"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
Parables are not the foundation of doctrine, Ben.​

YES, they are.
Jesus: “The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE…”
Calvinist: “Oh you can’t take that LITERALLY; it’s not REALLY like that.”

And what Calvinist said those words, Ben? Please provide us the name of the person saying it, and the exact location of the quote, or admit that you made that up, and tried to pass it off as something a Calvinist said in this forum, or anywhere else.

Truth is, you CAN'T, because no Calvinist has said that. So, you're bearing false witness.

Parables explain concepts, but should not be taken as the foundation of any doctrine. If Jesus says "the Kingdom is LIKE..." He is giving an analogy, and no analogy is meant to cover all aspects of what is being addressed, only that particular issue. If Jesus said "the kingdom of God IS...", THEN you have basis for doctrine. Analogies do not make doctrine.

Posted by NBF:
Are you seriously going to tell us that 7th century Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders were called and equally able to believe and receive Christ as those in Europe, or the Roman Empire? How about China in the 1st Century? Or the entire world outside of Israel before Christ?​

Tell me how you understand Rom2:14-16.

Rom 2:14-16 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law--to themselves are a law; (15) who do shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing with them, and between one another the thoughts accusing or else defending, (16) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my good news, through Jesus Christ.
​

To that I will quote Jesus' own words:

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

​

Explain to us how the examples I gave above, can be in heaven, if they do not come through Christ. And you must show it in scripture, Clearly and plainly. I do not believe you can do so, and are advocating another way to God, outside of Jesus Christ. Know that such is another gospel, and not the gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Posted by NBF:
Ben, Scripture clearly shows that some are vessels of wrath created for destruction, and some are ordained to that end. God is Just in leaving anyone in their sins, if he chooses to. He doesn't "owe" them anything.​

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.

Ultimately, you cannot make that statement. God uses the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purpose (e.g. Joseph and his brothers, Pharaoh and his actions when God brought Israel out of Egypt), and he has ordained the acts of sinful men (the crucifixion of Christ). If God did not want sin to be present, He never would have allowed Adam to sin. Sin serves a purpose in His Creation, and when that purpose has been accomplished, it will be done away with. For you to cast this as God "desiring" sin, or "causing sin" is ignorant. God knew that Adam would sin, and had accounted for it. He did not cause Adam to sin, nor did He desire sin in the way you try to falsely cast this question. It was a necessary part of His overall Plan, and He uses sin as a tool.

How many times have I cited Ezk18:24-32, to illustrate God’s attitude? Men can turn from righteousness to wickedness, and men can turn from wickedness to God.
Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

Another false quote, which no Calvinist has ever said, nor can you find any quote in this forum where any Calvinist has ever said such a thing. You are once again deceptively bearing false witness against Calvinists, and against me, personally, by trying to give the impression that I have said such a thing, or would endorse such a thing. You need to immediately repent of your deception and falsehoods, and bearing false witness against Calvinists.

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.

What you need to realize is that you have falsely accused and misrepresented Calvinists in what they believe and have said. As such, it completely negates your false charge, and your point. You cannot prove Truth by means of falsehood.

Posted by NBF:
He supported what he said with scripture, and also with common sense.​

Look back at all the comparisons I’ve been making between ”Scripture” and ”Calvinism”, and tell me where is the “common sense”. With respect, how is it that man’s reasoning trumps clear Scriptural dictate?

I look back at the false comparisions you've made, charging Calvinists with things they did not say and do not believe, and realize that it is you who is deceived, and not making sense. You have lied, Ben, there is no other word for it. You have lied about what Calvinists believe, and have tried to prove your doctrines by means of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

Please tell us how your duplicity, falsehoods, and dishonest behavior trumps clear scriptural Truth.

 

[cygnusx1]

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.
​

How many times must i ASK YOU ; "WHO MOVED DAVID TO NUMBER THE PEOPLE " BEN ?

why do you avoid the subject ?

I have asked this question many times and have been ignored this far for obvious reasons , but I am not deterred ;

Now back to King David , David numbered the people under Satanic influence ;

1Chr.21

[1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
[2] And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
[3] And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
[4] Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.
[5] And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
[6] But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
[7] And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
[8] And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.


clearly this was sin and David acknowledged it . Everyone can read that Satan "provoked" David to sin . But according to ben sinful acts of men have nothing to do with God , God doesn't will sin , men sin proving that they can resist God , and God RESPONDS by punishing men , for God can do no other , being passive , and man granted freedom to act against God's will means God must permit man to resist Him , such is the argument for "man's autonomous will" .

But is that a true picture of the way things REALLY are ?

Is that "the Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth " ?

If it isn't then it is a distortion of the truth , half a truth is at best a white lie , at worst a devious device sent to delude men.

If scripture openly states David sinned , it equally proclaims Satan as the instigator of David's sin , BUT ,

Scripture no less affirms God's role as LORD Sovereign over all , even here , even where sin is being mentioned , God is not absent ; few realise the scriptures are not written from one single vantage point , the same event is often viewed at a different angle granting a FULLER firmer picture , instead of a distorted selective unbalanced view , here we see David's sin from God's perspective ;


2Sam.24

[1] And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
[2] For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
[3] And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?
[4] Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.
[5] And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:
[6] Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon,
[7] And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hibites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beer-sheba.
[8] So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
[9] And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
[10] And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

So it was The Lord himself who moved David to number the poeple , and later punish him , how does this fit ben's "logic" , how does this fact fit ben's definition of how God is Just ... friends , it doesn't !


This action of numbering the people lead to a REAL choice ; David was given a choice three ways of being punished , and David chose wisely!

