"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
And you once again demonstrate your ignorance of the concept of logical order apart from temporal sequence...​

You'll have to come up with a new word; "order", means "sequence". Nothing else.

The distinction which you are ignoring is that order and sequence ARE the same. It is the temporal element which is not. I refer to the "logical order" referring to the term "ordo salutis", which means the order of salvation. That is a sequence of events. A related concept is the "logical order of decrees" which is the logical consideration of the decrees that God made before time. From that theological term comes the descriptive terms "Supralapsarian" and "Infralapsarian".

The point here is as Frumanchu has clearly stated: Time cannot exist without sequence, but sequence can exist without time. The aforementioned examination of the events that occur in a nuclear explosiion is a perfect example. There is more involved than just "BOOM!" There is a chain of events which make up the explosion (hence the term "chain reaction"). In order to understand and explain what happens, those events are examined with no regard to time. The exact same paradigm applies to the examination of the sequence of events which happens at the point of Salvation. Theologians set aside the time element, in order to focus on the various components of the event, to determine the sequence of events which sum up to "Salvation". Time is not the consideration at that point. The sequence can be referenced without and apart from time for the purpose of examination.

Why can't you accept this? Why do you refuse to see it? This is a standard, logical, and scientific methodology. It works in scientific examination, and it works in theological examination. I don't need to come up with a new term, you need to acknowledge that time and sequence are NOT equivalent terms.

Posted by NBF:
which is a valid and wholly logical means of determining how something happens. The analogy I gave of scientists looking at the logical sequence of events in a nuclear explosion is rock-solid because they do not consider time in their analysis, in order to identify the events which comprise a nuclear explosion.​

But time IS involved; the only instance where time is NOT involved, is "quantum tunneling". Which does not happen in a fission event...

We're not talking about quantum tunneling. That's an unrelated subject, and as such is a red herring. Let me repeat it again: Time requires sequence, but sequence does not require time. It is the difference between viewing an event from a temporal point of view, and viewing the same event from a logical analytical point of view. Time is not required or considered in the logical examination.

Posted by NBF:
It is exactly the same for theological examination of the logical sequence of events in Salvation, in order to identify what actually happens. Time is not considered in that examination. That is what you refuse to acknowledge, or even consider. Why? Because it does serious damage to your false doctrines.​

Heh heh heh --- you speak as though I have not been fully supporting everything with Scripture. I have.

Which is not what I am addressing. You have quoted scriptures, that is true, but we have shown that you often quote them out of context, re-word them, paraphrase them (which I do not do), and quote only portions of them, and often it is for the purpose of "overturning" one scripture with another, which is theologically impossible. Scripture does not contradict scripture.

You are dodging both the acknowledgment of the logical method which I have tried repeatedly to explain to you, and the implications of that logical method for your false doctrines. You have a much bigger problem than you will admit, and it is evident to everyone else here.

Posted by NBF:
Sequence can exist apart from time. That fact is the basis for much scientific and theological study, and has increased the understanding of m any important things. Too bad your denial of it prevents you from benefiting from it.​

From Dictionary.com, "order" is sequence, "sequence" is succession, "succession" is "a number of persons or things following one another in order or sequence."

Time.

You're making that last conclusion apart from the dictionary, Ben. Time is involved only when measuring that sequence against an outside standard. It doesn't have to be. You can make a grocery list, which is a sequence of items, one following another, and it is only a list, with no time component until you actually go shopping, and afterward determine how long it took you to complete the sequence (go through the list and obtain everything on it). The list of items is itself not concerned with time, and exists apart from time. A list is a sequence, but in and of itself, does not have a time component.

Sequence is involved with "how?", or "how many?", or "in what order?". Time is involved with "how long?"

Posted by NBF:
And once again, you try to key everything to Predestination. We know why you try so desperately to do so, because Predestination, biblical Predestination, is absolutely 100% TOXIC to your false doctrines.​

Do you really see "desperation" here? There is none, on my side.

Oh, yes there is. You hide it behind a lot of false bravado, but we can see it.

