1 Cor 1 and the "foolishness" that saves

[frumanchu]

"18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

20Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." -1 Cor 1:18-25 (NKJV)

There seems to be some contention about what exactly Paul means when he says that God saved men "through the foolishness of the message preached." Some are asserting that the recipient of the message...he who is being preached to...still views that message as "foolishness" at the time he puts his faith in it unto salvation. However, I believe it is clear that Paul is simply referring to it by the terms in which he has framed his discussion...the juxtaposition of the wisdom of the world against the wisdom of God...and that his intention is not to indicate how the believer views the Gospel at the point of faith.

Consider Barnes (excerpted):
" For the preaching of the cross. Greek, "the word \~o logov\~ of the cross;" i.e., the doctrine of the cross; ...

(1.) that Christ died as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and that it was this which gave its peculiarity to his sufferings on the cross.

(2.) That men can be reconciled to God, pardoned, and saved only by the merits and influence of this atoning sacrifice."

and

"Foolishness. Folly. That is, it appears to them to be contemptible and foolish, or unworthy of belief. To the great mass of the Jews, and to the heathen philosophers, and indeed to the majority of the men of this world, it has ever appeared foolishness, for the following reasons:

(1.) The humble origin of the Lord Jesus. They despise him that lived in Nazareth; that was poor; that had no home, and few friends, and no wealth, and little honour among his own countrymen.

(2.) They despise him who was put to death as an impostor, at the instigation of his own countrymen, in an ignominious manner on the cross--the usual punishment of slaves.

(3.) They see not why there should be any particular efficacy in his death. They deem it incredible that he who could not save himself should be able to save them; and that glory should come from the ignominy of the cross.

(4.) They are blind to the true beauty of his personal character; to the true dignity of his nature; to his power over the sick, the lame, the dying, and the dead; they see not the bearing of the work of atonement on the law and government of God; they believe not in his resurrection, and his present state of exalted glory. The world looks only at the fact that the despised man of Nazareth was put to death on a cross, and smiles at the idea that such a death could have any important influence on the salvation of man. It is worthy of remark, also, that to the ancient philosophers this doctrine would appear still more contemptible than it does to the men of these times. Everything that came from Judea they looked upon with contempt and scorn; and they would spurn, above all things else, the doctrine that they were to expect salvation only by the crucifixion of a Jew. Besides, the account of the crucifixion has now lost to us no small part of its reputation of ignominy. Even around the cross there is conceived to be no small amount of honour and glory. There is now a sacredness about it, from religious associations; and a reverence which men in Christian lands can scarcely help feeling when they think of it. But to the ancients it was connected with every idea of ignominy. It was the punishment of slaves, impostors, and vagabonds; and had even a greater degree of disgrace attached to it than the gallows has with us. With them, therefore, the death on the cross was associated with the idea of all that is shameful and dishonourable; and to speak of salvation only by the sufferings and death of a crucified man, was fitted to excite in their bosoms only unmingled scorn."

Barnes makes it abundantly clear that the Gospel is folly to most men...utter foolishness "unworthy of belief." This is important, because some here have argued that man, apart from any work of the Holy Spirit and without any other external influence or distinguishing determinative factor, is somehow convicted and convinced by something he finds "foolish," "weak," "base," and "despised." They have argued that the power is within the message itself and nothing else...and yet failed to account for why, in the absence of any other possible factor, the power is sufficient to convict some and insufficient to convict others. Paul makes abundantly clear it is not because it is wise by the standards of the world, nor has he tried to preach it as such (v17). So how is it that a person who is of the world comes to view that which is unwise as worthy of belief?

Barnes answers:

"It is the power of God. See Barnes "Romans 1:16". This may either mean that the gospel is called "the power of God," because it is the medium through which God exerts his power in the salvation of sinners; or, the gospel is adapted to the condition of man, and is efficacious in renewing him, and sanctifying him, It is not an inert, inactive letter, but is so fitted to the understanding, the heart, the hopes, the fears of men, and all their great constitutional principles of action, that it actually overcomes their sin, and diffuses peace through the soul. This efficacy is not unfrequently attributed to the gospel, John 17:17; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:22,23. When the gospel, however, or the preaching of the cross, is spoken of as effectual or powerful, it must be understood of all the agencies which are connected with it; and does not refer to simple, abstract propositions, but to the truth as it comes attended with the influences which God sends down to accompany it. It includes, therefore, the promised agency of the Holy Spirit, without which it would not be effectual. But the agency of the Spirit is designed to give efficacy to that which is really adapted to produce the effects, and not to act in an arbitrary manner. All the effects of the gospel on the soul --in regeneration, repentance, faith, sanctification; in hope, love, joy, peace, patience, temperance, purity, and devotedness to God--are only such as the gospel is fitted to produce. It has a set of truths and promises just adapted to each of these effects; just fitted to the soul by Him who knows it; and adapted to produce just these results. The Holy Spirit secures their influence on the mind; and is the grand living agent of accomplishing just what the truth of God is fitted originally to produce, Thus the preaching of the cross is "the power of God;" and every minister may present it with the assurance that he is presenting, not "a cunningly devised fable," but a system really fitted to save men; and yet, that its reception by the human mind depends on the promised presence of the Holy Spirit."

It has been assumed that because the message is called "foolishness" when being referred to as the vehicle through which salvation is achieved in verse 21 that therefore the recipient must perceive it as such at the time of faith. Setting aside for a moment the obvious practical absurdity of this notion, we must ask ourselves if the language necessitates such an understanding.

In Western English writing we often use quotations not only for verbatim quoting of a source, but also to denote an allegation of questionable validity or to draw attention to a metaphoric use of a term. To my knowledge there is no Greek equivalent of quotations as used in the latter two manners. Verse 25 refers to "the foolishness of God" as being wiser than men. Lest it be said that God is a fool, I think all would agree that the reference to the "foolishness" of God is meant in light of the unregenerate world's view of God's message for the reasons given above. We know of course that God is in fact eminently wise, and yet Paul refers to the "foolishness" of God. It's as if to say:

Because the "foolishness" of God is wiser than men, and the "weakness" of God is stronger than men.


So, applying the same principle to verse 21:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through "wisdom" did not know God, it pleased God through the "foolishness" of the message preached to save those who believe.

The point is this: Paul is contrasting the wisdom of the world against the wisdom of God as it relates to the Gospel message. Not only is it not necessary to believe that verse 21 teaches that man still views the message as foolish at the point of faith, but it is in fact an absurdity to think so. To put ones full faith and trust in something they find utter foolishness and unworthy of belief meets the definition of insanity, not faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

It seems that you are asserting this understanding:

"God is well-pleased, by the folly-to-perishing-world, to save those who are regenerated (and therefore do not see it as folly, but as power), who believe." Is this correct?

That seems "complex"; consider for a moment a simpler premise, that "belief opens the foolish heart to wisdom". There are those who say that 1Cor2:14 asserts "natural man cannot believe in Jesus because spiritual things are foolish" --- in our discussions, we've come to agreement that the "things of the Spirit", are deeper things, not salvation itself. The reason for that agreement? Because context says it's the RECEIVED Spirit by which "we know the things freely given to us by God".

And the Spirit, is received, by belief. This removes 2:14 from the Calvinist's argument; that little word "received" in vese 12, denies that it is SALVATION that is one of the "foolishness-spiritual-things-he-cannot-understand" of verse 14.

So the Calvinist is left with verse 1:18. Initially thinking that the "foolishness" of verse 18 is the same "foolishness" of verse 2:14, he now contends "it is a DIFFERENT foolishness; what's foolish in 2:14 is 'DEEP-SPIRITUAL-understanding', but in 1:18 it's SALVATION ITSELF."

And we read, "the word-of-the-Cross is foolishness" (to the perishing). But it's POWER to us-being-saved. Then, "through the foolishness of the message, God saves those who believe".

The Calvinist is left with only two choices:
1. Admit that it IS foolishness, right up until the point one DOES believe...
2. Or contend that Paul means, "through the FOOLISH-TO-WORLD (but power-to-saved) he BELIEVES (and, of course, he is BEING saved so it IS power).

The Calvinist must hold to #2; else he forsakes Calvinism.

What if what I said about "belief opens the heart", is true? What if, "belief", and "power", are really the same? Suppose that "belief" and "conviction" and "changing-from-foolish-to-power", occur at the exact same instant?

To put ones full faith and trust in something they find utter foolishness and unworthy of belief meets the definition of insanity, not faith.

Yes, it would be insanity; if he puts his faith in something, that at the same moment he sees as "foolishness". BUT --- if "conviction" and "belief" and "change-from-foolish-to-power" all occur at the SAME MOMENT, then it's not so insane, is it?

1Cor1:23 says, "We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, to Gentiles foolishness." In Romans9:31, Paul says that Israel did not arrive at the law of righteousness that they pursued. Why? Because they pursued it by WORKS and not by FAITH. Does that sound like choice? "They stumbled over the stumbling stone". Rm9:32

The same concept of "stumbling stone" is in 1Cor1:23, and in Rm9:32. In the Romans passage, they clearly "sought works rather than grace". But in 1Corinthians, you cling to the idea of "it was GOD'S dictate whether they saw it as foolish or power".

And, supporting your view, you'll now hold up verse 24: "to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God". You of course will say, "the CALLED, means PREDESTINED!" And I will respond, "it's called, with the underlying presumption of "called-ANSWERED". (Because I understand that not all "called", will answer.)

In other words, Fru --- his usage of "called", is no different from "believing". Remember how Peter says "be all the more diligent to make certain of your calling and election"???

