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

Ben johnson · Mar 5, 2006

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

I do not accept anything of the "Reformed Position" --- 'cause it goes against Scripture.

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.

It's not "silence". The Spirit is poured through belief-in-Jesus; and regeneration comes through the POURED (received) Spirit.

You won't answer the question --- because there's only one answer...

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).

I've always recognized the simplicity of the writing; those who go out from us, MAY have "never been of us" (I've always recognized that those in Jn2:19 were NEVER-saved). But I've also recognized that it doesn't say "ALL who go out from us WERE NEVER OF us". I've always asserted that 2Jn1:7-9 presents some who WERE of us but "go on ahead".

The difficulty in debating with you, is that I must walk a fine line; because you are always on the edge of "impugning me for alleged misrepresentations".

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

Nothing but another "dodge".

John says: "WATCH yourselves (against deceivers!), that you not LOSE what has been WROUGHT. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God..."

You say, "Watch yourselves that you not lose CROWNS; anyone who was NEVER-SAVED goes too far and has not God."

It is as if I would say something like, "Watch yourselves against deceiving signs as you drive your car, that you not temporarily lose your direction; any plane that flies too low will collide with antennas.

What do "planes", have to do with "driving cars"?
What do "those who were ALWAYS lost", have to do with "watch yourselves against deceivers"?

Yet you seem to be confident in your understanding. I cannot convince you the disconnect your view imposes upon Scriptures; how "brethren" is saved in Heb3:1, but "unsaved" in vs 12 (yet another instance of "take care that you not be deceived by sin to a hard, unbelieving heart, that falls away from the living God" --- somehow, you see those falling-away as "never-were-with-God").

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.

Luke 8 presents those who are CALLED "good soil", WHO believe and hold fast and bear fruit with perseverance. And those who are CALLED "bad soil", WHO believe but FALL under affliction/temptation/persecution. Your view finds it credible that their "perseverance" OR "stumbling" are all "consequential TO God's election" (or not). How shall I convince you otherwise?

I cannot.

And, it is not my job.

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).

Their departure "made manifest their faithlessness" --- but THAT idea accommodates BOTH groups:

1. Those who NEVER believed, departed and their departure made manifest their unbelief.

2. Those who HAD believed, but DISbelieved --- and their departure made manifest their unbelief.

There is no conflict. But the conflict is your view, when you read 1Jn2:26-28 --- clearly warning us TO abide in Jesus, SO THAT we not shrink-in-shame at Jesus' return.

Abiding is optional.
Shrink-in-shame is not saved.

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.

My "ridiculous assumption" is that John was presenting a CONTINUOUS DISCUSSION --- that the warning of "watch-against-losing-WROUGHT", is the same as "going-too-far and not-abiding-in-Christ". THAT is the credible understanding; not "watch yourselves that you not lose CROWNS, anyone-who-was-NEVER-saved and goes too far HAS NOT GOD".

...yet you do not recognize which has credibility (continuous logical flow), and which does not (sudden subject-change --- cars, and planes)...

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

So Calvinism aligns with a kind of "FATALISM" --- we are only "flotsam and jetsam", mere products of outside decisions.

(Not a new discovery --- I've always recognized that....)

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.

And your view has God DECIDING that MANY (most!) will go to HELL, without ANY hope of redemption.

God is just?

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.

Wrong. They "received the Holy Spirit, just as WE did, also, AFTER BELIEVING"...

It is up to you to make a case that the "ekcheo-poured" of Acts10:45, is different than the "ekcheo-poured" of Titus3:6. OR, make the case that Titus3:5-6 does NOT say "regeneration by the Spirit-poured-through-BELIEF-in-Jesus".

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.

Wrong. "Received the Spirit, JUST AS WE did".

...after believing...

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.

Hammer all you want. Frankly, I see no profit in continuing as we have. I have so often had the hope that you would see the contradictions in things like asserting subject-changes mid-verse (or mid-passage). Like denying that those the Pharisees STOPPED from being saved, really WOULD have been saved (it's what Jesus said). And the identical warnings for US not to RUIN/DESTROY certain brothers for WHOM Christ DIED.

Yet each verse you're shown, is met with one of the Five-Ways. I guess your understandings really are credible to you.

Why do we post here? To "contend for the faith", to teach and learn; to draw each other (and MANY unspoken readers) closer to God. To bring all to maturity. To, literally, "set the world on fire for CHrist".

You and I seem to have conflict. There appears to be a point where glorifying God (if we continue), might be questionable.

Therefore, I see no profit in continuing our discussions. I've cited many verses that overthrow ideas of "predestination" --- but you say, "It doesn't PROVE that they ever WERE saved" (Five-Way #2) --- etcetera.

In this post, I showed how certain verses elicit only OSNAS understanding, credibly. But you find such understanding INcredible; and the "abrupt subject-CHANGE", credible". I cannot convince you of the breech of logical flow of "sudden-subject-change".

Why does John say "watch yourselves against deceivers, THAT you not LOSE what you've WROUGHT; for anyone-who-was-NEVER-saved and goes on ahead DEMONSTRATES that he never HAD God"? Why does Paul say "beloved brethren, PARTNERS in a heavenly calling --- take care, PROFESSING (unsaved) brethren, that you not be HARDENED by deceitful sin to falling away from the living GOD Be diligent TO enter His rest, lest anyone FALL by IMITATING their unbelief and disobedience"?

Why does your view make sense to you? If one of the Apostles secretly travelled through time, and joined the board and responded to you --- would you believe him?

Alas --- it is not my job to convince you. My job, is to love you.

In my enthusiasm for "correctly contending for Scriptural truth", it appears I have sometimes offended you (or worse); if so, then I humbly apologize. It was never intentional.

Let us agree to disagree, and work on teaching the world the reality of Jesus. His unconditional love, His intolerance of sin; His righteousness-IN-us, His plans for our great futures.

Our futures in Him --- to Him be all the glory, and praise and worship; in Him we are complete, and fulfilled.

Apart from Him we are nothing.

You and I agree on this much; let it be enough.

frumanchu · Mar 6, 2006

Ben johnson said:
I do not accept anything of the "Reformed Position" --- 'cause it goes against Scripture.