...but "predestination" is really being destroyed...

And you were predestined to that wrong conclusion.

 

[frumanchu]

"Regeneration", means what 2Cor5:17 says --- we are new creations, the old is passed away and all is new. Yet, the Greek tense supports "the old is pass-ING away, new things have come".

FAKE GREEK SCHOLARSHIP ALERT

Not a single major translation of the Scriptures renders this as anything but past tense, and that's because the aorist tense is virtually always rendered as past tense in English. Even your beloved Roberson renders it as past.

When are you going to admit that YOU DON'T KNOW A THING about New Testament Greek and are literally making stuff up to support your theology?

Make sense? I think I've explained it better, and shown the connection with more Scriptures...

By making up your own translation of Scripture? I don't think so. All you've done is shown that truth takes a back seat to your own preconceptions.

 

[Ormly]

FAKE GREEK SCHOLARSHIP ALERT

Not a single major translation of the Scriptures renders this as anything but past tense, and that's because the aorist tense is virtually always rendered as past tense in English. Even your beloved Roberson renders it as past.

When are you going to admit that YOU DON'T KNOW A THING about New Testament Greek and are literally making stuff up to support your theology?



By making up your own translation of Scripture? I don't think so. All you've done is shown that truth takes a back seat to your own preconceptions.

Have you arrived? Apparently not as none of us would admit,therefore there is a perspective that must be observed for good understanding, i.e., all things have indeed passed away pertaining to incomplete relationships with God. All things are indeed new because of Jesus Christ and Calvary who now makes intimacy possible. . However on a more personal level that can only mean they are passing away. . . . . as we, who ARE born again, understand to be conditional upon "abiding in the vine."

 

[frumanchu]

Have you arrived? Apparently not as none of us would admit,therefore there is a perspective that must be observed for good understanding, i.e., all things have indeed passed away pertaining to incomplete relationships with God. All things are indeed new because of Jesus Christ and Calvary who now makes intimacy possible. . However on a more personal level that can only mean they are passing away. . . . . as we, who ARE born again, understand to be conditional upon "abiding in the vine."

You are guilty of the same thing Ben is: using your doctrinal preconception to justify mistranslation of the Scriptures. I noticed how you avoided my challenge to defend his blatant mistranslation of 2 Peter 3:9. Now you're attempting again to justify his mistranslation with doctrinal preconception.

It doesn't work that way; doctrine is derived from Scripture, not the other way around.

 

[Ormly]

You are guilty of the same thing Ben is: using your doctrinal preconception to justify mistranslation of the Scriptures. I noticed how you avoided my challenge to defend his blatant mistranslation of 2 Peter 3:9. Now you're attempting again to justify his mistranslation with doctrinal preconception.

It doesn't work that way; doctrine is derived from Scripture, not the other way around.

Preconception?? I derive my understanding from the scriptures in toto and not from commentary. Show where it is preconception? That is my challenge to you. If you know your Bible as you boast, it should be easy.

"Ask and you shall receive" or is it "Ask and keep on asking and you shall receive"? Indeed, all things are become new . . . . as you learn to embrace the "new". I like the way that is worded, they "are become".

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Romans 8:1 (KJV)

Question: If one who is in Christ, walks not after the Spirit, has all the old passed away for him? That really only deserves a yes or no answer, anything else is spin.

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk . . . . after the Spirit." Romans 8:4 (KJV) Sounds conditional to me.

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
You try to administer a "coup de grâce" through misrepresentation, ignoring refutations that have been made, and claiming things to be as you want them to be, rather than as they are. All of your flowery talk about getting along, and allowing each other to differ, as you say here...​

It is not a "lack of flowery talk" to contend for the truth of Scripture; each "refutation" that I've been given, I've responded. I didn't mean to make you struggle so with the conflicts you're seeing between "born-again" and "adopted"; but we removed your first two inclinations (nearly-simultaneous, and simultaneous), now we've removed your third --- later event.

We ARE adopted sons through Christ, not will some day BE.

And yet Paul speaks of it as yet future. Who should I believe? You, or Paul?

