The Arminian game of semantics

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Isn't this a funny one. Your own theology would say that "oh they might be shut off NOW but if 'evangelized' they WILL enter at a future time evangelists humanly proclaim" --- making it "not-really-shut-off for the 'elect'."​

The point is that Jesus ascribes no time --- "shut off" means "shut off". Against the argument that "they MAY become saved in the future", Jesus said: "You make them TWICE a child of Hell than YOU are."

You're right that as long as a man is alive, there is a chance of him "returning to belief". But there is a world of difference between "shut off, but may CEASE being shut off if they believe", and "shut off but God ALWAYS PREDESTINED them to belief".

One is "really shut off", the other is "not really shut off". How can a sovereign-predestined-person EVER be "shut off from Heaven"?

Quote:
The reality is that your own theology even has a problem with your own complaint, Ben.​

In my understanding, there is a CHANCE for a "shut-off" person to be restored --- but the chance is severely lessened by Jesus' words, "twice-child-of-Hell".

In YOUR understanding, ALL of those who "ARE ENTERING" will enter at a FUTURE time. If one person who "was entering", is not restored, then in your view he was not really entering, was he?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Blood:
Which is what you do, and why you need to reread and attempt to understand the opening post again.​

Come now, "Blood". I read Jesus' words at face value:

Those who ARE ENTERING, you STOP --- you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men (make them TWICE a child of Hell!)

Yours is the position that "plays a game of semantics" --- by saying "they are NOT REALLY entering", or "they are NOT REALLY shut off --- they WILL enter later if they are TRULY ELECT

"Predestination" is overturned; Scripture may not endorse "Arminianism", but it endorses the idea of "ALL can believe, and faith RECEIVES God's gift of salvation and abides IN it (abides in Him)."

I think the "predestinationists" are beginning to see the irresolveable conflicts in their doctrine...

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Van,



I have demonstrated twice that believing in Christ occurs before our election.
Rather, I have demonstrated that being elected to salvation after one comes to Christ, is redundant, and akin to a coach choosing his team when they are already on the field kicking goals.

Your "election to salvation", is a semantic without a pragmatic. This is proven by the fact that, were your election to not occur, no difference would result. For one does not need an additional step of "election to salvation" when one has already come to Christ, for Christ cannot [not save] those who have come to Him anyway.

Therefore any purported scriptural proofs of your position, are necessarily errant, moreover, deceiptful.

 

[Van]

RTE simply makes one false claim after another. He has certainly "asserted that election comes before faith" but has not demonstrated it by citing a passage that indicates any such thing. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, on the other hand, that we are chosen through faith in the truth. Case closed.

And note folks, RTE simply repeats the discredited assertion that when we trust in Christ we are saved without God choosing to credit our faith in Christ as righteousness, Romans 4:5. Not everyone who "believes" is saved, only those whose fatih is credited as righteousness. Demons believe and shutter.

 

[Blood]

"entered" into "not-really-entered", or "stopped/shut-off" into "not-really-stopped/shut-off".
What is this mess? a hodge podge of traffic control signs designed to confuse your average motorist?
The main "game of semantics", is imposing "not-really" upon scripture
Which is what you do, and why you need to reread and attempt to understand the opening post again.
"plays a game of semantics"
This is what you the arminian is all about. You need to reread and attempt to understand the opening post, again.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by Blood:
Which is what you do, and why you need to reread and attempt to understand the opening post again.​

Come now, "Blood". I read Jesus' words at face value:

Those who ARE ENTERING, you STOP --- you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men (make them TWICE a child of Hell!)

Yours is the position that "plays a game of semantics" --- by saying "they are NOT REALLY entering", or "they are NOT REALLY shut off --- they WILL enter later if they are TRULY ELECT

"Predestination" is overturned; Scripture may not endorse "Arminianism", but it endorses the idea of "ALL can believe, and faith RECEIVES God's gift of salvation and abides IN it (abides in Him)."

