Adam and eve and Arminian Thought

[Received]

It is a work. A work of God.
And a work of God only, therefore no human can do it.
This is why Calvinism is correct.

While God makes possible our belief, by giving us something to believe in, it is nowhere stated in scripture that this belief is solely of God, while there are scriptures -- as Ben has pointed to -- that do speak contrariwise. Our work would be to precisely create our own salvation, which is a clear impossibility.

What Arminians don't seem to be able to grasp is the philosophical constraints of causality: it is not possible for one's desire to precede one's desire. Once one has a desire for Christ, He is already saved. While He doesn't have a desire for Christ, there is no way to have a desire for Christ.

And it is the mistake of Calvinists to juxtapose logical and chronological causality; that because someone believes something exactly when the evidence is offered that the belief is therefore caused solely by the evidence, and has nothing to do with the person.

In a nutshell, desire (either way), precludes counter-desire (either way).
Alternatively, state cannot be changed from within itself. (One cannot pull oneself off the ground by one's own bootstraps.)

Precisely; but one can refuse or accept change contingent on evidence offered, even if belief is involuntary, for scripture does speak of two different sorts of belief -- that of the intellect, which James claimed even the demons knew, and that of the heart, which implies righteousness with works as evidence.

Thank you for presuming to know "undoubtedly" my motivations and purpose in this thread, and for excluding the possibility that my actual motivation might be to contend earnestly for the faith and to expose and refute what I perceive to be grave theological errors.

And thank you for failing to realize that you didn't start this thread! And for dickens sake, man, comparing an entire group of theology to an instance of arrogance of man, when points have been made again and again and again against such claims, without reply, reveals only malice.

Speaking of which, Received, do you believe that those who die without having faith in Jesus Christ will perish eternally? Wait...on second thought, don't answer that. If I don't have "the correct understanding" I may misunderstand your position to be heretical or wholly unorthodox.

You're actually quite right; the entire contingency of what is heretical has to do with an understanding of what is orthodox; nonetheless, what is orthodox obviously isn't widely accepted, given that there are over 33,000 denominations. So, if you mean by heresy an unobjective deviation from scripture...there's a great deal of heresies out there. It really is a sad world. To use the word heresy implies the at least unconsious claim that you are absolutley right in every instance regarding this context, which really is quite a fantastic thing to say with the bible as such a big book, composed of many ambiguous languages capable of different translation. So, in a sense, to use the word "heresy" -- at least without humility -- is precisely the greatest form of arrogance man can muster in his mind towards others.

Is it a gift if you have worked for it or a wage due?

Billy is getting a wage so it is a poor analogy

Aha! Not so fast, mon ami. You immediately define Billy's work as a wage because he invested hours by which he was appropriately paid, and still hold that the Arminian claim of the acceptance or rejection of a gift is work, even though this instance is clearly not the same as Billy's. Perhaps you see now my point. If Billy is offered salvation and he refuses, he is not working for it, for he is not -- as with his wages -- investing X amount of hours in hope of gaining something he deserves. The non-Calvinist merely claims that man does not deserve grace -- for, indeed, love is not in the realm of desert --, but that he is capable of accepting or rejecting it in his own power, which is by no means working for the gift; only considering whether he should accept what is already paid, or refuse what is already paid. "Already paid" is the point of emphasis.

 

[nobdysfool]

Really! And where was I when this happened? All I have seen are responses like: "They can be LED ASTRAY from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ BUT STILL SAVED". Or, "They can be fallen from steadfastness but STILL SAVED." Or, "they can be "fallen from grace and severed from Christ but STILL SAVED!" All of which begs the question, "WHAT IS SALVATION"? (Especially if it can be UNSTEADFAST, and/or FAITHLESS, and/or UNDEVOTED-TO-JESUS, etcetera...)

Well, Frumanchu seems to be doing a pretty good job of it on another thread. There were some questions asked over there which I am hoping you have attempted to answer, because they are relevant and very much a part of the discussion. I believe you are trying to define these things in a very black and white way, and you are, whether you realize it or not, deriving your premise from the conclusion you want to prove. Such circular reasoning will always lead to a distorted and inaccurate understanding.

This issue cuts to the heart of SALVATION --- its ESSENCE. How could it not be important? And it is not PE that receives my attention --- I confront Wicca, WATER-BAPTISM=SALVATION, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Eternal Security, Carnal Christian, Islam, and any other doctrine that counters what I have learned in the Word. And why do you suppose that is, NBF? Why are Predestinationists willing to embrace ideas like "faithlessly saved", or "unsteadfastly saved", or "deceived from purity of devotion to Jesus but saved"? What is salvation if it can be without faith, or if it can be without steadfastness, or if it can be without pure devotion to Jesus?

You are again misrepresenting our position, filtering it through your own definitions. And you are asking with the assumption that no "True Christian" could ever have a moment of doubt, or stumble, or be temporarily overcome by a sin, or in any way fall short of the Christian Ideal. I will say this, that any professing Christian who claims to have never had to deal with any of these things, who has never had to struggle against sin, doubt, rebelliousness, or who has never failed to walk worthy of Christ, is a liar. You don't make any room for that in your theology. You actually are speaking against the very Grace by which you were saved.

You did on the other thread, just a couple days ago...

If you go back and read the context very carefully, you will see that I was responding to a blanket statement you made in regard to Predestination, stating that "no one is predestined to salvation". My reply was essentially, I believe that I was. I tried to send you a private message to make sure you understood that I was not questioning your salvation, but I couldn't send it because you haven't cleaned out your mailbox in quite a while. The message said your mailbox was full, and I coudn't route it through the other link to email to your email address. So, before you cast stones, bub, you need to attend to your own housekeeping.

Certainly. The day when I can be shown how my grasp of Scripture is wrong, that James1:14-16 & 5:19-20, and 2Pet2:20-22 & 1:9-11 & 3:14 &17, and Gal3:1-3 & 5:1-7, when these and many more like them are NOT speaking about FALLING FROM SALVATION. But no PE is willing to address these, NBF; why do you suppose that is? Mounts tried, and I very much respect him and salute him for the effort; more than anyone else has done. But the only responses possible are, "these passages are about the NEVER-SAVED", or "they're not about REALLY FALLING", or "they're just HYPOTHETICAL but can't REALLY HAPPEN", or "those entire letters do not apply to US TODAY". But each of those responses can be refuted. So --- there doesn't seem to BE any response to them, does there?

And Frumanchu is not engaging you on this very topic? Ben, you hold a different standard toward being refuted than you do toward refuting others. To refute others, you just throw out a bunch of scriptures, and then claim that you have refuted them. When we challenge them, you insist that we must overwhelmingly refute each and every scripture you have thrown out, in exhaustive detail, and you twist and turn the whole time and try to divert away, and will claim that if we don't refute each and every one in the exhaustive detail that you want but won't accept, then we have done nothing. I've seen you do it. So have others. Fru showed that your interpretation of Acts 13:48 could not possibly be correct, and that the theologian you cited as supporting your position actually did not support you. That is a matter of public record. And oh, the twisting and dodging, the dust you tried to kick up to avoid conceding that point!

If I present Scripture that cannot be accomodated to another certain view, how can it be said that "BEN has been COMPLETELY REFUTED?" Where is the refutation?

You won't accept the refutation! You won't concede anything! You haven't conceded Acts 13:48 yet, and you have absolutely no leg to stand on with that scripture. It just flat out does not say what you want it to say, Ben! It has been refuted, completely!

