A defense of Limited Atonement

Ben johnson · Jan 13, 2007

Also (and I know you do not accept the connection), Heb6:7-8 speaks of the "ground that is tilled"; it says "IF it brings USEFUL fruit, it is blessed; but if it brings thorns/thistles it is CURSED and BURNED."

So in the parable about "rocky/good soil", the soil is CALLED "rocky" if it "falls to persecution/affliction/temptation", and it is CALLED "good" if it "bears fruit with perseverance".

The NAME ("good" or "bad") reflects the FRUIT; the soil is not CREATED bad or good.

cygnusx1 · Jan 13, 2007

Ben johnson said:
Overturn the refutation, or cease using the verse as "predestinary", as if it's not been refuted.

All right?

oh the verse is "predestinary" is it .......... who said ?

ahhhh no-one did , it must be another one of them straw donkeys !

# you would be dangerous if you were in the army ben ........ ya can't shoot straight !!!

Originally Posted by NBF
1 Cor 2:14 makes it clear that the natural man, i.e. unregenerate man, does not, and cannot accept or understand the things of the Spirit, because they are spiritually understood, and the unregenerate has no capacity to receive or understand these things, for that very reason

that's right bro , and as demonstrated here weekly (even daily) even men who are new creations still use their old minds !

Ben johnson · Jan 13, 2007

You deny Paul's words, Cygnus. Calvinists try to make it say "Jesus' Gospel cannot be understood by natural (unregenerated) men, because even THAT is spiritually discerned".

But the verse says that the received Spirit reveals the things that the natural man cannot understand.

The false understanding says "one must be changed FROM natural TO spiritual BEFORE he can comprehend things like Jesus' Gospel."

The true understanding says that "the natural man cannot comprehend the things the spiritual man can, because he has not received the Spirit; the spiritual man comprehends the things of the Spirit of God because he has received the Spirit."

It is the RECEIEVED Spirit Who reveals the "THINGS" of verse 12, verse 13, and verse 14. You need it to say "the things are revealed so that they can believe and receive the Spirit."

It's refuted in "predestinary meaning", Cygnus. Please credibly deny what I said, or accept it.

cygnusx1 · Jan 13, 2007

Ben johnson said:
You deny Paul's words, Cygnus. Calvinists try to make it say "Jesus' Gospel cannot be understood by natural (unregenerated) men, because even THAT is spiritually discerned".

But the verse says that the received Spirit reveals the things that the natural man cannot understand.

The false understanding says "one must be changed FROM natural TO spiritual BEFORE he can comprehend things like Jesus' Gospel."

The true understanding says that "the natural man cannot comprehend the things the spiritual man can, because he has not received the Spirit; the spiritual man comprehends the things of the Spirit of God because he has received the Spirit."

It is the RECEIEVED Spirit Who reveals the "THINGS" of verse 12, verse 13, and verse 14. You need it to say "the things are revealed so that they can believe and receive the Spirit."

It's refuted in "predestinary meaning", Cygnus. Please credibly deny what I said, or accept it.

so the Gospel is not a Spiritual truth revealed by God the Holy Spirit ......... error ben!

and predestinary nothing ........ no-one even mentioned predestination , try not to stray ben .

Ben johnson · Jan 13, 2007

Cygnus said:
so the Gospel is not a Spiritual truth revealed by God the Holy Spirit ......... error ben!

We're dealing with 1Cor2:12-15. Are the "THINGS" in verse 14, the same "things" as in verse 12?

and predestinary nothing ........ no-one even mentioned predestination, try not to stray, Ben.

Your position is fully "predestinary". By asserting that "the natural man must be regenerated before he can even understand salvation by Jesus", you are claiming that the passage supports "regeneration BEFORE belief". Fully "predestinary contention".

