Do seekers find? Or do only "founders", seek?

[frumanchu]

We both accept "total depravity". Our difference, is that you see it as precluding belief --- because you think that believing would be something good that a man does (and how can he DO anything good, if he's DEPRAVED?). While I perceive that believing is NOT "doing something good", it is receiving the good that someone else has done (Jesus!).

No, you do not accept total depravity. What you are passing off as total depravity is NOT total depravity as has been defined historically in Reformed Theology and in all the discussions we've had about it.

Total depravity is the doctrine that original sin affects every aspect of man's being such that man is so thoroughly corrupted by sin that he is incapable of producing anything good. His heart is wholly disinclined to God such that he is morally incapable of faith.

I don't usually argue along the lines of faith as a "work" of merit, but faith is active, it is something we do, and it is pleasing to God.

Nope --- it's "total depravity". And if it means what you say it means, then someday I would like to understand how a "totally-depraved person" (who is totally DEVOID of faith), can come to a SUPERFICIAL (but not SAVED) belief.

No, it's not. You're redefining terms. And I've already explained that last.

It's called, "FREE WILL". Each person decides whether or not to believe...

Thank you for proving that you don't really believe in total depravity, Ben. If you did believe it you would recognize that man does not have free will in the moral sense, but rather his will is in slavery to sin.

Context says "power in GOD'S eyes, foolish in WORLD'S eyes". The very state of conviction, CHANGES it from "foolish" to "power".

No amount of interpretation can change what Paul said: "God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message to save those who believe."

They believe THROUGH the foolishness. That's what it says. Not, "it CHANGES and THEN they believe".

This is a foundational point; if it's "believe THROUGH", then they decide; if it's "changes and THEN they believe", then they are predestined.

And still you maintain the notion that men are convicted by something they find utter foolishness, which as I pointed out is a self-rerential absurdity.

Oh no --- I keep harping on the fact that God conveniently aligned His soevereignty WITH technology. Why do you think that He did not PREDESTINE anyone in the New World, BEFORE we invented ships to bring them the Gospel?

Rather than "unpredestined", it simply reflects what Paul said, "HOW can they believe WITHOUT preachers".

They were not predestined either way.

Guess what. It is entirely possible that there WEREN'T any saved individuals here prior to their arrival, and it is not because God was hindered by technology, but because God simply had chosen not to save them.

The irony here is that it's YOUR paradigm of predestination that has a problem with the New World, not mine. Since God's predestination is conditioned upon their belief, and preaching is causal to belief, the lack of preachers in the New World prior to the 16th century creates a dilemma for God being unable to predestine them (giving a whole new meaning to the term "providentially hindered"). This of course conveniently gives rise to all sorts of exceptions whereby men are saved apart from the Gospel (never mind what Scripture says about it).

Once again, a misunderstanding of causality is your undoing here.

Sorry, Fru --- Scripture says "regeneration SUCCEEDS belief".

And you're free to argue that...you just can't argue it using those verses (which was my point in the first place). Those two verses are silent on the issue, but you persist in trying to make them speak...a sort of hermaneutic ventriloquism.

Titus3:5-6 says "regeneration". Please tell me --- is that regeneration by the POURED Spirit, or not?

I will repeat it: The two verses you provided in that instance contained nothing about "believed-THEN-regenerated," yet you claimed them as proof against monergism because they didn't state "regenerated-then-believed." That is a pure and plain argument from silence, NO MATTER what other Scriptures you try to substitute in after the fact. The bait-and-switch will not work with me.

Pointing to other verses that allegedly do state what you claim is NO EXCUSE for the eisegesis of the two verses in question. I will not proceed to a discussion of Titus 3 (which I have already covered several times) until you admit that those two verses do not in and of themselves prove faith preceding regeneration.

It says, "they received with joy and BELIEVED". If you say "there is NOTHING to prove it was SAVED belief", then please accept that there is nothing to DENY that understanding, either.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!!!!

Am I speaking German here or something? How many times do I have to say that this parable does not speak definitively to EITHER side?!?!?!?!?!?

Their departure demonstrated "they were not with us". You're imposing "were NEVER", where it says "were not" (WHEN they left).

He speaks of them departing BECAUSE they were not with us. It is a STATIC STATE --- "had they BEEN of us they would NOT have departed".

"They went out, in order that it might be shown that they all ARE NOT OF us".

Present tense. It does NOT say what you want it to, "They went out, in order that it might be shown that they WERE NEVER with us".

That's quite simply FALSE.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." - 1 John 2:19 (ESV)

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." - 1 John 2:19 (NASB)

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." - 1 John 2:19 (KJV)

​

IF they had been OF us, they would have remained WITH us, but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not OF us.

It is as plain as day, Ben. Their departure manifests the fact that they are not and were not believers. Your contrivance regardint the "present tense" at the end of the verse falls apart in the face of the past tense earlier ("if they had been of us...")

All your squirming in the face of this verse only highlights how far you must deny plain Scripture to keep your card house upright.

My turn --- do you concede that those who "go on ahead" (go out from us) in 2Jn1:8, shows a clear and irrefutible example of those who "LOST what was wrought", those who did not HEED the warning to "watch themselves"?

No, I do not, because that is not what the verse says.

Were the fields tilled the same, or not?

IT....DOESN'T.....SAY!

Do the "non-reformed-men" you quoted, speak for all "non-reformed men"? If the "reformed" whom you quote were wrong, then the "non-reformed" you quote also can be wrong. We are trying to prove which view Scripture supports.

In this case, I am also defending against the false implication that I did not present the non-reformed side.

Well gosh --- Jesus rebuked them for some reason.

Yes...because they were wrong. That in an of itself is sufficient reason for Christ to rebuke someone. You are presuming Christ's motives in claiming he rebuked them specifically because He wanted them to repent.

I submit it's the same reason as Stephen rebuked them (Acts7:51), for "always RESISTING the Holy Spirit".

Quite possibly, but you have no clear proof of the motivation, only speculation and presumption.

I understand your understanding; I do not see Scripture agreeing.

Then you don't understand it, Ben.

How can I? If I show you "brethren wandering", you'll say "oh that's UNSAVED brethren wandering from truth they never really HAD, they were only PROFESSING but not REALLY saved".

If I show you "forgotten former purification" or "was sanctified by Jesus' blood, but now tramples Jesus and scorns the blood, and insults the Spirit", you'll say "those are HYPOTHETICAL and didn't really HAPPEN to any PERSON".

Every verse I might show you, is simply rejected by using a "Five-Way", Fru.

No, it's rejected by sound hermaneutics and plain reason. The overwhelming majority of your proof texts rely on a false argument from necessity and begging the question. I've shown it over and over and over.

The fact is that you have no verse that actually, explicitly shows a true believer losint their salvation.

And you insert "subject-changes" and "multiple meanings" to bend verses towards "predestinationary understanding". In 2Pet2, the FALSE seek to entice the TRULY ESCAPED; you both question "truly escaped", and assert those two verses later were escaped by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus but weren't REALLY believers and weren't REALLY saved".

