"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Ben johnson]

Cygnus, I agree that "it all begins with God"; yet we have different understandings of what that means.

The Ezk11 passage was speaking of a specific people; yet, "all begins", means "He gathered them together and assembled them". Do they have new hearts? No.

Verse 18 says "WHEN they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations." Do they have new hearts? No.

Verse 19 says "AND I shall give them new hearts..." Do they have new hearts? YES.

Three things:
1. "Gathering", is analogous to the present-day "calling"; and precedes "new-hearts".
2. "Turning-to-God" (away from abominations), precedes "new hearts".
3. Not everyone turned from abominations; no "God-exclusivity" is asserted, it's consistent to understand "turning is a choice".

And towards proving that "consistency", Ezk19:24-32:
Eze 18:24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
Eze 18:25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Eze 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
Eze 18:27 "Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.
Eze 18:28 "Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Eze 18:29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Eze 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
Eze 18:31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."

Cygnus, that is not "poor-attempt-refutation", it is not "incoherent", it is not "one-liners".

It is solid, and Scripturally proven...

 

[Ormly]

i

t doesn't matter ... back to topic I think ; how can a Christian who has the life of God within still sin ;

Does he have the NATURE of God in him? If so, then his warfare will be against that which is his biggest enemy, his own "self". Just like Adam. It is called the "way of the cross". His life will be his 'wilderness experience' much as Jesus experienced. What will keep him is his allegiance to the Father, again as Jesus exhibited, who he is learning to obey. All of this of course is assuming he is born again.

if the fallen unregenerate can only sin , then how can the regenerate sin is ben's question.

I believe I just answered.

What does it mean we must be overcomers? Overcome what? And how can one begin to overcome unless one is born again? That is why I question and make the distinction between being again and those who simply confess Christ while giving no evidence of His life within.

". . . every one that has this hope set on him purifies himself, even as he is pure" 1 John 3:3 (ASV)

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ormly:
FWIW: Revivals never work. If they did the first one would have. Besides, God never sends revival. He sends Himself. I believe that is the reason revivals are little more than 'pep rallies'. God doesn't show up.​

"Revival" is a misused word. It's not a "camp meeting", it's not any kind of meeting; the word means when very large amounts of men turn to God. There was one in Europe at the turn of the 20th century, so profound that the horses could not be controlled.

The horses only knew commands with profanity; and when so many hearts turned to God, men stopped cursing.

 

[nobdysfool]

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

Excuse me? How was that an "empty Five-Way"?

Did you answer my statement? No, you did not. Do you agree that a Christian, by virtue of Christ's work, has had ALL of their sins forgiven? And do you agree that this includes sins they have not as of yet committed? If that is so, then how can you say that a Christian could fall away and become unsaved if they do not consciously repent of specific sins, as they are committed? Where is Grace in that? If all of our sins are covered, how can they yet be held against us?

Do you assert the man in 2Pet1:5 was never REALLY saved? Or that he didn't REALLY fall? Or that he is not real, just the "hypothetical-example held out to accomplish God's effective means of keeping us diligent in our calling and election"?

I on the other hand, see him as real, and the warning "therefore do not be like him". Precisely as Heb4:11 says: "Do not imitate their disobedience (and unbelief), and fail to enter God's rest".

Which is the means God has provided us to assist in none of us being in that position. Whether the man is real or not doesn't matter. I believe that it is hypothetical, a teaching example to illustrate Paul's point. You obviously don't. But, you must view this in light of the questions I have asked above, and what the implications are. So far, you have avoided it. Now's the time to address the questions, without spin, without selective misquoting, without glossing things over. Can you do that? Will you?

Posted by NBF:
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.
​

Ah --- I'm pleased that I was wrong. So you do not believe God wants/desires/decrees/decides for anyone to go to Hell.

Ben, why do you interpret and extrapolate from what I said, to make it appear that I said something i did not say? Do you have the ability to perceive and understand what I said, and only what I said, at face value, without reading into it things I did not say, or even address? Do you realize that this is dishonest, and fosters misunderstanding, strife, and anger?

Why do you disrespect me in this fashion? I pointed out exactly how you had misrepresented what I said before, and in reply, you misrepresent what I said pointing out where you had misrepresented me before. There is a definite cognitive dissonance here, and it is not I who has the problem.

We agree on this point, completely.

No we don't, because you misrepresented what I said. That is a clear, incontrovertible FACT.