That's your prerogative. I'm content with the fact that you at least admitted you don't really believe in "Total Depravity" (except when you redefine the term to mean something other than the normal definition).

It's not "silence". The Spirit is poured through belief-in-Jesus; and regeneration comes through the POURED (received) Spirit.

You won't answer the question --- because there's only one answer...

See. Told you you couldn't.

Ben, this is not about Titus 3. Here are the two verses you originally quoted back in [post=22266612]post 92[/post]:

from post 92 said:
And nowhere do we find the sequence of "changed-heart and THEN belief".

"With the heart, man BELIEVED".
"You became obedient FROM THE HEART..."
Etcetera.

The Scriptures are Rom 10:10 and Rom 6:17. Neither verse addresses whether or not regeneration precedes belief/obedience. You are saying that because they don't explicitly say anything about the heart being first regenerated that they therefore disprove it. That is BY DEFINITION an argument from silence, yet you compound your fallacy by trying to justify it with your interpretation of Titus 3. Even if you are 100% correct about Titus 3 showing that faith brings regeneration and not vice versa, it still doesn't change the fact that you are arguing from silence in the two verses above.

I've always recognized the simplicity of the writing; those who go out from us, MAY have "never been of us" (I've always recognized that those in Jn2:19 were NEVER-saved). But I've also recognized that it doesn't say "ALL who go out from us WERE NEVER OF us".

And I have NEVER ONCE said that this verse necessarily contains a universal dictate. I've simply shown that this verse proves irrefutably the principle that departure is a manifestation of not ever having genuine faith, and you have repeatedly argued against that principle.

I've always asserted that 2Jn1:7-9 presents some who WERE of us but "go on ahead".

And I've always rejected it because the verse does not say that those antichrists were ever "of" us.

Nothing but another "dodge".

No, it was seriously hard to follow.

John says: "WATCH yourselves (against deceivers!), that you not LOSE what has been WROUGHT. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God..."

You say, "Watch yourselves that you not lose CROWNS; anyone who was NEVER-SAVED goes too far and has not God."

It is as if I would say something like, "Watch yourselves against deceiving signs as you drive your car, that you not temporarily lose your direction; any plane that flies too low will collide with antennas.

What do "planes", have to do with "driving cars"?
What do "those who were ALWAYS lost", have to do with "watch yourselves against deceivers"?

Sorry, you lost me again there, Ben.

There are two things which you seem to refuse to acknowledge:

1. That Scripture does in fact speak of varying rewards for those in Heaven
2. That I have repeatedly explained how warnings and admonitions are the instrumental means through which God preserves people in their faith

Yet you seem to be confident in your understanding. I cannot convince you the disconnect your view imposes upon Scriptures; how "brethren" is saved in Heb3:1, but "unsaved" in vs 12 (yet another instance of "take care that you not be deceived by sin to a hard, unbelieving heart, that falls away from the living God" --- somehow, you see those falling-away as "never-were-with-God").

I am confident because I understand that the term "bretheren" addresses people according to their profession of faith. Not all who profess faith actually possess it.

You cannot convince me because your arguments are devoid of sound reason and hermaneutics, Ben.

Luke 8 presents those who are CALLED "good soil", WHO believe and hold fast and bear fruit with perseverance. And those who are CALLED "bad soil", WHO believe but FALL under affliction/temptation/persecution. Your view finds it credible that their "perseverance" OR "stumbling" are all "consequential TO God's election" (or not).

Quit muddying the waters. My objection is to you projecting the issue of "tilling the soil" from Heb 6 (which as I said is an inductive argument at best) back upon Luke 8. I'm not objecting to the "good soil/bad soil" distinction, but rather these speculations as to whether there was anything having to do with how the soil was tilled.

Strange that you would continue to argue this point after ostensibly admitting that this passage doesn't really speak to EITHER position.

How shall I convince you otherwise?

I cannot.

And, it is not my job.

Their departure "made manifest their faithlessness" --- but THAT idea accommodates BOTH groups:

1. Those who NEVER believed, departed and their departure made manifest their unbelief.

2. Those who HAD believed, but DISbelieved --- and their departure made manifest their unbelief.

There is no conflict.

I never said there was. HOWEVER, number one is explicitly represented by 1 John 2:19. Number two is NOT. So you cannot claim that 1 John 2:19 proves that true believers can completely abandon their belief. First John 2:19 presents a clear and irrefutable example of principle 1. I submit that there are no such examples of principle 2.

But the conflict is your view, when you read 1Jn2:26-28 --- clearly warning us TO abide in Jesus, SO THAT we not shrink-in-shame at Jesus' return.

Abiding is optional.
Shrink-in-shame is not saved.

Read above following the planes and cars.

My "ridiculous assumption" is that John was presenting a CONTINUOUS DISCUSSION --- that the warning of "watch-against-losing-WROUGHT", is the same as "going-too-far and not-abiding-in-Christ". THAT is the credible understanding; not "watch yourselves that you not lose CROWNS, anyone-who-was-NEVER-saved and goes too far HAS NOT GOD".

...yet you do not recognize which has credibility (continuous logical flow), and which does not (sudden subject-change --- cars, and planes)...

This is simply too funny coming from the person who advocates precisely such a subject change in 2 Peter 2.

Seriously, unless you can show where those in verse 7 who had gone out into the world were true believers then you have no solid argument against me. If you can show me how the giving of an admonition somehow in and of itself precludes the role of the Spirit in convicting believers ensuring their obedience, then you might have a case.

But you cannot.

So Calvinism aligns with a kind of "FATALISM" --- we are only "flotsam and jetsam", mere products of outside decisions.

(Not a new discovery --- I've always recognized that....)

You're free to believe whatever you want of Calvinism, and it's clear you have little regard for it. I'm simply pointing out fallacies in your reasoning, and the above doesn't change the one I pointed out.

And your view has God DECIDING that MANY (most!) will go to HELL, without ANY hope of redemption.

God is just?

They will go to Hell on the basis of their sinfulness. God's sovereignty over the salvation of men does not preclude their responsibility for their sin.

Wrong. They "received the Holy Spirit, just as WE did, also, AFTER BELIEVING"...

It is up to you to make a case that the "ekcheo-poured" of Acts10:45, is different than the "ekcheo-poured" of Titus3:6. OR, make the case that Titus3:5-6 does NOT say "regeneration by the Spirit-poured-through-BELIEF-in-Jesus".