Those passages do not credibly convey the idea of "they were only APPEARED escaped but not REALLY saved".

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You have steadfastly denied throughout our exchanges that the concept of departure showing forth the fact that they never had true faith is even a valid explanation for how men can appear to be saved but not actually be saved. Do you still deny it?

As far as 2 Pet 2, we've been over that one ad nauseum. Your argument relies on the fallacious insistence that the use of the same or similar words in two different contexts necessarily implies salvation. I've shown it to be a logical fallacy with simple logical statements. YOU are the one changing the subject of the epistle suddenly and abruptly from the false teachers to the "truly/barely escaped" without any hermaneutical warrant.

Continued...

 

[frumanchu]

continuing...

"Because" reflects "consequence". That verse 9 is the consequence of the warning in verse 8, is FAR more credible than a subject-change. "Because" would NOT be an "add-on", it is simply the contextual meaning.

It is indeed an add-on. It does not appear there. It is born purely from your PRESUMPTION.

FREE WILL!!!!! Because God does NOT predestine ANYONE!

It's not enough that you are adding words to 2 John. Now you're ignoring explicit verses in Scripture??

This is a perfect demonstration though of the heart of this whole disagreement: man's autonomy and rebellion against any notion of God's autonomy when it comes to soteriology.

The Pharisees CAUSED them to forsake salvation.

Just as WE are warned not to RUIN our brothers for WHOM Christ DIED. 1Cor8:11 (Rom14:15, "do not DESTROY")

Same thing, Fru.

So when these people are standing before the Judgement seat, about to be cast into the Lake of Fire, God will simply shurg and say, "Hey, I wanted to save you but I couldn't stop the Pharisees from blocking your entrance into my Kingdom lest I violate their free will. What's that? A plague? Well, yeah...I suppose I coulda done that. I'll have to remember that. Anyway, off to hell ya go!"

Once again, "free will" makes God helpless...

Not for the UNCHOSEN. His sacrifice did NOT atone for ANY sin of the "unelect".

(in your understanding)...

SUFFICIENT...VALUE. Christ's sacrifice efficiently atoned for the sins of the elect, but He would not have had to suffer any more to efficiently atone for every sin for all time. His blood was of sufficient value.

OK, let's clear this. Do "fell", and "gifted", and "poured", and "sealed", all mean "received", or not?

You're not clearing anything! You're further muddying the water!!!!

The meaning of "fell", and "gifted", and "poured", and "sealed" have NO BEARING on the fact that the CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement in Acts 10:34-35 was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles.

It's the same question as "was the field tilled any differently".

Was Jesus asking "are the REST of you going to leave like JUDAS did", or wasn't He?

No, it is a completely different question. Was Jesus saying "did I not ELECT-UNTO-SALVATION the twelve of you and one of you is a devil?" Or wasn't He. I submit there is no reason to believe that he had election in view.

And I pointed out the tense. Those who DO leave, ARE NOT "of us". It says NOTHING about their PREVIOUS position. (Though in Jn2:19, they clearly were never-saved; but it says "they showed they ARE not of us BY leavING".)

Ya know, it's funny...in 2 1/2 years of these discussions only now do you suddenly use this argument. They say necessity is the mother of invention...

Look earlier in the verse, Ben. "If they HAD BEEN..."

2Jn1:7-9 speaks of those who WERE with us, but do NOT "watch themselves" and therefore GO OUT FROM US ("go on ahead and do not abide"). Scripture is clear, Fru.

That's simply wrong. You are projecting the admonition to "the elect lady and her children" back upon the deceivers and claiming that the deceivers did not heed the admonition, and you are compounding your error by taking a simple propositional truth in v9 and arguing that saved people actually meet this condition.

The only consistenty in your position is that you repeatedly commit the same logical and hermaneutical fallacies.

Fru, it's simply an example of how your side "redefines words" to fit the prior doctrine. "Brother" can mean either SAVED, or UNSAVED (depending on how it fits Predestination). "Escaped" can either be saved OR not, depending on how it fits predestination.

"Believe", can either be real OR false, depending on how it fits predestination.

No. This is a clear example of how you cannot separate your presuppositions from your hermaneutics and logic. The words are not redefined according to "predestination," they are interpreted according to sound logic and hermaneutics. I do not argue from presupposition, Ben. I lay forth clear and consistent logical and hermaneutical arguments.

We are still at something of an "impass". You view words like "belief" and "faith" and "escaped", in terms OF "predestination". Therefore you see "not REALLY believing" (mental assent only), and "not REALLY brethren" (confession only), and "not REALLY escaped-by-saving-knowledge-of-Jesus" (escaped only by a form of godliness that exists WITHOUT Jesus).

I'm hoping that eventually you'll see the harmony that Responsible Grace sees.

No, I understand these terms apart from presupposition. YOU are the one arguing that these terms necessarily imply salvation and cannot possibly imply anything else...without any rational or Scriptural basis. The necessity is born purely of your presupposition. It is self-serving and self-reinforcing.

In your paradigm, context can change. You see those in 2Jn1:9, as DIFFERENT than those warned in verse 7-8. You see those in 2Pet2:20, as DIFFERENT than those in 18 (or else BOTH of them are "not-really saved").

Nope. Try again.

So firm is your grasp, that you will not accept Jesus' words: "They WERE ENTERING IN".

That means the Parisees KEPT them from salvation.

We are likewise warned not to ruin others' salvation.

And that absolutely refutes Calvinism. If ever there were "smoking-gun-passages", them would be it.

Nope. I understand Jesus' words in their proper context.

 

[frumanchu]

not sure what's up with the double quote boxes there.

 

[Edial]

Scripture is rock-solid against "OSAS". I am focused not on other doctrines, but on what was written.

You're right --- not one verse. In the appendix I've written entitled, "Fifty Verses that Stand Against OSAS", the total is now up to ~54.

But didn't we go through some of them?
You posted about 20 or so verses that you claim are against OSAS.
I gave you lenghty responses to the first 10 or so (the strongest ones, I believe), received your refutations and responded to them.
Looking at these pages, there is no way one can say that definitely speak OSNAS.
I presented specific cross-reference texts supporting that.
You cannot prove it.

I also find interesting is that at one time you had about 50 OSNAS verses. Now it grew to 54.

It certainly appears that you work on a pre-supposition that certain Scriptural terminologies are applied to OSNAS only.
And when you find such a term, you put it in the OSNAS "camp".

The sequence they need of "election and THEN belief", or "regeneration and THEN belief", does not exist. Regeneration is through the Holy Spirit --- who was received (poured!) through belief in Jesus.

The 5-Point-Calvinists are working on a highly complex theology that is only effective when Christ would have died only for the elect.
No verses to prove that, only suggestions.
They are forced by the complexity of their theory to come up come up with sub-theories such as regeneration prior to belief.

And the Scriptures are flatly denying it.
This is their problem.

Some are too deep to go back. Some are not.