I think the "predestinationists" are beginning to see the irresolveable conflicts in their doctrine...

Predestination has NOT been overturned. You cannot overturn a biblical doctrine, no matter how much you may hate it because of the damage it does to your view. Your posts reveal just how little you know of the doctrine, and how much you assume falsely, with no real proof. Your "not really" accusation is a joke, because you utilize the same method when it suits you, to get out of sticky situations. It is a straw man you use against Calvinists to try and divert the argument.

Ben, You cannot overturn scripture, and scripture never overturns scripture. NEVER.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Predestination has NOT been overturned.​

It certainly has. The "primary passages", Eph1:4-5 & 11, Rom9:11-21, Rom8:28-29 have been answered --- demonstrating how they do not support "predestination". The "secondary passages", such as Jn10:26-28, 2Cor4:3-4, 1Cor2:14, Jeremiah 17:9, Ezek36:26-27, have been shown to be COMPLETELY "non-predestinary".

Take John10 --- verse 38 says "If you do not believe in Me, then believe in My WORKS (25 says "My works give testament of Me") --- and you will know I'm in the Father and the Father is in Me."

Can "know Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus" --- can that mean anything BUT "you will believe in Me"? No. Tell me --- how can "You can believe in Me just by looking at My WORKS", accommodate "predestined-belief"? It cannot. Not no way, not no how.

Then there are passages that can NEVER fit "predestined-election". Rom2:3-8 is one of those --- God's patience and kindness and forebearance are MEANT to lead to repentance --- but stubborn unrepentant hearts make God MAD.

How can God's kindness be MEANT to lead to repentance, those who are stubbornly UNREPENTANT? Zero "predestination", and 100% "choice".

This fits Rom11 perfectly --- men receive from God both kindness and severity; to those WHO fell, severity, to us who remain kindness --- if we CONTINUE in His kindness else we will ALSO be "cut off". And those who WERE "cut off" will be restored if they do not continue in unbelief.

We discussed Matt7:24-27 --- if GOD decides who BELIEVES and who does NOT (because of His monergistic unilateral regeneration or not), then how is it possible that those WHO believe are called "wise", and those who DO NOT believe are called "foolish"?

Why are men "wise" for God DECIDING men will believe, while other men are "foolish" for God deciding they will NOT believe? Complete logical breech; "wise/foolish" conveys a wise or foolish CHOICE --- those who CHOOSE belief are wise, those who CHOOSE unbelief are foolish.

Quote:
You cannot overturn a biblical doctrine, no matter how much you may hate it because of the damage it does to your view.​

That's correct; that's why we've demonstrated "predestined-salvation" is not "biblical doctrine".

Quote:
Your posts reveal just how little you know of the doctrine, and how much you assume falsely, with no real proof.​

Look at the Scriptural proof given here in this post so far; and in your post, no Scripture citation.

Quote:
Your "not really" accusation is a joke, because you utilize the same method when it suits you, to get out of sticky situations.​

Show me where.

I showed you 2Pet2:20-22, where men are "escaped defilements through the TRUE knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus", and you say
"Oh they escaped defilements but were not really saved; they never ceased being "dogs and pigs". Yes it says "they KNEW the way of righteousness, but turned away FROM it", but it was only a SUPERFICIAL knowledge and their turning TO or FROM the holy commandment changed nothing of their ALWAYS-UNSAVED-STATE."

I showed you Matt23:13, where men who ARE ENTERING are stopped/shut-off --- and you said
"They may have been ALMOST entering but never FULLY ENTERED, and anyone who is truly predestined-elect will enter at a time God DECIDES
...so "not really entering", and "not really shut off forever if they're elect", is your position.

Quote:
It is a straw man you use against Calvinists to try and divert the argument.​

No "straw man". Deny the "not-really-position", and deny that "predestined-election" has been overturned.

...but deny it with Scripture, especially what I've cited in this post. You can't. You will respond with "bluster", but you will not be able to overturn what I've just cited in Scripture.