OK, Ben. What happened at Pentecost in Acts 2? The Holy Spirit came and indwelled believers, and the visible outward result of that was speaking in tongues and the like. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is NOT THE SAME as regeneration. They are two distinct principles. If they were the same, then nobody before Acts 2 was born again.

Once again, Peter's statement was in the context of his vision regarding not declaring common what God has declared clean (referring to the Gentiles). Peter's statement in v47 was in reference to the fact that the Gentiles had received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by tongues, etc) just as the Jews had. One of the central mysteries in the NT is the fact that God's covenant community has expanded beyond national Israel to men of every tribe, tongue and nation.

I can't believe you would be this careless with Scripture, Ben.

Wrong. "Received the Spirit, JUST AS WE did".

...after believing...

Unbelievable. You will deny the CLEAR CONTEXT of this verse for the sake of proving your doctrine. This says VOLUMES about the reliability of your teachings, Ben.

Hammer all you want. Frankly, I see no profit in continuing as we have. I have so often had the hope that you would see the contradictions in things like asserting subject-changes mid-verse (or mid-passage). Like denying that those the Pharisees STOPPED from being saved, really WOULD have been saved (it's what Jesus said). And the identical warnings for US not to RUIN/DESTROY certain brothers for WHOM Christ DIED.

Yet each verse you're shown, is met with one of the Five-Ways. I guess your understandings really are credible to you.

It troubles me deeply that you would derive confidence in your blatantly fallacious positions simply because you can force-fit all my arguments into your "Five-Ways" categories (forgetting all the times I've shown how many of my arguments are not properly represented by any of them).

Why do we post here? To "contend for the faith", to teach and learn; to draw each other (and MANY unspoken readers) closer to God. To bring all to maturity. To, literally, "set the world on fire for CHrist".

I do contend for the faith, and that includes speaking out against doctrines I believe run completely counter to it.

I do seek to teach and learn, and continue to do so in these discussions.

I do seek to draw other closer to God, in this case by attempting to bring a deeper understanding of the Scriptures and what they actually teach.

I do seek to promote maturity, and such maturity includes getting past the milk and chewing on the meat.

You and I seem to have conflict. There appears to be a point where glorifying God (if we continue), might be questionable.

Therefore, I see no profit in continuing our discussions.

I find it curious that you would state this...and then proceed to continue arguing.

I've cited many verses that overthrow ideas of "predestination" --- but you say, "It doesn't PROVE that they ever WERE saved" (Five-Way #2) --- etcetera.

You are free to believe what you want. Plain reason and sound hermaneutics say otherwise, no matter how you try to pigeon-hole them into your quaint little categories.

In this post, I showed how certain verses elicit only OSNAS understanding, credibly. But you find such understanding INcredible; and the "abrupt subject-CHANGE", credible". I cannot convince you of the breech of logical flow of "sudden-subject-change".

And again, I find this incredibly humorous after you spent a great deal tof time defending the notion that Peter changes subjects in 2 Peter 2.

The "credibility" of what you've provided relies upon a priori assumptions and arguments from silence. I have repeatedly demonstrated this, Ben. Several tinmes over in this conversation you've made assertions and then countered the refutations by redirection to other things. You can't seem to even make up your mind on whether or not Luke 8 does speak to this issue or not.

Why does your view make sense to you? If one of the Apostles secretly travelled through time, and joined the board and responded to you --- would you believe him?

Yes, because he would be speaking the same truth I am.

Alas --- it is not my job to convince you. My job, is to love you.

And it is because I love you in Christ that I continue to confront your errors, Ben. It would be unloving of me to remain silent and allow you to continue to be deceived and promote such deceptions.

holdon · Mar 6, 2006

frumanchu said:
Even if you are 100% correct about Titus 3 showing that faith brings regeneration and not vice versa, it still doesn't change the fact that you are arguing from silence in the two verses above.

I would like to know what "noise" brings you to argue to the contrary namely: "that regeneration brings faith"?

Athanasian Creed · Mar 6, 2006

frumanchu said:
...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...

"What takes the greater power (omnipotence): to create beings who have no ability to choose - who are mere pawns on God's cosmic chessboard - or to create beings who have the freedom to accept or reject God's salvation? I submit the latter...Would a God who ordained the existence of immortal beings without making any provision for them to escape eternal torment be a cruel Being? What kind of God would call on mankind to "believe and be saved" when He knows they cannot (and) what kind of relationship is there between God and people who could never choose Him - but are 'irresistably' called...? For these and other reasons I question the idea that individual unconditional election and five-point Calvinism best reflect the attributes of God. A God who sovereignly offers salvation to all through His elect Saviour reflects both power and love."
- Philip F. Congdon, "Soterilogical Implications of Five-Point Calvinism", 8:15, pp. 56-57

Ray

P.S. Ben's just like the 'Energizer Bunny' - "takes a lickin' but keeps on tickin'" Good job bro!

Athanasian Creed · Mar 6, 2006

Ben johnson said:
...
Let us agree to disagree, and work on teaching the world the reality of Jesus. His unconditional love...

Alas, dear brother, with a Calvinist this is an impossibility. Christ, to a Calvinist, hath not "unconditional" love. He loves only His elect and hates those He has reprobated. Or, to soften the blow of such a horrid thought, they will say He loves those He has arbitrarily predestined to hell with a "different kind of love" (John MacArthur) then the love He shows the few He has predestined to eternal bliss, "irresistably" so since they are only pawns on a chess board, to move and control for His "good pleasure"!! But, as a non-Calvinist, i'll gladly join you in proclaiming God's love for all, that Christ died for all and that salvation is freely available to the "whosoever will" come, believe and receive Christ's abundant and all-sufficient mercy and grace!

Ben johnson said:
...His plans for our great futures...

Unless of course, according to Calvinistic theology , you not be within the safety net known as the "elect" Then your future will hardly be great! Makes me wonder how Calvinists know they are part of God's elect since Calvin taught that God deliberately deceived some of those He has reprobated to believe and imagine themselves saved when, in fact, that was not the case -

"Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them...Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of His goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption...Still...the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment...He only gives them a manifestation of His present mercy. In the elect alone He implants the living root of faith, so that they perservere even to the end."
- John Calvin, "Institutes", III: ii, 11-12

So, even according to Calvin, perservering unto the end is conditional to salvation. The Calvinist can't have assurance of salvation since he hasn't yet "endured unto the end." Even Calvin (and other Calvinists) have expressed doubts as to whether they were indeed within the elect!