Have you ever heard of a Calvinist rebuking me for misrepresenting their position? Happens all the time, doesn't it (the accusation, that is)? But look what you just said about me --- "You think you must maintain your salvation by your own power." This after I have often said, "Peter writes: 'Protected by THE POWER OF GOD, through faith' ". It's not my power, NBF; not my salvation, nothing of me; it was JESUS on that Cross, I had no part in my redemption. It was GIVEN to me, SOLELY BY GRACE (because He LOVED me); yet the gift was RECEIVED by my own FAITH. It is NOT my power, it is HIS power --- operating through my FAITH --- when (and while) I BELIEVE.

It's more than an accusation, Ben, IT'S A FACT! You DO misrepresent the Calvinist/Reformed position. That can be attested to by the other Calvinists and Reformed people on this forum. We can see the errors in your statement of what you think we believe, but you are not willing to be corrected concerning those errors. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that it would cause your theology to collapse? I think you intuitively know that, which is why you refuse to see.

I am aware that PE's do not seem won; but I am also aware of all the LURKERS who read along --- and look up the verses right along WITH us. I am aware, because they often EMAIL me and TELL me that their faith has been strengthend by what we have said. This is a "high" for me --- to believe that we act in the service of our Lord, continuing what He started.

Seeing how you haven't cleaned out your mailbox in a while, I have to cast a doubtful eye on that statement. I am aware of the Lurkers as well, and I trust God to enlighten those whom He has chosen. It's nothing in my words or your words that will do that, it is the Holy Spirit who will do that. I am called to bear witness to the Truth. So are you. Neither yours or my words can save anyone.

We struggle with the nature of salvation itself --- it matters. It matters with the greatest importance in the Human universe --- eternity. The nature of "PREDESTINED-ELECTION" denies the importance (because of course salvation CANNOT be lost); the nature of "Responsible Grace" is to assign great importance to the discussion --- because salvation CAN be ...well, not LOST, but FORFEITED...

...by unbelief...

...which is why we are charged to KEEP OURSELVES IN HIS LOVE, to PERSEVERE, to EXAMINE OURSELVES TO SEE IF WE ARE IN CHRIST, to ABIDE, to CONTINUE STEADFASTLY IN JESUS, on and on. Stern charges indeed; stern with the weight of eternity...

Can't resist trying to cast your own belief in the mold of the thoughtful and reasoned way, can you? Ben, you take post-shots at opposing views with almost every statement you make. You are seemingly always in the mode of putting down your opponents. You can't even make a simple statement of faith without taking a shot! And yet you claim you're not obsessed with it....I think you exhibit the signs of a man who is worried, because you haven't been able to refute what you believe to be wrong about Reformed doctrine, nor will you ever be able to! I have no doubt of your sincerity, nor of your zeal, but you are sincerely and zealously wrong about this.

 

[Ben johnson]

you are, whether you realize it or not, deriving your premise from the conclusion you want to prove. Such circular reasoning will always lead to a distorted and inaccurate understanding.

That is my exact assessment of the PE view (changing "deceive your minds to led astray from the simplicity and devotion go Jesus", to "BUT STILL SAVED".) Which one of our assessments of the other, is right?

You are again misrepresenting our position, filtering it through your own definitions.

2Pet3:17 warns us "against being deceived to falling from steadfastness". OSAS must interpret:
1. It doesn't really MEAN "fall-from-steadfastness"...
2. They can be UNSTEADFASTLY SAVED...
3. It's speaking of the ALWAYS FALLEN (they never WERE steadfast)
4. Hypothetical bugbear warning but-don't-you-really-believe-it...

Which do you choose, NBF? Numer FIVE? What?

To refute others, you just throw out a bunch of scriptures, and then claim that you have refuted them. When we challenge them, you insist that we must overwhelmingly refute each and every scripture you have thrown out, in exhaustive detail, and you twist and turn the whole time and try to divert away, and will claim that if we don't refute each and every one in the exhaustive detail that you want but won't accept, then we have done nothing.

Our discussions turn into cul-de-sacs and dead ends; I show you "deceived by sin to falling away from the living God", you say "they were never NOT-deceived". I show you "He will present you holy and blameless IF you continue steadfast and firmly established and not be moved away from Jesus", you say "he's only hypotheticalizing, you can't REALLY be moved from Jesus you can't REALLY become unsteadfast." I show you "God disciplines His own; but if you are WITHOUT discipline then you are illegitimate children and not real sons; do not refuse Him who warns from Heaven" --- you say, "those whom He does not discpipline were NEVER sons, and you can't REALLY refuse God".

What can I say that is different (and more convincing) than the Scriptures themselves? I really don't know...

You won't accept the refutation! You won't concede anything! You haven't conceded Acts 13:48 yet, and you have absolutely no leg to stand on with that scripture. It just flat out does not say what you want it to say, Ben! It has been refuted, completely!

See my response to Acts13:48 in "Continuing Examination" thread.
If you are good at "refutation", then please explain Galatians 3:1-3 & 5:1-7. They were "begun in the Spirit" and "running well". COULD they have NEVER BEEN SAVED? Are the UNSAVED ever "begun in the Spirit, running well"? Yet they RETURN to thinking "salvation by works". They are FALLEN FROM GRACE, and SEVERED FROM CHRIST. Which of these refutations do you use, NBF:
1. They were never-ever-SAVED "running-well/begun-in-the-Spirit."
2. They were STILL SAVED fallen-from-grace-severed-from-Christ.
3. They weren't ACTUAL REAL people from the CHURCHES OF GALATIA...
4. This letter wasn't WRITTEN TO US.
5. SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION.

If you are good at refutation and explaining, let's have yours on this passage? (Identical question for 2Pet2:20-22, James5:19-20 & 1:14-16)

Btw, Fru has PMed me several times. It does fill up --- each post that is reported gives me a PM --- and sometimes people report the same post several times. I delete messages daily...

 

[nobdysfool]

That is my exact assessment of the PE view (changing "deceive your minds to led astray from the simplicity and devotion go Jesus", to "BUT STILL SAVED".) Which one of our assessments of the other, is right?

How many of your sins did Christ die for? Would that include the ones you haven't committed yet? Answer me this, because I believe that may be we need to start at the basics in order to properly address the subject.

2Pet3:17 warns us "against being deceived to falling from steadfastness". OSAS must interpret:
1. It doesn't really MEAN "fall-from-steadfastness"...
2. They can be UNSTEADFASTLY SAVED...
3. It's speaking of the ALWAYS FALLEN (they never WERE steadfast)
4. Hypothetical bugbear warning but-don't-you-really-believe-it...

Which do you choose, NBF? Numer FIVE? What?

It seems you have many synonyms for unsaved: fall from steadfastness, led astray, deceived, unstable, beguiled, etc...I'll have to start making a list of them. However, you seem to equate any hiccup or glitch in a believer's life as an indication that they are in immediate danger of hellfire, and scruptire just won't back you up there. We are imputed the righteouness of Christ, and are justified by His Resurrection before God. Are you seriously going to tell me that if I sin, I am no longer imputed the righteousness of Christ? That I have lost Justification? Are you going to tell me that sin was not already covered and forgiven, by the blood of Christ? That His High-Priestly intercession on my behalf suddenly ceased? That it avails me nothing? Then you must acknowledge that it is only when we are walking in the Spirit, and not sinning, that the things designed to cover and protect us from the consequences of the sin which so easily besets us are only effective when they are not presently needed, and the moment I sin, when those things are needed the most, they are unavailable to me, for I have sinned. Now do you see why I wanted your answers to those questions? You have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding sin and the Believer. We need to start there.