Forfeitable salvation is clear on 1Tim4:1;...

1TI 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

"The" faith refers to teachings, doctrines, religion, as compared to "a" faith - a personal relationship with God.

... in 2Tim2:11-13.

2TI 2:11 Here is a trustworthy saying:
If we died with him,
we will also live with him;
2TI 2:12 if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
2TI 2:13 if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.

("Disown", or deny - Strong's 720)

There are 4 separate statements that start with "if".
These things are to be reminded to the "family" of a church that consists with believers and non-believers.
Each part applies to it's audience.

Peter disowned, denied (Strong;s 720) 3 times.

JN 13:38 Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!

And he did disown Christ.

Yet V.13 of your text states that if we are faithless, he will remain faithful.

Peter was not saved (did not have the sealing of the Holy Spirit) because Jesus was not yet glorified.

JN 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

The Holy Spirit that the Apostles received prior to that was in order to forgive sins.


JN 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

And there are examples of others disowning Christ.

AC 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.


So, Peter disowned God. The audience in Acts disowned God.
At least the audience in the Acts were definitely not believers.
Did God disown them. No they got saved, about 3000 of them.
Were they saved prior to that so the word "disown", or "deny" can be applied to suggest that they were saved before or not?

Confused? So am I.

One cannot take a definition such as this -
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
... and make a doctrine out of it.

Unbelievers disowned him, such as the Acts crowd.
And even then he saved them, 3000 saved.

And to state that disown means he once owned them, as in saved - is ridiculous as far as the Acts crowd is concerned.

So, ... let's leave the definition behind and stop running with them.

...

In the entire letter of Galatians (they WERE saved, "known by God" --- but then BECAME "fallen from grace and severed from Christ" --- apo-katargeo, ekpipto-charis). In the entire letter of 2Pet. In James (1:14-16, 5:19-20). Paul sincerely warns us TO persevere in salvation over and over --- see the connection of "adokimos" between 2Cor13:5 and 1Cor9:27. See 2Cor11:3. Notice how "reconciliation to Jesus", is put forth with the CONDITION of

"if indeed you CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and NOT be moved away from Jesus". Col1:21-23 (Jesus is the Hope --- 1Tim1:1)

Notice how "walking in Jesus", is contrasted with "being deceived away from Christ" in Col2:6-8. And in 2Jn1:7-9.

It's crystal clear and eloquently stated in 2Tim1:12-14; Paul is both confident that God is able to guard what HE entrusts to God --- but then admonishes Timothy to "GUARD what God has entrusted to YOU!"

And "guard", not with HUMANLY power, but with the strength of the Holy Spirit. Identically to the two-fold-choice in Roman8:12-14; we can EITHER pursue sin (and DIE!), OR we can, by the Holy Spirit, put to death our fleshly bodies --- and LIVE.

Oh please, we went through this.

Entire letter to the Galatians?
Didn't I challenge that very definition?



Ed

 

[Edial]

...


Still doesn't solve the problem. First of all, you have no account for why the Gospel fails to convict and convert most people. Second, you are still advocating men being convicted by foolishness. This whole argument is patently absurd.
.. .

I do not agree with you, frumanchu.

1. Gospel fails to convict and to convert most people because they do not want to be.

2. The gospel is a foolishness in the eyes of the unregenerate man. Yet Christ touches all at one time or another when he calls them.
And when he calls them the "dead indeed are capable of hearing" the spiritual call of Christ. You do know the verses I am speaking of.

3. Yet many resist his call, since it is possible to resist God and and it is their desire not to come out.

It is not absurd at all.

Regeneration and then faith is something that needs to be Scripturally proven.

Unless of course you do not mean justification when you mean regeneration.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

I do not agree with you, frumanchu.

1. Gospel fails to convict and to convert most people because they do not want to be.

I agree, and this not wanting to be is the result of man's depravity. The problem here is that Ben is arguing that the outward call fo the Gospel is itself able to overcome man's depravity, which leaves us at a loss to explain why man is not convicted since the outward call itself supposedly overcomes man's not wanting to be convicted by it.

2. The gospel is a foolishness in the eyes of the unregenerate man. Yet Christ touches all at one time or another when he calls them.
And when he calls them the "dead indeed are capable of hearing" the spiritual call of Christ. You do know the verses I am speaking of.

That is a reasonable argument to make, although I do not believe Scripture supports the position that He opens the ears, eyes and hearts of everyone at some point.

Ben has steadfastly denied that the Holy Spirit must do any work within a person before they can come under the conviction of the Gospel, let alone do it to all men.

3. Yet many resist his call, since it is possible to resist God and and it is their desire not to come out.

I agree that many resist the outward call of the Gospel, but I do not agree that they resist the inward call of the Holy Spirit when it comes to passing from death to life.

It is not absurd at all.

As Ben is presenting it, it most certainly is.

Regeneration and then faith is something that needs to be Scripturally proven.

Unless of course you do not mean justification when you mean regeneration.

No, I do not mean justification. The logical order is regeneration->faith->justification/indwelling->sanctification->glorification.

 

[Edial]

I agree, and this not wanting to be is the result of man's depravity.

OK. All men are depraved in a sense that they are incapable by their own power, will, choice, or whatever they personally have to "choose" God.
Is that what you mean by "depraved"?

The problem here is that Ben is arguing that the outward call fo the Gospel is itself able to overcome man's depravity, which leaves us at a loss to explain why man is not convicted since the outward call itself supposedly overcomes man's not wanting to be convicted by it.

Well, the Gospel in itself does have definite power for salvation of those who believe ...
RO 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

(I'll try quoting, it is easier for me to see the text while corresponding).

Now why all man are not convicted by that power?
My answer would be because (and we see it all the time) it is not God's time to do so.

Although it contains the power of God for salvation, it does not seem to me that he will unleash it on all who hear.

That is a reasonable argument to make, although I do not believe Scripture supports the position that He opens the ears, eyes and hearts of everyone at some point.

No. Because all might "turn" and be saved.

This text has to do with hardening of the heart (of certain men) by God.

But don't the Scriptures support that such men hardened their hearts against God's commands (or prompts) first and then God gave them that what they wanted, the hardened heart?

Ben has steadfastly denied that the Holy Spirit must do any work within a person before they can come under the conviction of the Gospel, let alone do it to all men.

I am not certain whether the Holy Spirit's convicting work is from within or from without a person.
If you have verses that present that distinction, would you share them?

I agree that many resist the outward call of the Gospel, but I do not agree that they resist the inward call of the Holy Spirit when it comes to passing from death to life.

We might be thinking about different things.
This is your definition from below.

regeneration->faith->justification/indwelling->sanctification->glorification

"Passing from death to life" I presume is faith to justification. Is it?
If so, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is at the justification point.

You apparently mean (I might be wrong) that the Holy Spirit is also entering a person prior to that and creates faith that saves him.
Is this so?

No, I do not mean justification. The logical order is regeneration->faith->justification/indwelling->sanctification->glorification.