Let's review your choices:
1. It is possible to receive the Spirit WITHOUT (apart from) belief
2. The "spiritual things" in 12, are not the same "spiritual things" in 14 (14 includes Jesus)
3. The "received-by-belief" Spirit reveals the "spiritual things" in verse 12, verse 13, and verse 14, therefore the "spiritually discerned things" in verse 14 do NOT include "saving-faith in Jesus". The passage does not support "natural man must be regenerated before he can believe in Jesus".

Which do you choose, Cygnus?

cygnusx1 · Jan 13, 2007

Ben johnson said:
Ben johnson said:

We're dealing with 1Cor2:12-15. Are the "THINGS" in verse 14, the same "things" as in verse 12?

Click to expand...

you ignore my question ben .......... is the Gospel a revelation ( a spiritual revelation ) to men by the Holy Spirit..........

of course it is , and men who perish "think it foolish " they think it foolish because it doesn't make a significant connection to them , they are darkened in their understanding .... their natural minds cannot grasp these Gospel truths , Jesus dying for sinners is nothing to them , they neither understand it nor could they accept it .

Your position is fully "predestinary". By asserting that "the natural man must be regenerated before he can even understand salvation by Jesus", you are claiming that the passage supports "regeneration BEFORE belief". Fully "predestinary contention".

Let's review your choices:
1. It is possible to receive the Spirit WITHOUT (apart from) belief
2. The "spiritual things" in 12, are not the same "spiritual things" in 14 (14 includes Jesus)
3. The "received-by-belief" Spirit reveals the "spiritual things" in verse 12, verse 13, and verse 14, so the passage does not support "natural man must be regenerated before he can believe in Jesus".

Which do you choose, Cygnus?

Click to expand...

we are not dealing with "predestination" ben ......... which is a shame seeing as you like the subject so very much

there is a "veil" over the hearts of unregenerates ben , a veil obstructs mens minds .............. now you can go back one step (I expect you to) and I will go back a further step ...........

Ben johnson · Jan 13, 2007

Cygnus said:
there is a "veil" over the hearts of unregenerates ben , a veil obstructs mens minds .............. now you can go back one step (I expect you to) and I will go back a further step ...........

Gosh, Cygnus --- what good does it do to debate here at all? First NBF used a "long refuted passage", and I called him on it; now I'm gonna call you on ANOTHER "long refuted passage".
"If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

You take this to mean that "the devil has blinded their minds so that they cannot turn to God".

...but that idea has long been refuted with just the previous chapter:
"But whenever a man TURNS TO the Lord, the veil is removed..." 2Cor3:16

Reads to me like "turning to God" precedes "veil-removal".

What will it take for our Calvinists colleagues here, to admit that certain passages have been REFUTED in "predestinary understanding"?

you ignore my question ben .......... is the Gospel a revelation ( a spiritual revelation ) to men by the Holy Spirit..........

I would say, "NO it's NOT". In Romans10:17, does faith come by HEARING, or does it come by "spiritual revelation"? In Rom10:10, does man believe with his HEART, or with his SPIRIT???

of course it is , and men who perish "think it foolish " they think it foolish because it doesn't make a significant connection to them...

They think it foolish because they refuse conviction. Look at 1Cor1:21 --- God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached to save those WHO believe.

Does God save those who believe THROUGH the foolishness, or does God change it from "foolish" to "powre" for them, so they CAN believe? What did Paul say?

they are darkened in their understanding ..

Hmmm; in Eph4, WE are charged not to "walk as they do, darkened in OUR understanding and excluded from the life of God".

.. their natural minds cannot grasp these Gospel truths , Jesus dying for sinners is nothing to them , they neither understand it nor could they accept it .

Apparently their natural minds CAN grasp it, 'cause you can't find anywhere that Scripture says they cannot.

So --- we'll never again hear 1Cor2:14 or 2Cor4:3-4 used in the cause of "predestination" --- right?

(though I've asked that very question several times before...)

nobdysfool · Jan 13, 2007

Ben johnson said:
Gosh, Cygnus --- what good does it do to debate here at all? First NBF used a "long refuted passage", and I called him on it; now I'm gonna call you on ANOTHER "long refuted passage".
"If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

You take this to mean that "the devil has blinded their minds so that they cannot turn to God".