Posted by NBF:
All that is just so much hot air, because you don't intend to allow us to differ...​

"Allow"? Have I such power? No; there is one Savior, it's none of us.

What I am doing here, is not a "lack of respect for differing opinions"; each person can believe as he wishes --- but after the discussions, "Responsible Grace" is remaining solid.

Your idea of accepting that we may differ is to establish RG as the only "real" interpretation, and all others inferior. You are trying to engineer things so that you always wind up on top. That's why you try to censor certain scriptures from the discussion. Your motives are as transparent as clear glass.

So my involvement embodies "All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2Tim3:16

But that only profits if scripture is properly interpreted, and applied. We have shown that you don't, your denials notwithstanding.

Posted by NBF:
you intend to destroy Calvinism. You will, of course, fail, but you haven't learned that yet.​

I haven't failed; no I have not "destroyed Calvinism", but we've discovered here together, that Scripture does destroy it.

"We" have discovered no such thing. You have thrown out a lot of things that you think destroy Calvinism, but they have not stood up under scrutiny. You're declaring victory without any proof, other than your saying so. You try to sound "humble" by claiming that it's not you, it's scripture, but the fact is, it is you wrongly applying scripture that has led you to make that claim, and it is self-delusional.

Posted by NBF:
Predestination is not denied by this understanding at all.
and according to your doctrines, and your stated positions, the following are true:

Originally Posted by Frumanchu

If anyone thinks this is a valid argument by "Responsible Grace" review the last several pages and notice that "Responsible Grace" refuses to acknowledge or answer the following conclusions drawn from its own reasoning:

There is a time when men believe but are not justified
There is a time when men believe but are still children of the devil
There is a time when men believe but are not born again
There is a time when men believe but are not adopted sons of God
There is a time when men believe but are not in Christ
There is a time when men believe but are not elect
There is a time when men believe but are not saved

You have never addressed these points. ​

And you know why. But I will answer you --- belief is not "mental assent" (James2:19), it is action (Matt7:24-27).

What you offer is an excuse, not a reason. You don't reply to Frumanchu, because you know you cannot win. He has done more to deconstruct your false doctrines than anyone else here, and you avoid him for that reason.

Many people go no farther than mental assent. They are the "nominal christians" who populate many churches today, who have no root in themselves, and if they are persecuted, or tried, they will deny that which they claim to believe, to save their own skins. They are the seed which fell on thorny ground, and on the rocky ground, and the pathway, the tares sown among the wheat, they which shrink back. They are not truly saved.

He who BELIEVES, acts on that belief and receives Christ. Thus there is no time between "belief" and "justification" and "adoption" and "new-birth".

LOL! You claim they are simultaneous, yet you use 4 different descriptive terms for them, so they are, of necessity, not the same thing. Since you claim that belief is "causal", then what results from belief cannot be simultaneous with belief, because no effect can occur simultaneously with its cause. So you have contradicted yourself, and your argument falls flat. You have defeated your own argument.

"God is just and justifier of he who believes". Rom3:26

Take that verse, and show me how there is ANY time between "belief", and "justification". Justification cannot precede belief, nor can one who believes, not be justified.

Then you are forced to concede that belief is not "causal" (your made up term) to salvation, or any part of it. And yet you still use different terms for what you claim is simultaneous. You are double-minded, and have defeated your own argument.

We see that those who RECEIVE the abundance of life and who receive the gift of righteousness will reign with Christ --- and that is identically "justified", in Rom5:17-18.

Again, you equate terms that are different. Receive is not justified. Justification is an act of God, not of man. Receive is an act of man, not of God. So, you continue to equate non-equivalent terms, you claim that cause and effect are simultaneous, and you argue for faith to be causal when it suits you, and simultaneous where you need it to be.

God is Just, which is a function of His very Nature. He is the One Who justifies those who believe. Receiving is not an active action of men. It is passive. Being declared righteous (justified) is not the same as reigning with Christ. Being made to reign with Christ is not the result of anything man has done (as though man caused it by his own action) it is the result of what God has done, and His action toward the Believer, justifying the Believer on the basis of Christ's work.