Thanks for a clear definition.
My questions concerning it are above.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

OK. All men are depraved in a sense that they are incapable by their own power, will, choice, or whatever they personally have to "choose" God.
Is that what you mean by "depraved"?

They have the natural ability but lack the moral ability.

Well, the Gospel in itself does have definite power for salvation of those who believe ...
RO 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

(I'll try quoting, it is easier for me to see the text while corresponding).

Now why all man are not convicted by that power?
My answer would be because (and we see it all the time) it is not God's time to do so.

Although it contains the power of God for salvation, it does not seem to me that he will unleash it on all who hear.

So are you saying that the efficacy of the Gospel relies ultimately on whether or not God chooses to "unleash the power of God for salvation" upon an individual?

No. Because all might "turn" and be saved.

This text has to do with hardening of the heart (of certain men) by God.

But don't the Scriptures support that such men hardened their hearts against God's commands (or prompts) first and then God gave them that what they wanted, the hardened heart?

Not necessarily. In Exodus, the first mention of Pharaoh's hardening is by God, and He makes it clear that HE (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go (Ex 4:21). I believe that God hardened Pharaoh's heart not by creating or working fresh evil in his heart, but rather by removing His divine restraint so tha the evil already in Pharaoh's heart would come forth as God perfectly foreknew it would.

I am not certain whether the Holy Spirit's convicting work is from within or from without a person.
If you have verses that present that distinction, would you share them?

Conviction is ultimately a heart issue, and because of the depravity of the unregenerate heart there is no true conviction apart from a prior work of grace in the heart. That is why the Reformed position is that regeneration preceeds faith, because unless one is born again they cannot even see the Kingdom of God, let alone enter in.

We might be thinking about different things.
This is your definition from below.

regeneration->faith->justification/indwelling->sanctification->glorification

"Passing from death to life" I presume is faith to justification. Is it?

I believe that particular verse (John 5:24) is speaking in terms of justification more than regeneration since it frames it in the context of judgement.

If so, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is at the justification point.

I agree. Logically speaking, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is after faith.

You apparently mean (I might be wrong) that the Holy Spirit is also entering a person prior to that and creates faith that saves him. Is this so?

No. I do not believe the Holy Spirit has to "enter" (indwell) a person in order to perform a gracious act upon them. Scripture is full of examples of the Spirit performing works in men without indwelling them (in fact, the entire OT stands as a witness since the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a matter of course is strictly a New Testament occurrance).

 

[Athanasian Creed]

... The problem here is that Ben is arguing that the outward call of the Gospel is itself able to overcome man's depravity, which leaves us at a loss to explain why man is not convicted since the outward call itself supposedly overcomes man's not wanting to be convicted by it.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I doubt very much that Ben doesn't acknowledge the work of the Holy Spirit both in the conviction and regeneration of the sinner -

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The call of the Gospel without the work of the HS within the human heart is foolishness to the natural man. However, faith, the door through which we enter by grace unto salvation is stirred within the individual by the HS, prompting the sinner to respond to Christ's call to come, believe and receive Him. Man can't come to Christ without God's grace and mercy - however, since God loves all, Christ died for all and the offer of salvation is available to all men, man can therefore exercise faith unto salvation.

If man fails to respond to the call of the Gospel, it is because he, of his own volition, has chosen to obstinantly disobey and remain in his sin NOT because God has arbitrarily reprobated him.


Ray

 

[Athanasian Creed]

...Not necessarily. In Exodus, the first mention of Pharaoh's hardening is by God, and He makes it clear that HE (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go (Ex 4:21).

Exodus 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

Exodus 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Exodus 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

God, in His foreknowledge, knew that the inclination of Pharoah's heart would be towards obstinance and rebelliousness against the commands of the Lord.
Likewise, according to many translations, God advised Moses that He would "harden [Pharoah's] heart." (Ex. 4:21; compare Ex. 9:12; 10:1,27.)
However, some translations render the Hebrew account to read that
Jehovah "let [Pharoah's] heart wax bold"; "let [Pharoah's] heart become obstinate." In support of such rendering, in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that "even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission." Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives "caused the male children
to live," whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining
from putting them to death. Hebrew scholars M.M. Kalisch,
H.F.W. Gesenius, and B. Davies state that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharoah is that "God permitted
Pharoah to harden his own heart--spared him--gave him the opportunity,
the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is
all."
---The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa. 10:5-7.

1 Samuel 6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

I believe that God hardened Pharaoh's heart not by creating or working fresh evil in his heart, but rather by removing His divine restraint so that the evil already in Pharaoh's heart would come forth as God perfectly foreknew it would.

God is not the Author of evil nor does He tempt man to sin -

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Pharoah was drawn away in his lust for power and control, even to the point of rebellion against the Almighty. I agree totally that Pharoah was tempted by the evil already present within his heart.


Ray

 

[cygnusx1]

Exodus 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

Exodus 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Exodus 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

God, in His foreknowledge, knew that the inclination of Pharoah's heart would be towards obstinance and rebelliousness against the commands of the Lord.
Likewise, according to many translations, God advised Moses that He would "harden [Pharoah's] heart." (Ex. 4:21; compare Ex. 9:12; 10:1,27.)
However, some translations render the Hebrew account to read that
Jehovah "let [Pharoah's] heart wax bold"; "let [Pharoah's] heart become obstinate." In support of such rendering, in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that "even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission." Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives "caused the male children
to live," whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining
from putting them to death. Hebrew scholars M.M. Kalisch,
H.F.W. Gesenius, and B. Davies state that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharoah is that "God permitted
Pharoah to harden his own heart--spared him--gave him the opportunity,
the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is
all."
---The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa. 10:5-7.

1 Samuel 6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?




God is not the Author of evil nor does He tempt man to sin -

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Pharoah was drawn away in his lust for power and control, even to the point of rebellion against the Almighty. I agree totally that Pharoah was tempted by the evil already present within his heart.


Ray

do you deny God sends forth lying spirits to deceive men ?

 

[Edial]

They have the natural ability but lack the moral ability.

OK.
If I need to define it better in order to understand it deeper, I'll get back to it.

So are you saying that the efficacy of the Gospel relies ultimately on whether or not God chooses to "unleash the power of God for salvation" upon an individual?

I see that the effect of the power of God in the Gospel is appled according to God's timing.
What I mean is this.
God applies this power and a person receives it.
God applies this power and a person rejects it.
And a person does these things while knowing that he is rejecting or receiving.

Without that power of God to make the Gospel "real" and applicable and not a "foolishness", a person has no chance of even taking it seriously.

Not necessarily. In Exodus, the first mention of Pharaoh's hardening is by God, and He makes it clear that HE (God) will harden Pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go (Ex 4:21). I believe that God hardened Pharaoh's heart not by creating or working fresh evil in his heart, but rather by removing His divine restraint so tha the evil already in Pharaoh's heart would come forth as God perfectly foreknew it would.

Well, yes.
However, we also know the technical reason why God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. Because the Pharaoh sinned by refusing God.
The Pharaoh hardened his own heart first and then God hardened it for him.