1Cor3:18: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks he is wise, let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God." What we're trying to establish, is "level of volition"; you cite Barnes, who in turn cites Romans1:16: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." Wait --- I was contending that it is BELIEF that causes a person to view the Gospel as power. Does that idea fit Romans1:16? Sure seems to...

Rom1:16 does not say "it is the power of God for salvation, SO THAT he CAN believe" --- no, "who believes" is the qualifier for "is power to", isn't it?

and yet failed to account for why, in the absence of any other possible factor, the power is sufficient to convict some and insufficient to convict others.

I don't see "power", as enabling "belief" in Rm1:16; it reads as "power TO those WHO believe". This fits with "belief, causing the person to UNDERSTAND the power of the Gospel".

But the agency of the Spirit is designed to give efficacy to that which is really adapted to produce the effects, and not to act in an arbitrary manner. All the effects of the gospel on the soul --in regeneration, repentance, faith, sanctification; in hope, love, joy, peace, patience, temperance, purity, and devotedness to God--are only such as the gospel is fitted to produce. It has a set of truths and promises just adapted to each of these effects; just fitted to the soul by Him who knows it; and adapted to produce just these results. The Holy Spirit secures their influence on the mind; and is the grand living agent of accomplishing just what the truth of God is fitted originally to produce, Thus the preaching of the cross is "the power of God;" and every minister may present it with the assurance that he is presenting, not "a cunningly devised fable," but a system really fitted to save men; and yet, that its reception by the human mind depends on the promised presence of the Holy Spirit."

All well and good, with the sound of sophistication; but what does it say? In contending that "the Holy Spirit is instilled, to give efficacy to produce regeneration, repentance, faith, sanctification; in hope, love, joy, peace, patience, temperance, purity, and devotedness to God". All of which are "irresistible" and "unavoidable" to the elect. But does Barnes' view, reflect the Scripture?

Barnes quotes Heb4:12. Look at this: "Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone FALL by following the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Heb4:11-12 I ask you, Fru --- does this sound like "predestination", or "choice"? Commanding us NOT to follow the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief? Verse 12, rather than asserting "predestination", instead uses "thoughts/intentions" as VOLITION.

Next he quotes James 1:18. "Each man is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings death (thanatos). Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow. In the excercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we might be, as it were, the first fruits among His creatures." James1:14-18 Barnes asserts that verse 18 endorses "predestination"; but this in a context that warns against being deceived by sin unto spiritual death. A warning to "beloved brethren". Really the only understanding, is that "excercise of His will", reflects, "that whoever believes, may have eternal life".

Exactly as Romans 1:16 says, Fru; "power of God for salvation to everyone who BELIEVES."

I don't think there is sufficient reason for asserting that "it's not THROUGH foolishness that he believes"; Paul affirms that the Gospel IS foolish to the world, but (because the world's wisdom is foolish to God, and God's wisdom is foolishness to the world), when the man BELIEVES, he is being convicted that God's wisdom IS wise. (And conversely recognizing that the world's wisdom is foolish).

It's belief that changes him, Fru; not vice-versa.

 

[Ben johnson]

I should have gone ahead and included Romans1:17 with 16.

"I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes... For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from beginning faith to ending faith; as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith'."

Faith is belief, belief is faith. From beginning belief to ending; we are saved by God's grace, through belief.

 

[frumanchu]

It seems that you are asserting this understanding:

"God is well-pleased, by the folly-to-perishing-world, to save those who are regenerated (and therefore do not see it as folly, but as power), who believe." Is this correct?

That seems "complex"; consider for a moment a simpler premise, that "belief opens the foolish heart to wisdom".

Here's the foundational problem with your "simpler premise" theory: "with the heart a person believes" (Rom 10:10). You are saying that belief changes the heart, but the heart is where the belief originates. In other words the heart changes itself. So a person essentially has to believe in order to believe (which is what I've pointed out several times over in the past).

There are those who say that 1Cor2:14 asserts "natural man cannot believe in Jesus because spiritual things are foolish" --- in our discussions, we've come to agreement that the "things of the Spirit", are deeper things, not salvation itself. The reason for that agreement? Because context says it's the RECEIVED Spirit by which "we know the things freely given to us by God".

And the Spirit, is received, by belief. This removes 2:14 from the Calvinist's argument; that little word "received" in vese 12, denies that it is SALVATION that is one of the "foolishness-spiritual-things-he-cannot-understand" of verse 14.

So the Calvinist is left with verse 1:18. Initially thinking that the "foolishness" of verse 18 is the same "foolishness" of verse 2:14, he now contends "it is a DIFFERENT foolishness; what's foolish in 2:14 is 'DEEP-SPIRITUAL-understanding', but in 1:18 it's SALVATION ITSELF."

And we read, "the word-of-the-Cross is foolishness" (to the perishing). But it's POWER to us-being-saved. Then, "through the foolishness of the message, God saves those who believe".

The Calvinist is left with only two choices:
1. Admit that it IS foolishness, right up until the point one DOES believe...
2. Or contend that Paul means, "through the FOOLISH-TO-WORLD (but power-to-saved) he BELIEVES (and, of course, he is BEING saved so it IS power).

The Calvinist must hold to #2; else he forsakes Calvinism.

Sorry, Ben. This is once again where you show your tendency to apply faulty logic and poor hermeneutics in order to bolster your case and present us with a false dilemma.

First of all, there is no reason of necessity to understand that that which is described as "foolishness" in chapter 1 is the same as that which is described as "foolishness" in chapter 2, and in fact there is apt reason to view them as different given that chapter 1 refers to "the message of the Gospel" and chapter 2 refers to "the deeper things of God."

Second, it still amazes me that you are actually advocating conviction by foolishness. You still haven't explained why such foolishness convicts one person and yet does not convict another. Like I said, your theology is a self-fulfilling delusion. You have to believe your utterly foolish theology in order to believe that one can be convicted by an utterly foolish Gospel.

What if what I said about "belief opens the heart", is true? What if, "belief", and "power", are really the same? Suppose that "belief" and "conviction" and "changing-from-foolish-to-power", occur at the exact same instant?

They may be temporally indistinguishable, but they are not logically indistinguishable. Otherwise you have faith that is completely spontaneous.

Yes, it would be insanity; if he puts his faith in something, that at the same moment he sees as "foolishness". BUT --- if "conviction" and "belief" and "change-from-foolish-to-power" all occur at the SAME MOMENT, then it's not so insane, is it?

Again, you are trying to make them logically indistinguishable and remove any cause and effect from the process, leaving it a completely spontaneous activity.

1Cor1:23 says, "We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, to Gentiles foolishness." In Romans9:31, Paul says that Israel did not arrive at the law of righteousness that they pursued. Why? Because they pursued it by WORKS and not by FAITH. Does that sound like choice? "They stumbled over the stumbling stone". Rm9:32

The same concept of "stumbling stone" is in 1Cor1:23, and in Rm9:32. In the Romans passage, they clearly "sought works rather than grace". But in 1Corinthians, you cling to the idea of "it was GOD'S dictate whether they saw it as foolish or power".

Until you can provide any Scriptural or logical reason differentiating those who suddenly, spontaneously sought it by faith from those who continued pursuing it by works, you cannot simply dismiss my position out of hand as you are.

And, supporting your view, you'll now hold up verse 24: "to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God". You of course will say, "the CALLED, means PREDESTINED!" And I will respond, "it's called, with the underlying presumption of "called-ANSWERED". (Because I understand that not all "called", will answer.)

Still waiting for the differentiating factor that leads one to be convicted/respond/etc while another does not.

In other words, Fru --- his usage of "called", is no different from "believing". Remember how Peter says "be all the more diligent to make certain of your calling and election"???

You have a very short memory, Ben, else you would remember the discussion we had about personal assurance as it relates to 2 Pet. Now you're trying to muddy the difference between calling and response. How can you selectively say "his usage of called is no different from believing" while at the same time so often that ALL are called?

1Cor3:18: "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks he is wise, let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God." What we're trying to establish, is "level of volition";

Level of volition? What in the world are you talking about?

you cite Barnes, who in turn cites Romans1:16: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." Wait --- I was contending that it is BELIEF that causes a person to view the Gospel as power. Does that idea fit Romans1:16? Sure seems to...

Rom1:16 does not say "it is the power of God for salvation, SO THAT he CAN believe" --- no, "who believes" is the qualifier for "is power to", isn't it?

Neither is it excluded, Ben. But as usual you assume that it is by making an argument from silence.

The question isn't who the Gospel is the power of God to, but rather WHY it is. You say it is the power of God for salvation because they spontaneously allowed it to be...there was no determinitive or causal factor which preceeded their sudden acceptance of utter foolishness...no prior change in perceived value. The orthodox view however is that the work of the Holy Spirit precedes (and thus brings about) that perceived change in value.

I don't see "power", as enabling "belief" in Rm1:16; it reads as "power TO those WHO believe". This fits with "belief, causing the person to UNDERSTAND the power of the Gospel".

Again, argument from silence and eisegesis.

All well and good, with the sound of sophistication; but what does it say? In contending that "the Holy Spirit is instilled, to give efficacy to produce regeneration, repentance, faith, sanctification; in hope, love, joy, peace, patience, temperance, purity, and devotedness to God". All of which are "irresistible" and "unavoidable" to the elect. But does Barnes' view, reflect the Scripture?

Barnes quotes Heb4:12. Look at this: "Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone FALL by following the same example of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Heb4:11-12 I ask you, Fru --- does this sound like "predestination", or "choice"? Commanding us NOT to follow the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief? Verse 12, rather than asserting "predestination", instead uses "thoughts/intentions" as VOLITION.