You are one confused dude, ben. Your arguments are unraveling, and you are powerless to stop it.

 

[frumanchu]

Ormly, you missed my point. All the Scripture-derived doctrine in the world cannot change the actual words the Scriptures were written with. Even if the position you approach it with is 100% true to the Word, it still does not justify changing other Scriptures at a linguistic level to force them in line with that position. If any man is in Christ....the old has passed away. No other doctrine, true or not, can force that verse to say other than what it does.

 

[Ormly]

Ormly, you missed my point. All the Scripture-derived doctrine in the world cannot change the actual words the Scriptures were written with. Even if the position you approach it with is 100% true to the Word, it still does not justify changing other Scriptures at a linguistic level to force them in line with that position. If any man is in Christ....the old has passed away. No other doctrine, true or not, can force that verse to say other than what it does.

Indeed, If any man is in Christ which means what, in your estimation, because in mine it means intimacy with the Father. It connotes a journey, with the possibility of failure ever present and NOT some instantaneous, one time experience. Now how do you read it?

 

[frumanchu]

Indeed, If any man is in Christ which means what, in your estimation, because in mine it means intimacy with the Father. It connotes a journey, with the possibility of failure ever present and NOT some instantaneous, one time experience. Now how do you read it?

You're still missing the point. It doesn't matter how I understand what being "in Christ" means, it doesn't change the fact that the text clearly states the old has passed away...not is passing away.

Do you acknowledge this? Yes or no?

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
Where did Cygnus say that the Regenerated ALWAYS chooses belief and God's righteousness? It isn't in the quote you posted. Either provide the quotation wherein he said those exact words, or admit that you have misrepresented his words, and put words in his mouth that he did not say.

Ah --- if he (or you) believe it's possible for a "sovereignly-regenerated" person, to NOT believe, and to NOT seek righteousness (but to seek sin), against his new "regenerated nature", then of course I'll apologize for misrepresenting him.

This is not hinged on what you want to think he said, it is a simple matter of going back and looking at what he actually posted, and then looking at the conclusion you drew from that, which clearly does not correspond, and then asking you to justify, and prove what it is that you claim he said, or meant. Keep in mind that assuming what someone meant is a dangerous practice.

What you claimed he said does not derive from what he posted. Therefore, I am right in saying that you misrepresented him, and need to apologize. Your attempt to fog the issue is non-germane, and fallacious. It does not have anything to do with what he posted, and what you claimed he said in your reply. The two don’t match, so you have borne false witness, for which you owe an apology.

Do you (or he) assert that?

What part of “no” is giving you problems?

Posted by NBF:
What is the alternative to Sovereign Regeneration? "Co-operative Regeneration"? "Anthropogenic Regeneration"?

Who is it that regenerates? God? Or the man himself?

God. Through faith. Just as there is only ONE Savior --- but Paul plainly says "save YOURSELVES". 1Tim4:16

Thus, our participation in salvation, and regeneration, is faith.

If faith is the means, then it cannot be the cause, as you often assert. You need to decide which it is and then stick with it. You claim that God regenerates, but then insert an additional element. You claim that it is by faith, which means that faith is the means. If that is so, then our faith is not the cause of Regeneration, or of Salvation. The Truth is, God supplies both the cause and the means of Salvation. We are the passive recipients of God’s Grace both in regeneration and in initial faith, which we then exercise in Christ, thus fulfilling God’s own words that His word does not return unto Him void, but accomplishes that which He sends it forth to do.

Posted by NBF:
Which presents a HUGE problem for "Responsible Grace", whether you choose to acknowledge it, or ignore it, as you clearly do.

Not at all; if we are sovereignly-regenerated, and have the new spiritual nature, and if men always follow their natures, exactly how is it that we sin???

Explain to us why you still sin, Ben. Do you lose your salvation when you do? Do you become “unregenerated” when you sin? How many times have you been regenerated, Ben?