You see, the Pharaoh wanted to have his own heart hardened. God just gave him what he wanted.
Athanasian Creed presented verses.

I'll add this one -

2TH 2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Conviction is ultimately a heart issue, and because of the depravity of the unregenerate heart there is no true conviction apart from a prior work of grace in the heart. That is why the Reformed position is that regeneration preceeds faith, because unless one is born again they cannot even see the Kingdom of God, let alone enter in.

There are various positions within Christendom that are doctrines.

What differentiates a Reformed position from a Traditional churches is that some Traditional churches state that theirn teachings are at par with the Scriptures.

The Reformed do not.
They say that the Scriptures are what makes their doctrines.

Therefore, what are the Scriptures that present regeneration as you defined it?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

Exodus 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

Exodus 4:23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Exodus 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

God, in His foreknowledge, knew that the inclination of Pharoah's heart would be towards obstinance and rebelliousness against the commands of the Lord.
Likewise, according to many translations, God advised Moses that He would "harden [Pharoah's] heart." (Ex. 4:21; compare Ex. 9:12; 10:1,27.)
However, some translations render the Hebrew account to read that
Jehovah "let [Pharoah's] heart wax bold"; "let [Pharoah's] heart become obstinate." In support of such rendering, in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that "even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission." Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives "caused the male children
to live," whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining
from putting them to death. Hebrew scholars M.M. Kalisch,
H.F.W. Gesenius, and B. Davies state that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharoah is that "God permitted
Pharoah to harden his own heart--spared him--gave him the opportunity,
the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is
all."
---The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919; compare Isa. 10:5-7.

1 Samuel 6:6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

That is essentially no different than what I am saying.

God is not the Author of evil nor does He tempt man to sin -

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Pharoah was drawn away in his lust for power and control, even to the point of rebellion against the Almighty. I agree totally that Pharoah was tempted by the evil already present within his heart.
Ray

Then so long as you agree God was sovereign over that situation I think we're in agreement here.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

do you deny God sends forth lying spirits to deceive men ?

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Are you saying God tempts man to sin?? I hope not, God's Word clearly says otherwise!


As to your question, yes God uses all things to bring about His purpose and plan. However, He does not override the free will of His creatures. The evil spirits He commissions desire to tempt and deceive mankind. Those deceived are willingly being drawn away in their lust and enticed unto sin as Scripture says.

God allows the evil spirits to do as they are naturally inclined and wont to do - to lie, tempt and deceive. He does not do the tempting and deceiving of man Himself.

1 Kings 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

He said - I will inspire a lie into the minds and mouths of his prophets. Thou shalt - I will give them up into thy hands, and leave them to their own ignorance and wickedness. Go - This is not a command, but only a permission. (Wesley)



Ray

 

[Ben johnson]

No, you do not accept total depravity. What you are passing off as total depravity is NOT total depravity as has been defined historically in Reformed Theology and in all the discussions we've had about it.

OK --- I do not accept the "historically Reformed-Theology-definition".

Total depravity is the doctrine that original sin affects every aspect of man's being such that man is so thoroughly corrupted by sin that he is incapable of producing anything good. His heart is wholly disinclined to God such that he is morally incapable of faith.

And here is still the contradiction; you admit there is "some faith" that the depraved man CAN profess, WITHOUT salvation.

What is your view, Fru --- CAN unregenerate men believe in some SUPERFICIAL measure, or is he morally incapable of faith at ALL?

Thank you for proving that you don't really believe in total depravity, Ben. If you did believe it you would recognize that man does not have free will in the moral sense, but rather his will is in slavery to sin.

...but I also recognize what Paul said about "being enslaved to sin, OR enslaved to God, is a choice FROM OUR HEARTS. Paul says, "do not CONTINUE submitting to sin, but consider yourselves DEAD to sin and ALIVE in Christ". (Rm6)

Kinda sounds like a continuous choice, doesn't it?

And still you maintain the notion that men are convicted by something they find utter foolishness, which as I pointed out is a self-rerential absurdity.

Paul says "God is pleased to save those who believe THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached"...

It is not absurd to understand that BELIEF, is what CHANGES the message from "foolish" to "power".

Guess what. It is entirely possible that there WEREN'T any saved individuals here prior to their arrival, and it is not because God was hindered by technology, but because God simply had chosen not to save them.

Once again, a misunderstanding of causality is your undoing here.

It seems very convenient that God "chose NOT to save those, UNTIL our technology caught up with them"...

I will repeat it: The two verses you provided in that instance contained nothing about "believed-THEN-regenerated," yet you claimed them as proof against monergism because they didn't state "regenerated-then-believed." That is a pure and plain argument from silence, NO MATTER what other Scriptures you try to substitute in after the fact. The bait-and-switch will not work with me.

Does it say "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit", or not?

Pointing to other verses that allegedly do state what you claim is NO EXCUSE for the eisegesis of the two verses in question. I will not proceed to a discussion of Titus 3 (which I have already covered several times) until you admit that those two verses do not in and of themselves prove faith preceding regeneration.

Does it say "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit", or not?

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!!!!

Am I speaking German here or something? How many times do I have to say that this parable does not speak definitively to EITHER side?!?!?!?!?!?

The next time you say things like "your statement(s) is unsound, eisegesis, and bad hermeneutics", please remember that these verses do not speak definitively to your view (in your own admission) either.

IF they had been OF us, they would have remained WITH us, but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not OF us.

It is as plain as day, Ben. Their departure manifests the fact that they are not and were not believers. Your contrivance regardint the "present tense" at the end of the verse falls apart in the face of the past tense earlier ("if they had been of us...")

OK --- those who "GO OUT FROM US", are NOT "of us" (WHEN they "go out from us"). We agree. We disagree on whether or not they ever "WERE of us".

In 1Jn2:19, it seems they WERE "never of us" --- he calls them "antichrists". But rather than asserting dictate and policy, 2Jn1:7-9 speaks of those who WERE with us but "went out from us" (went on ahead). Those people WERE "once of us".

All your squirming in the face of this verse only highlights how far you must deny plain Scripture to keep your card house upright.

And you deny that those in 2Jn DO "not-watch-themselves", and DO "go out from us" and DO "not-abide-in-His-teachings".

...and you STILL deny that just a few verses AFTER 1Jn2:19, is an admonition TO "abide in Christ".

He plainly says, "SO THAT we not shrink in shame at Jesus' return".

Clearly, "not-abide" means "shrink-in-shame". It is possible, it is warned against and it ain't saved.

No, I do not, because that is not what the verse says.

Then what does it say? This?

"Many DECEIVERS have gone into the world.
WATCH YOURSELVES that you not LOSE what was wrought.
(He's speaking of heavenly REWARDS --- mansions, crowns, the like...)
(Deceivers wanna steal our CROWNS, but they can't deceive us from JESUS...)
Anyone who was ALWAYS UNSAVED, and goes out FROM US
(but those were REALLY always 'out-from-us', he's changed SUBJECTS)
And does not abide in His teachings (but they were never really IN His teachings)
They HAVE NOT GOD
(well DUH --- they never HAD God...)
But he who ABIDES (of course WE do! WE're predestined)
...has the Father and the Son..."