...but that idea has long been refuted with just the previous chapter:
"But whenever a man TURNS TO the Lord, the veil is removed..." 2Cor3:16

Reads to me like "turning to God" precedes "veil-removal".

Ben, you sift through multiple scriptures, looking for any thing that can by any stretch of the imagination, somehow be turned to use as a weapon against Reformed theology, and Reformed Believers. the sad part is, you don't even realize how you twist things sometimes.

Ben said:
What will it take for our Calvinists colleagues here, to admit that certain passages have been REFUTED in "predestinary understanding"?

Something more than your say-so, for starters....

The problem here Ben is that you have this nutty idea that we Calvinists sit around seeing all of our doctrine through "predestinary" glasses, which is a ludicrous charge, completely without merit, and actually shows the extent to which the very idea of predestination sends you into apoplectic fits. You absolutely detest and abhor predestination, so much that it has become an obsession with you. You're looking for it under every rock tree and bush, certain that it's lurking there somewhwre, just waiting to bite you when you aren't looking. Paranoid, much?

Ben said:
I would say, "NO it's NOT". In Romans10:17, does faith come by HEARING, or does it come by "spiritual revelation"?

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Is the Word of God spiritual revelation, or not?

Ben said:
In Rom10:10, does man believe with his HEART, or with his SPIRIT???

They think it foolish because they refuse conviction.

No Ben, they think it foolish because they don't understand it, and because God purposely made it seem foolish to the unregenerate mind. If they refuse conviction, it is because even the conviction is foolish to them.

-Ben said:
Look at 1Cor1:21 --- God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached to save those WHO believe.

This is one of the most egregious examples of poor hermenutics I've ever seen, Ben. You completely destroy the meaning of the passage, to make it say what you want it to say.

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (1Co 1:21) ESV

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1Co 1:21) KJV

For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save the ones believing. (1Co 1:21) LITV

For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save the ones believing. (1Co 1:21) ASV

"Through folly of what we preach" is a complete phrase, and cannot be broken apart without destroying the meaning. They don't believe "through" the foolishness as in looking around an obstruction, or somehow looking through it. The phrase "through the foolishness of preaching" is a complete phrase, meaning they are saved by the agency of preaching, which preaches God's Word, which is the source of faith, rather than the lofty words of man's wisdom, which in God's eyes is foolish. The preaching is the means of delivery, not some thing called "foolishness" which must be overcome by the unregenerate.

Ben said:
Does God save those who believe THROUGH the foolishness, or does God change it from "foolish" to "powre" for them, so they CAN believe? What did Paul say?

One thing is certain, Paul doesn't say what you say!

You make it sound like the unsaved believe through the foolishness like he was swimming through mud. In other words, expending effort to overcome this thing called foolishness, in order to believe. What a crock! You have butchered the verse to make it say something it doesn't say! The verse says that God is pleased to save(comma) through the foolishness of preaching(comma) those who believe. It isn't the foolishness they're believing through, it's the preaching. The same sentence can be contructed this way in English, without loosing any meaning:

God is pleased to save those who believe by means of the foolishness of preaching.

Anothe way to say it without losing the meaning is this:

Through the foolishness of preaching, God is pleased to save those who believe.

All 3 ways say exactly the same thing.

The preaching is how they hear the Word. But you insist that the foolishness is how they hear the Word, by believing (tunneling?) through the foolishness.

Scripture does not say "faith comes by hearing and hearing through foolishness." To be consistent, that is what you would have to say. You're butchering the English as well as the Greek in 1 Cor 1:21

Ben said:
Hmmm; in Eph4, WE are charged not to "walk as they do, darkened in OUR understanding and excluded from the life of God". Apparently their natural minds CAN grasp it, 'cause you can't find anywhere that Scripture says they cannot.