Quote:
Ben, You cannot overturn scripture, and scripture never overturns scripture. NEVER.​

That's correct. But SCRIPTURE overturns Predestined-election" --- completely, and finally.

 

[Blood]

You will respond with "bluster"
Every post you make is an example of unethical bluster. Every post you make contains distorted quotes of scripture. Every post you make contains additions you have implanted into the scripture to distort the truth.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben believes that his word is the final word on anything, and he believes that by pronouncing "predestined -election" (to use his invented term) to be overturned, then it is, and he declares"finally", as though his word were the final authoritative word. However, for years, Calvinists have tried to show him the error of his understanding, and have refuted his views many times. Ben's response? Declare that he has overturned the refutations, and declare that his refutations are the only ones that stand, which is a blatant lie, as Frumanchu has refuted recently several points of his view, and Ben has not responded, which Ben declares must be done, or the refutations stand. Therefore, Ben lies when he says his view has never been refuted, for by his own standard, it has. His response? "NOT REALLY". The very thing he accuses calvinists of saying.

Ben's entire assumption of Calvinist understanding of Predestination and Election is built on false premises, assumptions not based in fact, and in twisting and re-wording scriptures to overcome the straw men he has created and called "predestined-election" He quotes a multitude of scriptures, and believes that because he does, his position is unassailable, but he does not wield the scriptures skillfully, or with understanding.

I am stating the truth, and making an accurate assessment of his methods, his reasoning skills, and his motivations. He can call it bluster if he wants, but I challenge anyone else to deny what I have said. We know that Ben will deny it. Will anyone else?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Blood:
Every post you make is an example of unethical bluster. Every post you make contains distorted quotes of scripture. Every post you make contains additions you have implanted into the scripture to distort the truth.
You are an unethical man.​

To whom are you speaking --- me? If so, then please back up your charges with Scripture (and cite my "distortions"), or do not make the charges.

Agreed?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Ben believes that his word is the final word on anything, and he believes that by pronouncing "predestined -election" (to use his invented term) to be overturned, then it is, and he declares"finally", as though his word were the final authoritative word.​

Ben has no "final word" on anything, Ben cites Scripture, which has the "final word".

Quote:
However, for years, Calvinists have tried to show him the error of his understanding, and have refuted his views many times. Ben's response? Declare that he has overturned the refutations, and declare that his refutations are the only ones that stand, which is a blatant lie, as Frumanchu has refuted recently several points of his view, and Ben has not responded, which Ben declares must be done, or the refutations stand. Therefore, Ben lies when he says his view has never been refuted, for by his own standard, it has. His response? "NOT REALLY". The very thing he accuses calvinists of saying. ​

Please cite where Ben has merely said "NOT REALLY", rather than present precise, direct and detailed Scriptural support --- else accept that "Reformed Theology" is overturned.

Quote:
Ben's entire assumption of Calvinist understanding of Predestination and Election is built on false premises, assumptions not based in fact, and in twisting and re-wording scriptures to overcome the straw men he has created and called "predestined-election" He quotes a multitude of scriptures, and believes that because he does, his position is unassailable, but he does not wield the scriptures skillfully, or with understanding. ​

Once again, your post has zero Scripture references. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Nuttin'.

With respect, you understand there is no credibility in any post in "theological debate" that has no Scripture?

Quote:
I am stating the truth, and making an accurate assessment of his methods, his reasoning skills, and his motivations.​

Are you? Let's see the documentation. Start with Post #27, an easy request, as it was only four posts back.

Quote:
He can call it bluster if he wants...​

Suppose BEN posted with grand assertions, bold declarations, but no Scripture references. What would you call such posts of mine?

Bluster --- 5. noisy, empty threats or protests; inflated talk: bluff and bluster. ​

Without precise Scriptural backing, either your or my posts would be "bluster".

Quote:
but I challenge anyone else to deny what I have said. We know that Ben will deny it. Will anyone else?​

Deny what? What have you said? That is, what have you said with Bible-quotes?