Posted by NBF:
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. ​

Sorry, NBF --- they didn't understand His parables, because they didn't believe in God or Him. If you're going to assert "GOD made their hearts dull so they COULD NOT believe", they you'll have to take back what you just asserted about "I did not say anything about God purposing for men to "disbelieve and go to Hell".

No, I do not have to "take it back". Here we have a clear example of how you twist and distort what others have said, in order to gain advantage for yourself. I explained clearly what I meant, and I posted 3 scriptures to back it up. You didn't deal with the scriptures at all, and misrepresented what I said about them. Jesus clearly stated that He spoke to the people in parables, SO THAT they would not see and not hear, and not turn, repent and be healed of their sins. It was prophesied that this happen, and it was fulfilled by Jesus, one of many prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in His earthly ministry. As I have pointed out before, Jesus rebuked them for the unbelief (which is God's prerogative to do without regard to ability to change) they held, because, of all people, they should have believed, seeing that they claimed to believe Moses, who spoke of Christ. Jesus rightly pointed out that they did not believe Him, because they really did not believe Moses, thereby showing that they were hardened and blind and deaf, and Jesus chose to leave them in that state. This is undeniable.

Besides, per Rom11, He shut them ALL up in disobedience, that He may have mercy on ALL...

Logical outcome of that verse taken by itself, the way you interpret it, is Universalism. Are you a Universalist, Ben?

Posted by NBF:
Let's see if you can own up to the obvious documented contradictions of your theology and your replies in this thread.​

What contradictions? Cygnus claimed that, and I responded --- patiently showing what I'd said was not a contradiction.

You cannot be serious, Ben. I have shown a multitude of contradictions, misquotes, made-up quotes, and misrepresentations by you in this thread, just in the last day. As of yet you have not addressed the bulk of them and the one you addressed in this post, you screwed it up even further.

Quote:
You claim to not respond to Fru's posts, then did so right here. So you do respond when it suits you, when you can try and make it appear that you are being persecuted, but you will not reply to the substance and points of his posts, because in reality, you can't.

​

This was edited out of the post you are quoting, because I thought better or it after I posted it. You really should check before you post, to be sure you're quoting accurately. As it is, this only exists in this post, because you quoted from an earlier version of my post, before I edited to make it a little more civil. I would have preferred that this not be quoted, but you have done the damage. I stand by what I said, but apologize for the manner in which I said it.

Posted by NBF (with updates from the original post):

"Fostering kindness and civility" to you seems to mean accepting what you say as the final definitive word on the subject. Given the clear, multiple, and troubling defects we see and have pointed out in your theology, and your seeming refusal to deal with them, makes it difficult. Kindness and civility can and should be fostered here, but it needs to start with you, and your owning up to issues that you clearly have not done.​

Show me where I have been "unkind" or "uncivil", that I may seek forgiveness.

Unkind as in making false charges against myself and Frumanchu? Still waiting for the resolution of that one.

Unkind as in misquoting me, twisting my words and adding to them things I did not say?

Check, right here in this post.

Unkind, as in misquoting me, and then offering a false admission of being wrong and immediately twisting what I said into something I did not say?

Check!

Disrespecting posters by not accurately quoting them, adding to their words things they did not say, misrepresenting what they do say, IS unkind, Ben.

Meanwhile, the reality is that in especially the last couple of threads, "Sovereign-Predestination" has been shredded.

That is only your opinion, and the reality is, it is not widely believed. In fact, your support consists of yourself, and one other, who only half-heartedly supports you, so I would call that one half of another supporting you, and then only selectively. In the 1 Cor 2 thread, your poll shows that you were soundly defeated. So for you to make such a claim is willfully blind to what is really going on. With respect, of course.

To John5:40, where Jesus said "...come to Me that you may HAVE life", it was asserted that "come" doesn't mean "believing". Yes, it does. Furthered by what He said about Moses: "If you BELIEVED Moses, then you would believe Me; HOW can you believe My words, IF you DO not believe Moses?"

Your "proof": consists of "yes, it does". Believing Moses has nothing to do with coming to Jesus. And as I have pointed out, Jesus Himself said that "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me drags him."(John 6:44). Who acts first? The Father, dragging them to Jesus. Whose will is enacted here? The Father's. They do not come to Him of their own will. The Father drags them to Christ, and THEN they come to Jesus, in faith. Read it carefully, Ben.