Ray

Ben johnson · Mar 6, 2006

Fru said:
That's your prerogative. I'm content with the fact that you at least admitted you don't really believe in "Total Depravity" (except when you redefine the term to mean something other than the normal definition).

If definitions must constrain to CALVINISTIC understandings, then of course those Scriptures (as you have defined them) will support Calvinism.

Total depravity is the view that man is totally depraved; incapable of righteousness by himself, worthy only of going to Hell.

We disagree on one simple view --- you think "TD man cannot believe at ALL". More to the point, you think that "believing would be something good he DOES, and he CANNOT do ANYTHING good because he's depraved".

While I see that "believing" is not something good that we DO, it is RECEIVING the good that Jesus DID.

And your view simply does not accommodate the Scriptural truth of those who DID believe (even if only for a while).

Ben, this is not about Titus 3.

Titus3:5 is virtually the only appearance of "regeneration" in the NT. So it's valid to be cited when speaking of "regeneration".

Even if you are 100% correct about Titus 3 showing that faith brings regeneration and not vice versa...

Thank you for considering the possibility.

And I have NEVER ONCE said that this verse necessarily contains a universal dictate. I've simply shown that this verse proves irrefutably the principle that departure is a manifestation of not ever having genuine faith, and you have repeatedly argued against that principle.

SPEAKING of "arguing from silence" --- there is no verse that says, implies, or conveys that "leaving exposes NEVER-HAVING genuine faith".

And I've always rejected it because the verse does not say that those antichrists were ever "of" us.

Hmmm; you have the same view of 2Jn1, as you do of 2Pet2?

See if I remember this correctly; in 2Pet2, are "false teachers and false prophets"; they NEVER cease from sin, pursue adultery and carouse ALL DAY, they are SLAVES to corruption (etcetera). But you think these very degenerates are the ones that Peter says "escaped defilements through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus" (though you contend it's SUPERFICIAL knowledge).

So --- in 2Jn, the ANTICHRISTS/DECEIVERS, seek to entice the TRUE (exactly like 2Pet2:18 says); we are to WATCH ourselves that deceivers not STEAL HEAVENLY REWARDS. (For) all antichrists/deceivers who GO TOO FAR and DO NOT ABIDE in the teachings of Christ, have not GOD....."

How can antichrists/deceivers GO too far and NOT abide --- if they were ALWAYS too far and NEVER abided? Why would John write it thus?

2. That I have repeatedly explained how warnings and admonitions are the instrumental means through which God preserves people in their faith

So then --- what purpose to REBUKES serve, to those who WILL not believe? Jn5:39-47, Matt11:21-24, etcetera...

One does not REBUKE, he whom God has PREDESTINED. And one does not WASTE rebukes on he whom God has CONDEMNED.

I am confident because I understand that the term "bretheren" addresses people according to their profession of faith. Not all who profess faith actually possess it.

You cannot convince me because your arguments are devoid of sound reason and hermaneutics, Ben.

The problem is that your discerned DEFINITION (between "saved" and "only-PROFESSING"), changes at will; wherever necessary to support "predestionation".

Quit muddying the waters. My objection is to you projecting the issue of "tilling the soil" from Heb 6 (which as I said is an inductive argument at best) back upon Luke 8. I'm not objecting to the "good soil/bad soil" distinction, but rather these speculations as to whether there was anything having to do with how the soil was tilled.

The two passages, connect. Ground. Tilled. Fruit. Good-fruit-perseverance (blessing); bad-fruit-fall (curse).

Strange that you would continue to argue this point after ostensibly admitting that this passage doesn't really speak to EITHER position.

It speaks clearly to me that the BEGINNING faith for both, was the same. Seems clear to me that the FRUIT determined "good" or "bad" soil, not vice-versa.

First John 2:19 presents a clear and irrefutable example of principle 1.

Example doth not set policy.

I submit that there are no such examples of principle 2.

Heb6:4-6. James 5:19-20. 2Pet1:9 (and associated warning, 5-10). 2Pet2:20-22. Etcetera.

This is simply too funny coming from the person who advocates precisely such a subject change in 2 Peter 2.

Huh??? THere is no subject change in 2Pet2. Verse 1-17 speaks about the FALSE. Verse 18 says "the FALSE seek to entice the TRUE (back into sensualities and sinful things)." So verse 20 is IDENTICAL to verse 18 --- direct connection. It is CALVINISM that asserts the "disconnect", saying that the "horribly corrupt committed-to-sin ESCAPE defilements (and THROUGH the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus CHrist!)".

They will go to Hell on the basis of their sinfulness. God's sovereignty over the salvation of men does not preclude their responsibility for their sin.

Responsibility??? Could they choose, anything ELSE?

How is God "JUST", for burning those who COULD not avoid it?

OK, Ben. What happened at Pentecost in Acts 2? The Holy Spirit came and indwelled believers, and the visible outward result of that was speaking in tongues and the like. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is NOT THE SAME as regeneration. They are two distinct principles. If they were the same, then nobody before Acts 2 was born again.

Sorry, Fru; that's just flat wrong. Peter said: "RECEIVED the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE DID..."

There is NO reason to think that "ekcheo" in Acts10:45, does not mean EXACTLY the SAME thing in Titus3:5-6.

"Poured", is "poured". "Received", is "received".

I can't believe you would be this careless with Scripture, Ben.

As you are so fond of stating (and I certainly mean no disrespect to you), "pot. kettle. black." It is CARELESS, to deny that regeneration is from the RECEIVED Spirit.

Scripture asserts nothing else.

I find it curious that you would state this...and then proceed to continue arguing.

Yeah, well --- some statements cry for response. But it's clear we'll never get anywhere...

You are free to believe what you want. Plain reason and sound hermaneutics say otherwise...

"Reason" and "sound-hermeneutics", AS DEFINED by Calvinistic "experts". Are your experts credible?