If we are not “sovereignly regenerated” as you are obviously claiming, then what regeneration do we receive? If it is not Sovereign Regeneration (a made-up term of yours), then it is not all of God, is it? If man has any part in it, you are saying that in some sense man regenerates himself, and it is not all of God, which then gives you the room you seek to say that because it is not all God’s doing, then we can and do sin, even though we’re regenerated, making our regeneration just as imperfect as our natures.

Posted by NBF:
Then you have a problems with the fact that the saved have had ALL of their sins forgiven, which includes those yet future for them. But your false doctrines deny that fact, by making each saved person in danger of loss if they don't consciously repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed after their initial faith in Christ.

Really? 2Pet1:5-10 speaks of a man who WAS purified, but now has FORGOTTEN that purification. Will he enter Heaven? And if he's only "hypothetical", he is the example against which Peter says "THEREFORE be all the more diligent about your calling and election, that these fruits are yours; as long as you continue ...you will not stumble (become-wretched) --- in THIS way the gates of heaven will BE (abundantly) provided to you." So clearly conveyed is a LOSS of purity, and a warning for us to not DO THE SAME.

That’s it, Ben, avoid the point I brought up, and throw a “not really” at it.


Posted by NBF:
Jesus rebuked them FOR their unbelief, and stated to the Disciples that it was intended by God that they (the people Christ rebuked) not hear and see and understand. The reason is that, as Israelites, they should have believed, on the strength of the Word already given them, through Moses, and through the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They of all people had no excuse, and God deliberately left them in their unbelief, for a larger purpose, that ultimately the Gentiles would be included in the household and family of God, as He promised to Abraham.

Where is that, NBF? Where does it say that "God PURPOSED for men to disbelieve and go to hell"?

First, let’s clear up something. What you just said that I said here, is NOT what I said. I did not say anything about God purposing for men to "disbelieve and go to Hell". This is a blatant example of how you twist the words of others, and disrespect them by neither quoting them correctly, or answering directly what they have asked. You spin everything to try and make it work to your advantage,. You have proven that charge very graphically right here.

That said, here is the scripture:

Mat 13:13-17 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (14) Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. (15) For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' (16) But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. (17) For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Mar 4:11-12 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: (12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Isa 6:9-10 And he said, "Go, and say to this people: "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' (10) Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

If Jesus wanted all to understand and to see, he would not have spoken in parables. But He clearly states that He does so for a reason, and that reason is to prevent them from hearing and understanding. He is leaving those in their unbelief, and hardness of heart and blindness, for a reason. That reason had to do with opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles, and making the Gentiles able to be heirs of the promise, alongside the Jews.

Posted by NBF:

You clearly do not see the Truth of Jesus' own words, and misinterpret them, as well as ignore His Words where they would damage your doctrines.

Hmmm; too many passages say the same.

...especially ones like Matt11:21-24 --- why would Jesus say "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, they would have believed; it will go better for them in the Judgment than for YOU!" --- why would He say that, if all along he WANTED them to disbelieve and perish???

Well, Gee Ben, I guess you have to learn how to reconcile the two. You don’t do that. You toss one out in favor of the other. No wonder your doctrines are so twisted and unscriptural!

Posted by NBF:
Stop putting quotations around sentences that you make up yourself, and then try to pass them off as quotes from Calvinists. That is deceitful and promoting falsehoods.

Heh heh --- I read this aloud, and my frog is laughing too...

Do you deny that you do that, and have done it? Do you really want to go down that road? I can produce dozens of your posts, wherein you misquoted, or made up out of whole cloth words that you placed quotes around and tried to pass them off as words the Calvinists have said, when it is blatantly and clearly untrue, false, and dishonest. You did it right at the beginning of this post!

If you’re laughing, it’s a nervous laugh, because you know you can’t defend against it.

 

[Ormly]

You're still missing the point. It doesn't matter how I understand what being "in Christ" means, it doesn't change the fact that the text clearly states the old has passed away...not is passing away.

Do you acknowledge this? Yes or no?

Sure, be happy to provided you can admit you have no understanding pertaining to what other underlying implication is conveyed. That would be a shame, but it would also be honest.

