evil from his heart or completely eradicate his sin nature. There is continued battle between the flesh and the spirit. We are not immediately glorified upon believing, but rather are progressively sanctified over the course of our lives.

You proceed from the mistaken notion that God can only efficaciously accomplish the conversion of a man by completely purifying his heart and eradicating his flesh. That's simply not the case, and thus your challenge is in error.

 

[frumanchu]

In plainer words, God is NOT just and justifer of he who believes (in your doctrine), God authors faith in whom He ELECTS and jusifies.

False. You are misapplying the verse. God is just in that His justice is perfectly satisfied in the substitutionary atonement of Christ (contrary to the heresies of others in this forum), and He is the justifier of he who believes again by the substitutionary atonement of Christ applied to them through faith.

That verse is a cornerstone of the truth that the Cross of Christ is the ultimate demonstration of both God's justice and His mercy.

Not two wills; in your doctrine, God ordains HIS will, and God ordains MAN'S will. That's only ONE will.

Ordaining something does not erase its existence, Ben, nor does having two things in agreement erase the individuality of them both.

 

[frumanchu]

Connect that now with Acts10:34-35, as we've oft quoted:
"God is not partial, BUT in every nation he who reveres God and does right is WELCOME".

Not only does God receive those who revere Him and seek righteousness, the OPPOSITE of that is called "PARTIALITY".

Mike --- what is the opposite of "God receiving those WHO revere/seek"?
It's "God receiving those who do NOT revere/seek". Deny this if you can.
Deny too that Calvinism asserts "men do NOT revere/seek UNTIL God regenerates".
Unless you can deny either point, then you must accept that "Calvinism is the partiality that Peter says "God is NOT".

No, no, no, Ben. As we've oft examined, the "partiality that Peter says God is NOT" is partiality towards a particular nation or ethnicity. Peter is directly addressing one of the biggest mysteries revealed in the New Testament: that salvation is not only for Israel but for men of every tribe, tongue and nation. That was the WHOLE POINT of Peter's vision earlier in the chapter.

God is not partial to any one nation, but in every nation he who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable. It makes NO COMMENTARY on who meets that condition or why because it is not the focus of the verse.

Can you deny that Peter's main point is that salvation is no longer just for Israel?

 

[Ormly]

This is a classic fallacy in opposing the Reformed doctrine. You are confusing between the options which are available to be chose from, and the option to choose other than what you will choose.

It is an irrefutable fact that you will choose what you will choose. Such is true by definition. That doesn't mean that you only had one option available to you. Thus the fallacy.



Of course we do. Our answer as to why believers continue to sin is the same as yours. God's regeneration of man's heart (regardlesss of whether it occurs before or after faith) does not remove all the evil from his heart or completely eradicate his sin nature. There is continued battle between the flesh and the spirit. We are not immediately glorified upon believing, but rather are progressively sanctified over the course of our lives.

You proceed from the mistaken notion that God can only efficaciously accomplish the conversion of a man by completely purifying his heart and eradicating his flesh. That's simply not the case, and thus your challenge is in error.

"The pure in heart shall see God" . . . "He who overcomes I will give to eat of the Tree of Life"

What does Jesus mean by the pure in heart? And what does He mean by overcoming? It seems the former can't happen without the latter happening first.

 

[frumanchu]

Is that speaking of every last man, or were the Psalms just making a generalization? Answer this --- in Genesis 6:5, God saw that every intent of man's heart was only wickedness and continual evil. But NOAH, was RIGHTEOUS!

Paul makes it abundantly clear in quoting it in Rom 3 that he is speaking of all men in their fallen state. Noah was the recipient of God's grace and favor.

How could Noah be righteous, if all men were ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY?

Are you saying Noah was perfectly righteous and sinless?

And verse 26 says "God is just and justifier of he WHO BELIEVES".

Which conflicts not one little bit with the Reformed view.

How can there be "justice", if everything is ordained-by-God?

See my previous explanation on predestination and responsibility. I am very keen to hear your critique of it.

 

[Ormly]

Paul makes it abundantly clear in quoting it in Rom 3 that he is speaking of all men in their fallen state. Noah was the recipient of God's grace and favor.

Sure, Noah was just one of the crowd; did what all the others did. He was a fool, a Sodomite and whatever else you might think. But God chose him nonetheless even though Noah may not have wanted it that way. God imposed His will and changed Noah into a mighty man of God, full of grace and truth. God made Noah righteous against Noah's will.

Question: Why Noah when there were so many like, as you so presumptuously believe, were no worse off?

If God found favor in Noah rest assured God found it in him.

Are you saying Noah was perfectly righteous and sinless?

Perfectly? Sinless? Doesn't this kind of willful distortion and mis-representation ever cease?

 

[frumanchu]

What you deny about that passage in Scripture, is how translations like NASV understand "time" and "atimia", as BOTH SAVED. As in "honor", and "COMMON". The third vessels are prepared for wrath, and are NOT prepared so by God.

Sorry, Ben...but you have the same issue here as with Acts 13:48. That voice and form is not translated as a direct middle ANYWHERE in the NT. There are no fictionaly "third vessels." It makes no sense for Paul, after citing the two vessels (honorable and common use) in his rhetorical question in v21, to switch subjects to a "third vessel" in v22. He is obviously continuing his same thought across the verses, the "vessels for honorable" use being the "vessels of mercy" and the "[vessels] for common use" (ie, bedpans) being the "vessels of wrath."

With respect, neither the original Greek nor the context support the fictitious "third vessel" theory, Ben.

It doesn't say "didn't produce fruit"; in contrast with 15, the difference seems to be the fifteeners bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE.

Calvinism is as a loss to explain both how a NON-PREDESTINED person can believe joyfully, and how anyone can KNOW whether he's "joyfully-savingly-believing" or only "joyfully-FALSELY-believing-WILL-FALL" (some day before dying).

How do you know which one you are, Mike? Please tell me how it is possible to know for sure, until the actual moment of death.

ONCE AGAIN, I must point out the fallacy here, Ben. Calvinists have clearly stated views on how one has present assurance of salvation, and they do not believe those criteria to be truly present in those with a superficial faith who quickly fall away (as those presented in the parable).

It also must be pointed out that YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ASSURANCE OF YOUR FINAL SALVATION UNDER YOUR THEOLOGY. Even if you have present assurance of salvation, under your theology you have every possibility of foresaking your faith at some point between now and the time you die. Because your perseverance rests 100% on your fallible will, you cannot possibly know that you will persevere unto death.

DO YOU DENY, BEN, THAT YOU HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF YOUR FINAL SALVATION?

 

[chestertonrules]

It also must be pointed out that YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ASSURANCE OF YOUR FINAL SALVATION UNDER YOUR THEOLOGY. Even if you have present assurance of salvation, under your theology you have every possibility of foresaking your faith at some point between now and the time you die. Because your perseverance rests 100% on your fallible will, you cannot possibly know that you will persevere unto death.

There is no assurance of final salvation for any but the delusional.

Do you claim to know the mind of God?

 

[Ormly]

Then Jesus was a liar and our faith in Him is without substance.

 

[frumanchu]

Then Jesus was a liar and our faith in Him is without substance.

Precisely.

 

[chestertonrules]

Then Jesus was a liar and our faith in Him is without substance.

1 Corinthians 10:12 "Therefore let him who thinks he is standing, beware, that he does not fall".

We aren't at the end yet, right?

Hebrews 3:12-14 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."


Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father."