You mean to tell us that you can't see that? It's right there in plain sight, Ben! Those who are darkened in their understanding and excluded from the life of God cannot grasp spiritual things. If they could, they would no longer be darkened in their understanding, now would they?

Ben said:
So --- we'll never again hear 1Cor2:14 or 2Cor4:3-4 used in the cause of "predestination" --- right?

(though I've asked that very question several times before...)

Ben, you know that your position is weak in that spot, that's why you want concessions and promises not to use those scriptures to refute your doctrines, because you know they do. You're whistling in the dark as you're walking past the graveyard.

Predestination is your own personal "boogeyman", and it is evident that you have an unhealthy obsession with it, and are projecting that obsession onto your opponents. As I said before, we don't sit around framing everything in a predestination framework, and predestination is the not the cornerstone or foundation of Calvinism or any other -ism.

But anti-predestination is the cornerstone of Ben-ism, and the johnsonites. Maybe you ought to start a band an go on the road...
Ben and the johnsonites on their "I Hate Predestination" World Tour.

Ben johnson · Jan 13, 2007

NBF said:
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Is the Word of God spiritual revelation, or not?

And if it was by "spiritual revelation", ORDAINED by God, then what purpose would it have to say "HOW can they believe ...without preachers"?

Do you see the conflict? You're embracing "gifted faith", by "spiritual revelation". But Paul conditions it on "availability of preachers".

"Through folly of what we preach" is a complete phrase, and cannot be broken apart without destroying the meaning. They don't believe "through" the foolishness as in looking around an obstruction, or somehow looking through it. The phrase "through the foolishness of preaching" is a complete phrase, meaning they are saved by the agency of preaching, which preaches God's Word, which is the source of faith, rather than the lofty words of man's wisdom, which in God's eyes is foolish. The preaching is the means of delivery, not some thing called "foolishness" which must be overcome by the unregenerate.

It is belief that changes it from "folly", to "wisdom". You're needing it to be "change, so they CAN believe"...

The preaching is how they hear the Word. But you insist that the foolishness is how they hear the Word, by believing (tunneling?) through the foolishness.

Belief is a choice here, just as it is in 2Tim3:16, where "faith comes from studying the Scripture".

And unbelief is equally a choice, after studying the same Scriptures. Jn5:39-40

You mean to tell us that you can't see that? It's right there in plain sight, Ben! Those who are darkened in their understanding and excluded from the life of God cannot grasp spiritual things. If they could, they would no longer be darkened in their understanding, now would they?

If WE are warned not to "be as the heathens, darkened in their understanding", if THAT is a choice for US, then why is it such a stretch to accept that UN-darkened (through belief in Jesus) is EQUALLY a choice?

Ben, you know that your position is weak in that spot, that's why you want concessions and promises not to use those scriptures to refute your doctrines, because you know they do. You're whistling in the dark as you're walking past the graveyard

Deal with the words --- the spiritual things in 1Cor2:14 (which you think includes "Jesus' gospel") --- are the SAME "things" in verse 12, which the received Spirit discloses. We receive the Spirit by BELIEF; the RECEIVED Spirit reveals the "spiritual things" of verse 14. It cannot be more strong, and your position more thoroughly defeated.

Likewise, 2Cor3-4 equally overturns your position; it does NOT say that "the veil keeps people from turning to God". Strongly and thoroughly refuted.

I ask for "admission of refutation", because no matter how how many times the refutation is presented (and it cannot be denied), these verses keep coming back; and the same refutation is presented, then the verses are re-posted, then the same refutation, then again and again they're cited as if no refutation has ever been given.

I am neither "for", nor "against" anyone's doctrine; I am for the truths revealed in Scripture. If they happen to overturn "predestination", then it is Scripture's fault, not Mr. Johnson's...

cygnusx1 · Jan 14, 2007

Ben johnson said:
Gosh, Cygnus --- what good does it do to debate here at all?

It's taken this long for the penny to drop ben ?