And again, I find this incredibly humorous after you spent a great deal tof time defending the notion that Peter changes subjects in 2 Peter 2.

There's no "subject change". He spends much time describing just how ROTTEN the false teachers/prophets are; in verse 18 he says "THEY (false) seek to entice (deceive) the TRUE". It would be YOUR view that asserts a subject-change, to DENY that verse 20 SPEAKS of the "true".

...and it's a serious breech that YOUR view asserts "the FALSE, achieve an ESCAPE from defilements (even though they're SLAVES of corruption, and NEVER cease from sin, and spend all DAY carousing and adulterating) --- and they ACHIEVE it through epignosis-knowledge of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus Christ".

...and (again, with respect) --- you speak to me of "plain reason and sound hermeneutics"....

Edial · Mar 6, 2006

Ben johnson said:
I do not accept anything of the "Reformed Position" --- 'cause it goes against Scripture.
...

No Ben. You should not say that.

Reformed position is having significant problems at least due to the fact that it is too complex.
The followers of it cannot handle such complexities and are often forced to quote each other and to encourage the leaders such as frumanchu to go on.
This complexity forces them into the "uncharted waters" without specific verses. A dangerous place to be without the "compass".

But they do love God.

There are many among them whom Christ saved.
He does love them. And that should be considered and meditated upon in private.

Reformed position glorifies God in their own way.
They present that God is sovereign, yet they use an ax to prove it.

Yet when God created Adam he did not lump him out of clay, but sculpted him with gentleness and care.

He used a chisel to make a man.

Yet we fight with axes to take a speck out of man's eye.

I accept the Reformed position, yet refuse their methodology of building a doctrine.
They use tools with which it is not possible to hone.

Calvinism must be "Reformed", not destroyed.

Thanks,
Ed

Ben johnson · Mar 6, 2006

But they do love God.

There are many among them whom Christ saved.
He does love them. And that should be considered and meditated upon in private.

I understand that, Ed; and appreciate the rebuke --- because if anyone had ever thought I was saying differently, then my sincere apologies.

The discussion on OSAS is important to me, because it cuts to the very bedrock of our Gospel. Did Jesus died so that all who WOULD believe might be saved? Or did He die only to DEMONSTRATE what God had previously CHOSEN (the FEW!)?

You and I embrace "unlimited atonement". We agree that there is a highly complex framework of verses and carefully proposed meanings that form the structure of Calvinism. Yet, you and I differ on "perseverance".

The entire Scripture is viewed by Calvinists, from the SEAT of the theology --- thus when Heb3:12-14 speaks of "BROTHER becoming deceived by sin to falling away from the living God", the theology imposes a different meaning on the word "brother" --- "why, they couldn't have been REALLY saved, else they could not have FALLEN."

It imposes understandings such as "false-teachers/prophets ESCAPING DEFILEMENTS" in 2Pet2; even though the FALSE, is laboriously described as "NEVER-cease-sin", "slaves-to-corruption", "eyes-full-of-adultery", "carouse-all-day" --- they are as wicked as POSSIBLE. But then (per Calvinism), Peter somehow proposes that these unflinching degenerates somehow adopt a FORM of Christ-likeness, and ESCAPE defilements (though in their HEARTS they REMAIN corrupt!).

...which begs the question --- if they STAY corrupt in their hearts, why is it better to have never (superficially) KNOWN the way of righteousness, than to have turned away FROM it?

So --- "brethren" doesn't mean "SAVED-brethren" in Heb3:12.

"Escaped-defilements through the true-knowledge-Lord-&-Savior-Jesus", isn't REALLY saved in 2Pet2:20.

"KNOWN the way of righteousness and turned away FROM it", isn't REALLY "known" OR "turned"
(their hearts were ALWAYS "turned-away")

So it goes, throughout Scripture; re-definitions and complex understandings to cling to "GOD elects FEW". Dismissal of how such "partiality" breaks verses like Acts10:34-35, opposes God rewarding faith with eternal life, and denies the essence of "justness".

Does it matter? At times, no; we (you, Fru, and I) can agree on "salvation being by grace through faith, unearned, unmeritted; requiring the INDWELLING of the Son AND the Spirit; demanding CHANGE --- His righteousness THROUGH us.

In that sense it doesn't matter at all.

In the sense of how we LIVE, and CONTINUE, it matters greatly.

If faith and endurance and perseverance is charged to US, if our own diligence in Christ is REQUIRED of us then it's a highly important discussion.

We lose family, every day. Members here at CF, have gone elsewhere and bragged about their "deconversion". The future, for them, is black. They have bought into the darkness; they have "embraced deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons".

Jesus will return. WE will be "caught up into the clouds to be with our Lord".

...and they will be left behind...

So we both debate that all reading LEARN Scripture, and mature; and we seek to "have mercy on those who are doubting; save others, snatching them from the VERY FLAMES"! (Jude23 --- notice how nicely that compliments Matt23? If the Pharisees can PREVENT someone from being saved [by deceit], then we can PREVENT someone from falling into Hell [with the TRUTH!])

If in the end our discussions result in no conclusion, let them at least result in driving all deeper into the Word, and closer to God's heart.

cygnusx1 · Mar 7, 2006

holdon said:
I would like to know what "noise" brings you to argue to the contrary namely: "that regeneration brings faith"?

An unspiritual man (unregenerate) is at war with God , many do profess 'a faith' .... 'a repentance' but have niether genuine faith (see James) nor genuine repentance (see Simon the magician)

Ben johnson · Mar 7, 2006

An unspiritual man (unregenerate) is at war with God , many do profess 'a faith' .... 'a repentance' but have niether genuine faith (see James) nor genuine repentance (see Simon the magician)

Help me understand, how someone who is at WAR with God, whose unregenerated heart can only HATE God, is inclined in any measure towards any belief or repentance?

Those in Luke8:13 --- "received the Gospel with JOY, and BELIEVED". How does that fit "at war with God", and "they hate God"?

If belief WAS a "personal choice", then it would make perfect sense; one COULD recognize Jesus AS "Messiah" --- and START to believe --- but stubbornly CLING to rags of sinfulness. (Or by temptation RETURN to filthy rags!) So it would be choice to fully believe and commit to Him, OR to stop short of "full faith and perseverance". (Those in verse 18 are lauded FOR their "holding fast and bearing fruit with perseverance.")