What is amuzing is that no matter how many times it's explained to you, you still juxtapose "predestination" against "choice" as though there is no free will or volition in the Reformed view. You simply refuse to believe that man is actually so totally depraved by nature that he does not WANT to obey...that man's inability stems not from his lack of volitional capability but from his steadfast and unwavering DESIRE to disobey. The very heart of your theology is absolutely Pelagian whether you admit it or not. Your entire construct is built upon logical fallacy, misapplied causality, redefinition of terms, selective and poor hermeneutical principles, and blatant eisegesis.

Next he quotes James 1:18. "Each man is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings death (thanatos). Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow. In the excercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we might be, as it were, the first fruits among His creatures." James1:14-18 Barnes asserts that verse 18 endorses "predestination"; but this in a context that warns against being deceived by sin unto spiritual death. A warning to "beloved brethren". Really the only understanding, is that "excercise of His will", reflects, "that whoever believes, may have eternal life".

Ummm...no. I pointed this out to you before. James is saying 'do not be deceived into believing other than that every good thing bestowed and every perfect give is from above...' This is more shoddy eisegesis to prop up a dead theology.

Exactly as Romans 1:16 says, Fru; "power of God for salvation to everyone who BELIEVES."

Doesn't address the real issue. You can repeat it in bold-faced, colored caps all you want and it still will not make your case.

I don't think there is sufficient reason for asserting that "it's not THROUGH foolishness that he believes"; Paul affirms that the Gospel IS foolish to the world, but (because the world's wisdom is foolish to God, and God's wisdom is foolishness to the world), when the man BELIEVES, he is being convicted that God's wisdom IS wise. (And conversely recognizing that the world's wisdom is foolish).

I don't think there is sufficient reason to place any stock whatsoever in any argument you make to be quite honest. I can only hope that you actually do get around to publishing your little treatise some day. The peer review will hopefully bring you some long overdue humility.

 

[costlygrace]

Here's the foundational problem with your "simpler premise" theory: "with the heart a person believes" (Rom 10:10). You are saying that belief changes the heart, but the heart is where the belief originates. In other words the heart changes itself. So a person essentially has to believe in order to believe (which is what I've pointed out several times over in the past).

Umm...we are not talking about believing in order to believe, but rather believing in order to become sons of God. We are saved through having faith, rather than having faith through being saved.

Again, you are trying to make them logically indistinguishable and remove any cause and effect from the process, leaving it a completely spontaneous activity.

Cause= The Word of Christ is spoken (call to believe)
Effect = Two men hear it and both recognize it as truth, and yet at the same time consider it foolishness. One man hears it and hardens his heart, while another man hears it and simply refrains from hardening his heart.

Now you might scoff at that, and say it is not sufficient cause and effect, since after all it is not Calvinist cause and effect. However, the facts of life prove it to be fully sufficient cause and effect.

Example: I was at a store and there were two men standing near me (whom I knew to both be unbelievers, and unfortunately remained so ). A man came up and invited them to his beer party. I could see that both were quite tempted (and neither one noticed me). One man said yes, while the other thought about it and decided that it wouldn't be right toward his family.

BUt anyway, this illustrates what I am saying here.

Cause :Word from the devil is spoken (call to sin)
Effect: Both men are unbelievers. They recognize it as sin, but it seems attractive to them nonetheless. One stands against it, while the other one refrains from standing against it, and yields. .

Until you can provide any Scriptural or logical reason differentiating those who suddenly, spontaneously sought it by faith from those who continued pursuing it by works, you cannot simply dismiss my position out of hand as you are.

The verse Ben quoted makes a clear differentiation between the two.

What is amuzing is that no matter how many times it's explained to you, you still juxtapose "predestination" against "choice" as though there is no free will or volition in the Reformed view. You simply refuse to believe that man is actually so totally depraved by nature that he does not WANT to obey...that man's inability stems not from his lack of volitional capability but from his steadfast and unwavering DESIRE to disobey. The very heart of your theology is absolutely Pelagian whether you admit it or not. Your entire construct is built upon logical fallacy, misapplied causality, redefinition of terms, selective and poor hermeneutical principles, and blatant eisegesis.

That man does not come to Christ because he is so depraved that he does not want to believe is an important foundational truth. That's why so few come to Christ! The reason so few come to Christ is because so many rejected HIs love because they hate His ways, not because He loves and wants to save so few. So here the problem lies in the wickedness of man and his unwillingness to believe, not in a God who loves so few people that He only chose to save a very small percentage of mankind, like what would necessarily be inferred from Calvinist teaching

Ummm...no. I pointed this out to you before. James is saying 'do not be deceived into believing other than that every good thing bestowed and every perfect give is from above...' This is more shoddy eisegesis to prop up a dead theology.

It seems clear to me that Ben's interpretation is correct, when you sit down and read through the passage.

I don't think there is sufficient reason to place any stock whatsoever in any argument you make to be quite honest. I can only hope that you actually do get around to publishing your little treatise some day. The peer review will hopefully bring you some long overdue humility.
[/size][/color][/font]

I am very disappointed in this, as it seems to be an attack on Ben's character.

 

[frumanchu]

Umm...we are not talking about believing in order to believe, but rather believing in order to become sons of God. We are saved through having faith, rather than having faith through being saved.

Sorry, but no. Ben is saying that belief changes the heart, but that heart must be changed to believe in the first place because it is from the heart that belief proceeds.

Cause= The Word of Christ is spoken (call to believe)
Effect = Two men hear it and both recognize it as truth, and yet at the same time consider it foolishness. One man hears it and hardens his heart, while another man hears it and simply refrains from hardening his heart.

Now you might scoff at that, and say it is not sufficient cause and effect, since after all it is not Calvinist cause and effect. However, the facts of life prove it to be fully sufficient cause and effect.

I do scoff at it, but not simply because it's "not Calvinist cause and effect." There is a reason behind why one would choose to believe and another not. I submit that you cannot without it ultimately returning to God as the source or ultimate deciding factor.

Example: I was at a store and there were two men standing near me (whom I knew to both be unbelievers, and unfortunately remained so ). A man came up and invited them to his beer party. I could see that both were quite tempted (and neither one noticed me). One man said yes, while the other thought about it and decided that it wouldn't be right toward his family.

BUt anyway, this illustrates what I am saying here.

Cause :Word from the devil is spoken (call to sin)
Effect: Both men are unbelievers. They recognize it as sin, but it seems attractive to them nonetheless. One stands against it, while the other one refrains from standing against it, and yields. .

That's fine, except this analogy fails to account for the fact that all men do not want to "do right." You two are arguing for this island of righteousness within men that allows them to make the decision of faith despite their depraved sinful nature. It is simply neo-Pelagianism...there is nothing new under the sun.

The verse Ben quoted makes a clear differentiation between the two.

Umm, no it does not. He is simply pointing the the differentiation as being that one pursues by faith, the other by works. I asked for the differentiation as to why those who pursue it by works suddenly and spontaneously change and begin pursuing it by faith.

That man does not come to Christ because he is so depraved that he does not want to believe is an important foundational truth. That's why so few come to Christ! The reason so few come to Christ is because so many rejected HIs love because they hate His ways, not because He loves and wants to save so few. So here the problem lies in the wickedness of man and his unwillingness to believe, not in a God who loves so few people that He only chose to save a very small percentage of mankind, like what would necessarily be inferred from Calvinist teaching

See, there is a piece missing from your puzzle here. You readily recoginize that man is depraved and does not want to believe, and that this is the reason they reject Christ. What you have not (and I maintain cannot) provide is the determining factor in why the Word is efficacious in some and not in others. You will say "because they were convicted by it." How? Why is it that the Word was sufficient to convince some but not others? Was it their background? Their life experience? Their intelligence? The manner in which it was heard? The speaking abilities of the preacher? The easier to comprehend translation? Their humility?

It seems clear to me that Ben's interpretation is correct, when you sit down and read through the passage.

I have read through them. He can sometimes paint a somewhat convincing picture (in full color of course) by picking verses out of their context and lacing them with needless Greek references. But I have spent quite a bit of time examining them in their context and I have examined his logic. As I said before, his position is a self-fulfilling delusion.

 

[Ben johnson]

Here's the foundational problem with your "simpler premise" theory: "with the heart a person believes" (Rom 10:10). You are saying that belief changes the heart, but the heart is where the belief originates. In other words the heart changes itself. So a person essentially has to believe in order to believe (which is what I've pointed out several times over in the past).

Belief comes from the heart, unregenerated (unchanged) heart is convicted by the Gospel and believes; you cannot get past your thinking "the heart must be changed TO believe". It does not.

First of all, there is no reason of necessity to understand that that which is described as "foolishness" in chapter 1 is the same as that which is described as "foolishness" in chapter 2, and in fact there is apt reason to view them as different given that chapter 1 refers to "the message of the Gospel" and chapter 2 refers to "the deeper things of God."

The two words "foolishness" between vs18 & vs21 are the same, "foolishness of the Gospel to the perishing". There is no reason to consider vs21 as "speaking of TWO groups" --- I.E., "Belief through the foolish-to-WORLD but wisdom-to-ELECT message."

Paul plainly says, "belief-through-foolishness-of-message".

Second, it still amazes me that you are actually advocating conviction by foolishness. You still haven't explained why such foolishness convicts one person and yet does not convict another. Like I said, your theology is a self-fulfilling delusion. You have to believe your utterly foolish theology in order to believe that one can be convicted by an utterly foolish Gospel.