Is that what it says, Fru? He's contrasting "those WHO abide", with "those who do NOT abide" --- but MEANING that abiders are ALWAYS saved and non-abiders were NEVER saved"? It's not a warning TO abide? The contrast does not include "WATCH yourselves that you not LOSE what was WROUGHT"?

Were the fields tilled the same, or not?

IT....DOESN'T.....SAY!

"For ground that drinks rain ...and brings forth vegatation useful to those for whose sake it was TILLED..."

Yes it does, Fru; it's not saying "two fields". It's saying "ONE FIELD that is TILLED for the sake of those PLANTING."

If that field BECOMES useful-vegetables, THEN it is blessed.
If that field BECOMES thorns/thistles, THEN it is cursed.

It's ONE FIELD, so it is tilled the same, Fru; it's the FRUIT that determines the blessing or the curse...

Quite possibly, but you have no clear proof of the motivation, only speculation and presumption.

Then you cannot prove either, that He was being "obtuse" --- only stating the obvious about those who could NEVER repent.

(...even though He commands all men to repent...)

No, it's rejected by sound hermaneutics and plain reason. The overwhelming majority of your proof texts rely on a false argument from necessity and begging the question. I've shown it over and over and over.

Hermeneutics, and plain reason? Peter warns about a man who has FORGOTTEN former purification. You say "he doesn't MEAN unsalvation". (Or was it "that man's hypothetical, HIS state isn't the warning for US"?) Peter says "therefore be all the more diligent to make sure of your calling and election --- for as long as these attributes are yours (unlike that MAN who LACKED the attributes and FORGOT purification...)
...you are useful (fruit, not thorns/thistles); in THIS way the gates of Heaven will BE abundantly provided."

And it's "sound hermeneutics and plain reason" to think Peter is NOT saying "if you are NOT diligent about what fruit you're producing, if you are LIKE the one who LACKS these fruits and is blind/FORGOTTEN-PURIFICATION, then the gates of Heaven will NOT be provided"?

Why is it sound not to think that?

BTW, I see "abundantly provided", as "mutually exclusive". I don't see an ABUNDANT entrance to Heaven, and a SPARSE entrance. To me, it reads "abundant, or not at all". Do you agree?

The fact is that you have no verse that actually, explicitly shows a true believer losing their salvation.

What happened to Hymenaeus, Philetus, and Alexander? Did they "suffer shipwreck from faith they never HAD"? Did they "fall away from truth in which they never DWELT"?

You have steadfastly denied throughout our exchanges that the concept of departure showing forth the fact that they never had true faith is even a valid explanation for how men can appear to be saved but not actually be saved. Do you still deny it?

Yes. Their departure shows they DO NOT HAVE faith (when they depart). In 1Jn2:19, it seems they never had it. AND departed.

In 2Jn1:9, they had it, AND DEPARTED.

As far as 2 Pet 2, we've been over that one ad nauseum. Your argument relies on the fallacious insistence that the use of the same or similar words in two different contexts necessarily implies salvation. I've shown it to be a logical fallacy with simple logical statements. YOU are the one changing the subject of the epistle suddenly and abruptly from the false teachers to the "truly/barely escaped" without any hermaneutical warrant.

The hermeneutical warrant is "the FALSE, entice the TRUE". Your view of the passage then saying, "if the FALSE have escaped through the TRUE-KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus, but THEN are again entangled and overcome, it is worse than if they had never KNOWN the way of righteousness; better TO have never known than to HAVE KNOWN, and to have TURNED AWAY FROM it!"

Fru's Logical Hermeneutics:
The false never cease from sin, slaves to corruption; eyes full of adultery and carouse ALL DAY.
...but they ESCAPE corruption through the EPIGNOSIS-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus...
It's better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness...
(...but they never DID know the way of righteousness...)
...than HAVING KNOWN it, to have TURNED AWAY FROM THE HOLY COMMANDMENT...
(...but they never were IN the Holy Commandment...)
(...their hearts were never turned TOWARDS the Holy Commandment...)
(...so they only RETURNED [on the surface] to where their hearts always WERE...)
(...and that's WORSE than never having superficially-KNOWN...)

No disrespect meant, Fru. If I have it wrong, please tell me how. If it's right, please tell me how it's credible....

 

[Ben johnson]

It is indeed an add-on. It does not appear there. It is born purely from your PRESUMPTION.

Please explain why taking verse 9 as the CONSEQUENCE of the warning of verse 7-8, is "presumptuous and non-credible".

With respect, isn't it only presumption of Reformed-theology that denies the logical context?

This is a perfect demonstration though of the heart of this whole disagreement: man's autonomy and rebellion against any notion of God's autonomy when it comes to soteriology.

You're seeing "God sovereignly decreeing SELCECT-FEW to be saved"; instead, Jesus said "God's will is that all who SEE the Son and believe may be saved".

As John said in Rev22:17, "Let whosoever WILL take of the water of life freely."

So when these people are standing before the Judgement seat, about to be cast into the Lake of Fire, God will simply shurg and say, "Hey, I wanted to save you but I couldn't stop the Pharisees from blocking your entrance into my Kingdom lest I violate their free will. What's that? A plague? Well, yeah...I suppose I coulda done that. I'll have to remember that. Anyway, off to hell ya go!"

Once again, "free will" makes God helpless...

In your paradigm, they will say:
"But God, it was IMPOSSIBLE for us to believe, because You did not CHOOSE us."

How is that not a "great excuse"?

The meaning of "fell", and "gifted", and "poured", and "sealed" have NO BEARING on the fact that the CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement in Acts 10:34-35 was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles.

You're avoiding the question. Do all those words refer to ONE EVENT, when the Spirit is RECEIVED by a person?

Yes, or no.

Was Jesus asking "are the REST of you going to leave like JUDAS did", or wasn't He?

No, it is a completely different question. Was Jesus saying "did I not ELECT-UNTO-SALVATION the twelve of you and one of you is a devil?" Or wasn't He. I submit there is no reason to believe that he had election in view.

"Are YOU going to leave Me, TOO?"
("Of course not; we know You're the Messiah.")
"Did I not choose ALL TWELVE of you, and ONE of you is a devil?"

Jesus was NOT asking if the REMAINING 11 were going to leave just like JUDAS left. Why is it credible to assert "that's not what He was asking"?

Ya know, it's funny...in 2 1/2 years of these discussions only now do you suddenly use this argument. They say necessity is the mother of invention...

Look earlier in the verse, Ben. "If they HAD BEEN..."

I have always asserted that 2Jn1:7-9 speaks of "those who WERE with us but went out FROM us". And you deny that verse 8 CONNECTS to verse 9. You impose a "subject change", to make it fit your theology.