I mean, look at the parable in Matt22:2-14. There was a man who BELIEVED the invitation, and came; but he had some cherished abominations in his heart that he just wasn't willing to give up.

If "predestination" was the theme, I can't see such a man coming to the "wedding-feast-HEAVEN", at all. Don't their hearts hafta be regenerated (clean-clothing), FIRST, before they can come?

He CAME.
He was NOT regenerated (still wore his dirty clothes)
So he BELIEVED, but refused to believe COMPLETELY.
The king did NOT choose anyone who came --- THEY chose themselves.
The king did NOT choose one man's filthy-clothes FOR him.
The king condemned those who REFUSED the invitation.
The king condemned the came-but-FILTHY-man, the SAME.
"Many called but few chosen", conveys "chosenness" for those who FULLY came (came & clothes)
Each had the choice; no one was chosen by the KING.

It's exactly the same as in Ezk11:18-21; God changes their hearts, and then they BELONG to Him. But they had to turn from abominations and towards God, FIRST. And a FEW, remained inclined towards abominations (the man at the feast with dirty clothes), and God CONDEMNS such a choice.

See how it fits "Responsible Grace", perfectly? And "predestination", not-at-all?

frumanchu · Mar 7, 2006

Ben johnson said:
Titus3:5 is virtually the only appearance of "regeneration" in the NT. So it's valid to be cited when speaking of "regeneration".

Please do not take what I say out of its context, Ben. You are using your view of Titus 3 to excuse your argument from silence in Romans 6 and 10. It is no excuse.

Thank you for considering the possibility.

Thank you for missing the point...

SPEAKING of "arguing from silence" --- there is no verse that says, implies, or conveys that "leaving exposes NEVER-HAVING genuine faith".

Example doth not set policy.

Normally I respond to your comments sequentially, but I had to bring that second one up here to demonstrate how you can contradict yourself within the same post.

On the one hand, you say that there is "no verse that says, implies, or conveys" that departure manifests a lack of every having genuine faith. On the other hand, when I provide 1 John 2:19 as saying exactly that, you say it's an example but not a "policy."

Make up your mind, Ben. Does 1 John 2:19 clearly say that the departure of the false teachers showed by their departure that they were with us but never of us, or not?

How can antichrists/deceivers GO too far and NOT abide --- if they were ALWAYS too far and NEVER abided? Why would John write it thus?

I don't understand why you cannot comprehend a person who despite not being true believers for a time teach truth and appear righteous outwardly (even while being corrupt inwardly) only to eventually begin teaching false doctrines and going beyond the truth, no longer outwardly abiding in His teachings. It happens all the time!

So then --- what purpose to REBUKES serve, to those who WILL not believe? Jn5:39-47, Matt11:21-24, etcetera...

One does not REBUKE, he whom God has PREDESTINED. And one does not WASTE rebukes on he whom God has CONDEMNED.

Your underlying presumption is that a rebuke is only valid or worthwhile if it's primary intent is to correct and restore. It's like saying there is no point in telling someone they're wrong unless the primary intent is to get them to be correct. That's a philosophical presumption on your part.

The problem is that your discerned DEFINITION (between "saved" and "only-PROFESSING"), changes at will; wherever necessary to support "predestionation".

No, the definition remains the same. Whether they are saved or only professing cannot be sufficiently derived by the mere presence of the word "bretheren" (which is what you've been arguing).

The two passages, connect. Ground. Tilled. Fruit. Good-fruit-perseverance (blessing); bad-fruit-fall (curse).

Their connection only goes so far as the employment of the same metaphor. They are further connected in your theology by the employment of the same eisegetical argument as to what caused them to produce the fruit they did in the first place.

It speaks clearly to me that the BEGINNING faith for both, was the same. Seems clear to me that the FRUIT determined "good" or "bad" soil, not vice-versa.

Again, you need to make up your mind whether you are going to claim Luke 8 definitively proves lost salvation (and that you weren't really serious earlier when you indicated otherwise) or not.

Incidently, that last statement only further highlights how ridiculous your position is. As any farmer could tell you, the quality of the fruit shows forth the quality of the soil. The soil does not attain the quality after the fact. IF I were trying to force Luke 8 to support monergism, that's the argument I woud use. But I recognize that thi parable is not meant to speak to that issue and does not definitively speak to either side. For a brief moment it seemed you finally did too.

Heb6:4-6. James 5:19-20. 2Pet1:9 (and associated warning, 5-10). 2Pet2:20-22. Etcetera.

There are no specific people indicated in those verses. They are all presented as hypothecial situations. I know you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that a hypothetical is only valid or worthwhile if it actually comes to pass, but again that is your philosophical presupposition being projected for convenience's sake.

Huh??? THere is no subject change in 2Pet2. Verse 1-17 speaks about the FALSE. Verse 18 says "the FALSE seek to entice the TRUE (back into sensualities and sinful things)." So verse 20 is IDENTICAL to verse 18 --- direct connection. It is CALVINISM that asserts the "disconnect", saying that the "horribly corrupt committed-to-sin ESCAPE defilements (and THROUGH the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus CHrist!)".

You've asserted that despite the fact that Ch2 is clearly focused on the false teachers, the subject suddenly changes in v20 to the true believers.

Responsibility??? Could they choose, anything ELSE?

No, because they are unwilling to.

How is God "JUST", for burning those who COULD not avoid it?

They could not because they were not willing to.

Sorry, Fru; that's just flat wrong. Peter said: "RECEIVED the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE DID..."

There is NO reason to think that "ekcheo" in Acts10:45, does not mean EXACTLY the SAME thing in Titus3:5-6.

"Poured", is "poured". "Received", is "received".

44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47"Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" -Acts 10:44-47 (ESV)

They were amased because the "gift of the Holy Spirit" was poured out even on the Gentiles. They heard them speaking in tongues, and Peter responded that they clearly were receiving the Holy Spirit "just as we have."

This is BY FAR the most blatant an eggregious example of you manipulating Scripture and completely discarding its context that I have ever seen. Peter is clearly and undeniably referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, yet you are FORCING regeneration upon it.