Never said it. Said, "conviction by the Gospel, which, at the moment of belief ceases to be seen 'foolish' and is seen 'power'."

You are stuck in the preconception of "spiritual-corpse-cannot-LISTEN-to-the-Gospel".

They may be temporally indistinguishable, but they are not logically indistinguishable. Otherwise you have faith that is completely spontaneous.

Nope. Unbelief is the REASON it seems foolish; belief is the REASON it becomes power.

Until you can provide any Scriptural or logical reason differentiating those who suddenly, spontaneously sought it by faith from those who continued pursuing it by works, you cannot simply dismiss my position out of hand as you are.

Your dogma denies "man's consciousness". Contrary to your view, the unregenerated man CAN hear the Gospel, it CAN convict him, he CAN believe (and thus receive regeneration).

Still waiting for the differentiating factor that leads one to be convicted/respond/etc while another does not.

Jesus said, "love of sin or love of truth" (Jn3:19-21). Same idea reflected in Jn5:39-47; they REFUSED to believe (because they preferred man's glory over God's). You're still stuck in, "unregenerated man, cannot even HEAR the Gospel, let alone believe".

You have a very short memory, Ben, else you would remember the discussion we had about personal assurance as it relates to 2 Pet. Now you're trying to muddy the difference between calling and response. How can you selectively say "his usage of called is no different from believing" while at the same time so often that ALL are called?

"Called", means "all called" in Matt22:14. "Called", in 1Cor1:24, means "the called who RECEIVED Him". Belief is inferred by context.

Exactly the same way that "called" in Rom8:30, does not convey "exclusivity" --- those whom He foreknew He CALLED; but He also called everyone else.

Oh --- and I consider your explantion of "2Pet1:5-11" (as well as 2:2:20-22), "poor hermeneutics"...

Level of volition? What in the world are you talking about?

"Let him become foolish", means submit to what the WORLD calls foolishness, the Gospel. Volition. Not very complicated.

Neither is it excluded, Ben. But as usual you assume that it is by making an argument from silence.

In Rom1:16 salvation is subordinate to belief. As CostlyGrace eloquently said, "We are saved through having faith, rather than having faith through being saved. "

The question isn't who the Gospel is the power of God to, but rather WHY it is. You say it is the power of God for salvation because they spontaneously allowed it to be...there was no determinitive or causal factor which preceeded their sudden acceptance of utter foolishness...no prior change in perceived value. The orthodox view however is that the work of the Holy Spirit precedes (and thus brings about) that perceived change in value.

The "washing of regeneration and renewing", is by the "POURED Spirit", who "was poured through belief in Jesus". There is no Scriptural evidence for a SECOND "renewal of the heart, SEPARATE from that one regeneration." These are facts.

What is amusing is that no matter how many times it's explained to you, you still juxtapose "predestination" against "choice" as though there is no free will or volition in the Reformed view.

The Reformed view, HAS no free will. Belief is subordinate to regeneration --- hence the words, "irresistible", and "invariable", and "unavoidable". "Irresistible" is the "I" in "TULIP".

You simply refuse to believe that man is actually so totally depraved by nature that he does not WANT to obey...that man's inability stems not from his lack of volitional capability but from his steadfast and unwavering DESIRE to disobey.

I would rather believe JESUS, Fru. He said:
"If God were your Father, (then) you would love Me."
"If you believed Moses, (then) you would believe Me."
"HOW can you believe, WHEN you seek man's glory rather than God's?"

Their failure, was 100% personal choice; they searched the Scriptures, but Scriptures spoke of Jesus --- and they were UNWILLING to come to Him that they might have life. They WOULD not believe Moses, so they also WOULD not believe Jesus. 100% volition.

The very heart of your theology is absolutely Pelagian whether you admit it or not. Your entire construct is built upon logical fallacy, misapplied causality, redefinition of terms, selective and poor hermeneutical principles, and blatant eisegesis.

Do you remember a few months back, I was frustrated and said something like, "your whole theology is based on presumption and prior conclusion"? Three Calvinists reported me. You were one of the three, weren't you?

Did you notice that no reports were filed on this today?

Ummm...no. I pointed this out to you before. James is saying 'do not be deceived into believing other than that every good thing bestowed and every perfect give is from above...' This is more shoddy eisegesis to prop up a dead theology.

Actually, James is saying, "Carried away by lust births sin, sin brings (spiritual) death; do not be deceived beloved brethren." A warning about falling, just as the last two verses of the letter are.

I don't see any kind of "deceived" (such as "carried away by error of unprincipled men and falling from steadfastness" 2Pet3:17, or "captived by philosophy and empty deception rather than according to Christ" Col2:8) --- that is "still saved".

Doesn't address the real issue. You can repeat it in bold-faced, colored caps all you want and it still will not make your case.

But I happen to like colors.

I don't think there is sufficient reason to place any stock whatsoever in any argument you make to be quite honest. I can only hope that you actually do get around to publishing your little treatise some day.

You define "proper hermeneutics" in terms of "Reformed-based ideas". Anything that conflicts, is dismissed as "poor". I have read works by other authors --- Shanks for instance --- and they severely overlap my work. But I deal with what I think is more comprehensiveness, more thorough in Romans 9, John6, and Eph1 for instance.

The peer review will hopefully bring you some long overdue humility.

Again, you define "PEER", in terms of "REFORMED THEOLOGY". In the face of clear Scripture there are those so steeped in their doctrine, that they cannot hear the words; I expect many to SCORN my text; but that changes nothing of its validity. For its validity is secondary, derived from the Scripture on which it is founded.

I am very disappointed in this, as it seems to be an attack on Ben's character.

Don't worry, my friend; if I have been exhibitting lack-of-humility here (or anywhere), I am certain that God will convict me, either through the Spirit, or through other brothers. I am of course open to admonishment, but I haven't really been accused of "excessive pride", lately.

 

[costlygrace]

Sorry, but no. Ben is saying that belief changes the heart, but that heart must be changed to believe in the first place because it is from the heart that belief proceeds.

I am curious about who said that the heart has ot be changed before belief? I am pretty sure Ben didn't, unless I misunderstood him, and I haven't found it in the Bible anywhere. I guess it is from the writings of Calvin? But anyway, it is an unproven premise, and of course what Ben said only makes sense with the opposite premise, which is what I believe the Bible teaches.

I do scoff at it, but not simply because it's "not Calvinist cause and effect." There is a reason behind why one would choose to believe and another not. I submit that you cannot without it ultimately returning to God as the source or ultimate deciding factor.

To a certain extent--God foreknew everything that would happen when He gave man freedom of choice, but He chose to anyway, and therefore many persih becaue they will not choose HIm. COnsistent with HIs original choice, He does not overrule the freewill of man very often. He also made a condition: belief in Him, knowing that this condition was only right and also that few would meet it.

That's fine, except this analogy fails to account for the fact that all men do not want to "do right." You two are arguing for this island of righteousness within men that allows them to make the decision of faith despite their depraved sinful nature. It is simply neo-Pelagianism...there is nothing new under the sun.

No islands of righteousness. Simply the ability to comprehend truth, just as in other areas of life. See below.

Umm, no it does not. He is simply pointing the the differentiation as being that one pursues by faith, the other by works. I asked for the differentiation as to why those who pursue it by works suddenly and spontaneously change and begin pursuing it by faith.

They were persuaded by the truth--just as people are sometimes persuaded by truthful arguments in other areas of life, even if they didn't want to believe them to begin with!! It isn't to someone else's credit when you convince him that the earth is round and he believes that, when he was totally against believing it to begin with!

See, there is a piece missing from your puzzle here. You readily recoginize that man is depraved and does not want to believe, and that this is the reason they reject Christ. What you have not (and I maintain cannot) provide is the determining factor in why the Word is efficacious in some and not in others. You will say "because they were convicted by it." How? Why is it that the Word was sufficient to convince some but not others? Was it their background? Their life experience? Their intelligence? The manner in which it was heard? The speaking abilities of the preacher? The easier to comprehend translation? Their humility?

Their background, their life circumstances, the manner in which it was heard, God's specific answers to the prayers of others. We Christians have a lot of responsibility for how little so many of us care about the Great Commission, and those who could have been saved if we had cared to obey God!!

I have read through them. He can sometimes paint a somewhat convincing picture (in full color of course) by picking verses out of their context and lacing them with needless Greek references. But I have spent quite a bit of time examining them in their context and I have examined his logic. As I said before, his position is a self-fulfilling delusion.

God bless!
costlygrace

 

[Colossians]

The verse simply means that God saves people through a message that is considered foolish by the world.

In retaining the notion of foolishness (a style reminiscent of Shakespeare) as regards the gospel, Paul is doubly emphasising the difference between the mind of the world, and the mind of those in Christ.

No-one follows what he considers to be foolish. Otherwise there would be no value in thinking it foolish.

 

[frumanchu]

I am curious about who said that the heart has ot be changed before belief? I am pretty sure Ben didn't, unless I misunderstood him, and I haven't found it in the Bible anywhere. I guess it is from the writings of Calvin? But anyway, it is an unproven premise, and of course what Ben said only makes sense with the opposite premise, which is what I believe the Bible teaches.

If belief originates in the heart, and a person starts out not believing, then the heart must change in order for belief to come about. There must be some change. Ben is saying that belief causes that change, but that change is required in order to believe. An effect cannot logically precede it's own cause.