Our discussions turn into cul-de-sacs and dead ends; I show you "deceived by sin to falling away from the living God", you say "they were never NOT-deceived". I show you "He will present you holy and blameless IF you continue steadfast and firmly established and not be moved away from Jesus", you say "he's only hypotheticalizing, you can't REALLY be moved from Jesus you can't REALLY become unsteadfast." I show you "God disciplines His own; but if you are WITHOUT discipline then you are illegitimate children and not real sons; do not refuse Him who warns from Heaven" --- you say, "those whom He does not discpipline were NEVER sons, and you can't REALLY refuse God".

What can I say that is different (and more convincing) than the Scriptures themselves? I really don't know...

You might try rightly dividing the Word. that always works for me....

You avoided my questions about what can be seen every Sunday in church: people who think they're saved because they mumbled a "sinner's prayer" as though just saying the words would be enough (and sometimes it is taught exactly that way, magic words spoken like an incantation or charm), but have no changed life. They may go through the motions, say all the right things, do all the right things, and still be as unsaved as the vilest sinner. They are just engaging in self-discipline, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. American churches are filled with such folk, Ben! All their service, attendance, and good works will avail them nothing, because they are not saved! And here you are, saying that even the most stable saint is only as saved as his last sin is forgiven. You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope!

See my response to Acts13:48 in "Continuing Examination" thread.
If you are good at "refutation", then please explain Galatians 3:1-3 & 5:1-7. They were "begun in the Spirit" and "running well". COULD they have NEVER BEEN SAVED? Are the UNSAVED ever "begun in the Spirit, running well"? Yet they RETURN to thinking "salvation by works". They are FALLEN FROM GRACE, and SEVERED FROM CHRIST. Which of these refutations do you use, NBF:
1. They were never-ever-SAVED "running-well/begun-in-the-Spirit."
2. They were STILL SAVED fallen-from-grace-severed-from-Christ.
3. They weren't ACTUAL REAL people from the CHURCHES OF GALATIA...
4. This letter wasn't WRITTEN TO US.
5. SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION.

If you are good at refutation and explaining, let's have yours on this passage? (Identical question for 2Pet2:20-22, James5:19-20 & 1:14-16)

I'll get to those. but at a much slower pace. One at a time. Stop bombarding, you do not establish your position that way, nor do you add weight to your argument.

Btw, Fru has PMed me several times. It does fill up --- each post that is reported gives me a PM --- and sometimes people report the same post several times. I delete messages daily...

You're inbox will hold 1000 messages, Ben. Are you going to tell me that on any given day you may receive 1000 PM's? I don't believe you, quite frankly. You gave me an excuse, not a reason. Have your thread notifications go to your outside e-mail. Mine do. I have the capacity for 1000 messages in my PM inbox. I have 41, total, since I joined CF. I seriously doubt that you get 1000 messages per day.

 

[Ben johnson]

My inbox holds 250 messages; I have some saved, and my sent file counts against the limit. If you have 1000, then you mave more clout than I. But then, why would I need to explain it?

every Sunday in church: people who think they're saved because they mumbled a "sinner's prayer" as though just saying the words would be enough (and sometimes it is taught exactly that way, magic words spoken like an incantation or charm), but have no changed life.

Very good. I often rail against what I call, "Incantation Salvation".

They may go through the motions, say all the right things, do all the right things, and still be as unsaved as the vilest sinner. They are just engaging in self-discipline, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. American churches are filled with such folk, Ben!

In Matt7:21-23, Jesus condemns those who THOUGHT they were saved --- they cast demons, prophesied, did mighty works; what did Jesus SAY about them? They PRACTICE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, they DO NOT DO GOD'S WILL.

This reflects perfectly 1Jn3:7-10, which says that he who practices righteousness IS righteous, he who practices sin is of the devil; by this the children of God and the children of the devil are exposed.

It seems you have many synonyms for unsaved: fall from steadfastness, led astray, deceived, unstable, beguiled, etc...I'll have to start making a list of them.

You bet. It is on-off, black-white, NBF; either we dwell in RIGHTEOUSNESS, or we dwell in SIN; there is no "in-between".

However, you seem to equate any hiccup or glitch in a believer's life as an indication that they are in immediate danger of hellfire, and scruptire just won't back you up there. We are imputed the righteouness of Christ, and are justified by His Resurrection before God. Are you seriously going to tell me that if I sin, I am no longer imputed the righteousness of Christ?

Scripture says exactly that. But I'm sure you are aware it is not SINS that comdemn us, it is SIN. In seeing only "PREDESTINATION", you fail to recognize that we first have the ability to RESIST God, TO sin, and THEN that same volition PERSISTS in whether we REPENT, or remain in (continual) sin (unrepentant).

In Romans 8 Paul conveys the CHOICE --- to walk in the Spirit (which isl life), or to walk in the flesh (which is death). Paul says we are OBLIGATED to walk in the Spirit --- obligated? Does this indicate IRRESISTIBILITY? No.

Are you going to tell me that sin was not already covered and forgiven, by the blood of Christ? That His High-Priestly intercession on my behalf suddenly ceased? That it avails me nothing? Then you must acknowledge that it is only when we are walking in the Spirit, and not sinning, that the things designed to cover and protect us from the consequences of the sin which so easily besets us are only effective when they are not presently needed, and the moment I sin, when those things are needed the most, they are unavailable to me, for I have sinned

It's not a question of ONE SIN FORFEITING US, but of a HEART-CHANGE. You say, "a regenerated heart CANNOT be unregenerated" --- this would be true if it was regenerated divinely, unilaterally. You deny that those Peter spoke of in 2:2:20-22 WERE regenerated, they had "epignosis-saved-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus" (exactly as the undeniably-saved had in 2Pet1:1-4); but it further says "they were ESCAPED defilements". Back to the "righteous/sin", the idea of "he who practices righteousness IS righteous" --- they could not be escaped defilements if they had NOT BEEN SAVED. (Contrast the false prophets/teachers, in verse 14 they never cease from sin, vs18 slaves of corruption --- Rom6:16 says "EITHER slaves of sin OR slaves of ...righteousness"). In your "predestination view" you deny that they can "become entangled in the defilements of the world and OVERCOME"; but that's what Peter says. They WERE IN the Holy Commandment, but they "epistrepho-ek-TURNED-AWAY-FROM-IT".

"SALVIC-BELIEF/FAITH" comes not from God, but from US (see Rom10:10, 6:17), but you do not recognize that, hence you deny that continual walk in the Spirit is required --- never getting past the idea of "if we must WALK, then it is WORKS!"

But Paul plainly says: "As you have RECEIVED JESUS, so walk IN Him." Col2:6 If you will continue reading verse 7 and 8, you will see genuine concern for our REMAINING IN SALVATION. It is not WORKS that keep us saved, it is us ABIDING IN HIM, and Him abiding (through our faith) in us. Scripture asserts that we CAN "unbelief", and through our faithlessness and unrepentance He will no longer indwell us.

SINS do not condemn us; sin (as a practice, unrepentance) does. The regenerate, have the ability to become unregenerate. "Walking-in-the-SPIRIT, by the Spirit putting to death the things of the flesh, that we might LIVE" (Rom8:12-13) is the ANSWER to James' 1:14-16; walk in the Spirit, and not be "enticed and carried away by lust of the flesh".

 

[Colossians]

Ben J,

Hi, Colossians. How do you justify saying "BELIEVING IS A WORK",
You fail to see the ramifications of you own statement:
If believing is not a work, then you are not the one who is doing it. Therefore, by your own admission, if you are not working, then you are not in the picture: only God is.

Your problem lies in the definition of "work". "Work" in the full counsel of scripture, is not simply that which involves effort by anyone, but that which involves effort by anyone other than God. God's works are allowed, yours are not.
Accordingly "belief" is not considered work because it is not achieved by us, but by God.