The hilarious part is that even if Peter were referring to regeneration, it STILL would not change the fact that the context of his statement that "God is no respector of persons" has to do with the expansion of God's covenant community beyond nationl Israel to all other nations.

Honestly, Ben. Such blatant misuse of Scripture is truly disturbing and disheartening.

"Reason" and "sound-hermeneutics", AS DEFINED by Calvinistic "experts". Are your experts credible?

LOL! It doesn't matter who I cite as a reference, Ben. You'll simply dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with you. Your Luke 8 argument clearly demonstrated that.

I've not appealed to Calvinist experts for my arguments from reason and hermaneutics. I've simply laid them foth plainly. Reason is reason. You cannot redefine logic and have it still be valid. The fact that you would make such a statement belies the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to either one.

There's no "subject change". He spends much time describing just how ROTTEN the false teachers/prophets are; in verse 18 he says "THEY (false) seek to entice (deceive) the TRUE". It would be YOUR view that asserts a subject-change, to DENY that verse 20 SPEAKS of the "true".

Oh, brother. I had to read this several times just to make sure I wasn't misreading it. You are actually stating that I am the one asserting a subject change by denying that the subject changes between vv1-18 and vv19-22? I am asserting a subject change by denying that there is one?!?

...and (again, with respect) --- you speak to me of "plain reason and sound hermeneutics"....

Yes. Yes I do. And I realize now that I'm not even speaking your language, Ben.

cygnusx1 · Mar 7, 2006

Ben johnson said:
Help me understand, how someone who is at WAR with God, whose unregenerated heart can only HATE God, is inclined in any measure towards any belief or repentance?

I answer God may for reasons hidden from us (I have my suspicions why it is so ) subdue and make willing even reprobates who are inwardly unchanged who during temptation and trial expose their true allegiance (to sin and death) and who forsake the truth .

Consider carefully the words of the Apostle Peter after Simon the magician had been so called "saved" ...........

"But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity,[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]" Acts 8:20-23.[/FONT]

this was said to a man who believed and was baptised!!!!!

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
notice with what care the Holy Spirit has left on record :
[/FONT]

Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded. v13

If God can subdue fallen spirits (demons) and command them and they obey can He not also subdue fallen humans ............ both of whom are at war with God!!

There is no limit or restrictions to God's Sovereignty.

holdon · Mar 7, 2006

cygnusx1 said:
An unspiritual man (unregenerate) is at war with God , many do profess 'a faith' .... 'a repentance' but have niether genuine faith (see James) nor genuine repentance (see Simon the magician)

But I wanted to see some proof "noise". Not another argument from silence....

Let me put it to you loud and clear:
Where does Scripture say that regeneration precedes faith?

Ben johnson · Mar 7, 2006

On the one hand, you say that there is "no verse that says, implies, or conveys" that departure manifests a lack of every having genuine faith. On the other hand, when I provide 1 John 2:19 as saying exactly that, you say it's an example but not a "policy."

Make up your mind, Ben. Does 1 John 2:19 clearly say that the departure of the false teachers showed by their departure that they were with us but never of us, or not?

You are trying to impose, "They never WERE 'of' us".

But it says, "they WERE not 'of'us; ....they went out in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

This idea fully accommodates the possibility, that they once WERE "true believers".

If a true believer, ceases to believe, he then BECOMES "not-of-us". And if all this happened some time in the past, then "he went out from us, in order that it might be shown that they were not really of us. But he once, WAS 'of us'."

The wording in the passage, "antichrists", might imply that they WERE "never-saved". But think about it --- if true apostasy is possible, then even a believer, can BECOME an 'antichrist'."

So your charge is moot....

I don't understand why you cannot comprehend a person who despite not being true believers for a time teach truth and appear righteous outwardly (even while being corrupt inwardly) only to eventually begin teaching false doctrines and going beyond the truth, no longer outwardly abiding in His teachings. It happens all the time!

Because of the context of the chapter, and context of the entire letter.

It does not follow that "escaped-defilements through the TRUE-knowledge ('epignosis') of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", is something only OUTWARD. Further, "better to have never KNOWN (epiginosko) the way of righteousness..." --- this strongly conveys "they KNEW it" (escaping through true belief in Jesus). THEN, "...than after KNOWNING, to have turned away FROM it".

The structure, including epistrepho-ek, solidly conveys "true spiritual turning away FROM (the way of righteousness)".

There is nothing in the context to convey "it was the FALSE, only escaping on the SURFACE."

A false-escaped (but still condemned), would not be better escaped-condemned than if he became re-entangled-CONDEMNED.

Condemned is condemned. One condemned position cannot be "better" than another condemned position.

Again, you need to make up your mind whether you are going to claim Luke 8 definitively proves lost salvation (and that you weren't really serious earlier when you indicated otherwise) or not.

It proves it to me. The only difference I see between 13 & 15, is that one held fast and PERSEVERED (see Heb3:14), while the other FELL (to persecution/affliction/temptation).

It reflects Romans1:17; "beginning faith, to ending faith".
It reflects Gal3:3; "begun in the Spirit, ending in the flesh".

Incidently, that last statement only further highlights how ridiculous your position is. As any farmer could tell you, the quality of the fruit shows forth the quality of the soil. The soil does not attain the quality after the fact. IF I were trying to force Luke 8 to support monergism, that's the argument I woud use. But I recognize that this parable is not meant to speak to that issue and does not definitively speak to either side. For a brief moment it seemed you finally did too.

It mirrors perfectly the parable in Matt22:2-14; the KING decided NOTHING (neither did the tiller-of-the-field); it was the GUESTS who decided to come (and to put on righteousness).

Guests-decided. Come (saved), or decline (perish).
Believers decided; persevere (and be CALLED "good soil"), or stumble (and be CALLED "bad soil")

The king decided nothing. The tiller decided nothing. Perfect harmony.

You've asserted that despite the fact that Ch2 is clearly focused on the false teachers, the subject suddenly changes in v20 to the true believers.

Actually it changes in verse eighteen.

The FALSE, seek to entice the TRULY-ESCAPED.
...for if after having ESCAPED, they are AGAIN entangled and overcome, better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness (escaped through belief in Jesus), than having known, to have turned away FROM it (become entangled).

Perfect context, flow, logic. No conflict.