First NBF used a "long refuted passage", and I called him on it; now I'm gonna call you on ANOTHER "long refuted passage".
"If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

You take this to mean that "the devil has blinded their minds so that they cannot turn to God".

...but that idea has long been refuted with just the previous chapter:
"But whenever a man TURNS TO the Lord, the veil is removed..." 2Cor3:16

Reads to me like "turning to God" precedes "veil-removal".

Just as I predicted ben !!

"now you can go back one step (I expect you to) and I will go back a further step ........... " cygnus

I said you would go back one step , and you did , now I will do what I said I would do , I will go back one step further still .........

It is God that turns men's hearts ben ........

Isaiah 6:10

Job 12:20; cf. Ezek. 7:26

Job 12:24 p.; cf. Psalm 107:40

"O Lord, why hast thou driven us mad and hardened our heart, that we may not fear thee?" [ Isaiah 63:17 ]

"I will harden his heart... so that he may not hear you [ Exodus 7:3-4]

"I will restrain his heart" [ Exodus 4:21].

Moses, indeed, declared to the people that it was the Lord who stiffened their hearts [Deuteronomy 2:30].

He turned their hearts to hate his people" [Psalm 105:25].

Isaiah 10:15

1 Samuel 16:14; 18:10; 19:9

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

he tamed the hearts of the cruel nations to gentleness [cf. Psalm 106:46

1 Samuel 11:6

2 Samuel 17:14

1 Kings 12:10,14

Joshua 2:9

Deuteronomy 28:65; cf. Leviticus 26:36

Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old. Lamentations 5:21

If you need any more scripture to show God turns mens heart , then just ask ben , I have more .

What will it take for our Calvinists colleagues here, to admit that certain passages have been REFUTED in "predestinary understanding"?

a lot more than what you have ever offered !

Van · Jan 14, 2007

NBF said:
If we assert that the Gospel changes a man when he receives it in his heart,

I assert that God changes those who accept the gospel fully. However, anyone who accepts the gospel is seeking God.

Of course man himself cannot cause the change, nor of his own volition produce fruit, for "without Me, you can do nothing." Only those God has reckoned their faith as righteousness are changed by God, regenerated which is our rebirth in Christ, and then indwelt.

NBF said:
That change must come from God, which the anti-RT and anti-Calvinist zealots steadfastly deny,

No, I assert the change must come from God.

"In the flesh" refers to an unregenerate whose mind is set on the flesh, it does not refer to unregenerates whose mind is set on spiritual things such as receiving the gospel, believing in God, believing that God rewards those who seek Him.

NBF said:
no provision made for the unregenerate to be able to understand the "milk of the Gospel"

The distinction is made by Paul and the author of Hebrews, and therefore this truth (that the unregenerate men can understand and receive the milk of the gospel) exposes a flaw in RT doctrine. 1 Corinthians 2:14-3-3 makes it clear that the unregenerate cannot understand the things appraised with the help of our indwelt Spirit, but can understand other spiritual things such as the milk of the gospel.

NBF said:
Trying to tie this back to Matt 13:20 -22 is poor hermenuetics, because Matt 13:20-22 does not teach that unregenerates can seek God, as is falsely and deceitfully asserted.

Tying this truth, that the unregenerate can seek God and believe God is the rewarder of those who seek Him, based on Matthew 13:20-22 is sound hermenuetics, for a person who received the gospel with joy is seeking God. Perhaps with the wrong motives, perhaps superficially, because the person described as rocky soil does not fully accept the gospel - "all those who follow Me will be persciuted" - but they are seeking God never the less.

Ben johnson · Jan 14, 2007

Cygnus said:
If you need any more scripture to show God turns mens heart , then just ask ben , I have more .

So --- God turns men's hearts towards unbelief and sin?

Do you really believe that?

cygnusx1 · Jan 14, 2007

Ben johnson said:
So --- God turns men's hearts towards unbelief and sin?