On the concepts of "born-again" and "adopted", first you said "nearly simultaneous", which allows a period (however short) of "born-of-God but UNREPENTANT". Then you said "simultaneous, but logical ORDER without TEMPORAL order" --- which places "born-again" in the same time as "adopted", which is after belief.

I corrected myself, but apparently that is not acceptable to Ben, because he believes he can use it as a weapon against me. God has forgiven my sins, but Ben will not forgive and forget something I corrected in my own thinking and subsequent explanations.

Here is what Ben has not, and will not answer: If Belief is simultaneous with repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, as he claims, then faith cannot be "causal" to those things, because the effect cannot be simultaneous with its cause, nor can the cause be its own effect. If faith is equivalent to repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, then it is the effect, along with those other things, and cannot be the cause. The cause can only be something or Someone other than the effect, i.e. God.

If, however, faith is the cause of repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration and adoption, then it logically follows that faith precedes repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, and there is a period of time where the following are true, no matter how short that time may be:

• 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

As can clearly be seen, Ben has a problem in his theology. If faith is causal to salvation, then the above list applies, and he must explain how these things can be, because they flow logically from his contention that faith is "causal" to one's salvation. This presents a problem, because he cannot demonstrate how the unregenerate can believe savingly without the prior working of the Holy Spirit to convict them, which implies a regenerated heart.

If, however, faith is simultaneous to the other components of salvation, and equivalent and interchangeable, as Ben has said on occasion, then Monergism is logically upheld, seeing that the cause is not the effect (salvation), and no effect can exist without a cause. Ben's theology stands in contradiction to that fact.

continued..........

 

[nobdysfool]

..............Continuation of previous post

You compared the process to a nuclear reaction;

No, I did not. You are misrepresenting what I have repeatedly said. I compared the ANALYSIS of salvation to the ANALYSIS of a nuclear reaction. In both cases, the analysis does not require the consideration of time to determine what happens, and the order in which it happens. All that is being considered at that point, is what occurs, and the order in which the events occur, apart from the consideration of time. I'll say it yet again, sequence does not require time.

denying that the REACTION has time --- yet, the mousetrap ping-pong-ball experiment clearly demonstrates a time --- remember the room full of mousetraps, each loaded with a ping-pong ball --- and then ONE ball is thrown in. Do they all INSTANTLY go off? NO; it's rapid, but takes definite time for the balls to fly.

So too a neutron, moving at essentially the speed of light --- collides with a nucleus, liberating a couple more neutrons; which collide with more nuclei, and thus a definite progression, with a real (though short) TIME.

I am not denying that the reaction occurs in time, Ben. You are deliberately confusing things. Analyzing WHAT happens is not a consideration of time. The mousetrap/ping pong ball illustration can likewise be analyzed apart from the consideration of time.

So even in trying to present an analogy, you did not support what you wanted.

No, I didn't support what YOU wanted. I completely supported the theological method of analysis, and gave two solid analogies which illustrate the method: the analysis of a nuclear reaction, and the making of a grocery list.

Bottom line, I have illustrated above, a clear problem for your theology, one which you have not addressed or answered.

Posted by NBF (with updates fropm the original post):
The over-riding theme of your posts seems to be that you have never been refuted (when it is clear that you have been), and trying to create the illusion of 100% accuracy in everything you say. If that were really true, there would be no replies pointing out flawed reasoning, misquotes, inaccurate paraphrasing of scriptures, illogical declarations, and avoidance of the errors seen in your theology. These are legitimate concerns, which you don't seen to be interested in addressing.
​

And those replies have been replied, yet it's still treated as if they weren't.

You mean like the fact that you ignore our replies, and claim they were never made???

Posted by NBF:
Your reply to those things, if you choose to reply at all, is "not really".
​

No, each reply is fully backed by cited Scriptures. Take the 1Cor2:14 thread --- first it was asserted that "things" aren't the same "things" as in the previous five verses; then it was asserted that "spiritual things can be learned by OTHER means than by the Spirit", in the face of "Things taught by the Spirit with spiritual thoughts and words". Then it was back to "things aren't things", claiming Paul meant that "saving-faith in Jesus isn't possible BECAUSE they are unspiritual".

This in the face of "Natural men do not understand the things of the Spirit ...because they are spiritually discerned".
And, "We have received ...the Spirit that we may KNOW the things freely given, the things taught by the Spirit with spiritual thoughts and spiritual words".

So the only thing you or I CAN say about the passage, is "it makes no assertion as to why natural men are 'natural', but only says 'they cannot understand spiritual things because they have not believed Jesus and received the Spirit' ".