 

[AndOne]

Don't get sucked into the vortex here, friend. Ben asked why God isn't sovereign enough to regenerate completely...not sanctify completely. The truth is that God DOES in fact regenerate completely. You're either fully born again or you're not...there is no partial birth (which of course would then make falling from salvation a partial birth abortion).

Ben is using terms in a completely different way than we are, and that has perpetuated a lot of these arguments, and he often uses the close relationship between two things (such as regeneration and justification) as a means of conferring the properties of one upon another such that he then uses the terms interchangeably.

Don't get sucked into the vortex...focus on the definitions of these terms because that lies at the core of our disagreement. It's already been shown that he holds a fundamentally different definition of salvation than we do (and historical Christianity for that matter).

Yes - I see this now. Thanks.

 

[AndOne]

Again, don't get sucked in here, bro. The definition of a contradiction is something which is both a and non-a at the same time in the same relationship. The truth is that it is BOTH God's decision and man's decision, but not in the same way. It is God's decision in that He purposes it and efficaciously brings it about, but it is still man's decision in that he chooses according to his desire from the available options. That God superintended it does not remove the reality of man's decision (see Joseph in Genesis).

What is being argued is for a libertine version of "free will" whereby the will is autonomous and unecumbered by anything, including God's sovereign intentions and the very nature of the human will in choosing according to desire.

Yes I agree - I was going to explain it but it was going to be too detailed for me to want to put the time into it. I just didn't want our friend to dupe me into denying the sovereignty of God. I appreciate the kind rebuke.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Parables are not the foundation of doctrine, Ben.​

YES, they are.
Jesus: “The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE…”
Calvinist: “Oh you can’t take that LITERALLY; it’s not REALLY like that.”

Quote:
Are you seriously going to tell us that 7th century Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders were called and equally able to believe and receive Christ as those in Europe, or the Roman Empire? How about China in the 1st Century? Or the entire world outside of Israel before Christ?​

Tell me how you understand Rom2:14-16.

Quote:
Ben, Scripture clearly shows that some are vessels of wrath created for destruction, and some are ordained to that end. God is Just in leaving anyone in their sins, if he chooses to. He doesn't "owe" them anything.​

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.

How many times have I cited Ezk18:24-32, to illustrate God’s attitude? Men can turn from righteousness to wickedness, and men can turn from wickedness to God.
Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.

Quote:
He supported what he said with scripture, and also with common sense.​

Look back at all the comparisons I’ve been making between ”Scripture” and ”Calvinism”, and tell me where is the “common sense”. With respect, how is it that man’s reasoning trumps clear Scriptural dictate?

 

[cygnusx1]

Quote:
Parables are not the foundation of doctrine, Ben.​

YES, they are.
Jesus: “The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE…”
Calvinist: “Oh you can’t take that LITERALLY; it’s not REALLY like that.”

Quote:
Are you seriously going to tell us that 7th century Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders were called and equally able to believe and receive Christ as those in Europe, or the Roman Empire? How about China in the 1st Century? Or the entire world outside of Israel before Christ?​

Tell me how you understand Rom2:14-16.

Quote:
Ben, Scripture clearly shows that some are vessels of wrath created for destruction, and some are ordained to that end. God is Just in leaving anyone in their sins, if he chooses to. He doesn't "owe" them anything.​

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.

How many times have I cited Ezk18:24-32, to illustrate God’s attitude? Men can turn from righteousness to wickedness, and men can turn from wickedness to God.
Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.

Quote:
He supported what he said with scripture, and also with common sense.​

Look back at all the comparisons I’ve been making between ”Scripture” and ”Calvinism”, and tell me where is the “common sense”. With respect, how is it that man’s reasoning trumps clear Scriptural dictate?

Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

"That is a demonstrable falsehood." Fru


please publish a quote/s by a Calvinist/s to back up your libel.

btw ,

ben using a selective quote to spin bias ;

Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”

Scripture showing the wider picture ;

" And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." Deuteronomy 28:63

 

[nobdysfool]

Originally Posted by Ben johnson

Posted by NBF:
Parables are not the foundation of doctrine, Ben.​

YES, they are.
Jesus: “The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE…”
Calvinist: “Oh you can’t take that LITERALLY; it’s not REALLY like that.”
​

And what Calvinist said those words, Ben? Please provide us the name of the person saying it, and the exact location of the quote, or admit that you made that up, and tried to pass it off as something a Calvinist said in this forum, or anywhere else.

Truth is, you CAN'T, because no Calvinist has said that. So, you're bearing false witness.

Parables explain concepts, but should not be taken as the foundation of any doctrine. If Jesus says "the Kingdom is LIKE..." He is giving an analogy, and no analogy is meant to cover all aspects of what is being addressed, only that particular issue. If Jesus said "the kingdom of God IS...", THEN you have basis for doctrine. Analogies do not make doctrine.

Posted by NBF:
Are you seriously going to tell us that 7th century Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders were called and equally able to believe and receive Christ as those in Europe, or the Roman Empire? How about China in the 1st Century? Or the entire world outside of Israel before Christ?​

Originally Posted by Ben

Tell me how you understand Rom2:14-16.
​

Rom 2:14-16 For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law--to themselves are a law; (15) who do shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also witnessing with them, and between one another the thoughts accusing or else defending, (16) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my good news, through Jesus Christ.
​

To that I will quote Jesus' own words:

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

​

Explain to us how the examples I gave above, can be in heaven, if they do not come through Christ. And you must show it in scripture, Clearly and plainly. I do not believe you can do so, and are advocating another way to God, outside of Jesus Christ. Know that such is another gospel, and not the gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Posted by NBF:
Ben, Scripture clearly shows that some are vessels of wrath created for destruction, and some are ordained to that end. God is Just in leaving anyone in their sins, if he chooses to. He doesn't "owe" them anything.​

Originally Posted by Ben

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.
​

Ultimately, you cannot make that statement. God uses the sinful acts of men to achieve His Purpose (e.g. Joseph and his brothers, Pharaoh and his actions when God brought Israel out of Egypt), and he has ordained the acts of sinful men (the crucifixion of Christ). If God did not want sin to be present, He never would have allowed Adam to sin. Sin serves a purpose in His Creation, and when that purpose has been accomplished, it will be done away with. For you to cast this as God "desiring" sin, or "causing sin" is ignorant. God knew that Adam would sin, and had accounted for it. He did not cause Adam to sin, nor did He desire sin in the way you try to falsely cast this question. It was a necessary part of His overall Plan, and He uses sin as a tool.