 

[Received]

You fail to see the ramifications of you own statement:
If believing is not a work, then you are not the one who is doing it. Therefore, by your own admission, if you are not working, then you are not in the picture: only God is.

Hey Colossians, I know this wasn't directed towards me:

The entire idea of work and salvation seems, to me, to be a question of working to earn salvation -- as a man does with his wages --, and not to simply accept it. Again, belief is not a voluntary concern, and therefore it is based on our prior spiritual constitution, which is very much a part of our choices. Nonetheless, simply believing is not sufficient, for James revealed that even the demons believe and tremble. The idea is a form of faith, or belief, that we use toward God. Now, what is difficult about claiming that belief is the work of solely God is that there are a potentially infinite number of instances where we are commanded to use our faith towards God in a context of already having been saved. For instance, we are commanded to love our neighbors. If this work is solely up to God, then why is the commandment -- and hence the contingent blame for not following through -- laid upon our shoulders? This seems a difficulty, and reason why the idea of working for one's salvation has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting a gift, but earning it as a man would earn his wages, which everyone in their right minds would accept as fatuitous madness. This seems, nonetheless, the inexorable presentation in scripture:

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness..." -- Romans 4:2-5 (NASB)

The perennial understanding seems to be that those who work are as those who deserve something for their own actions. Belief, on the other hand -- or should I say belief leading to salvation, and not merely understanding, as with the demons --, is merely accepting something that cannot be earned, and is not earned even if accepted.

 

[nobdysfool]

My inbox holds 250 messages; I have some saved, and my sent file counts against the limit. If you have 1000, then you mave more clout than I. But then, why would I need to explain it?

It's not a matter of "clout", it's a matter of settings. When I donated to CF, my mailbox settings were automatically increased to 1000. The fact remains, that I tried to send you a PM concerning my response to you, and couldn't because your inbox was full. To call me out publicly without first checking with me privately to verify was a slap in the face. My remark at the time was in direct response to a remark you made which I found quite offensive.

Very good. I often rail against what I call, "Incantation Salvation".
In Matt7:21-23, Jesus condemns those who THOUGHT they were saved --- they cast demons, prophesied, did mighty works; what did Jesus SAY about them? They PRACTICE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, they DO NOT DO GOD'S WILL.

This reflects perfectly 1Jn3:7-10, which says that he who practices righteousness IS righteous, he who practices sin is of the devil; by this the children of God and the children of the devil are exposed.

I'm glad to hear that you stand against the "happy-clappy", "say the magic words and you're saved" baloney that is too often preached. It is only when a person truly realizes (by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit) their utterly lost condition, that they are not only an offense to God, but totally unable to do anything about it apart from God's Saving Grace, that a person can be truly born again. A "salvation experience" that does not produce a radically changed life, demonstrably changed, is suspect, IMHO.

It seems you have many synonyms for unsaved: fall from steadfastness, led astray, deceived, unstable, beguiled, etc...I'll have to start making a list of them.

You bet. It is on-off, black-white, NBF; either we dwell in RIGHTEOUSNESS, or we dwell in SIN; there is no "in-between". Scripture says exactly that. But I'm sure you are aware it is not SINS that comdemn us, it is SIN. In seeing only "PREDESTINATION", you fail to recognize that we first have the ability to RESIST God, TO sin, and THEN that same volition PERSISTS in whether we REPENT, or remain in (continual) sin (unrepentant).

It goes deeper than that, Ben. It isn't an ablilty to RESIST God, it is OUR NATURE to do so, before we are saved. We were not just "spiritually sick", we were SPIRITUALLY DEAD, and born that way. Total Depravity is the term. We were born deserving Hell, having been born "In Adam", and having partaken of Adam's sin when he committed it. We were in Adam when he sinned. We were in Adam when his sin was imputed to him by God, after the fact. We were in Adam when the Judgment for sin was pronounced by God, and therefore we are under the same sentence, from birth. Our own sins only add to the condemnation. When we are born again, we are moved from being in Adam to being in Christ. Our standing before God is not our own, it is in Christ, and the benefits that we enjoy are due to our position, our standing before God. Every man is either in Adam, or in Christ. That position, that standing, is unchangeable, from our side. God is the only One who can move us from being in Adam to being in Christ. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17) The new creation cannot become uncreated. Our standing in Christ is secure. Once the New Birth has happened, it cannot be undone. Our state, that of being in the spirit or in the flesh, is what can change, but our standing cannot, because our standing is changed by God. Our state is our responsibility, in that we can choose to be led by the spirit, or led by the flesh. God will go to great lengths to help us to make our state match our standing, even chastening to the point of death of the physical body, that our soul may be saved. This is the chastening God deals on all of His own, to teach us to walk in the spirit so we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. 1 Cor. 5:1-5; Gal. 5:16; Rev. 3:19; Heb. 12:5-11.

I think you labor under the misconception that believing in Predestination means that I can do whatever I want, and that I am not responsible to God. You are making an unstated equating of Predestination with Antinomianism. Let me state categorically here that if you believe that, you are unequivocally wrong. The doctrine of Predestination has nothing to do with Antinomianism.

In Romans 8 Paul conveys the CHOICE --- to walk in the Spirit (which isl life), or to walk in the flesh (which is death). Paul says we are OBLIGATED to walk in the Spirit --- obligated? Does this indicate IRRESISTIBILITY? No.
It's not a question of ONE SIN FORFEITING US, but of a HEART-CHANGE. You say, "a regenerated heart CANNOT be unregenerated" --- this would be true if it was regenerated divinely, unilaterally.

The fact of the matter is, the heart IS regenerated by God, Ben! The alternative is that you regenerated your own heart, and therefore your regeneration and standing before God is by your own choice, by your own power, and subject to revocation by you at any time! But what saith the scriptures?

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Rom 11:29)

Did you call yourself to God? Or did God call you to Himself?

I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And that life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf. (Gal 2:20)

You deny that those Peter spoke of in 2:2:20-22 WERE regenerated, they had "epignosis-saved-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus" (exactly as the undeniably-saved had in 2Pet1:1-4); but it further says "they were ESCAPED defilements". Back to the "righteous/sin", the idea of "he who practices righteousness IS righteous" --- they could not be escaped defilements if they had NOT BEEN SAVED. (Contrast the false prophets/teachers, in verse 14 they never cease from sin, vs18 slaves of corruption --- Rom6:16 says "EITHER slaves of sin OR slaves of ...righteousness"). In your "predestination view" you deny that they can "become entangled in the defilements of the world and OVERCOME"; but that's what Peter says. They WERE IN the Holy Commandment, but they "epistrepho-ek-TURNED-AWAY-FROM-IT".

2Peter 2 speaks of false teachers, false prophets. Verse 3 and verse 12 indicate that they are destined for destruction. Epignosis does not necessarily mean "saving knowledge", but can mean "recognition", "acknowledgement", "understanding". Many of the "incantationally saved" people in church will readily acknowledge that Christ is Lord, but they do so from a position of recogniton, and not of salvation. The demons know and believe, but not savingly. You cannot build your theology on the idea that epignosis MUST mean saving knowledge. 2 Peter 2 states clearly that they are false teachers, destined for destruction. The description of them in chapter 2 leaves no room for the idea that they were once saved. You are building that idea on one word, and it has more meanings than what you will allow. The whole chapter makes it clear that they are false, never-saved, deceitful, carnal and worldly, seeking to entrap God's People, whom God has promised to deliver from such deception.

"SALVIC-BELIEF/FAITH" comes not from God, but from US (see Rom10:10, 6:17), but you do not recognize that, hence you deny that continual walk in the Spirit is required --- never getting past the idea of "if we must WALK, then it is WORKS!"