The "go too far and not abide", is the CONSEQUENCE of not "watch yourselves that you not lose what you've wrought".

No amount of denial changes that, Fru.

If those in 1Jn2:19 HAD BEEN with us, they would not HAVE GONE out from us. Speaking of the time-of-leaving. Says nothing about from-the-beginning.

That's simply wrong. You are projecting the admonition to "the elect lady and her children" back upon the deceivers and claiming that the deceivers did not heed the admonition, and you are compounding your error by taking a simple propositional truth in v9 and arguing that saved people actually meet this condition.

The only consistenty in your position is that you repeatedly commit the same logical and hermaneutical fallacies.

I'm simply reading that "the saved lady and her children are confronted with DECEIVERS."

Deceivers, Fru; people who wish to deceive them away from Christ.

THEREFORE, "watch yourselves that you don't lose what you wrought".

BECAUSE, "anyone who goes too far (YOU, if you DON'T watch!) and does not abide..."

Tell me why THIS is "hermeneutical and logical fallacy", rather than what YOU are saying.

So firm is your grasp, that you will not accept Jesus' words: "They WERE ENTERING IN".



That means the Parisees KEPT them from salvation.

We are likewise warned not to ruin others' salvation.

And that absolutely refutes Calvinism. If ever there were "smoking-gun-passages", them would be it.

Nope. I understand Jesus' words in their proper context.

They WERE entering in, Fru; no amount of "hermeneutics" and "logical deduction" can change what Jesus said.

They were entering in.

And the Pharisees, STOPPED them.

We are likewise warned not to "ruin a brother's faith, FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED".

 

[Ben johnson]

I don't usually argue along the lines of faith as a "work" of merit, but faith is active, it is something we do, and it is pleasing to God.

Jesus said that "our believing, is GOD'S work". Jn6:29. But He presented it as our CHOICE.

You refuse to see our believing as NOT doing "something good", but rather receiving the GOOD that He has DONE...

Ben has steadfastly denied that the Holy Spirit must do any work within a person before they can come under the conviction of the Gospel, let alone do it to all men.

Two questions, Fru. Please answer first one, and then the second: "YES" or "NO":

1. Are "poured" and "fell" and "gifted" and "indwelt" and "sealed", all speaking of the moment they RECIEVED the Holy Spirit? (Yes or no).

2. In Titus3:5-6, is regeneration through the POURED SPirit, or not? (Yes or no).

I agree, and this not wanting to be is the result of man's depravity. The problem here is that Ben is arguing that the outward call fo the Gospel is itself able to overcome man's depravity, which leaves us at a loss to explain why man is not convicted since the outward call itself supposedly overcomes man's not wanting to be convicted by it.

In your view, man has NO CHOICE (and consequently no accountability).

Without election, he can NEVER choose to believe (even though you see SOME groups SUPERFICIALLY believe!).

With election, he can never choose to DISBELIEVE.

So Romans 3:16 to you becomes: "God is just, and justifier of only the few-ones that He has PREDESTINED FOR belief"."

He decides who will be saved ("elect"), and who will die hopelessly enmired in sins ("unelect"). That's "just"?

I agree. Logically speaking, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is after faith.

The logical order is regeneration->faith->justification/indwelling->sanctification->glorification.

When you answer the two questions above, then we can procede. Is regeneration by the POURED Spirit, or not?

Is "poured", the same as "received"?

 

[frumanchu]

OK --- I do not accept the "historically Reformed-Theology-definition".

See. That wasn't so hard, was it?

And here is still the contradiction; you admit there is "some faith" that the depraved man CAN profess, WITHOUT salvation.

What is your view, Fru --- CAN unregenerate men believe in some SUPERFICIAL measure, or is he morally incapable of faith at ALL?

What part of 'believe and faith do not necessarily mean the same thing' do you not get? Quit trying to manufacture a contradiction where there is none.

Paul says "God is pleased to save those who believe THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached"...

It is not absurd to understand that BELIEF, is what CHANGES the message from "foolish" to "power".

Logically speaking it most certainly is. I would explain it from a cause and effect standpoint, but I would just be wasting my time.

It seems very convenient that God "chose NOT to save those, UNTIL our technology caught up with them"...

It's seems very convenient that you continue to knock down this strawman when it is one of the most inane arguments you've ever put forth. It merely demonstrates that you cannot break the paradigm of God being wholly reactive to man.

Does it say "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit", or not?
Does it say "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit", or not?

You can't do it, can you? You cannot bring yourself to admit that you blatantly and eggregiously read your presupposition right into those verses, can you? Instead you drone on trying to distract attention away from them rather than face scrutiny of these verses.

It does not matter whether Titus 3 proves your point or not...it still does not change the fact that you FORCED YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONS ONTO THOSE VERSES by arguing from silence.

The next time you say things like "your statement(s) is unsound, eisegesis, and bad hermeneutics", please remember that these verses do not speak definitively to your view (in your own admission) either.

I've been saying the WHOLE TIME that these verses do not spead definitively to my view or yours. YOU are the one that has been repeatedly dragging this verse into conversations and propping it up as supposed proof of lost salvation. I will continue to point out statements that are "unsound, eisegesis, and bad hermaneutics" as I see them, and in this particular case it looks like I finally got through to you.

OK --- those who "GO OUT FROM US", are NOT "of us" (WHEN they "go out from us"). We agree. We disagree on whether or not they ever "WERE of us".

In 1Jn2:19, it seems they WERE "never of us" --- he calls them "antichrists". But rather than asserting dictate and policy, 2Jn1:7-9 speaks of those who WERE with us but "went out from us" (went on ahead). Those people WERE "once of us".

No, Ben. That verse directly contradicts what you just said.

Ben says: "those people were once of us"
John says: "If they were of us they would have continued with us"

No amount of contortion here is going to change the clear meaning of the verse. It is unbelievable that you will go to such lengths to change what Scripture says plainly just to preserve your theology (as though your position stands or falls on this one verse).

Then what does it say? This?

"Many DECEIVERS have gone into the world.
WATCH YOURSELVES that you not LOSE what was wrought.
(He's speaking of heavenly REWARDS --- mansions, crowns, the like...)
(Deceivers wanna steal our CROWNS, but they can't deceive us from JESUS...)
Anyone who was ALWAYS UNSAVED, and goes out FROM US
(but those were REALLY always 'out-from-us', he's changed SUBJECTS)
And does not abide in His teachings (but they were never really IN His teachings)
They HAVE NOT GOD
(well DUH --- they never HAD God...)
But he who ABIDES (of course WE do! WE're predestined)
...has the Father and the Son..."

If you can translate that into plain English, perhaps I can respond.

Is that what it says, Fru? He's contrasting "those WHO abide", with "those who do NOT abide" --- but MEANING that abiders are ALWAYS saved and non-abiders were NEVER saved"? It's not a warning TO abide? The contrast does not include "WATCH yourselves that you not LOSE what was WROUGHT"?

Perhaps John was simply guilty of gross presumption then in addressing the letter to the "elect lady" since she might not really be elect after all...