. . . while you're at it you might want to define what the old is so that you might know what you are talking about.

 

[frumanchu]

Just as with before, you're willing to side with Ben only insofar as you get to attack Calvinists. When it comes to actually defending the positions of the guy you're siding with, you evade like mad. I'm sorry that you're only willing to acknowledge such a plainly obvious truth if I admit to ridiculous assertions on your part.

Last I checked, truth was not a quid pro quo proposition.

 

[Ormly]

Just as with before, you're willing to side with Ben only insofar as you get to attack Calvinists. When it comes to actually defending the positions of the guy you're siding with, you evade like mad. I'm sorry that you're only willing to acknowledge such a plainly obvious truth if I admit to ridiculous assertions on your part.

Last I checked, truth was not a quid pro quo proposition.

. . . and I really didn't expect honesty.

I'll give you two outta three: Explain your above accusations. They are unwarranted and quite revealing.

 

[AndOne]

FAKE GREEK SCHOLARSHIP ALERT

Not a single major translation of the Scriptures renders this as anything but past tense, and that's because the aorist tense is virtually always rendered as past tense in English. Even your beloved Roberson renders it as past.

When are you going to admit that YOU DON'T KNOW A THING about New Testament Greek and are literally making stuff up to support your theology?



By making up your own translation of Scripture? I don't think so. All you've done is shown that truth takes a back seat to your own preconceptions.

Just curious -

Has Ben ever responded to any of these posts that clearly point to the Greek text for support of the Calvinist position?

Seems like the boards go dead once those proficient in Greek show up to do battle....

 

[Ormly]

Just curious -

Has Ben ever responded to any of these posts that clearly point to the Greek text for support of the Calvinist position?

Seems like the boards go dead once those proficient in Greek show up to do battle....

Because it is the Greek double talk that sucks the air out of the thread. . . .))

 

[AndOne]

 

[cygnusx1]

What quackery is that to say our old nature has been destroyed? What do you believe overcoming is to be all about, fun and games? You are never tempted? What gets tempted when you are? You reveal you know nothing about the "way of the cross".

who are you talking to Ormly ??

I quoted ben's view not mine !! open your eyes man !

 

[Ormly]

who are you talking to Ormly ??

I quoted ben's view not mine !! open your eyes man !

Sorry bout that, my man. It is hard to follow with all that is 'pasted' up to be read and sorted out. All the crazy fonts don't help.

 

[cygnusx1]

This is not hinged on what you want to think he said, it is a simple matter of going back and looking at what he actually posted, and then looking at the conclusion you drew from that, which clearly does not correspond, and then asking you to justify, and prove what it is that you claim he said, or meant. Keep in mind that assuming what someone meant is a dangerous practice.

What you claimed he said does not derive from what he posted. Therefore, I am right in saying that you misrepresented him, and need to apologize. Your attempt to fog the issue is non-germane, and fallacious. It does not have anything to do with what he posted, and what you claimed he said in your reply. The two don’t match, so you have borne false witness, for which you owe an apology.



What part of “no” is giving you problems?

Posted by NBF:
What is the alternative to Sovereign Regeneration? "Co-operative Regeneration"? "Anthropogenic Regeneration"?

Who is it that regenerates? God? Or the man himself?



If faith is the means, then it cannot be the cause, as you often assert. You need to decide which it is and then stick with it. You claim that God regenerates, but then insert an additional element. You claim that it is by faith, which means that faith is the means. If that is so, then our faith is not the cause of Regeneration, or of Salvation. The Truth is, God supplies both the cause and the means of Salvation. We are the passive recipients of God’s Grace both in regeneration and in initial faith, which we then exercise in Christ, thus fulfilling God’s own words that His word does not return unto Him void, but accomplishes that which He sends it forth to do.

Posted by NBF:
Which presents a HUGE problem for "Responsible Grace", whether you choose to acknowledge it, or ignore it, as you clearly do.



Explain to us why you still sin, Ben. Do you lose your salvation when you do? Do you become “unregenerated” when you sin? How many times have you been regenerated, Ben?