As far as the view of the need for prevenient grace in order for belief to be possible, it extends much further back than Calvin:

Council of Orange (529 AD)

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

To a certain extent--God foreknew everything that would happen when He gave man freedom of choice, but He chose to anyway, and therefore many persih becaue they will not choose HIm. COnsistent with HIs original choice, He does not overrule the freewill of man very often. He also made a condition: belief in Him, knowing that this condition was only right and also that few would meet it.

Doesn't overrule the freewill of man "very often?" What exactly do you mean by this? I thought God would not overrule the free will of man at all? Are there exceptions to this?

No islands of righteousness. Simply the ability to comprehend truth, just as in other areas of life. See below.

They were persuaded by the truth--just as people are sometimes persuaded by truthful arguments in other areas of life, even if they didn't want to believe them to begin with!! It isn't to someone else's credit when you convince him that the earth is round and he believes that, when he was totally against believing it to begin with!

You now have a two-fold problem here.

First of all, as was explained above, belief proceeds from the heart. I have explained before to Ben the difference between notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Notitia is simply the content. Every person who has heard the Gospel has achieved this level because they have heard the facts of the message. Assensus is an affirmation that the notitia is truthful and correct. One can hear the Gospel message and believe that the Gospel is truthful and still not be saved (see James 2:19). Fiducia is the level at which salvific faith exists. It is a change in the perceived value of the truthful message such that personal trust and faith is present.

What you are speaking of above doesn't approach this level. You can convince someone of the truth without them desiring to embrace that truth with personal trust and faith. If you could, it leaves us with the second problem...

If the efficacy of the message rests ultimately in the manner in and circumstances under which it was given and received, then it becomes an issue of intellect and environment, both of which are within the control of God's sovereignty. If God knows what circumstances would be necessary to lead to convincing and conviction by the Gospel and yet does not work to bring those circumstances about, then how is that ultimately any different than the Reformed view of God's choosing not to give to an individual the grace necessary to bring about faith?

Their background, their life circumstances, the manner in which it was heard, God's specific answers to the prayers of others. We Christians have a lot of responsibility for how little so many of us care about the Great Commission, and those who could have been saved if we had cared to obey God!!

See, this is what I just pointed out above. What of a person's life experiences fall outside of the providence and sovereignty of God? What intellectual ability to comprehend the message falls outside God's work in the creation of an individual? What is the purpose of praying for the salvation of an individual when God ultimately has no ability to actively bring it about?

We as Christians most certainly have a responsibility to obey God's command to preach the Gospel to all men. It is fallacious however to make the assumption that because of this God is therefore dependent upon our fervency and obedience in order to bring about the salvation of others. It is a blessing for us to be the messengers of the Gospel (Rom 10:15) because the preaching of the Word is the means God has ordained to bring the elect to salvation.

 

[frumanchu]

Belief comes from the heart, unregenerated (unchanged) heart is convicted by the Gospel and believes; you cannot get past your thinking "the heart must be changed TO believe". It does not.

See...you still have not solved the problem, Ben. You said the "heart is convicted by the Gospel and believes." WHY? Why is it that the Gospel successfully convicts one person and fails to convict the other. You cannot cite the difference in the disposition of the heart because that is the very thing in question. So why is it that the Gospel is sufficiently powerful for one and insufficiently powerful for another?

The two words "foolishness" between vs18 & vs21 are the same, "foolishness of the Gospel to the perishing". There is no reason to consider vs21 as "speaking of TWO groups" --- I.E., "Belief through the foolish-to-WORLD but wisdom-to-ELECT message."

Paul plainly says, "belief-through-foolishness-of-message".

Umm, if you will go back and actually read what I wrote you will see that I was differentiating between CHAPTER 1 and CHAPTER 2 (in direct response to your arguing for a correlation between the two), NOT between ch1 vs 18 and ch1 vs 21.

(costlygrace, do you see now why I challenge Ben's methodology?)

Colossians' explanation above was concise and correct.

Nope. Unbelief is the REASON it seems foolish; belief is the REASON it becomes power.

Sorry, Ben, but this again demonstrates your failure to grasp basic logic. If there is no perceivable causal factor...that is if there is no event which logically precedes and is inextricably linked to it, then it is by definition spontaneous ("Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated."). You have failed thusfar to provide any reason why one person suddenly is convicted by the Gospel and believes where another does not. The absence of a reason leaves conviction and belief as being purely spontaneous.

Your dogma denies "man's consciousness". Contrary to your view, the unregenerated man CAN hear the Gospel, it CAN convict him, he CAN believe (and thus receive regeneration).

I have never denied man's consciousness. I have denied unregenerate man's desire to believe and challenged you to provide the reason why the Gospel is sufficient to bring about conviction in one person and insufficient to bring about conviction in another person. Unregenerate man hears the Gospel, may even acknowledge the truthfulness of the content, but rejects it and is not convicted by it.

Jesus said, "love of sin or love of truth" (Jn3:19-21). Same idea reflected in Jn5:39-47; they REFUSED to believe (because they preferred man's glory over God's). You're still stuck in, "unregenerated man, cannot even HEAR the Gospel, let alone believe".

Still waiting for the differentiating factor that leads one to suddenly love truth and prefer God's glory while the other continues to love sin and prefer his own glory. I already know the causal factor in the action and response of the will towards the Word. I'm waiting to hear the causal factor in the change of that response.

"Called", means "all called" in Matt22:14. "Called", in 1Cor1:24, means "the called who RECEIVED Him". Belief is inferred by context.

Exactly the same way that "called" in Rom8:30, does not convey "exclusivity" --- those whom He foreknew He CALLED; but He also called everyone else.

OK, first of all Matt 22:14 says "many" not "all."

Second, the context works strongly against you in 1 Cor 1:24

"22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." - 1 Cor 1:22-24 (NKJV)

Reading is as you do makes absolutely no sense at all. Verse 23 begins "but we preach Christ crucified." Isn't the outward preaching of the Gospel the only "call" according to you? If that is the case, then Paul is saying "we call both Jews and Greeks, which call is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called it is the power and wisdom of God." It's like saying they called the Jews and Greeks, but only called the Jews and Greeks.

Oh --- and I consider your explantion of "2Pet1:5-11" (as well as 2:2:20-22), "poor hermeneutics"...

Yeah, I'm sure you do...but considering the standard against which your measuring it I'll accept that as a compliment

"Let him become foolish", means submit to what the WORLD calls foolishness, the Gospel. Volition. Not very complicated.

IS THAT NOT WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG?!?!?!? Why is it then so complicated for you to understand that when Paul is speaking of the "foolishness of the message" in 1 Cor 1:21 that he is speaking of it simply in the manner in which the WORLD views it and not how the individual views it at the point of putting his faith in it?

In Rom1:16 salvation is subordinate to belief. As CostlyGrace eloquently said, "We are saved through having faith, rather than having faith through being saved. "

It's nice that you two both agree (and that you gave CG a nice quote color), but the fact is that I have never said otherwise. Really this is just a statement of semantics because they are not mutually exclusive. Faith is the instrumental cause of justification. Justification does not precede faith, and we are therefore "saved through having faith." However, this does not conflict with the view that election is the formal cause of our salvation which is brought about through the instrumental cause of faith, and thus we "[have] faith through being saved."

The "washing of regeneration and renewing", is by the "POURED Spirit", who "was poured through belief in Jesus". There is no Scriptural evidence for a SECOND "renewal of the heart, SEPARATE from that one regeneration." These are facts.

No, these are conclusions. You have to accept certain premises to arrive at these conclusions, which we disagree upon. One fact that you CANNOT escape is that the orthodox view going back to the early days of Christianity is that man cannot and will not believe apart from an initial, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit (NOT to be confused with indwelling). Your view of man's ability to believe apart from the gracious prior work of the Holy Spirit was one of the foundational premises of Pelagius and it was soundly condemned by the early church. Does the position of the early church have the same level of authority to bind the conscience as Scripture itself? Of course not. But neither should it be casually dismissed as inconsequential. Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

The Reformed view, HAS no free will. Belief is subordinate to regeneration --- hence the words, "irresistible", and "invariable", and "unavoidable". "Irresistible" is the "I" in "TULIP".

The Reformed view does not define "free will" in the same manner you do. The will is free in the sense that man is not prevented or constrained from choosing according to the desire of his heart. The will is enslaved in the sense that man's heart is continually evil and thus he only wills to sin. Even the "righteous" works he does are not truly good because they are not done of faith (Rom 14:23).

The irresistibility of the grace of God in the calling stems from the fact that God regenerates the sinful heart of the man, giving him the desire which in turn leads to the free volitional response of the will in faith.

Your view of free will ultimately is a will which is able to choose despite the inclination of his heart. It simply doesn't work that way.

I would rather believe JESUS, Fru. He said:
"If God were your Father, (then) you would love Me."
"If you believed Moses, (then) you would believe Me."
"HOW can you believe, WHEN you seek man's glory rather than God's?"

Their failure, was 100% personal choice; they searched the Scriptures, but Scriptures spoke of Jesus --- and they were UNWILLING to come to Him that they might have life. They WOULD not believe Moses, so they also WOULD not believe Jesus. 100% volition.

*SIGH* Nobody is denying volition nor "personal choice." The question is WHY they were unwilling and what is necessary for a change in that willingness to come about.

Do you remember a few months back, I was frustrated and said something like, "your whole theology is based on presumption and prior conclusion"? Three Calvinists reported me. You were one of the three, weren't you?

Did you notice that no reports were filed on this today?

In all honesty, I don't recall. I'm sorry that you were lead to say such out of frustration, but I can assure you that what I just said was not out of frustration. It was simply the restating of what I have been exposing throughout our discussions.