Originally Posted by Ben

How many times have I cited Ezk18:24-32, to illustrate God’s attitude? Men can turn from righteousness to wickedness, and men can turn from wickedness to God.
Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”
​

Another false quote, which no Calvinist has ever said, nor can you find any quote in this forum where any Calvinist has ever said such a thing. You are once again deceptively bearing false witness against Calvinists, and against me, personally, by trying to give the impression that I have said such a thing, or would endorse such a thing. You need to immediately repent of your deception and falsehoods, and bearing false witness against Calvinists.

Originally Posted by Ben

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.
​

What you need to realize is that you have falsely accused and misrepresented Calvinists in what they believe and have said. As such, it completely negates your false charge, and your point. You cannot prove Truth by means of falsehood.

Posted by NBF:
He supported what he said with scripture, and also with common sense.​

Originally Posted by Ben

Look back at all the comparisons I’ve been making between ”Scripture” and ”Calvinism”, and tell me where is the “common sense”. With respect, how is it that man’s reasoning trumps clear Scriptural dictate?
​

I look back at the false comparisons you've made, charging Calvinists with things they did not say and do not believe, and realize that it is you who is deceived, and not making sense. You have lied, Ben, there is no other word for it. You have lied about what Calvinists believe, and have tried to prove your doctrines by means of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

Please tell us how your duplicity, falsehoods, and dishonest behavior trumps clear scriptural Truth.
__________________

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

I look back at the false comparisons you've made, charging Calvinists with things they did not say and do not believe, and realize that it is you who is deceived, and not making sense. You have lied, Ben, there is no other word for it. You have lied about what Calvinists believe, and have tried to prove your doctrines by means of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright lies.

This is a serious problem I have in any discussion with any protestant which includes Calvinists. There is no such thing as a protestant faith, or any kind of unity on any single point of any doctrine. It has become grossly individualized and one must almost of necessity first determine precisely what someone believes because it does not align with any kind of dogmatic or systematic theology.
Which hardly makes it the Gospel, a universal Gospel once given that all Christians have believed, practiced and can, if studied, explain universally for the other.
For example, Ignatius would have no difficulty in understanding what I would explain of Orthodoxy and any other Christian in the last 2000 years. There is only ONE Gospel. not thousands fitted to each individually.
I would contend that Ben understands Calvinism on several points quite well. He would not be able to point out the differences as clearly as he does on some points.
On the other hand, some of the statments he has made which you call misrepresentations are not misrepresentations if one accepts the basic understandings of Calvinism and the extension of the particular theology. It may be a falsehood to you personally, but it is not a falsehood to the basic Calvinistic doctrines. You have simply either not considered the ramifications fully, or have simply developed a different understanding that seemingly gets around the gross contradiction.
Additionally, neither of you will ever prove your view to the other. You are neither disproving your opponents nor approving your own as being scriptural in its entirety. You have had this discussion for 2000 years and it has continually fragmented, not unified and is becoming even more fragmented as time goes on. If you study protestant history, you will find that even Luther recognized, before his death, that he had let the proverbial cat out of the bag relative to personal interpretation of just the Bible. Especially by the Anabaptists. This led many to develop the concept of denominations whose purpose was to keep the anarchy of individualism at bay. This was successful, relatively, for about 300 years. But the twentieth century began a free fall with the last 50 a downright plummet to the democratization of protestantism and individualized faith based on such things as the inner light, or freedom of conscience, and some other terms which gives the individual the right to develop ones own faith based on scripture alone.
Thus when one discusses anything doctrinally with a protestant, there is a very large variety of faiths, interpretations, all personalized where none can be generalized as a common thread or have a semblance of unity.
The problem I see Ben having is trying to hard to CONVINCE you of the non-calvinist protestant interpretation and goes to extreme definitions and explanations in trying to make a point. He need not do this as the differences are quite obvious.
Thus it is not at all possible for any to establish a basis of Truth, since it has all been marginalized, individualized and democratized and each can believe what he has interpreted for himself.
I know for most of you what I have said is meaningless, but that is acceptable. None have yet shown that the Christianity of the last 2000 years is precisely what you are explaining. You have not moved beyond either your own or some other man's basic developments from scripture. NONE, except for two points of Ben's can one find anything further back than the 16th century and only within protestantism that was believed and practiced by any number of people as a faith.
Also, to make such a tirad against Ben says very little because you have done the very same thing with his interpretation.