That's all it says; it does not say "cannot believe Jesus".

Spin, spin, spin. That is a far cry from what you asserted in the OP of that thread. You tried to censor theological debate, by trying to eliminate a scripture passage from discussion of Calvinist doctrine vs. RG. You should have known that Calvinists would not, and did not stand for such a blatantly dishonest attempt to gain unfair advantage for yourself by doing so. And we have shown that the larger context of the first three chapters can and do uphold the Calvinist view.

Posted by NBF:
If you want kindness and civility, you must be kind and civil.
​

Again, show me where I have been unkind or uncivil, that I may ask forgiveness and make amends.

I have done so, and you know what you need to do. The question is, will you?

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnus, I agree that "it all begins with God"; yet we have different understandings of what that means.

The Ezk11 passage was speaking of a specific people; yet, "all begins", means "He gathered them together and assembled them". Do they have new hearts? No.

Verse 18 says "WHEN they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations." Do they have new hearts? No.

thus far no disagreement between us .......

Verse 19 says "AND I shall give them new hearts..." Do they have new hearts? YES.

can you clarify this statement ben , it reads that God wills to give them what they already have , which makes no sense.

Three things:
1. "Gathering", is analogous to the present-day "calling"; and precedes "new-hearts".

I didn't state it like that , but as you wish , men are called and placed in a special place prior to New-Birth , the Holy Spirit works prior to faith , see the parable of the sower , the land is different , how does ben account for that difference without submitting God is at work ?

2. "Turning-to-God" (away from abominations), precedes "new hearts".

here ben confuses God's Preparation for the New Birth upon faith in God ...

outward reformation isn't enough to make anyone righteous ben , besides which God is clearly the author of this outward Reformation , are you not aware that God can turn men and make them do whatever He wishes even without a changed heart ; see Balaam and Balak !

Numbers, chapters 22-24.

Num 22

[35] And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.
[36] And when Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him unto a city of Moab, which is in the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost coast.
[37] And Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee? wherefore camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honour?
[38] And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.

This is a clear testimony to God's sovereignty over man , even though Balaam loved money and Balak offered to pay , even so God controlled the mouth of Balaam and the power of money and man lost!

back to Ezekiel ...

There is no evidence from Ezek or anywhere else , that God makes a new heart conditional upon faith.

3. Not everyone turned from abominations; no "God-exclusivity" is asserted, it's consistent to understand "turning is a choice".

as I have already stated outward reformation is not the new birth ... first God plows up the land so that the seed of God's Word can fall in furtile soil , what is the point in having children born in a polluted envirionment , even birds gather sticks to build a nest in a safe place before having chicks.

even so , the Lord called His people back to the land to remove altars to false God's and prepare for the oncoming inner transformation .


v18 . And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence.

And towards proving that "consistency", Ezk19:24-32:
Eze 18:24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
Eze 18:25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Eze 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
Eze 18:27 "Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.
Eze 18:28 "Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Eze 18:29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Eze 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
Eze 18:31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."

Cygnus, that is not "poor-attempt-refutation", it is not "incoherent", it is not "one-liners".

It is solid, and Scripturally proven...

now this is a point where you have slipped over from talking about God's Sovereign act of Regenerating sinners to God's commanding sinners to ebey and even make for themselves a new heart , can you not see what God is saying ben ? God is speaking directly to the impossibility of the sinner doing good , for who has EVER made themselves a New Heart , have you ? Of course you haven't you cannot be that deluded , seriously!

It is a rebuke for the Jews needed to hear that what a man sows he will reap , you have to look at this classic text against the backdrop of the fact of Biblical curses , imputed sin and federalism . The Jews thought that God had left a loophole for their sin , God is at pains to remind them that generational curses DO NOT remove or demean responsibilty for personal sin.

 

[Ormly]

Quoted by Ormly:
FWIW: Revivals never work. If they did the first one would have. Besides, God never sends revival. He sends Himself. I believe that is the reason revivals are little more than 'pep rallies'. God doesn't show up.​

"Revival" is a misused word. It's not a "camp meeting", it's not any kind of meeting; the word means when very large amounts of men turn to God. There was one in Europe at the turn of the 20th century, so profound that the horses could not be controlled.

The horses only knew commands with profanity; and when so many hearts turned to God, men stopped cursing.