Answer some of my posts --- and answer with Scripture.

Additionally, tell us why Titus3:5-6 is not saying "regeneration is by the RECEIVED-THROUGH-BELIEF Spirit"...

Thanx in advance, NBF...

 

[Folks LOL]

.And note folks, .

Yeah Folks LOL........Take careful note while his eminence speaketh LOL

 

[Blood]

You will respond with "bluster"
Every post you make is an example of unethical bluster. Every post you make contains distorted quotes of scripture. Every post you make contains additions you have implanted into the scripture to distort the truth.

(and cite my "distortions"), or do not make the charges.
Read any of your posts, and confirm the charges.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

You will respond with "bluster"
Every post you make is an example of unethical bluster. Every post you make contains distorted quotes of scripture. Every post you make contains additions you have implanted into the scripture to distort the truth.
You are an unethical man
(and cite my "distortions"), or do not make the charges.
Read any of your posts, and confirm the charges. You are an unethical man.

Don't get angry because you cannot out debate him after all it is hard to argue with the truth.


“O, Calvinist, Calvinist, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told you your children the plain truth... and ye would not let them understand.”

 

[onwingsaseagles]

Predestination has NOT been overturned. You cannot overturn a biblical doctrine, no matter how much you may hate it because of the damage it does to your view. Your posts reveal just how little you know of the doctrine, and how much you assume falsely, with no real proof. Your "not really" accusation is a joke, because you utilize the same method when it suits you, to get out of sticky situations. It is a straw man you use against Calvinists to try and divert the argument.

Ben, You cannot overturn scripture, and scripture never overturns scripture. NEVER.

If salvation was based on God's sovereign will alone then none would perish, but all would be saved.

2nd Peter 3:9 as well as 1st Timothy 2:4 both say it is God's will that all be saved.

Anyone that truly believes that God's true sovereign will is done are not calvinists they are universalists.

The truth is God want all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, but He has from His own sovereign decision given us the freedom to choose or reject the gift of salvation for ourselves.

 

[Blood]

You must think debate is a game where whoever posts the most and the most often wins the arguement. Thats not truth, just bluster.

 

[Van]

Who decides it is "real belief." God does, Romans 4:5 for He credits our belief as righteousness, or not depending on whether He accepts our belief as "real belief." You want to bypass God's validation of "real belief" and simply assume it, then say God's validation is a rubber stamp. LOL

Next John 1:12-13 teaches we receive Christ before we are given the right to become children of God. That is how the verse reads, folks, just read it.

Next, before we are born again we can trust in God and then turn away, just like the folks who fell in the wilderness. They trusted in God to take them out of Egypt, but did not trust God to lead them to victory in the promised land. But under the new covenant, once a person is born again, are faith does not continue on as usual, as before we were born again, able to turn back. No, after we are born again, our faith continues on with steadfastness by the power of God, for we are kept so that we will receive our inheritance.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

You must think debate is a game where whoever posts the most and the most often wins the arguement. Thats not truth, just bluster.

Whoever makes the best most biblically true argument wins, that would be Mr Johnson in this thread.

 

[Blood]

Your assesment reveals you know very little if anything of biblical truth, you just like to argue against it.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

And note folks, RTE simply repeats the discredited assertion that when we trust in Christ we are saved without God choosing to credit our faith in Christ as righteousness,
Rather, you continue to push the false dichitomies necessary to keep your ideas in the mainstream of Christianity and not in the "cult" basket where they belong.

There is no need for God to implement a second stage of 'crediting' after we have come to Christ, for Christ is God.





Romans 4:5. Not everyone who "believes" is saved, only those whose fatih is credited as righteousness. Demons believe and shutter.
The word "believe" and the word "faith" are not rendered as synonomous in scripture. Demons are never said to have faith, for one can only have faith when one doesn't see God, and demons see God.

So as usual, you deceiptfully use the word, above with a false dichotomy, and here with a false fusion.