Why do you twist the truth and lie about what we say? Once again, your unspoken accusation is Antinomianism.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:10)

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (Rom 6:17)

There is nothing in either of these two verses that contradict the idea of the God-regenerated heart believing. It goes back to Total Depravity, Ben. Unless and until God regenerates the sinner's heart, he CANNOT believe savingly, nor enter in to Christ. Once the heart is regenerated, THEN the heart can believe. God does not believe for us, WE believe, but we CANNOT, until God regenerates the heart. A dead heart does not beat. A living heart does.

But Paul plainly says: "As you have RECEIVED JESUS, so walk IN Him." Col2:6 If you will continue reading verse 7 and 8, you will see genuine concern for our REMAINING IN SALVATION. It is not WORKS that keep us saved, it is us ABIDING IN HIM, and Him abiding (through our faith) in us. Scripture asserts that we CAN "unbelief", and through our faithlessness and unrepentance He will no longer indwell us.

Colossians 2 has Paul reminding, encouraging, and teaching his listeners to remember and realize their standing in Christ, and warns them to not be fooled by vain philosophies and teachings of men which deny the reality of their standing. At most, the true Christian would be rendered ineffective by such corrupt knowledge, but their salvation is not in question here, only their realization of their standing in Christ. You seem to be holding the idea that right knowledge is key to true salvation, and that wrong knowledge will negate the Blood of the Cross. That borders on Gnosticism, Ben. It is not knowledge that saves us, it is the blood of Christ, shed for your sins, and applied by faith in believing in the Son of God. Knowledge comes and increases as we walk in Him, but that knowledge is not what saves us. ONLY the Blood of Christ, and faith in Him saves us. Yes, we have a responsibility to walk in Him, but it is not that walking that saves us, it is the Blood of Christ, and faith in Him.

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. (Heb 13:5)

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (Joh 14:16)

SINS do not condemn us; sin (as a practice, unrepentance) does. The regenerate, have the ability to become unregenerate. "Walking-in-the-SPIRIT, by the Spirit putting to death the things of the flesh, that we might LIVE" (Rom8:12-13) is the ANSWER to James' 1:14-16; walk in the Spirit, and not be "enticed and carried away by lust of the flesh".

When you were born again, ALL of your sins were forgiven, even the ones you have not yet committed. You were placed in Christ, your standing before God, and that was done by the Father, not by you. If you sin, your sin does not negate your salvation, it is already forgiven, and your repentance is the answer of a good conscience toward God. You are not moment by moment saved, not saved, saved, not saved, depending on whether you have sinned or not in that moment. The Blood of Christ has cleansed you, and keeps you when you stumble and fall.

Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand. (Psa 37:24)

For a just [man] falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief. (Pro 24:16)

Your theology places all of the responsibility on man. It is only by man's faithfulness that he will see salvation. You echo the Mormons in saying "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast, after we have done all that we can". You want to add the effort of man to the salvation of God, from beginning to end. You deny the keeping power of God, saying that it only applies IF WE remain faithful. You make God's keeping contingent upon our performance. Unscriptural in the extreme!

 

[Ben johnson]

It goes deeper than that, Ben. It isn't an ablilty to RESIST God, it is OUR NATURE to do so, before we are saved. We were not just "spiritually sick", we were SPIRITUALLY DEAD, and born that way. Total Depravity is the term.

The problem that I see, is that Reformed-theology asserts "the DEPRAVED NATURE is REMOVED or CANCELLED". Paul says it is NOT --- he describes in Rom7 a WAR between the old dead (but not gone) nature, and the new spiritual nature. The SOLUTION, is in ch8 --- walking in the SPIRIT, rather than walking in the FLESH. He says, "we are under OBLIGATION to walk in the Spirit". Obligation? Volition???

When we are born again, we are moved from being in Adam to being in Christ. Our standing before God is not our own, it is in Christ, and the benefits that we enjoy are due to our position, our standing before God. Every man is either in Adam, or in Christ. That position, that standing, is unchangeable, from our side. God is the only One who can move us from being in Adam to being in Christ. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17) The new creation cannot become uncreated. Our standing in Christ is secure. Once the New Birth has happened, it cannot be undone. Our state, that of being in the spirit or in the flesh, is what can change, but our standing cannot, because our standing is changed by God.

If this is TRUE, then we CANNOT SIN --- because we are "new creations" the old is "gone forever". By saying, "our STANDING is secure but our WALKING may not be" --- you flat contradict Paul ("you are slaves to SIN, or slaves to RIGHTEOUSNESS"); you contradict Jesus ("no one can serve two masters"), you contradict John ("do not be deceived, he who practices righteousness IS righteous; he who practices sin IS NOT OF GOD.")

Our state is our responsibility, in that we can choose to be led by the spirit, or led by the flesh.

This is why I participate. You say, "You can WALK IN THE FLESH but stay SAVED". Paul says "if you walk in the flesh you DIE". Shall we believe you, or Paul? If I side with Paul, why is my belief ("Responsible Grace") called falsity, and your belief ("Reformed Theology", "Predestined Election"), called truth?

God will go to great lengths to help us to make our state match our standing, even chastening to the point of death of the physical body, that our soul may be saved.

Let's examine the verse from which you construct this part of your theology:
"It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, of such a kind as DOES NOT EXIST EVEN AMONG THE GENTILES. ...I have decided to deliver such a one to satan for destruction of his flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord." 1Cor5:1-5

You say, "He will DIE that he goes to Heaven". Die? More immoral than Heathens, you thihk he'll go to HEAVEN??? How do I convince you that is FALSE?

If you couple 1Cor5:5 with 1Tim1:20, it is FAR more likely that Paul says "destroy their flesh that they REPENT!"

I think you labor under the misconception that believing in Predestination means that I can do whatever I want, and that I am not responsible to God.

I never actually believed that about "Reformed Theologh" --- but look what YOU just said about YOUR doctrine: that one can WALK AFTER THE FLESH but never FALL FROM SALVATION". Is this not, "doing whatever you want"???

The fact of the matter is, the heart IS regenerated by God, Ben! The alternative is that you regenerated your own heart, and therefore your regeneration and standing before God is by your own choice, by your own power, and subject to revocation by you at any time! But what saith the scriptures?

Scripture says "they can again become entangled in the defilements of the world and OVERCOME"...

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Rom 11:29)

This may be true from GOD'S side, but what of MAN'S? Doesn't Paul write in 2Tim2:11-13, that "even if we are FAITHLESS, and He DENIES us befoer God, so that we will NOT reign with Him --- yet HE remains faithful" (even though WE PERISH)?

2Peter 2 speaks of false teachers, false prophets. Verse 3 and verse 12 indicate that they are destined for destruction. Epignosis does not necessarily mean "saving knowledge", but can mean "recognition", "acknowledgement", "understanding". Many of the "incantationally saved" people in church will readily acknowledge that Christ is Lord, but they do so from a position of recogniton, and not of salvation. The demons know and believe, but not savingly. You cannot build your theology on the idea that epignosis MUST mean saving knowledge. 2 Peter 2 states clearly that they are false teachers, destined for destruction. The description of them in chapter 2 leaves no room for the idea that they were once saved. You are building that idea on one word, and it has more meanings than what you will allow. The whole chapter makes it clear that they are false, never-saved, deceitful, carnal and worldly, seeking to entrap God's People, whom God has promised to deliver from such deception.

Contextually it does. If certain words are used in 2Pet1:1-4 to mean SAVED (undeinably), and the exact same words are used in ch2, is it not "circular reasoning" (conclusion by preconception) to say, "the SECOND passage somehow means DIFFERENT?"