If you feel that comment was worthy of reporting, by all means do so.

Actually, James is saying, "Carried away by lust births sin, sin brings (spiritual) death; do not be deceived beloved brethren." A warning about falling, just as the last two verses of the letter are.

Nope, an explanation and clarification about the source of "every good and perfect gift."

I don't see any kind of "deceived" (such as "carried away by error of unprincipled men and falling from steadfastness" 2Pet3:17, or "captived by philosophy and empty deception rather than according to Christ" Col2:8) --- that is "still saved".

Then you must admit that one or the other of us is not saved. Are you willing to make that assertion?

But I happen to like colors.

You define "proper hermeneutics" in terms of "Reformed-based ideas". Anything that conflicts, is dismissed as "poor".

No, that is not true at all. If I did as you say I never would have agreed to the understanding of 1 Cor 2 that we agreed upon, and I would be making arguments about the "prior preparation of the soil" in Luke 8:13. Instead I put forth the same position as dozens of other commentators (Reformed AND non-Reformed) in stating that the parable was never meant to speak either way to the issue of predestination.

You have a consistent habit of reading things as necessarily being stated or implied by a particular text when they are not necessary. It's one thing to argue that a text may say something, but you often argue as though it cannot possibly say otherwise when in fact it can.

I have read works by other authors --- Shanks for instance --- and they severely overlap my work. But I deal with what I think is more comprehensiveness, more thorough in Romans 9, John6, and Eph1 for instance.

The similarity between your work and Shank's is great. On the surface his arguments for corporate election appear very thorough and intimidating, but once you begin to examine it closely bit by bit you see that the overall picture isn't really supported by the premises used to paint it.

Again, you define "PEER", in terms of "REFORMED THEOLOGY".

No, I do not. As I stated before, I believe that if you were to make some of the arguments you're making in almost any seminary you would be failed. One that always comes to mind is your rendering of 2 Pet 3:9 saying that "God makes room (choreo) for all to repent." That is quite simply grammatically false. That's not even speaking to the issue of who the "all" represents grammatically.

In the face of clear Scripture there are those so steeped in their doctrine, that they cannot hear the words; I expect many to SCORN my text; but that changes nothing of its validity. For its validity is secondary, derived from the Scripture on which it is founded.

But the same principle applies to you, Ben. Someone can present you with clear Scripture, reason, and hermeneutics contradicting your position and you will still cling stubbornly to it. You have said yourself in the past that you think you've discovered things others before you have not discovered. I on the other hand rely not only on my own abilities to discern these things but also an overwhelming amount of scholarship from the expanse of church history.

 

[ischus]

if anyone is interested, I recently did an exegesis of I Cor.1:18-25. I is a short work, but probably too long for anyone to actually read as a single post.

PM me with your email if you would like to take a look at it.

blessings,

ischus

 

[Colossians]

The "foolishness of preaching" means the "foolishness which is preaching".

Similarly, "Hitler chose, by the foolishness of war, to subjugate other nations".

 

[Ben johnson]

Can you summarize here, Ischus? Does it reflect what I've been saying? I would love to read it.

The verse simply means that God saves people through a message that is considered foolish by the world.

But there's a BREAK in "logical flow", if you think, "through message-that's-foolish-to-LOST, God saves ELECT".

It is clear that "by wisdom of the world" is sarcasm (world's wisdom is foolishness to God), therefore it follows that "foolishness of the message" is also sarcasm (it's really God's wisdom) --- so that when they RECOGNIZE it's God's wisdom, they believe.

Recognize = believe. Belief is THROUGH foolishness --- so "belief" must point towards the "perishing".

In retaining the notion of foolishness (a style reminiscent of Shakespeare) as regards the gospel, Paul is doubly emphasising the difference between the mind of the world, and the mind of those in Christ.

He simply says, "the Gospel SEEMS foolish to the world; but THROUGH that foolishness He saves those that believe."

No-one follows what he considers to be foolish. Otherwise there would be no value in thinking it foolish.

They DON'T believe "while they think it's foolish". But conviction, CHANGES it from "foolish" to "wisdom".

If belief originates in the heart, and a person starts out not believing, then the heart must change in order for belief to come about. There must be some change. Ben is saying that belief causes that change, but that change is required in order to believe. An effect cannot logically precede its own cause.

"Conviction" --- being convicted or convinced, from "convict to prove".
"Convince" --- pursuade by argument or evidence. (Webster's)

THAT is the change, Fru. Ever hear of Josh McDowell's story? He knows all about "conviction that changed foolisness to power"...

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

And this in context with "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" --- certainly connecting God's working, with our willingness.

We as Christians most certainly have a responsibility to obey God's command to preach the Gospel to all men. It is fallacious however to make the assumption that because of this God is therefore dependent upon our fervency and obedience in order to bring about the salvation of others. It is a blessing for us to be the messengers of the Gospel (Rom 10:15) because the preaching of the Word is the means God has ordained to bring the elect to salvation.

Really? How does this accommodate, "HOW shall they believe ...without a preacher"? Rom10:14

Umm, if you will go back and actually read what I wrote you will see that I was differentiating between CHAPTER 1 and CHAPTER 2 (in direct response to your arguing for a correlation between the two), NOT between ch1 vs 18 and ch1 vs 21.

Well, duh. You were refusing the idea that "the foolishness of 2:14 is like the foolishness of 1:21", so I was trying to demonstrate that "foolishness" between 1:18 & 1:21 was the same; and that there is only one group, not two. That, he's not saying, "through-foolish-to-WORLD-message, God saves, elect-SEE-message-WISE".

Sorry, Ben, but this again demonstrates your failure to grasp basic logic. If there is no perceivable causal factor...that is if there is no event which logically precedes and is inextricably linked to it, then it is by definition spontaneous ("Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated."). You have failed thusfar to provide any reason why one person suddenly is convicted by the Gospel and believes where another does not. The absence of a reason leaves conviction and belief as being purely spontaneous.

"Conviction" --- "pursuade", "prove", "evidence", etcetera. Those in Acts2:37 HEARD the Gospel, they were "PIERCED TO THE HEART"; convicted. The "foolish message", became at that instant, "wisdom". Perfectly clear to me...

I have never denied man's consciousness. I have denied unregenerate man's desire to believe and challenged you to provide the reason why the Gospel is sufficient to bring about conviction in one person and insufficient to bring about conviction in another person. Unregenerate man hears the Gospel, may even acknowledge the truthfulness of the content, but rejects it and is not convicted by it.

I have cited John5:39-47. Those who study the Scriptures, but REFUSE to believe. Jn6:45 says "they shall all be taught; everyone who has heard AND LEARNED comes to Me." You refuse to consider that "learning, is a choice". Jn5:39-40 says, "You search the Scriptures... but they speak of ME, and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life."

Choice, Fru.

Or do you really believe Jesus spends all this time berating people who are NOT elect, sarcasticly TAUNTING those He knew could NEVER believe. Do you believe Jesus did that?

OK, first of all Matt 22:14 says "many" not "all."

First, that there are some who are TRULY CALLED but not chosen, stands against your "election doctrine". Second, who in that parable were NOT called? Anybody?

Reading is as you do makes absolutely no sense at all. Verse 23 begins "but we preach Christ crucified." Isn't the outward preaching of the Gospel the only "call" according to you? If that is the case, then Paul is saying "we call both Jews and Greeks, which call is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called it is the power and wisdom of God." It's like saying they called the Jews and Greeks, but only called the Jews and Greeks.

What was your view on Rm9:32-33? They "stumbled over the stumbling block, because they pursued WORKS instead of FAITH". That sounds mighty-like "volition", doesn't it???

(and that you gave CG a nice quote color),

The colors really bug you, don't they?

However, this does not conflict with the view that election is the formal cause of our salvation which is brought about through the instrumental cause of faith, and thus we "[have] faith through being saved."

Sorry; Scripture says "faith receives salvation" --- it does not say "salvation produces belief".

No, these are conclusions. You have to accept certain premises to arrive at these conclusions, which we disagree upon. One fact that you CANNOT escape is that the orthodox view going back to the early days of Christianity is that man cannot and will not believe apart from an initial, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit (NOT to be confused with indwelling). Your view of man's ability to believe apart from the gracious prior work of the Holy Spirit was one of the foundational premises of Pelagius and it was soundly condemned by the early church. Does the position of the early church have the same level of authority to bind the conscience as Scripture itself? Of course not. But neither should it be casually dismissed as inconsequential. Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

Lay aside all the councils and reasonings (for man's reasoning is fallible), and just deal with the passage. Titus3:5-6. Explain to me how "regeneration" is not "by the POURED Spirit", and the Spirit is "poured through belief that makes Him OUR Savior".

The Reformed view does not define "free will" in the same manner you do. The will is free in the sense that man is not prevented or constrained from choosing according to the desire of his heart. The will is enslaved in the sense that man's heart is continually evil and thus he only wills to sin. Even the "righteous" works he does are not truly good because they are not done of faith (Rom 14:23).

The irresistibility of the grace of God in the calling stems from the fact that God regenerates the sinful heart of the man, giving him the desire which in turn leads to the free volitional response of the will in faith.

Your view of free will ultimately is a will which is able to choose despite the inclination of his heart. It simply doesn't work that way.

"The will is enslaved to the heart; without God's regeneration man can only will evil, and by regeneration his will can only follow God". A heart that is enslaved either to corruption (without God's change), OR righteousness (with God's change), cannot have "free volitional response".