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,


This is a serious problem I have in any discussion with any protestant which includes Calvinists. There is no such thing as a protestant faith, or any kind of unity on any single point of any doctrine. It has become grossly individualized and one must almost of necessity first determine precisely what someone believes because it does not align with any kind of dogmatic or systematic theology.
Which hardly makes it the Gospel, a universal Gospel once given that all Christians have believed, practiced and can, if studied, explain universally for the other.
For example, Ignatius would have no difficulty in understanding what I would explain of Orthodoxy and any other Christian in the last 2000 years. There is only ONE Gospel. not thousands fitted to each individually.
I would contend that Ben understands Calvinism on several points quite well. He would not be able to point out the differences as clearly as he does on some points.
On the other hand, some of the statments he has made which you call misrepresentations are not misrepresentations if one accepts the basic understandings of Calvinism and the extension of the particular theology. It may be a falsehood to you personally, but it is not a falsehood to the basic Calvinistic doctrines. You have simply either not considered the ramifications fully, or have simply developed a different understanding that seemingly gets around the gross contradiction.
Additionally, neither of you will ever prove your view to the other. You are neither disproving your opponents nor approving your own as being scriptural in its entirety. You have had this discussion for 2000 years and it has continually fragmented, not unified and is becoming even more fragmented as time goes on. If you study protestant history, you will find that even Luther recognized, before his death, that he had let the proverbial cat out of the bag relative to personal interpretation of just the Bible. Especially by the Anabaptists. This led many to develop the concept of denominations whose purpose was to keep the anarchy of individualism at bay. This was successful, relatively, for about 300 years. But the twentieth century began a free fall with the last 50 a downright plummet to the democratization of protestantism and individualized faith based on such things as the inner light, or freedom of conscience, and some other terms which gives the individual the right to develop ones own faith based on scripture alone.
Thus when one discusses anything doctrinally with a protestant, there is a very large variety of faiths, interpretations, all personalized where none can be generalized as a common thread or have a semblance of unity.
The problem I see Ben having is trying to hard to CONVINCE you of the non-calvinist protestant interpretation and goes to extreme definitions and explanations in trying to make a point. He need not do this as the differences are quite obvious.
Thus it is not at all possible for any to establish a basis of Truth, since it has all been marginalized, individualized and democratized and each can believe what he has interpreted for himself.
I know for most of you what I have said is meaningless, but that is acceptable. None have yet shown that the Christianity of the last 2000 years is precisely what you are explaining. You have not moved beyond either your own or some other man's basic developments from scripture. NONE, except for two points of Ben's can one find anything further back than the 16th century and only within protestantism that was believed and practiced by any number of people as a faith.
Also, to make such a tirad against Ben says very little because you have done the very same thing with his interpretation.

Quite frankly, where did you get the idea I was discussing this, or anything with you? I mean no disrespect, but I have for the most part not read much of what you post, because it makes no sense to me. Please do not look at that statement as an opening to proselytize, because it would be a waste of time. I know what I believe, and I have no problem understanding the Bible when I read it. I read it prayerfully, asking God to open my eyes and heart to understand. What you say just doesn't square with what I read in God's Word.

What concerns me more right now, is that your posts have the potential to derail conversations, which is against the rules. You're really not dealing with what the conversation and thread is about, and how it's progressing. I know you mean well, but scripture says that words fitly spoken are like apples of gold in frames of silver. Sadly, your words don't quite fit that description.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quite frankly, where did you get the idea I was discussing this, or anything with you? I mean no disrespect, but I have for the most part not read much of what you post, because it makes no sense to me. Please do not look at that statement as an opening to proselytize, because it would be a waste of time. I know what I believe, and I have no problem understanding the Bible when I read it. I read it prayerfully, asking God to open my eyes and heart to understand. What you say just doesn't square with what I read in God's Word.

What concerns me more right now, is that your posts have the potential to derail conversations, which is against the rules. You're really not dealing with what the conversation and thread is about, and how it's progressing. I know you mean well, but scripture says that words fitly spoken are like apples of gold in frames of silver. Sadly, your words don't quite fit that description.

Amen bro !!

and I for one thank God for FREEDOM of CONSCIENCE , something that was won after a very high price , a civil war!

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Quite frankly, where did you get the idea I was discussing this, or anything with you? I mean no disrespect, but I have for the most part not read much of what you post, because it makes no sense to me. Please do not look at that statement as an opening to proselytize, because it would be a waste of time. I know what I believe, and I have no problem understanding the Bible when I read it. I read it prayerfully, asking God to open my eyes and heart to understand. What you say just doesn't square with what I read in God's Word.

It is a public forum. Any comment is open to discussion or comment. I don't need your permission to make a comment.
It seems that what you accuse Ben of, restricting scripture, or the use of scripture is what you also would like to do. No one has tried to force you to believe anything than what you do. Man has since the beginning of time believed what he most desires to believe. That you have chosen Calvinism or a variation of it is your free choice.
But scripture no place gives man the privilege or right to develop ones own unique faith and call it the Gospel once given. Christianity is not a democracy, but a Theocracy. It is there to believe and accept as given or leave it and develop ones own. The Gospel was given ONCE, wholly, completely for all, for all time. Jude 3.

What concerns me more right now, is that your posts have the potential to derail conversations,

Hardly derail when they are right on point. It is the Gospel, but it does derail Calvinism, which I would expect you should be concerned about.

What you say just doesn't square with what I read in God's Word.

Let alone historical Christianity, it does not square with most protestants and in many respects not with a lot of other so-called Calvinists. Could hardly be a unified, universal Gospel.

 

[nobdysfool]

nobdysfool,


It is a public forum. Any comment is open to discussion or comment. I don't need your permission to make a comment.

Where did you get that idea? All I'm doing is pointing out that your comments don't fit with the discussion taking place.

It seems that what you accuse Ben of, restricting scripture, or the use of scripture is what you also would like to do. No one has tried to force you to believe anything than what you do. Man has since the beginning of time believed what he most desires to believe. That you have chosen Calvinism or a variation of it is your free choice.