I am seventy years a Pentecostal. I full well know of what you speak. I have lived through many revivals. Few have been genuine successes and even those that were were soon dissipated because of wrong teaching that taught: "Jesus changes things"; "Jesus never fails" inferring nothing was required of those looking for the change/hope. In the end discouragement, despair and rejection of the gospel set in and "the condition is worse than in the beginning".

The gospel message that references back only to the fall, will be a failure. It is the wrong starting point. It must be taken back to the beginning. Paul taught it that way.

 

[cygnusx1]

Once again, Phoo ee

FWIW: Revivals never work. If they did the first one would have. Besides, God never sends revival. He sends Himself. I believe that is the reason revivals are little more than 'pep rallies'. God doesn't show up.

phoo ee ? read some of the Revivals in New England under Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield , even the Wesley's , then read of the several Revivals in Wales (UK) accompanied by God's miraculous power ... don't compare these to modern day "revivals" such as the kind in Florida , TB etc , , btw , Todd Bentley has now been struck off I hear , something to do with some an unlawful relationship.

 

[Ormly]

phoo ee ? read some of the Revivals in New England under Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield , even the Wesley's , then read of the several Revivals in Wales (UK) accompanied by God's miraculous power ... don't compare these to modern day "revivals" such as the kind in Florida , TB etc , , btw , Todd Bentley has now been struck off I hear , something to do with some an unlawful relationship.

I know about them. Charles Finney as well. Do you know about his campaigns?

 

[cygnusx1]

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.

..

That's right bro , and that is the Fatal FLAW of this thread , ben has created a FALSE dichotomy , he thinks ;

'as an unregenerate person is always drawn towards sin according to those pesky Calvinist's seeing as he has a sin nature , even so a regenerate person must also always act righteously seeing as he has a NEW nature , therefore why do Christians still sin , I have them pesky Calvinist's with dis one '

thus he is simplistically defining the one dimensional thinking of sinners (always downward) as being equal to a supposed one dimensional thinking of those saved (always upwards), he has done this before , but Calvinists don't believe in equal ultimacy ; that God works in the same way with sinners as He does with the Regenerate , because God doesn't work sin in any unbeliever as He does work Righteousness in a believer.

Ben's whole post in the OP is therefore totally flawed.

Christians don't always follow after Christ , seeing as they have still within themselves the same fallen nature that opposes God and loves sin , the question really ought to be what gurantees have the Christian been given that they will in the final analysis be victorious and finally win over sin the flesh and the Devil .

Ben's other mistake is to suggest that Christians are in the same place , no better and no worse than they were before they were born-again , at both stages ben will have it that men can obey God , that men can do whatever God commands , and that it's all down to human will , but even an alcholic or a gambler will reject that one.

What really is lacking from ben's theories is what benefit there is in even being born-again , if he thinks , as I am sure he still does , that we are born-again merely to have eternal life , then that is such a skewed view of things as to be laughable , Jesus has eternal life and he was never born-again.

The truth is those who can obey God , who can submit to God , who have it already within themselves to please God have no real NEED of being born-again and granted God's nature. For that operation would be superfluous.

 

[Ormly]

". . . . let no man lead you astray: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous" 1 John 3:7 (ASV)

Jesus only came to redeem the righteous.

 

[AndOne]

Let's see if we can keep this thread open, by fostering kindness and civility.

I was hoping for a direct response to the Greek argument presented. I may have missed something - but I didn't see anything over the top in regards to rudeness....

 

[cygnusx1]

The apostles were not even aware that they had already been cleansed ....... and cleansing comes via the washing of regeneration ..... see their lack of understanding when Jesus washed their feet ....... Judas was never clean.

Right. But the "paliggenesia" is through the POURED Spirit.

And I'm asking, "is there any reason to take the "ekcheo-poured" of Titus3:5 as something different than the "ekcheo-poured" of Acts10:45?

"AFTER believing"? (Acts11:17)

Acts 11:17

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? KJV

the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the same as regeneration ben , there is a mystery of regeneration that takes place before humans are aware of it , if you read in Acts that they through faith received the promised Holy Spirit , follow through your claim , did the Apostles only get born -again at Pentecost ?
No , and niether did the crowds who through faith received the Holy Spirit's outpouring .....

Consider the reason why The Holy Spirit was given after Christ was resurrected and timed to coincide with His ascension....... it has nothing to do with Regeneration , but empowerment and future guidence .