Do you really believe that?

yes!

next question.......... :wave:

Ben johnson · Jan 14, 2007

Van said:
Tying this truth, that the unregenerate can seek God and believe God is the rewarder of those who seek Him, based on Matthew 13:20-22 is sound hermenuetics, for a person who received the gospel with joy is seeking God. Perhaps with the wrong motives, perhaps superficially, because the person described as rocky soil does not fully accept the gospel - "all those who follow Me will be persciuted" - but they are seeking God never the less.

I think they fully accept it, Van. In Lk8:13, "They received it with joy, and believed". There is no difference between the beginning faith of those in verse 13 ("rocky"), and those in verse 15 ("good"). The difference is that the second, "held it fast and bore fruit with perseverance".

There is no way to wrest a mirror passage such as Heb6:7-8, from the same theology --- if "ground" in one passage represents "people", and "ground" in the other passage represents "people", if both passages speak of "bearing fruit", then it cannot be denied that "blessed/cursed" transfers to "good-soil/rocky-soil".

We see that in the Heb6:7-8 passage, there is ONE field, and ONE tilling; it is the FRUIT that determines "blessing" (IF good fruit), or "curse" (IF bad fruit).

Therefore it is the "HOLDING FAST and bearing (good) fruit WITH PERSEVERANCE" that makes soil "good", and it is "falling" (to persecution/affliction/temptation) that makes soil "bad".

Look at the issue behind the words "persecution/affliction/temptation" --- these things are associated with the SAVED, the devil has no concern for those who are not really saved.

No, the verse says "FALL AWAY to temptation/persecution/affliction". OSAS needs it to say "they didn't REALLY fall away, they were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place".

It is "holding fast, and bearing fruit with perseverance" that distinguishes the sheep, from the goats.

"We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

"He has reconciled us to God through His fleshly body, to present us before God holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed we continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from (Jesus) the Hope of the Gospel!" Col1:21-23

How is this not "crystal clear"?

nobdysfool · Jan 14, 2007

Ben johnson said:
I think they fully accept it, Van. In Lk8:13, "They received it with joy, and believed". There is no difference between the beginning faith of those in verse 13 ("rocky"), and those in verse 15 ("good"). The difference is that the second, "held it fast and bore fruit with perseverance".

There is no way to wrest a mirror passage such as Heb6:7-8, from the same theology --- if "ground" in one passage represents "people", and "ground" in the other passage represents "people", if both passages speak of "bearing fruit", then it cannot be denied that "blessed/cursed" transfers to "good-soil/rocky-soil".

We see that in the Heb6:7-8 passage, there is ONE field, and ONE tilling; it is the FRUIT that determines "blessing" (IF good fruit), or "curse" (IF bad fruit).

Therefore it is the "HOLDING FAST and bearing (good) fruit WITH PERSEVERANCE" that makes soil "good", and it is "falling" (to persecution/affliction/temptation) that makes soil "bad".

Look at the issue behind the words "persecution/affliction/temptation" --- these things are associated with the SAVED, the devil has no concern for those who are not really saved.

No, the verse says "FALL AWAY to temptation/persecution/affliction". OSAS needs it to say "they didn't REALLY fall away, they were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place".

It is "holding fast, and bearing fruit with perseverance" that distinguishes the sheep, from the goats.

"We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

"He has reconciled us to God through His fleshly body, to present us before God holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed we continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from (Jesus) the Hope of the Gospel!" Col1:21-23

How is this not "crystal clear"?

God saves us, and after that, it's all up to us. Is that what you're saying Ben?

Sure sounds like it.

nobdysfool · Jan 14, 2007

I think the reason there is no resolution to any of these things is that Van and Ben have different definitions for some words that Calvinists do. And even though they know that we define words in a more literal and logical sense, according to common usage, they filter anything we say through their own definitions, and the result is the straw men they continually erect in opposition to Reformed Theology.

And of course, they will deny that this is the case , and instead accuse us of redefining words.

Receiving = seeking is just one example of equating two terms that are not alike.