I was led to what I later found out was Calvinism through study and prayerful consideration of the scriptures, as well as the benefits of receiving a Seminary-level education at a body of believers I attended back ion the late 70's. I didn't go seeking Calvinism or any "ism". i just wanted to know the scriptures, and understand the salvation I had received, and how it came about. I asked God to teach me, and I believe what Jesus said that "if your child asks for bread, will you give him a stone? Or if he asks for fish, will you give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give your children good gifts, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask Him?" I believe He has done as I've asked. You're telling me he didn't.

But scripture no place gives man the privilege or right to develop ones own unique faith and call it the Gospel once given. Christianity is not a democracy, but a Theocracy. It is there to believe and accept as given or leave it and develop ones own. The Gospel was given ONCE, wholly, completely for all, for all time. Jude 3.

All the more reason, based on what I just said, for me to not accept what you're saying. I didn't come to what I believe by democracy, or the process of praxis, or compromise.

Hardly derail when they are right on point. It is the Gospel, but it does derail Calvinism, which I would expect you should be concerned about.

"Right on point"?? Hardly!

Let alone historical Christianity, it does not square with most protestants and in many respects not with a lot of other so-called Calvinists. Could hardly be a unified, universal Gospel.

Well you're entitled to your opinion. It's just not widely shared.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
prove it !​

”God because of His great love …made us alive together with Christ Jesus …by grace through faith”. You would have it say “God GIFTED us faith and then made us alive through that gifted faith, then condemns men who HAVE NOT faith even though it’s His choice NOT to give THEM the same faith”. (1Jn5:10)

With respect, which of us is “twisting Scripture”?

Quote:
I can also testify after reading Reformed literature for 28+ years that this is the Reformed view not merely a "version of Calvinism" as someone mischievously and mistakenly posted.​

Again with sincere respect and consideration, maybe studying Scripture is better than stacks of “Reformed literature”? (Not implying that you DON’T study Scripture, but that the literature has colored your perception; by looking at the passages that are not in that literature, a very different view emerges&#8230

Quote:
Regenerating/saving grace is irresistible/effectual (John 6:37)​

Why is this still quoted as if it’s never been answered? Those whom God gives to Jesus, first belonged to God. And in passages like Jn8:42 and Jn5:39-47, it’s clear that “belonging to God” is a choice.

Cygnus, what good is it to engage in debate, if one of us just pretends the debate never happened?

Quote:
"common Grace" as in the open proclamation of the Gospel is often resistible . (Acts 7:51)​

No, the SPIRIT is resistible. And that is a rebuke, which you would take to be “hyperbole”.

Scriptural rebukes are not made to men who cannot respond to the rebuke. John5:39-47 is a prime example of a rebuke TOWARDS belief. Matt11:21-24 is another --- which can never accommodate “sovereign-election”.

Connect Matt11:21-24 (“if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED&#8221 --- with Jn10:38 (“If you do not believe Me, then believe My WORKS, and you will know…&#8221 There is no way to deny that Jesus was rebuking them for SEEING, and refusing to believe.

”You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe.” Jn20:29

Scripture does not support “God-decides-belief”.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
prove it !​

”God because of His great love …made us alive together with Christ Jesus …by grace through faith”. You would have it say “God GIFTED us faith and then made us alive through that gifted faith, then condemns men who HAVE NOT faith even though it’s His choice NOT to give THEM the same faith”. (1Jn5:10)

With respect, which of us is “twisting Scripture”?

Quote:
I can also testify after reading Reformed literature for 28+ years that this is the Reformed view not merely a "version of Calvinism" as someone mischievously and mistakenly posted.​

Again with sincere respect and consideration, maybe studying Scripture is better than stacks of “Reformed literature”? (Not implying that you DON’T study Scripture, but that the literature has colored your perception; by looking at the passages that are not in that literature, a very different view emerges…)

Quote:
Regenerating/saving grace is irresistible/effectual (John 6:37)​

Why is this still quoted as if it’s never been answered? Those whom God gives to Jesus, first belonged to God. And in passages like Jn8:42 and Jn5:39-47, it’s clear that “belonging to God” is a choice.

Cygnus, what good is it to engage in debate, if one of us just pretends the debate never happened?

Quote:
"common Grace" as in the open proclamation of the Gospel is often resistible . (Acts 7:51)​

No, the SPIRIT is resistible. And that is a rebuke, which you would take to be “hyperbole”.

Scriptural rebukes are not made to men who cannot respond to the rebuke. John5:39-47 is a prime example of a rebuke TOWARDS belief. Matt11:21-24 is another --- which can never accommodate “sovereign-election”.

Connect Matt11:21-24 (“if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED”) --- with Jn10:38 (“If you do not believe Me, then believe My WORKS, and you will know…”) There is no way to deny that Jesus was rebuking them for SEEING, and refusing to believe.

”You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe.” Jn20:29

Scripture does not support “God-decides-belief”.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ben:
Calvinism fails to address the reason why Christians still sin.
Quoted by Cygnus:
To leave room for the EXERCISE of Faith​

In your view, men have not the option to believe (savingly), if they are not "sovereignly regenerated". And if regenerated, then belief is irresistible (the "I" in TULIP).

Will you consider that sin can "deceive to unbelief"? It can in
Heb3:12-13. It can in James1:14-16. The reality is that all sin is wrought by "taking our eyes off of Christ".

Hence the warnings to "abide", to "set our minds on things above, not on earthly things" (Col3).

Quoted by Ben:
Calvinists "rail" about God's sovereignty --- why isn't God sovereign enough to regenerate completely?
Quoted by Cygnus:
a very poor question considering Regeneration is complete.​

There's the problem, isn't it? We still have the choice to sin.