There are THREE groups in 2Pet; false prophets, false teachers; and "ONTOS-APOPPHEUGO-TRULY-ESCAPED" (2:18). Or, "OLIGOS-APOPHEUGO-BARELY-ESCAPED" (New American Standard). But if you say "they only APPEARED to have escaped", then you deny the clear teaching of Paul, Jesus, and John. Those who DO RIGHTEOUS, ARE RIGHTEOUS. 1Jn3:7-10 Which is it? Can the UNRIGHTEOUS, ever "escape the defilements of the world through the EPIGNOSIS TRUE SAVED KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"? Was John WRONG? Was Jesus? Paul?

The FALSE are rightly shown to be "slaves of corruption" (2:2:19), "never cease from sin" (2:2:14); but the TRUE are ENTICED by the false (vs18). The true "EPISTREPHO-EK-TURN-AWAY-FROM the holy commandment" --- but you say "they were never IN it, so they didn't REALLY turn away.

There is nothing in either of these two verses that contradict the idea of the God-regenerated heart believing. It goes back to Total Depravity, Ben. Unless and until God regenerates the sinner's heart, he CANNOT believe savingly, nor enter in to Christ. Once the heart is regenerated, THEN the heart can believe. God does not believe for us, WE believe, but we CANNOT, until God regenerates the heart. A dead heart does not beat. A living heart does.

Very well; then answer THIS POST about those who "truly fall away". And answer the one about Galatians --- how can "begun-in-the-Spirit", and "running well" have NEVER BEEN SAVED? How can "fallen from grace and severed from Christ", STILL BE SAVED? Gal3:1-3, 5:1-7

It is not knowledge that saves us, it is the blood of Christ, shed for your sins, and applied by faith in believing in the Son of God. Knowledge comes and increases as we walk in Him, but that knowledge is not what saves us. ONLY the Blood of Christ, and faith in Him saves us. Yes, we have a responsibility to walk in Him, but it is not that walking that saves us, it is the Blood of Christ, and faith in Him.

No, it's not "mere knowledge" that saves us (Jms2:19); but the use of "epignosis" conveys EXPERIENTIAL knowledge, not just HEAD-knowledge.

And you believe "we are saved even if we DON'T walk in Him"...

When you were born again, ALL of your sins were forgiven, even the ones you have not yet committed.

Not if I don't abide in Him, abide in REPENTANCE. Unrepented sin is NOT forgiven...

. It is only by man's faithfulness that he will see salvation. You echo the Mormons in saying "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast, after we have done all that we can". You want to add the effort of man to the salvation of God, from beginning to end. You deny the keeping power of God, saying that it only applies IF WE remain faithful. You make God's keeping contingent upon our performance. Unscriptural in the extreme!

The keeping power of God is REAL (Jd24); but it only operates through OUR FAITH (Jd21, 1Pet1:5&9).

"For by grace through faith have you been saved, and that (that fact, that salvation) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Eph2:8

"And this I pray, that your love may abound more and more in real knowledge and discernment, SO THAT you may approve the things that are excellent, IN ORDER TO BE sincere and blameless until the day of Christ." Philip1:9

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, please go back and read my last post slowly and carefully. You have missed every point that I made. EVERY ONE! Rather than try to deconstruct your outrageous intepretations of what I said, I want you to read it again, and try to understand what I am saying. Perhaps my own ability to explain myself is to blame. I am no longer going to post marathon answers to you. It is unproductive, and takes too much time. Time I need to do other things. You think you'll be heard for your "much speaking". Fine. I have found that those who speak (and post) much, often have the least of value to say.

Over and over again, you make it clear that you think man is an equal partner in his own salvation, from beginning to end. All you do is emphasize what man must do, how he must work, guard himself, strive, bust his butt and perservere to maintain the free gift that God has given him. You have placed man on the Throne, Ben. it's all about man, all about man's effort. You just won't accept that salvation is all of God, from the first hearing of the gospel, all the way to glory. You think that you have to do something to keep it, and that your effort is what determines whether you keep it or not. If you committed a sin, steppeed of the curb and were instantly killed by a bus, would you go to be with Jesus? If you answer "Yes", then your whole diatribe was for nothing. If you answer "No", then you think so little of God's calling and power that you can, with just one mistake, lose it just that quick. That is a slap in the face to Jesus, Ben! You have counted His power as nothing, and your power as everything. You have more in common with the Mormons than you know, Ben. I'll pray for you, that God would deliver you from this deception. It pains me to see you resist Him so much, knowing that you can not change one thing about it, try as you might.

 

[Ben johnson]

You have missed every point that I made. EVERY ONE! Rather than try to deconstruct your outrageous intepretations of what I said, I want you to read it again, and try to understand what I am saying.

You said, "once in Christ, we have a NEW NATURE, we are NEW CREATIONS." Implying that the old nature (which you say prevents us from even CONSIDERING receiving Jesus) has been replaced with the new (the heart is REGENERATED). I pointed out, that we still SIN --- thus the old nature MUST still be around somewhere, else we would be SINLESS...

You said, "we SAVED can be led by the FLESH" --- I pointed out how this DISPUTES what Paul said in Rom8:13, "if you ARE LIVING according to the FLESH, you MUST DIE".

You said, "sometimes God will even cause PHYSICAL DEATH that our SOULS may be saved" --- I simply asked, regarding the verse on which you base that idea, "can an IMMORAL MAN, one more immoral than the HEATHENS, still go to HEAVEN?" That would DISPUTE Jesus, Paul, and all of them.

You said "Reformed theology does NOT assert that you can sin all you want" (in essence); but then said "we can be LED BY THE FLESH but still be SAVED". Doesn't LED BY THE FLESH, MEAN sinning willfully? Isn't it that, DEFINED?

You said, "those in 2Pet2:20-22 are the FALSE PROPHETS/TEACHERS, who were NEVER SAVED". I showed you how they could NOT "live righteously", UNLESS they were saved. To say "the repbrobate can even APPEAR saved", disputes Jesus in Matt716-20 and 24:6, Paul in Romans 6:16, John in 1:3:7-10. I showed you the TRULY ESCAPED are NOT the false-teachers/prophets, but are the ones that the FALSE, ENTICE (vs 18). I showed you that "FALLING FROM SALVATION" is the only understanding possible in 2Pet2:20-22.

I asked again about Galatians --- this is another passage that only can convey "FALLING-FROM-SALVATION". And it cannot be dismissed as "EMPTY HYPOTHETICAL", it cannot be ignored, it cannot be interpreted.

I have been accused of "ignoring sound refutation" --- do you have an answer for all I have just posted?

Over and over again, you make it clear that you think man is an equal partner in his own salvation, from beginning to end.

Of COURSE man is a "partner in salvation". That is the meaning of "metochos" in Heb3:1 & 14, and 6:4. It is a duality --- God's grace, received by man's faith. I show you verse after verse after verse that speaks of "partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, holy and blameless IF INDEED we continue in the faith and not be moved away from our hope", but you say "those don't REALLY MEAN that it is possible NOT to be steadfast or NOT to continue in faith.

You have more in common with the Mormons than you know, Ben. I'll pray for you, that God would deliver you from this deception. It pains me to see you resist Him so much, knowing that you can not change one thing about it, try as you might.

If I am so wrong, then show me my error, with Scripture. Reply with verses, show me how it's wrong.

Answer the questions I have asked in this and the previous post or two.

Can you?