If we are not “sovereignly regenerated” as you are obviously claiming, then what regeneration do we receive? If it is not Sovereign Regeneration (a made-up term of yours), then it is not all of God, is it? If man has any part in it, you are saying that in some sense man regenerates himself, and it is not all of God, which then gives you the room you seek to say that because it is not all God’s doing, then we can and do sin, even though we’re regenerated, making our regeneration just as imperfect as our natures.

Posted by NBF:
Then you have a problems with the fact that the saved have had ALL of their sins forgiven, which includes those yet future for them. But your false doctrines deny that fact, by making each saved person in danger of loss if they don't consciously repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed after their initial faith in Christ.



That’s it, Ben, avoid the point I brought up, and throw a “not really” at it.


Posted by NBF:
Jesus rebuked them FOR their unbelief, and stated to the Disciples that it was intended by God that they (the people Christ rebuked) not hear and see and understand. The reason is that, as Israelites, they should have believed, on the strength of the Word already given them, through Moses, and through the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They of all people had no excuse, and God deliberately left them in their unbelief, for a larger purpose, that ultimately the Gentiles would be included in the household and family of God, as He promised to Abraham.


First, let’s clear up something. What you just said that I said here, is NOT what I said. I did not say anything about God purposing for men to "disbelieve and go to Hell". This is a blatant example of how you twist the words of others, and disrespect them by neither quoting them correctly, or answering directly what they have asked. You spin everything to try and make it work to your advantage,. You have proven that charge very graphically right here.

That said, here is the scripture:

Mat 13:13-17 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (14) Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. (15) For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' (16) But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. (17) For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Mar 4:11-12 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: (12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Isa 6:9-10 And he said, "Go, and say to this people: "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' (10) Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

If Jesus wanted all to understand and to see, he would not have spoken in parables. But He clearly states that He does so for a reason, and that reason is to prevent them from hearing and understanding. He is leaving those in their unbelief, and hardness of heart and blindness, for a reason. That reason had to do with opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles, and making the Gentiles able to be heirs of the promise, alongside the Jews.

Posted by NBF:

You clearly do not see the Truth of Jesus' own words, and misinterpret them, as well as ignore His Words where they would damage your doctrines.



Well, Gee Ben, I guess you have to learn how to reconcile the two. You don’t do that. You toss one out in favor of the other. No wonder your doctrines are so twisted and unscriptural!

Posted by NBF:
Stop putting quotations around sentences that you make up yourself, and then try to pass them off as quotes from Calvinists. That is deceitful and promoting falsehoods.



Do you deny that you do that, and have done it? Do you really want to go down that road? I can produce dozens of your posts, wherein you misquoted, or made up out of whole cloth words that you placed quotes around and tried to pass them off as words the Calvinists have said, when it is blatantly and clearly untrue, false, and dishonest. You did it right at the beginning of this post!

If you’re laughing, it’s a nervous laugh, because you know you can’t defend against it.

Outstanding post NBF !!

If ben still hasn't broken the habit of adding his own words to scripture , constantly using paraphrase after paraphrase then what hope is there that he will not do the same to your words and mine ?

I see he quoted an entire post of mine at the OP and then proceeded to spout his own stuff , not once has he even attempted to answer my main conclusion at the heart of that post ; if some men are born different to others , some good and some bad , some with a propensity towards evil ; some with a desire for good , then how is THAT anything to do with human choice ? It clearly isn't!

So even on a Semi-Pelegian view (which is error) God's Sovereignty is undiminished .

 

[frumanchu]

I'll give you two outta three: Explain your above accusations. They are unwarranted and quite revealing.

Sorry, but until you actually step up to the plate and acknowledge that doctrine, no matter how soundly derived from elsewhere in Scripture, cannot force the rules of linguistics to bend to its will, I have no intention of playing your games. Please prove to me that you're interested in serious discussion by acknowledging this; otherwise we now have two clear examples of you superficially supporting Ben johnson's fictitious Greek translations and then failing to provide any more substance to back it up than he has.