If "sin" equates to "unbelief" (as we just cited Heb3:12-13, and James1:14-16), then why is "sinlessness", irresistible?

You're trying to make the "I" in "TULIP" apply to belief, and failing to recognize that unbelief and sinfulness, are the same.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Notice how he did not answer the question. What we can deduce from Ben's "non-answer" is that he does not believe that all of a Believer's sins are forgiven, unless they add to Christ's work.​

Clearly answered, repentance and faith are forfeitable, by a man. Clearly backed with Heb10:26, if WE continue sinning willfully, Christ's sacrifice no longer covers us.

Thus, we add nothing to God's forgiveness, but we must abide IN faith, IN Christ, IN repentance. Else our formerly-forgiven sins will no longer be forgiven.

The excellent example of this is 2Pet1:9 --- here is a man who was purified --- does that mean anything BUT "forgiven"? No. Next, he lacks godly qualities and has FORGOTTEN former purification from sins. Where is he now?

Quote:
Notice also that he tried to twist my question around, to make it appear that I was advocating knowingly planning sins in the future. That is not what I was saying, or implying. He's trying to set things up for the specious "anti-nomian" charge against Calvinism.​

To the contrary, by equating "sinning" with "unbelief", it's clear that we can "take our eyes off of Jesus, and walk in sin.

It's not just that we have the choice to sin ONCE, after each sin we have the same choice --- to run back to Him and throw ourselves down at His feet in repentance, or to count on His patience and kindness and forbearance not realizing that the kindness of God leads to REPENTANCE. But because of stubbornness and unrepentant hearts men store up WRATH for themselves in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.

That was Rom2:2-8 --- a passage that perfectly fits into this discussion, and which your platform cannot answer.

Quote:
Every Christian has to deal with sin every day. Now Ben would have us believe that those sins are unforgiven, even though he has believed on Christ, and received the forgiveness of his sins, which Christ bought with His Own Blood.​

Is such a person "believing on Christ and abiding in Him, WHILE he is sinning?

No.

Quote:
Ben would have us believe that unless one consciously asks forgiveness (repents) of every sin he commits, after being saved, those sins will be held against him, and he will not be covered, and will be held accountable for those sins, even though Christ already died for them.​

God does not run a "game show"; but unless you deny the "indwelt nature of salvation", you will have to either accept that "Jesus participates in sin", or that when we sin we are away from Jesus.

In Heb3:6-14, sin hardens hearts to "falling away from the living God". Exactly what do you think "hardens hearts", means? (Or "falling away from the living God"?)

Quote:
What this shows is that Ben does not understand what it means to be "in Christ', and does not understand Justification. A Christian doesn't "have" sin any longer. Christ dealt with ALL of the Believer's sins. They are ALL under the Blood. If they weren't, the Believer would still be lost.​

Again, look only at Heb10:26 --- you're right, if we walk in sin Christ's sacrifice no longer covers us.

It is the same as in Rom8:12 --- if WE live according to the lusts of the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the flesh, we will live.

I think with respect by this time it's getting a little hard for you to deny the conflicts in "Predestinary Theory"...

Quote:
Ben's non-answer to my question should be ignored because it does not addres the question. It is an avoidance tactic.​

NBF, just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it wasn't answered. If you still feel it wasn't, please go back and re-read this post...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
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.​

Belief is repentance. Belief is "action" --- see Matt7:24-27. Belief is both "causal", and "simultaneous" --- because when a person believes, he necessarily repents and receives the Son and the Spirit.

You're approaching "belief" as "mere mental assent", which THEN receives justification and adoption. And that explains why you think there is a place of "sinning-SAVED", because while we're willfully sinning we'll be ok as long as we have mental assent to Jesus.

You don't recognize that unbelief is unrepentance and rebellion; so all of our sins are forgiven, IF we CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus. (Col1:23) That Colossians verse plainly states that "reconciliation" is rejectable.

Quote:
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.​

Go back to Matt7:24-27 --- he who ACTS on Jesus' words, is wise --- he who DOES NOT ACT on His words, is foolish.

There is zero "God-decides" in that, and all of "man decides".

Quote:
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:​

Clearly "justification" is received (Rom5:17-18). Regeneration is by the poured Spirit (Titus3:5-6). Adoption is after belief. Yet it is active belief that receives sanctification/justification/regeneration/adoption. And there is no way that any one of those (specifically "regeneration") can be separated out and placed "before".

Belief IS repentance. Believing-repentance RECEIVES forgiveness by its nature; it receives justification and sanctification and regeneration, and adoption.

That's why there are so many verses warning us to "continue in belief".
...which is the same as "continue (abide) in Him, keep ourselves in His love"...

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
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.​

Belief is repentance. Belief is "action" --- see Matt7:24-27. Belief is both "causal", and "simultaneous" --- because when a person believes, he necessarily repents and receives the Son and the Spirit.

Belief is not repentance, Ben. This is a major problem with your doctrine, loose definitions of words, that you can use one way where it suits, and another way where it suits, as you're doing here. Now here's something interesting...you claim that when a person believe, they necessarily repent and receive the Son and Spirit? Wouldn't that be like Irresistible Grace?

Faith cannot be both causal and simultaneous. Logically, that won't fly. I showed you why and you are not addressing what I said. You're trying to spin your way out of it.

You're approaching "belief" as "mere mental assent", which THEN receives justification and adoption. And that explains why you think there is a place of "sinning-SAVED", because while we're willfully sinning we'll be ok as long as we have mental assent to Jesus.