Milk of the Gospel is not spiritual is another, despite the clear fact that scripture says that the preaching of the Gospel is foolishness to the unregenerate mind. They claim that the unregenerate have the ability to seek God, but offer no reason why they should, or would do so. They just claim that it is so, then build doctrines on top of that shifting sand.

The underlying bedrock of all this is an unfounded belief that man's will is inviolate, that man is the ultimate determiner of his own destiny, that free will is sacrosanct. Ben even teaches that everything that follows salvation is up to man to obtain, maintain, and retain. Actually he teaches that man is the one who must obtain his salvation, because Ben makes such a fuss about believing being "causal" to salvation, that believing being entirely sourced in and generated by man's own heart, prior to regeneration, while he is still dead in sins, while he is an enemy of God. Attempts to show why this view of cause and effect is unsound meets with absolute refusal to listen or to learn, as does any attempt to educate the anti-Calvinist/anti-RT zealots about Reformed Theology.

Although they show by their claims that haven't got a clue, they steadfastly refuse to accept that they don't know, andf need to learn what Reformed Theology actually teaches, and what it doesn't teach. In any other discipline, such people would be laughed at and ridiculed for such ignorance, if they were allowed to speak at all. They wouldn't attempt to tell us about Nuclear Physics, String Theory, or any one of literally hundreds of other disciplines without evidence and credentials proving that they possess the qualifications and education to speak on such matters, but when it comes to theology, everybody thinks they're an expert.

The anti-RT zealots will refuse to listen or learn, because they cannot let go of certain core beliefs that they have never ever questioned or allowed to be examined, yet they are certain that RT is wrong, depsite proof to the contrary, they are certain that they are right, despite proof to the contrary. Such is the nature of self-deception.

Ben johnson · Jan 14, 2007

Receiving = seeking is just one example of equating two terms that are not alike.

Does Scripture say that "God rewards those who SEEK"? Heb11:6, and Acts10:34-35, says that.

The difference between us is that you see "receiving", as PASSIVE; is "believing" passive, or active, NBF?

What does Matt7:24-27 say? Doesn't it say "he who hears AND ACTS..."?

The underlying bedrock of all this is an unfounded belief that man's will is inviolate, that man is the ultimate determiner of his own destiny, that free will is sacrosanct.

Justness demands that "men are rewarded the CONSEQUENCE of their own choices; so that when Paul says "God is just and justifier of he who believes", it places God's justification upon belief.

Men have always been given the choice to follow God. Deut30:15-20 is stark and clear; follow God, or choose curse/adversity/death. You will not consider that "sovereign-God", could allow men to choose. The Holy Spirit could bring them to the door (as Jesus said, "I will CALL ALL MEN to Myself") --- and then each has the choice to enter, or not.

...so that when men are cast into Hell, they will WEEP --- why? Because they were unlucky to not have been chosen by God? No -- because they will realize they chose WRONGLY.

Ben even teaches that everything that follows salvation is up to man to obtain, maintain, and retain.

Please tell me how you understand 2Tim1:12-14. God guards what WE entrust, we guard what HE entrusts. How can that not be "two-way-street"?

Actually he teaches that man is the one who must obtain his salvation, because Ben makes such a fuss about believing being "causal" to salvation...

Please tell me how to change "You believe BECAUSE you see?" --- into "seeing did not CAUSE his believing".

Tell me why those who have NOT seen, and YET believe, are more blessed than those who see and believe --- wouldn't BOTH types, be sovereignly predestined by God? Why is there a "more-blessed", unless belief is a CHOICE?

... that believing being entirely sourced in and generated by man's own heart...

What does Rom10:10 say, NBF? "With the heart man BELIEVES."

Doesn't it?

... prior to regeneration...

See if you can deny that "faith" in Eph2:8, happened WHILE we were dead in sins (Eph2:1,5)

...while he is still dead in sins, while he is an enemy of God.

I look forward to your "rewrite" of Eph2:1-8 --- can you?