 

[nobdysfool]

You said, "once in Christ, we have a NEW NATURE, we are NEW CREATIONS." Implying that the old nature (which you say prevents us from even CONSIDERING receiving Jesus) has been replaced with the new (the heart is REGENERATED). I pointed out, that we still SIN --- thus the old nature MUST still be around somewhere, else we would be SINLESS...

We still sin because we are still inhabiting a body made of flesh and blood, which is corruptible, and cannot inherit eternity.

But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Rom 8:9-11)

Tell me, Ben, does the Spirit of Christ leave you every time you sin? Is he moving in and out on a regular basis? Or even just once in a while? Are you cognizant of every sin you commit, all of the time? Or are you only aware of that which you have light for? Isn't the walk of the Christian a walk into the light? It would stand to reason then that a new Christian does not have as much light (knowledge) as a veteran Christian, correct? What about those sins which the new Christian is not yet aware of? How can he repent if he doesn't even know it's a sin? Is he then lost? So soon after starting out?

Do you see where your theology takes you, if you start asking the questions and reasoning it out? This is what I object to. This is what is wrong with your theology. Salvation occurs in three parts: first, the saving of the heart, by regeneration and the new birth; next, the ongoing sanctification of the believer, walking with Christ, learning to overcome sin, temptation, etc.; and lastly, the future glorification of our physical bodies, which completes our salvation. Scripture says "if any man be in Christ he IS a new creation", not "WILL BE a new creation". Scripture says, as above, "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. For the Believer, it is a present reality, not future possibility.

You said, "we SAVED can be led by the FLESH" --- I pointed out how this DISPUTES what Paul said in Rom8:13, "if you ARE LIVING according to the FLESH, you MUST DIE".

I did not say those words, Ben. Anywhere. At any time.

DO NOT paraphrase what I say, either quote it in its entirety, the exact words, or do not say that I said something YOU KNOW I did not say. This is not what I said, and you have provided no reference for it. I will call it what it is: A deliberate falsehood. A distortion of my words to serve your ends. You are interpreting what I said, through the filter of your bias against any doctrine that doesn't agree with yours. Therefore, you do not understand what I said. This proves it.

I challenge you, before God and witnesses to produce the post, the paragraph, and the sentence where I ever said those exact words.

I will expect a public apology, and an acknowledgement that you wrongly attributed words to me that I did not say.

Until you do so, we have nothing further to talk about.

 

[Ben johnson]

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2Co 5:17) The new creation cannot become uncreated. Our standing in Christ is secure. Once the New Birth has happened, it cannot be undone. Our state, that of being in the spirit or in the flesh, is what can change, but our standing cannot, because our standing is changed by God. Our state is our responsibility, in that we can choose to be led by the spirit, or led by the flesh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Ben

You said, "we SAVED can be led by the FLESH" --- I pointed out how this DISPUTES what Paul said in Rom8:13, "if you ARE LIVING according to the FLESH, you MUST DIE".

Response by NBF:
I did not say those words, Ben. Anywhere. At any time.

I apologize if I have misunderstood you; the words, "our-standing-in-Christ ...we can choose to ...be led by the flesh" --- how does this not contradict the passage in Romans8?

 

[nobdysfool]

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Ben

You said, "we SAVED can be led by the FLESH" --- I pointed out how this DISPUTES what Paul said in Rom8:13, "if you ARE LIVING according to the FLESH, you MUST DIE".

Response by NBF:
I did not say those words, Ben. Anywhere. At any time.

I apologize if I have misunderstood you; the words, "our-standing-in-Christ ...we can choose to ...be led by the flesh" --- how does this not contradict the passage in Romans8?

You did not just misunderstand me, you misquoted me by not quoting all the words. Do you not see that by not completely quoting what I said, you completely changed the meaning and intent of what I said??? You have a bad habit of doing that, Ben.

Is it not true that we can choose to be led by the Spirit, or led by the Flesh? Paul spends quite a bit of time speaking to that very thing in Romans.

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Rom 8:13-14)

So, what's yer problem? Do you not understand the point I was making about the difference between our standing before God, and our state within ourselves? It's the difference between what God says about us as regarding our standing in Christ, the fact that ALL of our sins are forgiven (which MUST include our future sins), that we are IN CHRIST with regard to position (either in Adam, or in Christ), and the fact that we are counted (imputed) the righteousness of Christ legally, and counted as dead to sin, having died with Christ. Our state is that which we walk every day, where we choose to be led by the Spirit, which is life and peace, or be drawn by our lusts to do that which displeases God. We make that choice every day, Ben. That doesn't mean that every time we sin, we lose our salvation, and have to obtain it again! You really must think a little about this, because if we lose our salvation every time we sin, then all of our sins have not been forgiven, but only those we have confessed and repented of, which means that in addition to faith in Christ, we have to repent and ask forgiveness specifically for each and every sin, even the one committed unawares, rather than what scripture says, which is: "If we walk in the Light, as He is in the Light, we have fellowship one with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin."

I'm talking reality here. You seem to jump back and forth between reality and theory, depending on which one suits your theology better at any given point.

I will accept your apology, with the understanding that in the future, you will not paraphrase what I say, but quote accurately, not cutting out parts to make the words say something other than the obvious intent and content.

 

[Colossians]

Ben.

It is quite easy to prove your position self-contradictory.

We will ask you one question:
"Are you personally (Ben J) assured that you will endure in Christ to the end?"

 

[Colossians]

Notice to all Calvinists.

Ben J has been arguing this issue for months now, continuously.
It appears he has little personal assurance of salvation, for he seems worried about his final state, and simply uses the examples of others who appear to have lost salvation in scripture, as a sort of counter-measure of urgency to keep himself saved.

I have noted the style of his debating, and of his opponents. One of the traps most fall into when arguing with Ben, is to say too many words, dealing with too may concepts, and not zeroing in on one item only.
You must avoid arguing scripture with Ben, as he reads things like "die" in an absolute sense, and not a relative/partial sense.

You have to argue philosophically, using logic only. Avoid using scripture, for he will simply counter you with scripture indicating people falling away. He doesn't see scripture at different levels in the 'hierarchy', but all at the same level.

So you must pitch your arguments at the level of what reveals contradiction within causality (eg: discuss how one can choose for God and yet at the same time, not do any work in the process, or discuss how it is that God gives faith, but man decides to have it). If he then doesn't get your drift, avoid being side-tracked by his answer: simply rephrase your statement in another way (just as concisely).

Keep your arguments to one or two lines only.

 

[Colossians]

Received,

The entire idea of work and salvation seems, to me, to be a question of working to earn salvation -- as a man does with his wages --, and not to simply accept it.
To accept it is a form of work, so your thinking here invokes an invalid dichotomy.


Again, belief is not a voluntary concern, and therefore it is based on our prior spiritual constitution,which is very much a part of our choices.
This is circular: you have the belief resulting from choice, and the choice resulting from belief.
Faith is not about choice: it is a gift from God. You don't know it is coming, until you have it. And then the "you" that has it, will not be the "you" that didn't have it, for inherent in faith in Christ, is the crucifixion of the old man.


Nonetheless, simply believing is not sufficient, for James revealed that even the demons believe and tremble.
James is using the belief of demons here to characterise the belief of what he knew was not true belief. He is not using it in the salvific sense, but in the secular or apparent-faith sense. It is a mistake to attribute the same spiritual value to all instances of a word in scripture.


we are commanded to love our neighbors. If this work is solely up to God, then why is the commandment
Your analysis here suffers from separation of Head and Body. When God commands effectively in the believer, the believer will not hypothesise externally as to why he is about to do what he is about to do: he will simply do it. For such is God's creative "let there be..." power. The Body always irresistably moves at the discretion of the Head. All apparent failure to do so, has nothing to do with the Body, but with the old man, which is purged away at judgement in accord with 1 Cor 3:11-15.