No, I am not, Ben, that is false. Mental assent is still unsaved. And what you call "sinning-saved" is actually a state of Grace, where one does not lose their salvation when they sin. Your doctrine necessarily teaches that every time a Christian sins, they lose their salvation, and must be born again, again. Thus, you do as in Hebrews where you crucify Christ anew. There is no room for Grace in your view. If you were consistent, Christians would have one shot, and if they sinned after they were saved, they're done, lost, and unable to come back. Of course, you don't believe that. But logically, that's where your false doctrine leads.

You don't recognize that unbelief is unrepentance and rebellion; so all of our sins are forgiven, IF we CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus. (Col1:23) That Colossians verse plainly states that "reconciliation" is rejectable.

You have a real problem equating dissimilar terms, or calling the part to be the whole. Lack of repentance and rebellion are related to unbelief, but unbelief is much more than lack of repentance and rebellion. Once again, your focus is all on us, and not on God His Grace, and Christ's work on our behalf. For some reason, you seem to think that once we have believed, that God leaves everything up to us, and has no further interaction or provides any help to the Christian.

Posted by NBF:
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.​

Go back to Matt7:24-27 --- he who ACTS on Jesus' words, is wise --- he who DOES NOT ACT on His words, is foolish.

There is zero "God-decides" in that, and all of "man decides".

Which does not address or answer what I set forth. You're the one always talking about "cause", but you seem to always miss that cause has effects. No cause can be its own effect, nor can the effect happen simultaneously with its cause. These are not just ideas, they are logical and provable FACT. You're not addressing this glaring fault in your false doctrines, Ben.

Posted by NBF:
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:​

Clearly "justification" is received (Rom5:17-18). Regeneration is by the poured Spirit (Titus3:5-6). Adoption is after belief. Yet it is active belief that receives sanctification/justification/regeneration/adoption. And there is no way that any one of those (specifically "regeneration") can be separated out and placed "before".

Ben, we've already refuted many times your ridiculous mangling of Titus 3:5-6. It's refuted, and your refusal to acknowledge that fact does not negate it. I've explained exactly what regeneration is many times. it is an act of Grace on God's part, not man's. It is necessarily the first act, by God, in the salvation of a man, because it is the quickening of the spirit to receive from God. All else flows from this first act of God in a man's salvation.

Once again, you are not answering what I said. You are avoiding the clear logical deductions that your own doctrines require, and which you avoid.

Belief IS repentance. Believing-repentance RECEIVES forgiveness by its nature; it receives justification and sanctification and regeneration, and adoption.

That's why there are so many verses warning us to "continue in belief".
...which is the same as "continue (abide) in Him, keep ourselves in His love"...

Ben, you are intentionally confusing terms, equating distinctly different terms and trying to spin your way out of the logical hole you yourself made. You didn't answer what I posted, you tried to spin your way out of it. You seem to have this pathological aversion to admitting to any Calvinist that they are right about anything, and that you are wrong. You can't even deal with your own deliberate errors against other Christians, and make them right. You preach repentance, yet you don't do it.

 

[frumanchu]

With respect, which of us is “twisting Scripture”?

You.

You're literally making up translations as you go and then refusing to provide any justification for it.

You're ignoring clear context in order to force verses to speak to things they were never intended to speak to.

You're cherrypicking connotative definitions of Greek words in order to construct Frankenstein-style verses to support your teachings.

You're ignoring fundamental linguistic forms in order to attempt to draw parallels based on the use of similar generic nouns.

Again with sincere respect and consideration, maybe studying Scripture is better than stacks of “Reformed literature”? (Not implying that you DON’T study Scripture, but that the literature has colored your perception; by looking at the passages that are not in that literature, a very different view emerges…)

Yeah...coming from someone who embraced the unbiblical doctrine of Annihilationism based on a tract from the Worldwide Church of God, I hardly think you're in a position to lecture us on the dangers of letting literature lead one astray.

Why is this still quoted as if it’s never been answered?

Cygnus, what good is it to engage in debate, if one of us just pretends the debate never happened?

Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You systematically ignore arguments that blow holes in your teachings. That is documented fact.

The fact of the matter is, you simply post Scriptures over and over again and then claim your position is "fully backed by Scripture." Satan did the same thing tempting Jesus in the wilderness; my point being that simply quoting Scripture does not automatically confer truth upon the positions those Scriptures are used to support. The positions you claim are "fully backed by Scripture" are built upon flawed hermeneutics, atrocious linguistics, and grossly fallacious logic. These things have been demonstrated countless times, yet you are incorrigible. You boldly proclaim that you are tearing Calvinism apart, when in fact it's here for all to see that you continue to ignore or dismiss the most devestating critiques of your teachings and cast all manner of fallacious arguments at the others. There are glaring errors here that cannot be ignored, but you defiantly do so anyway, claiming victory as your ship sinks.

Your entire doctrinal structure is built upon one thing: losing salvation. From your earlier times on LBMB and the Pizza Parlor warning all those folks against falling away, to the time here at CF, your teachings have shown a clear pattern of development. It becomes most clear when doctrines like justification and sanctification are explored. Your definitions of those doctrines morph to whatever will accomodate or lend support do your doctrine of lost salvation. It doesn't matter that your doctrine of justification and definition of salvation are well outside orthodox historical Christianity, so long as they fit up with your core belief that Christians have no security whatsoever in their salvation. In short, your doctrine is more born of pragmatism than actual Scriptural study.

"Responsible Grace" theology is dead. These threads are nothing more than the equivalent of Weekend at Bernie's.

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
Notice how he did not answer the question. What we can deduce from Ben's "non-answer" is that he does not believe that all of a Believer's sins are forgiven, unless they add to Christ's work.​

Clearly answered, repentance and faith are forfeitable, by a man. Clearly backed with Heb10:26, if WE continue sinning willfully, Christ's sacrifice no longer covers us.