"For ground that drinks rain ...and brings forth vegatation useful to those for whose sake it was TILLED..."

Yes it does, Fru; it's not saying "two fields". It's saying "ONE FIELD that is TILLED for the sake of those PLANTING."

If that field BECOMES useful-vegetables, THEN it is blessed.
If that field BECOMES thorns/thistles, THEN it is cursed.

It's ONE FIELD, so it is tilled the same, Fru; it's the FRUIT that determines the blessing or the curse...

That is an inductive argument at best, Ben, and it STILL does not justify projecting the argument back upon Luke 8 simply becase a similar metaphor was being used.

Then you cannot prove either, that He was being "obtuse" --- only stating the obvious about those who could NEVER repent. ( ..even though He commands all men to repent...)

LOL! I'm not trying to prove that He was being obtuse, I'm simply pointing out your fallacious argument. And again you belie your presumption here that the command to obey implies the ability to obey, just like Pelagius.

Yes. Their departure shows they DO NOT HAVE faith (when they depart). In 1Jn2:19, it seems they never had it. AND departed.

In 2Jn1:9, they had it, AND DEPARTED.

Make up your mind, Ben. You say you deny that the concept of departure showing forth the fact that they never had true faith is even a valid explanation for how men can appear to be saved but not actually be saved, and then proceed to admit that in 1 John 2:19 it "seems they never had it (and the verse makes it explicitly clear that their departure "made manifest" the fact that they didn't).

And you still obviously cannot see that 2 John 1:9 does not necessarily imply that those who go on ahead were ever saved. Once again, we have your fallacious assumption that this is a euphemism for salvation.

The hermeneutical warrant is "the FALSE, entice the TRUE". Your view of the passage then saying, "if the FALSE have escaped through the TRUE-KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus, but THEN are again entangled and overcome, it is worse than if they had never KNOWN the way of righteousness; better TO have never known than to HAVE KNOWN, and to have TURNED AWAY FROM it!"

Fru's Logical Hermeneutics:
The false never cease from sin, slaves to corruption; eyes full of adultery and carouse ALL DAY.
...but they ESCAPE corruption through the EPIGNOSIS-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus...
It's better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness...
(...but they never DID know the way of righteousness...)
...than HAVING KNOWN it, to have TURNED AWAY FROM THE HOLY COMMANDMENT...
(...but they never were IN the Holy Commandment...)
(...their hearts were never turned TOWARDS the Holy Commandment...)
(...so they only RETURNED [on the surface] to where their hearts always WERE...)
(...and that's WORSE than never having superficially-KNOWN...)

No disrespect meant, Fru. If I have it wrong, please tell me how. If it's right, please tell me how it's credible....

You have it wrong. You still are stuck on this faulty notion that men having knowledge of the way of righteousness means that they are saved. Knowledge is a necessary condition for salvation but it is NOT a sufficient condition for salvation. I have told you this I don't know how many times.

Either you have Alzheimers, or you really have no interest whatsoever in understanding or properly acknowledging my position.

I will not address 2 Peter 2 any more in this thread so don't bother bringing it up.

 

[frumanchu]

Please explain why taking verse 9 as the CONSEQUENCE of the warning of verse 7-8, is "presumptuous and non-credible".

With respect, isn't it only presumption of Reformed-theology that denies the logical context?

I prefer to deal with the words that the Holy Spirit actually inspired John to write, not the ones Ben feels inspired to add. You are adding the word to bolster your case, and using the presumption that your position is correct to excuse it.

You're seeing "God sovereignly decreeing SELCECT-FEW to be saved"; instead, Jesus said "God's will is that all who SEE the Son and believe may be saved".

And all who see the Son and believe will be saved. The question is who will actually believe and why?

As John said in Rev22:17, "Let whosoever WILL take of the water of life freely."

And again, the question is who will take of the water and why?

In your paradigm, they will say:
"But God, it was IMPOSSIBLE for us to believe, because You did not CHOOSE us."

How is that not a "great excuse"?

Nice deflection, but it still doesn't make up for the glaring fault in your position whereby God is helpless to save those He could have for fear of violating the very free will of the creature that is being denied the Creator.

You're avoiding the question. Do all those words refer to ONE EVENT, when the Spirit is RECEIVED by a person?

Yes, or no.

No, I am NOT avoiding the question. I am holding your feet to the fire and calling you out on yet another case of gross eisegesis. The CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement in Acts 10:34-35 was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles. You are manipulating that verse and ripping it from its original context to make an argument against sovereign election, and when I point it out you start in with your Titus 3 argument again.

Admit it, Ben. The clear context of Peter's statement is the extension of the community of God's covenant people beyond national Israel to all other nations, NOT anything having to do with individual people.

"Are YOU going to leave Me, TOO?"
("Of course not; we know You're the Messiah.")
"Did I not choose ALL TWELVE of you, and ONE of you is a devil?"

Jesus was NOT asking if the REMAINING 11 were going to leave just like JUDAS left. Why is it credible to assert "that's not what He was asking"?

That is not what I'm arguing, Ben. You are changing the focus of the argument. What I am arguing against is the improper insistance that the term "choose" in this passage is meant to convey elective choosing, just as it is improper to insist the "called" in the wedding parable is meant to convey elective calling.

The question remains: Was Jesus saying "did I not ELECT-UNTO-SALVATION the twelve of you and one of you is a devil?" Or wasn't He.

I have always asserted that 2Jn1:7-9 speaks of "those who WERE with us but went out FROM us". And you deny that verse 8 CONNECTS to verse 9. You impose a "subject change", to make it fit your theology.

Pot. Kettle. Black. (and I was speaking of your recent newfound argument against 1 John 2:19, not 2 John 1:7-9, so you might want to be sure of which argument you're denying before you deny it)

I'm simply reading that "the saved lady and her children are confronted with DECEIVERS."

Deceivers, Fru; people who wish to deceive them away from Christ.

THEREFORE, "watch yourselves that you don't lose what you wrought".

BECAUSE, "anyone who goes too far (YOU, if you DON'T watch!) and does not abide..."

Tell me why THIS is "hermeneutical and logical fallacy", rather than what YOU are saying.

I already have. I might as well be talking in Greek (which of course would still have you quoting my words in all sorts of colors without understanding what they really mean)

They WERE entering in, Fru; no amount of "hermeneutics" and "logical deduction" can change what Jesus said.

They were entering in.

And the Pharisees, STOPPED them.

We are likewise warned not to "ruin a brother's faith, FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED".

Too bad God's desire to save all men is thwarted by mere mortals, huh?

 

[frumanchu]

Ben, I have no interest in answering any of your questions on Titus 3 at this time for two reasons:

1. I've already answered every one of these questions in the past and will not justify you petty implications that I cannot answer them by doing so.

2. You are in up to your neck in blatant and obvious eisegesis and I intend to continue hammering away at it and casting aside all your deflections until you either recognize and acknowledge them or leave to post them elsewhere.