In general, you need to consider the spiritual 'anatomy' of the Person of Christ, more fully.

 

[nobdysfool]

Notice to all Calvinists.

Ben J has been arguing this issue for months now, continuously.
It appears he has little personal assurance of salvation, for he seems worried about his final state, and simply uses the examples of others who appear to have lost salvation in scripture, as a sort of counter-measure of urgency to keep himself saved.

I have noted the style of his debating, and of his opponents. One of the traps most fall into when arguing with Ben, is to say too many words, dealing with too may concepts, and not zeroing in on one item only.
You must avoid arguing scripture with Ben, as he reads things like "die" in an absolute sense, and not a relative/partial sense.

You have to argue philosophically, using logic only. Avoid using scripture, for he will simply counter you with scripture indicating people falling away. He doesn't see scripture at different levels in the 'hierarchy', but all at the same level.

So you must pitch your arguments at the level of what reveals contradiction within causality (eg: discuss how one can choose for God and yet at the same time, not do any work in the process, or discuss how it is that God gives faith, but man decides to have it). If he then doesn't get your drift, avoid being side-tracked by his answer: simply rephrase your statement in another way (just as concisely).

Keep your arguments to one or two lines only.

I have seen first-hand much of what you say, Colossians, and I agree. It is my own opinion that if Ben ever does publish his book, it will not pass peer review, and will be soundly panned by theologians who have a much deeper understanding of these issues that either Ben, myself, or anyone else on these boards. His theology is very one-dimensional, and he tends to isolate scriptures from their context, as well as using poor Greek translation skills. This has been demonstrated time and again. The most alarming thing to me has been how he views salvation, and our walk with God. His is a very legalistic, oppressive view of moment to moment salvation, with no real assurance that he IS actually saved. He depends on his own efforts to maintain his salvation.

The other thing I've noticed is his habit of misquoting, paraphrasing, and generally misrepresenting the views of others, both their actual words, and their theology. He demonstrably does not understand Reformed theology, nor its component doctrines. His method is really one of overwhelming with multiple scripture quotes, bombarding the reader and hoping to win the argument by sheer volume of words, and by frustrating his opponents with the same. He knows how much time it will take to parse and deconstruct his arguments, because of the sheer number of them. I also think he has taken to some "cut and paste" to respond more quickly, and fill up the post with more sheer volume of info.

My goal in engaging here is not so much to "win" the argument, as it is to help the lurkers and non-posting readers to understand Reformed doctrine, and to counter the errors I see Ben promulgating.

 

[Received]

To accept it is a form of work, so your thinking here invokes an invalid dichotomy.

We are not working to earn the salvation; only accept what is already individual to any contingency of debt. There is a world of difference.

Moreover, as I stated previously, belief is not a work, for it is involuntary.

This is circular: you have the belief resulting from choice, and the choice resulting from belief.
Faith is not about choice: it is a gift from God. You don't know it is coming, until you have it. And then the "you" that has it, will not be the "you" that didn't have it, for inherent in faith in Christ, is the crucifixion of the old man.

I never said belief resulted from choice; only the use of this belief as it produces salvation.

Faith is not about choice: quite agreed. However, while the source that makes belief possible is from God, the capacity to believe is only within ourselves -- that is, our prior spiritual constituation: that which makes a logical presentation of the gospel acceptable, or unbelievable.

James is using the belief of demons here to characterise the belief of what he knew was not true belief. He is not using it in the salvific sense, but in the secular or apparent-faith sense. It is a mistake to attribute the same spiritual value to all instances of a word in scripture.

And this is clearly not what was intended, nor actualized, in my posts. There is no dichotomy between belief and true belief; there is belief, and a refusal or acceptance to allow this belief to bring forth salvation. Hence the example of the members of the Sanhedrin refusing the Holy Spirit in Acts 7:51. An ought implies a can.

Your analysis here suffers from separation of Head and Body. When God commands effectively in the believer, the believer will not hypothesise externally as to why he is about to do what he is about to do: he will simply do it. For such is God's creative "let there be..." power.

I find this extremely difficult to digest. Every instance of blame impressed by God -- through whatever member of the trinity -- implies precisely an ability to do otherwise than the error emitted by the believer who didn't act in the way commanded; you are thereby claiming God blames Himself during such instances -- when man does not obey as He should.

For instance, the basic command love thy neighbor is clearly not followed by all Christians at all times; should we therefore conclude that such men never were Christians, which would undoubtedly entail those here who have emitted a sense of superflous scorn and malice towards those members who do not hold their own views? While I can accept this in a practical sense -- on a whim --, I cannot from a scriptural one; such instances as when Peter divides the party of apostles during his hypocrisy towards the Jews in Acts, and Paul speaks to him in such a way as to imply a knowledge of wrong on his part. Would not the command be ye perfect be negated by such actions, and hence it be safe to say that direct command automatically entailed by the doctrine of Christianity is disobeyed?

Nonetheless, your interpretation clearly is not that held by contemporary evangelical Christianity -- i.e. non-calvinism --, and hence we are debating over points whose fundamental beliefs we already disagree on.

In general, you need to consider the spiritual 'anatomy' of the Person of Christ, more fully.

Done. It's called Dallas Willard's outstanding work on the spiritual constitution of the person in Renovation of the Heart. How about: we need to consider each other's perspectives more comprehensively?

 

[Ben johnson]

I have noted the style of his debating, and of his opponents. One of the traps most fall into when arguing with Ben, is to say too many words, dealing with too may concepts, and not zeroing in on one item only.
You must avoid arguing scripture with Ben, as he reads things like "die" in an absolute sense, and not a relative/partial sense.

So "save a soul from THANATOS-DEATH" does not mean "ETERNAL DEATH" (Jms5:19-20), huh? "Sin brings THANTOS-DEATH" (Jms1:1:14-16) doesn't mean "spiritual death"?

You have to argue philosophically, using logic only.

I'm afraid I have no interest in "logic and philosophy". Paul says, "See that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the elementary principles of the world, according to the tradition of men, rather than according to Christ." Col2:8

This is a THEOLOGY FORUM; in which we discuss SCRIPTURE. The Bible does not care what you or I THINK --- it says what it says.

Avoid using scripture, for he will simply counter you with scripture indicating people falling away.

The question is, does Scripture actually INDICATE some people CAN fall away?

He doesn't see scripture at different levels in the 'hierarchy', but all at the same level.

So when John says, "Little children, let no one deceived you; he who practices righteousness is righteous, he who does not practice righteousness is of the devil; by this the children of God and the children of the devil are exposed; the one that does not practice rigtheousness IS NOT OF GOD." 1Jn3:7-10 --- I should consider that one CAN practice unrighteousness, but COULD be saved?

Let's make this post short. Please address Galatians 3:1-3, 5:1-7. The Galatians were "begun in the Spirit, RUNNING WELL", But they returned to a doctrine of WORKS rather than GRACE. They are "fallen from grace, severed from Christ". Please choose one:

1. They weren't REALLY SAVED in the FIRST place.
2. They didn't REALLY fall, they really STAYED SAVED.
3. This is not a REAL STORY, it's HYPOTHETICAL; just "bugbear" to "keep us in line".
4. There is some reason that this letter does not apply to US TODAY.
5. They were truly saved, and they became unsaved.

Please choose one, or write your own.

It is frustrating when discussing theology, and participants will not answer questions asked about Scripture. If I am wrong, then I can be shown to be wrong with Scripture; and I will be happy to change.

Simple question, Colossians --- what does Paul describe in the letter to the churches at Galatia? Please pick a number...