Thus, we add nothing to God's forgiveness, but we must abide IN faith, IN Christ, IN repentance. Else our formerly-forgiven sins will no longer be forgiven.

Then logically, you're saying that Forgiveness of sins is provisional, and we can be held accountable for all of our sins, even after they have been forgiven. How can God hold us accountable for sins which have already been covered by the Blood of Christ?

Why do you make so much of man's supposed ability to resist God? Of what possible benefit can that be? You have just taken away one of the great comforts to a Christian, that his sins will no longer ever be held against him. You are saying "not really", if you don't tow the line.

The excellent example of this is 2Pet1:9 --- here is a man who was purified --- does that mean anything BUT "forgiven"? No. Next, he lacks godly qualities and has FORGOTTEN former purification from sins. Where is he now?

2Pe 1:9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.
​

Peter is making a contrast. Contextually, he delineates that which God has given us pertaining to life and godliness, and encourages them to build on those things. Then he contrasts with one who isn't paying attention, and has forgotten that God has given him these things. It does not say he was lost, it just says that such a man is not utilizing that which he already has. Peter is not even talking about a real person here, he's making a point, by contrast. You're taking this out of context, and reading into it something which isn't there.

Posted by NBF:
Notice also that he tried to twist my question around, to make it appear that I was advocating knowingly planning sins in the future. That is not what I was saying, or implying. He's trying to set things up for the specious "anti-nomian" charge against Calvinism.​

To the contrary, by equating "sinning" with "unbelief", it's clear that we can "take our eyes off of Jesus, and walk in sin.[/quote]

Let's make something clear right here. Unbelief is a sin, but sin is more than unbelief. Sin encompasses far more than just unbelief. If you don't understand that distinction, and agree with it, then you're further off the beam than we heretofore knew.

It's not just that we have the choice to sin ONCE, after each sin we have the same choice --- to run back to Him and throw ourselves down at His feet in repentance, or to count on His patience and kindness and forbearance not realizing that the kindness of God leads to REPENTANCE. But because of stubbornness and unrepentant hearts men store up WRATH for themselves in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.

That was Rom2:2-8 --- a passage that perfectly fits into this discussion, and which your platform cannot answer.

What do you mean "my platform cannot answer". Are you delusional? We have dealt with this verse many times, but we don't twist it as you do.

Posted by NBF:
Every Christian has to deal with sin every day. Now Ben would have us believe that those sins are unforgiven, even though he has believed on Christ, and received the forgiveness of his sins, which Christ bought with His Own Blood.​

Is such a person "believing on Christ and abiding in Him, WHILE he is sinning?

At the moment that you sin, are you still a Believer? Is abiding in Christ something so ephemeral and tenuous that even a little slip of the tongue, or a thoughtless action, removes you from that place such that you're lost again? That's the logical place that your platform leads to, whether you believe so or not. And questions like this, you've never answered, because they would expose the unbiblical nature of what you believe and teach.

Posted by NBF:
Ben would have us believe that unless one consciously asks forgiveness (repents) of every sin he commits, after being saved, those sins will be held against him, and he will not be covered, and will be held accountable for those sins, even though Christ already died for them.​

God does not run a "game show"; but unless you deny the "indwelt nature of salvation", you will have to either accept that "Jesus participates in sin", or that when we sin we are away from Jesus.

So then, logically, you believe that sin, any sin, cause one to lose their salvation, and be once again as one who was never saved. Is that what you're saying?

You're not addressing what I said. You're trying to spin your way out of it, without directly addressing it.

In Heb3:6-14, sin hardens hearts to "falling away from the living God". Exactly what do you think "hardens hearts", means? (Or "falling away from the living God"?)

Why do you insist on portraying this as falling away, and hardening the heart? Those are indicative of much deeper problems, not the day to day mistakes we all make. You are promoting a graceless salvation, where at any given moment, one may be saved or unsaved, depending on what he is doing or saying at that moment. You just don't have the stones to admit it.

Posted by NBF:
What this shows is that Ben does not understand what it means to be "in Christ', and does not understand Justification. A Christian doesn't "have" sin any longer. Christ dealt with ALL of the Believer's sins. They are ALL under the Blood. If they weren't, the Believer would still be lost.​

Again, look only at Heb10:26 --- you're right, if we walk in sin Christ's sacrifice no longer covers us.

But that's not what I said, Ben. Don't you read? You are avoiding what I actually said.

It is the same as in Rom8:12 --- if WE live according to the lusts of the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the flesh, we will live.

You totally avoided what I said. You clearly do not understand Justification, and the extent of Christ's sacrifice, and the Father's application of it to the Believer. These are fundamental issues and it is clear that you do not understand them. This is not about Calvinism at this point, this is about basic, bedrock doctrine.

I think with respect by this time it's getting a little hard for you to deny the conflicts in "Predestinary Theory"...

You're kidding, right? You haven't even dented what you call "Predestinary Theory". Why? Because you have constantly and consistently not even portrayed Calvinism accurately. You're shooting at phantom targets of your own creation. For you to make a statement like that shows that you are not tightly connected to reality, and the so-called "respect" you speak of is disrespect and hubris.

Posted by NBF:
Ben's non-answer to my question should be ignored because it does not addres the question. It is an avoidance tactic.​

, just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it wasn't answered. If you still feel it wasn't, please go back and re-read this post...

You have clearly avoided what I said. YOU go back and read the post, and my answers,. and try actually addressing what I posted, instead of spin and deflection, and false claims of braggadocio.