You are stuck with a formula that insists faith is a prerequisite to regeneration , but although regeneration is necessary for salvation , faith is not required to be regenerate in fact many babies and idiots cannot have faith , because they lack understanding .

 

[cygnusx1]

". . . . let no man lead you astray: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous" 1 John 3:7 (ASV)

Jesus only came to redeem the righteous.

WOW !!!!!!!!!

that is surely the one to take First Prize at the Hyper Calvinist ball this coming summer !

 

[heymikey80]

"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".

The Greek tense actually says nothing about this, and purely indicates the old has passed away. Whatever "old" Paul is referring to has passed away.

Unless you can come up with something old that "has passed away" and also "is passing away", then you're not going to get Greek to even accept your view.

But in any event the Greek "passed away" certainly doesn't support "pass-ING away".

Hi, Dean. I believe if you'll go back and read the 1Cor2:14 thread, every point was fully established, and Calvinism was faring very badly.

As we kept pointing out and you kept ignoring, you missed quite a few excluded middles.

The logical equivalent of your argument was like this:

Paul says something greater than 3 is required.
Clearly here he's talking about 4. It's greater than 3.
But you're wrong because you think it's also true of 5. Obviously it could only be 4, because that's the only case Paul talked about.
​

We demonstrated more than one instance within the context in which Paul was talking about other "things", and was clearly relating them. They're the thrust of his point, of course they're related else he's talking gibberish.

But no. It's 5, not 4. So you won't agree.

No wonder the thread was locked. There was no way of getting around the errant declaration of victory. Now you're reproducing this error, dragging it into another thread. Why does anyone expect this thread to remain unlocked with so much hubris on it, right from the OP?

 

[cygnusx1]

The Greek tense actually says nothing about this, and purely indicates the old has passed away. Whatever "old" Paul is referring to has passed away.

Unless you can come up with something old that "has passed away" and also "is passing away", then you're not going to get Greek to even accept your view.

But in any event the Greek "passed away" certainly doesn't support "pass-ING away".

Hi Mikey ,

I am still having difficulty with this quote from ben ;

To be fair, Calvinists do NOT assert "wanton sin"; but many do assert "back-slidden-saved". It seems to me that we must agree that regeneration means the END of the old nature, and the beginning of a "new creation" (2Cor5:17); and this is for anyone who is "in Christ".

at other times ben seems to agree with Calvinists that the old nature is still present within Christians causing conflict , but at other times ben seems to be fudging this position or out and out contradicting it , as in the above quote.

perhaps he hasn't made up his mind so is backing two different horses ?

 

[Ormly]

If I may: Regeneration means the taking into us the very Nature of the Father as Jesus possessed by His birth. It is that Nature alone the Father [HS] can only communicate with. It is that Nature alone, the evidence of which by default, seeks union with God. You might say it is "deep calling to deep". This newly created deposition is purposed to be increased by the impartation of the Character of God as it is learned. There can be no compromise in this in any way with our human nature that clamors for attention and screams for it rights to be observed. Crucifying it is therefore by degrees as it reveals itself in the various ways it will. This is what could be called the grooming for son-ship that must happen if we are to say we are growing in Christ. There is no automatic immediate death to self that regeneration provides for. Only loving the Father with all your heart, soul, mind and strength will accomplish that. In fact unless you are regenerated you will never realize you have a self that controls you and will only go kicking and screaming by discipline from us that declares I love my heavenly Father and will do only as I see Him do.

 

[heymikey80]

Yeah, I really don't know what Ben's thinking, CygnusX1.

All I know is the deviation from what Scripture said. I've no agenda here. I agree with you, this could be misunderstood to say our sinful natures have passed away, when they haven't.

For what it's worth, I think it's the consideration that Paul is emphasizing. "from now on we consider no one according to the flesh", but instead take the longer view that this creation is headed for destruction, and consider people with this already calculated into how we respond.

The grammar doesn't lead me to that. The semantics does.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi Mikey ,

I am still having difficulty with this quote from ben ;




at other times ben seems to agree with Calvinists that the old nature is still present within Christians causing conflict , but at other times ben seems to be fudging this position or out and out contradicting it , as in the above quote.

perhaps he hasn't made up his mind so is backing two different horses ?

Or, it could be that he's just making it up as he goes along...whatever is needed to oppose Calvinism at that moment and point....

 

[nobdysfool]

But no. It's 5, not 4. So you won't agree.

Well, I recall someone saying somewhere else that "four is right out!"

Something to do with a "holy hand grenade of Antioch"......