Paul, on the other hand, asserts COMPLETE volition; we PRESENT ourselves as slaves, EITHER to sin (resulting in death), OR to obedience (resulting in righteousness). Obedience flows from the heart, and not the "unilaterally-regenerated-can-ONLY-produce-obedience heart".

*SIGH* Nobody is denying volition nor "personal choice." The question is WHY they were unwilling and what is necessary for a change in that willingness to come about.

You are denying that you are denying volition. See previous paragraph...

In all honesty, I don't recall. I'm sorry that you were lead to say such out of frustration, but I can assure you that what I just said was not out of frustration. It was simply the restating of what I have been exposing throughout our discussions.

If you feel that comment was worthy of reporting, by all means do so.

AFAIK, nobody reported your post. But several people rushed to report mine, which didn't seem nearly as scathing as yours. As memory serves me you WERE one who reported mine; and then you say the very same sentiment (and farther).

Nope, an explanation and clarification about the source of "every good and perfect gift."

He says "sin brings death --- don't be deceived beloved brethren" --- and you say, "beloved brethren can't be deceived to death"?

Then you must admit that one or the other of us is not saved. Are you willing to make that assertion?

Is one of us "fallen from steadfastness" or "captived by deception rather than according to Christ"?

Instead I put forth the same position as dozens of other commentators (Reformed AND non-Reformed) in stating that the parable was never meant to speak either way to the issue of predestination.

And I think you're wrong. It says, "they BELIEVED for a while, but fell to temptation". There is nothing IN that context to force the idea of, "it wasn't REAL (saved) belief."

Granted that's not one of the stronger belief-passages; but your position remains fixed even in Heb6, Galatians, 2Peter....

The similarity between your work and Shank's is great. On the surface his arguments for corporate election appear very thorough and intimidating, but once you begin to examine it closely bit by bit you see that the overall picture isn't really supported by the premises used to paint it.

I read "Elect in the Son", AFTER my text was essentially done. Many of his points are the same as mine --- and this because we both used Scripture/ I don't think I saw anything in his text talking about John6 (where vs42 sets the tone for that part).

But the same principle applies to you, Ben. Someone can present you with clear Scripture, reason, and hermeneutics contradicting your position and you will still cling stubbornly to it. You have said yourself in the past that you think you've discovered things others before you have not discovered. I on the other hand rely not only on my own abilities to discern these things but also an overwhelming amount of scholarship from the expanse of church history

Most cases I do not agree that they are "clear Scripture reason and hermeneutics contradicting my position".

Regarding 2Pet1:9, the man is "forgotten purification from former sins"; he lacks godliness and lacks self control and lacks morality; but someone recently said "he's not IMMORAL, nor UNCONTROLLED nor UNGODLY. Presumably there is a middle of the road position. And another said, "he was NEVER SAVED" (how could he forget what he never knew? How could he have BEEN purified if NEVER saved?). Still a third person said, "He IS ungodly/immoral/uncontrolled/unkind/unloving, but he's STILL SAVED". And a fourth person said, "he's not REAL, he's a 'bugbear' what-would-happen-IF, but he's an idea not a real person." Sorry, all four of those are wrong; and there is only one more understanding possible, that "he really did fall from salvation".

And, LIKEWISE, diligence and perseverance are ADMONISHED of the rest of us, so that we don't fall also. Heb4:11 agrees, Heb6:11-12, 2Cor11:3, 2Jn1:7-9, 1Jn2:26-28, etcetera.

Church history has been wrong before, Fru; there is nothing condemnable with "searching the Scriptures and understanding what they wrote".

 

[ischus]

well, I don't want to take 'sides' here, but from what I understand, you will not find any calvinism in this specific passage. This section is full of sarcasm and irony, which is Paul's point. The focus is not on how we attain faith, but rather it is focussed on what we have faith in. The concept is both rediculous and foolish--a crucified Jew has the power to save people. Paul, in my opinion, says:

"if you believe in a message like this, the world will think you are an idiot. But remember this--God, in this 'rediculous' act, saved you, and this is more powerful than anything that you wise humans can come up with. Put your faith in this 'foolishness' and you will see just how wise God truly is."

I don't see an argument for Calvinism here unless one reads into this passage the doctrine of regeneration. Even then, that is not Paul's focus here. This passage is about God's work on the cross, not God's work in your heart. Try to see the point Paul is making to the Corinthians who are steeped in Hellenistic Philosophy and yet trying to live as Christians. They are trying to reconcile the two in their minds...This is what Paul is speaking to. He compares the Greek concept of deity and wisdom with the Christian concept of deity and wisdom.

Keep in mind that this is all in the larger context of Unity of the body. Paul's overarching theme in this part of the letter is to instill a sense of unity in this scismatic church. Think about what this message says to that type of attitude...

 

[Philip dT]

1Co 1:18-25 "For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the perceiving ones." (20) Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (21) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. (22) For the Jews ask for a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness. (24) But to them, the called ones, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) Because the foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and the weak thing of God is stronger than men."



1Co 3:18-19 "Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool so that he may be wise. (19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, 'He takes the wise in their own craftiness.'"



I think the key to understand this passage is by understanding 1Co 2:11-16



"For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of man within him? So also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. (12) But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. (13) These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (14) But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one. (16) For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."



Paul is talking about two worlds or realms here: the realm of the natural mind (the reason), and the realm of the spirit. Within the realm of the spirit, there exist the Spirit from God (2:12) and the spirit of the world (2:12). In the realm of the natural mind, there is the worldly wisdom (1:20) and the foolishness of preaching (1:21).

Any person, saved or unsaved, live in both these realms. According to 1 Co 2:11-16, the spirit-world is the determining factor as to what your understanding is in the realm of the mind. According to 1 Co 3:18-19, even Christians can seem to be wise in this world (anyone among you). If there are such Christians, they must "become a fool" (3:18), in order to become wise. True wisdom is measured according to the Spirit of God, not the spirit of this world (2:12). So, even if the preaching is foolishness (1:21) according to the spirit of this world, it is God's wisdom.

I personally think that the human mind is not capable of completely understanding God in all His depth (cf. Rom 11:33-36), but I do think we can know God on a spiritual level. God has made man with a choice to yield to His Spirit or not. That is why Paul exhorts Christians not to quench or grieve the Spirit (1 Th 5:19; Eph 4:30). That is also why Christians need to yield to God in order not to live according to the old pattern of the old man:



Rom 6:13 "Do not yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but yield yourselves to God, as one alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."



That is why it is one thing to be saved, but it is another to "live according to the spirit." That is a choice. A Christian can choose to quench the Spirit to such an extent that he falls out of God's grace onto eternal damnation (Heb 3:12; 6:4-6).

Even unsaved people can be influenced or convicted by God's Spirit in their spirit.



Joh 16:8 "And when that One comes, He will convict the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment."



If God work in them, that does not mean that they are saved automatically. God hardens or softens people's hearts, but that does not mean that they are automatically saved or not by that. It does mean that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11). God's saving grace to man does not mean that all men will be saved, it does mean that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). God convicts people in order to believe. Belief unto salvation is a choice.

Rom 3:22-23 "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

All can believe, there is no one who is in a special posistion before God. The gospel is open to all who believe, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes (Rom 1:16). Faith is the access to His grace (Rom 5:2).

The power of God cannot come into effect if there is not faith (1 Cor 1:21). The power of God is only available to those who by faith receives the Spirit of God into their hearts and yield to Him by allowing Him to reborn you. Then, the message of the gospel, which is foolishness to the world, becomes the power of God in your life. That is why a non-believer is not convinced to believe by way of intellectual knowledge primarily, but by the demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor 2:4).

 

[cygnusx1]

"All can believe, there is no one who is in a special posistion before God. The gospel is open to all who believe, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes (Rom 1:16). Faith is the access to His grace (Rom 5:2)."


Paul said God had set him apart before he was born ........ I think you will find other men in scripture say similar things.
And who can deny God FAVOURED the Jews for hundreds of years!

Consider the High Priest's breat plate ..12 stones each representing a tribe of Israel .....NONE representing Egypt , Sodom , Cannanites , Jebusites , Cushites , Philistines , etc, etc ....just God's people!

The Gospel is the power of God to all who believe , NOT those who will not!

It is a Whomsover WILL , never , "and those who will not" .

 

[Ben johnson]

It is a Whomsover WILL , never , "and those who will not" .

You've lost me on this. I think both camps agree with this; but one sees it as, "whoever believes, meaning whom God has chosen", and the other sees it as, "whoever becomes convicted by the message and believes and receives Him."

 

[frumanchu]

THAT is the change, Fru. Ever hear of Josh McDowell's story? He knows all about "conviction that changed foolisness to power"...

Sorry, Ben, but that's not good enough. You still have not explained how two people can hear the exact same message from the exact same preacher and one be convicted by it while the other is not. There is more to it than simply being convinced that the Gospel is true.

And it still does not explain the logical contradiction in your argument in saying that belief causes the change in the heart when belief (and unbelief) originate in the heart and therefore the inclination of the heart must necessarily be changed (and thus the effect must precede its own cause).

Really? How does this accommodate, "HOW shall they believe ...without a preacher"? Rom10:14

I have explained that to you before, Ben. Why are you asking again as though I have not?

Let me ask you this question. Do you think that Christians (especially Jewish Christians in the first century) would inately know to preach the Gospel to all men everywhere had God not said so through Christ and His Apostles? The Word is there not only to give the message of the Gospel that leads to salvation, but also to instruct the children of God. God works through human agency to accomplish His will. He could if He so chose appear before each man in the same manner as He did with Paul and bring men to salvation, but instead He chose the preaching of the Word as the instrument to bring about His will.