Attempts to show why this view of cause and effect is unsound meets with absolute refusal to listen or to learn, as does any attempt to educate the anti-Calvinist/anti-RT zealots about Reformed Theology.

It meets with "absolute Scriptures". Refute the verses you've been given about "belief-sequence", and I'll accept Calvinism.

Titus 3:5-6 says "WE were washed with regeneration, by the Spirit". Right?

Which Spirit?

"....by the Spirit, who was poured".

Regeneration comes by the POURED Spirit? Poured on WHOM?

"...by the Spirit, who was poured on US through Jesus OUR SAVIOR".

Regeneration to US, is by the poured-to-US-through-OUR-SAVIOR-Spirit.

Go ahead --- make a case for "poured" means "on someone ELSE, not YET the saved (poured later). OR see if you can prove that "poured-through-OUR-SAVIOR", doesn't mean "through belief".

Can you?

I shall hold my breath awaiting your reply.

...unless I turn blue, in which case I'll sneak a breath here and there....

Ben johnson · Jan 14, 2007

Cygnus said:
Ben said:

So --- God turns men's hearts towards unbelief and sin?

Do you really believe that?

Click to expand...

yes!

next question..........

God is the author of sin? James says "God tempts NO one". Paul says "God is just" --- how is it just, if God causes men to sin?

Most Calvinists assert that "men choose to sin, because their hearts are totally depraved, and they cannot believe or turn to God" (leaving them at odds trying to explain how those in Lk8:13 can "receive the Word with joy and believe").

But --- GOD choosing men to sin --- and then throwing them in Gehenna FOR their sin. I can't see how that is Scriptural...

cygnusx1 · Jan 14, 2007

Ben johnson said:
God is the author of sin? James says "God tempts NO one". Paul says "God is just" --- how is it just, if God causes men to sin?

Most Calvinists assert that "men choose to sin, because their hearts are totally depraved, and they cannot believe or turn to God" (leaving them at odds trying to explain how those in Lk8:13 can "receive the Word with joy and believe").

But --- GOD choosing men to sin --- and then throwing them in Gehenna FOR their sin. I can't see how that is Scriptural...

no ben God is not the author of sin .......... I have explained your question last week , you did not respond .

Originally Posted by Ben johnson
You say "God hardens men against belief", and you say "their unbelief is not God's fault". That's a contradiction, Cygnus.
Does He harden men so that they cannot believe, or not?
No it doesn't; the gift of God is eternal life. Yet we must be diligent in our calling and election, that we not be deceived away from it.
I look forward to you 'splainin' how God hardens men against belief, AND they are the source of their own unbelief.

Please include 1Jn5:10 in your explanation...
Perseverance is charged to us, Cygnus. 1Tim4:16 (among others)

I wasn't talking about the gift of perseverance ben.

The Lord hardens sinners NOT by infusing them with sin , not by granting them a hard heart (it isn't a gift) not by imparting to them wickedness ......... BUT ,

by withdrawing goodness to them in one form or another.

Thus God DOES harden sinners , just as the scriptures say , and God does not tempt anyone to sin either , just as the scriptures say.

When God withdraws a grace ; which has a preserving effect (I am not talking about persevearance ben) , men harden.

Now what was it that God did , that would be certain to harden the Pharoah .......... any idea ben ?

if i want to harden a conker i place it in a draw away from light and soon it becomes very hard.............

Van · Jan 14, 2007

Ben the idea of rocky soil is that it is shallow, and therefore the root system is inadequate to withstand the sun's heat. So the seed springs up quickly, being shallow, and dies quickly, not able to deal with hardships of this world. Thus they believed but not from the heart, there was no core committment. They accepted the gospel to improve their life, and when their life became more difficult because of the word, they fell way. They were never saved. They fell way from their enlightenment, and being partakers in the work product of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel of Christ.

A defense of Limited Atonement

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Contributor

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

The original! Accept no substitutes!

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Legend

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Contributor

Similar threads