You clearly have a difficulty in seeing that God's utilization of preachers as the means of providing the stimulus for the response of faith does not mean God is therefore in any way limiting His ability to bring about His own will.

Well, duh. You were refusing the idea that "the foolishness of 2:14 is like the foolishness of 1:21", so I was trying to demonstrate that "foolishness" between 1:18 & 1:21 was the same; and that there is only one group, not two. That, he's not saying, "through-foolish-to-WORLD-message, God saves, elect-SEE-message-WISE".

If I am reading this right through the color-hyphen-bold-speak, are you trying to disprove my assertion that "there is no reason of necessity to understand that that which is described as 'foolishness' in chapter 1 is the same as that which is described as 'foolishness' in chapter 2" by demonstrating that that which is described as "foolishness" in 1:18 is the same as that which is described as "foolishness" in 1:21? If that's the case you are failing to do so. If that's not what you're trying to do...well, please clarify I guess. But if you're trying to challenge an assertion that the "foolishness" between 1:18 and 1:21 is different, please address it to whomever made that argument because it wasn't me.

"Conviction" --- "pursuade", "prove", "evidence", etcetera. Those in Acts2:37 HEARD the Gospel, they were "PIERCED TO THE HEART"; convicted. The "foolish message", became at that instant, "wisdom". Perfectly clear to me...

You have still not explained to me how this is not spontaneous given that there are those who hear the same Gospel and are NOT "pierced to the heart" and convicted. I'm still waiting for the differentiating factor.

I have cited John5:39-47. Those who study the Scriptures, but REFUSE to believe. Jn6:45 says "they shall all be taught; everyone who has heard AND LEARNED comes to Me." You refuse to consider that "learning, is a choice". Jn5:39-40 says, "You search the Scriptures... but they speak of ME, and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life."

Choice, Fru.

Good grief, Ben. How many times must I explain that the issue is not whether it is a propositional choice, but rather who will chose which way and more importantly WHY? The latter is the question I am pressing you on now which you have failed to answer.

Or do you really believe Jesus spends all this time berating people who are NOT elect, sarcasticly TAUNTING those He knew could NEVER believe. Do you believe Jesus did that?

No. But this all goes back to your false presumption that command implies ability. Regardless, right now I'm concerned with your answer to the question of why they choose not to believe.

First, that there are some who are TRULY CALLED but not chosen, stands against your "election doctrine". Second, who in that parable were NOT called? Anybody?

There are two ways in which men are called: outwardly by the indiscriminate preaching of the Word, and inwardly by the work of the Holy Spirit. My view on this parable is the [post=2059092]same as before[/post]. As usual, I think you are trying to make more out of a parable than is actually intended.

What was your view on Rm9:32-33? They "stumbled over the stumbling block, because they pursued WORKS instead of FAITH". That sounds mighty-like "volition", doesn't it???

Ben, EVERYTHING we do is an act of volition. Where have I or any other Calvinist here said that anything we do is not a volitional act?

You still did not answer to what I pointed out. Your position there makes no sense because it is either needlessly redundant or contradictory. It's saying the call is to them (the Jews/Greeks who are called) foolishness/a stumbling block, but to them who are called (which per the beginning is the Jews/Greeks) is power and wisdom. So...how can the call be both "foolishness/a stumbling block" and "power and wisdom" at the same time to the same people?

The implication of the verse is clear: the preaching of the Gospel ("we preach Christ crucified") is not the call that is referred to in the latter half of the verse ("to those who are [the] called").

Sorry; Scripture says "faith receives salvation" --- it does not say "salvation produces belief".

Ben, I don't know how many explanations and examples I can give to illustrate the different types of causality. I never said "salvation produces belief."

Lay aside all the councils and reasonings (for man's reasoning is fallible), and just deal with the passage. Titus3:5-6. Explain to me how "regeneration" is not "by the POURED Spirit", and the Spirit is "poured through belief that makes Him OUR Savior".

I'm sorry, but I started this thread on 1 Corinthians 1, not Titus 3:5-6. How about YOU "just deal with the passage." I have already dealt with Titus 3:5-6 in [post=8377714]other[/post] [post=9918364]threads[/post]. If you want to argue that passage further, feel free to resurrect those threads or start one of your own. You are claiming as factual premises positions which are points of disagreement, so you are accomplishing nothing by using them as premises for an argument against my position.

"The will is enslaved to the heart; without God's regeneration man can only will evil, and by regeneration his will can only follow God". A heart that is enslaved either to corruption (without God's change), OR righteousness (with God's change), cannot have "free volitional response".

FALSE. The very nature of "volitional will" is the ability to choose what one wants. That principle IS NOT VIOLATED in the regeneration of the heart. Changing the desire of the heart does not eradicate the ability of that person to choose what he wants, because it is not the ability to choose that is changed but the desire according to which it acts.

Ben, feel free to cite for us an example of a choice you have made that was not according to your strongest desire at that moment. Any example will do. If you cannot think of one, make that choice now. Choose to be a giraffe. Oh, you can't. Hmmm...must be that you don't have "free volitional response."

This is where your whole theology falls apart, because in all your crying for "choice" you don't realize that the type of choice you want is impossible. Man acts according to his nature. By nature he is a free volitional creature, able to choose according to his desire. By nature he is also enslaved by virtue of his corrupt heart which leads him to make "free volitional choices" which are invariably sinful. Pelagius realized that the only way to escape this was to deny the inherent corruption of man. So, as I said before, the only thing that keeps you from full-fledged Pelagianism is felicitous inconsistency.

You are denying that you are denying volition. See previous paragraph...

You are correct. See previous response. You are are redefining volition as the ability to choose regardless of the inclination of one's heart. I invite you to provide a single example of you or anyone else choosing according to something other than their strongest desire at that moment.

He says "sin brings death --- don't be deceived beloved brethren" --- and you say, "beloved brethren can't be deceived to death"?

You're manipulating the text to get what you want out of it. You're wrong. Period. Can we please get back to the discussion at hand regarding the reason or differentiating factor between the person who is convicted by the exact same message that fails to convict another?

Is one of us "fallen from steadfastness" or "captived by deception rather than according to Christ"?

You tell me. Do you consider Calvinism to be "philosophy and empty deception" that is not "according to Christ?" Do you consider Calvinism an "error of unprincipled men" which deceives and interrupts "[growth] in the grace and knowledge" of Christ?

And I think you're wrong. It says, "they BELIEVED for a while, but fell to temptation". There is nothing IN that context to force the idea of, "it wasn't REAL (saved) belief."

Nor is there any necessity to believe that they were actually, truly saved. My point all along has been that you are reading your presumption into the text without any hermenutical justification to do so. It is a PARABLE with a specific intent, and you are pushing that parable beyond its intent by reading your theology into it. If I applied the same principles as you are I would be arguing about the preparation of the soil, etc. I know some others have done this. I have told them the same thing I'm telling you...that this parable was not intended to speak to the issue of perseverance.

Granted that's not one of the stronger belief-passages; but your position remains fixed even in Heb6, Galatians, 2Peter....

You wouldn't know it from your copious use of it in these threads. I bet I'd be hard-pressed to find a single thread in all of the Soteriology forum in which you participated and did not quote this verse at least once.

Admitting that this verse does not speak authoritatively to the issue of perseverance is not admitting the defeat of your position. This is not an either/or situation where if you agreed with me you would be contradicting your own position. If you are so confident in the strength of your position in Heb, Gal, 2 Pet, etc then I see no reason for you to continue using this parable.

Can we please drop Luke 8:13 from the debate going forward?

I read "Elect in the Son", AFTER my text was essentially done. Many of his points are the same as mine --- and this because we both used Scripture/ I don't think I saw anything in his text talking about John6 (where vs42 sets the tone for that part).

I wasn't implying that there was any influence or inspiration from Shank's work. The parallel I was drawing wasn't in the content but rather in the methodology. Saying that is is the same "because we both used Scripture" is a bit rediculous. Are you saying you two and a few others are the only people that ever used Scripture in developing your position?

Most cases I do not agree that they are "clear Scripture reason and hermeneutics contradicting my position".

"Most" cases? I believe I have yet to see you concede ever that you were incorrect on a verse.

Sorry, all four of those are wrong; and there is only one more understanding possible, that "he really did fall from salvation".

See, the problem is that you have failed to show HOW this is not a hypothetical used to illustrate the point that the believe needs to "add to/in faith these things." You can say it all you want in whatever colors you want, but until you provide the proof you are just making empty declarations.

And, LIKEWISE, diligence and perseverance are ADMONISHED of the rest of us, so that we don't fall also. Heb4:11 agrees, Heb6:11-12, 2Cor11:3, 2Jn1:7-9, 1Jn2:26-28, etcetera.

Human agency, Ben. The admonition is the stimulus, the obedience the response...but without the catalyst of the Holy Spirit it is not realized.

Church history has been wrong before, Fru; there is nothing condemnable with "searching the Scriptures and understanding what they wrote".

The problem is that you seem to think you are so much more able to discern these things than those who have gone before us, so much so that you readily dismiss them with a wave of your hand and arrogantly proclaim your superior ability to "use Scripture" to discern the things of God.

Back to the question.

Please provide us with the differentiating factor that enables the Word, delivered in the exact same manner, to convict one individual and fail to convict another.

 

[Colossians]

Again,

That God saves us by the foolishness of preaching, simply means that God saves us by what the world considers foolish.

Similarly, we are told that the gospel is a stumbling stone to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles.

It is quite simple.