Perfect context with ch1, "be all the more diligent about your calling and election (don't BE like the man who LACKS godly qualities and has FORGOTTEN former purification from sins!) --- as long as these qualities ARE yours, you will not stumble (become wretched); in THIS way the gates of Heaven will BE (abundantly) provided."

Perfect context with ch3: "Be diligent to be FOUND by Him spotless and blameless... ...be on your guard, lest, being CARRIED AWAY by the error of unprincipled men (enticed by the FALSE!), you fall from your own steadfastness (place in Christ!!!!!!!)..."

Harmony. Context. Logic. Flow. No problem...

This is BY FAR the most blatant an eggregious example of you manipulating Scripture and completely discarding its context that I have ever seen. Peter is clearly and undeniably referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, yet you are FORCING regeneration upon it.

Nope. Not saying "it's regeneration".

Saying "it's RECEIVING the Spirit".

Poured is poured. Received is received.

...problem is, that regeneration is then by the RECEIVED Spirit. And that places "BELIEF", rock-solidly forever BEFORE regeneration...

LOL! It doesn't matter who I cite as a reference, Ben. You'll simply dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with you.

You don't do that?

I don't "dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees"; I see their disagreement with Scripture.

Oh, brother. I had to read this several times just to make sure I wasn't misreading it. You are actually stating that I am the one asserting a subject change by denying that the subject changes between vv1-18 and vv19-22? I am asserting a subject change by denying that there is one?!?

The focus changes IN verse 18. "False", entice the "true".

"The false entice with sensuality and fleshly desires, those who TRULY ('barely' in some trnsltns) escaped... for if, after having ESCAPED the defilements of the world through the true-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled and overcome... better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness, than HAVING-KNOWN, to have turned away FROM it".

That's as Peter wrote it. Here is "as Fru understands it":
"The false entice with sensuality and fleshly desires, those who TRULY ('barely' in some trnsltns) escaped... for if, after those false-never-cease-from-sin (slaves to corruption, carouse and adulterate ALL DAY) --- have ESCAPED (outwardly) the defilements of the world through the true-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled and overcome... better to have never KNOWN (superficially, so they could OUTWARDLY-escape-defilements) the way of righteousness, than HAVING-KNOWN, to have turned away FROM it (but they only RETURNED to where their hearts always really WERE)".

I just don't find your understanding, credible, Fru.

cygnusx1 · Mar 8, 2006

holdon said:
But I wanted to see some proof "noise". Not another argument from silence....

Let me put it to you loud and clear:
Where does Scripture say that regeneration precedes faith?

"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husband's will, but born of God" (Jn 1:13) [author's emphasis]. And, again, as Paul says, "it depends not on him who wills or runs, but on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16).

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him (Phil 1:29).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created (Jm 1:18).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last" (Jn 15:16)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message (Acts 16:14).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Mat 11:27).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him" (Jn 17:2)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth(2 Tim 2:24-25)[/FONT]

Ben johnson · Mar 8, 2006

"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

"For by grace THROUGH FAITH have you been saved."

That's after belief...

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husband's will, but born of God" (Jn 1:13) [author's emphasis].

And that is "to as many as RECEIVED Him, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God ("born of God"!), even to those who BELIEVE on His name." Jn1:12

That's after belief.

And, again, as Paul says, "it depends not on him who wills or runs, but on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16).

"God has mercy on ALL". Rm11:32

"Israel did NOT attain the righteousness, because they did not pursue it by FAITH"/ Rm9:30 They did not BELIEVE.

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him (Phil 1:29).

"Didomi" --- granted to one ASKING (believing)...

He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created (Jm 1:18).

"Each is tempted when carried away and enticed by his OWN LUST; then lust concieved births sin, and sin brings THANATOS-DEATH-and-HELL. Do not be DECEIVED, beloved brethren." James1:14-16

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last" (Jn 15:16)

"I chose you TO BE (the twelve) APOSTLES." (Jn15:16)

"I chose ALL TWELVE of you, and ONE of you is a devil (one of you DID leave; are the REST of you going to leave just like HE left???)". Jn6:67-70

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message (Acts 16:14).

"Father --- those whom Thou hast given Me out of the world --- Thine they WERE (believed/worshipped Father!), and Thou gavest them to Me (given to Jesus THROUGH their belief)." Jn17:6

"If God were your Father (if you believed/loved Him), then you would love Me; for I proceded forth and come from the Father." Jn8:42

"If you believed MOSES' words, then you would believe ME. But if you do NOT believe Moses, HOW will you believe Me?" Jn5:46-47

"Lydia was a WORSHIPPER OF GOD, and (through that belief) her heart was opened to Jesus." Acts16:14-16

"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Mat 11:27).

"God's WILL (thelema-desire) is that all who see God AND BELIEVE, may have eternal life." Jn6:40

"For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him" (Jn 17:2)

All who are "given to Jesus", believed in God FIRST.

"Given", means "believe". None were given BEFORE belief.

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…(2 Tim 2:24-25)

"...and they may COME TO THEIR SENSES and escape from the snare of the devil..." 2Tim2:26

"God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent." Acts17:30

God grants repentance to those ASKING. "Come-to-their-senses", conveys "repent". God wants EVERYONE to repent. He wants EVERYONE to be saved (1Tim2:1-4). He does NOT "impose repentance on the hearts of those who have NOT believed".

Cygnus --- how is it that every verse you posted, does not support the position you thought it did? Usually just reading the CONTEXT showed the support of "Responsible Grace" instead of "Predestination"....

cygnusx1 · Mar 8, 2006

Ben johnson said:
Ben johnson said:

"For by grace THROUGH FAITH have you been saved."

Click to expand...

Ben johnson said:

That's after belief...

Click to expand...

fallacy number 1 ben .........

here is the correct order

Acts 18:27

When he had determined to pass over into Achaia, the brothers encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he had come, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; (WEB)

And when he was minded to pass over into Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him: and when he was come, he helped them much that had believed through grace; (ASV)

And when he had a desire to go over into Achaia, the brothers gave him help, and sent letters to the disciples requesting them to take him in among them: and when he had come, he gave much help to those who had faith through grace: (BBE)

And when he purposed to go into Achaia, the brethren wrote to the disciples engaging them to receive him, who, being come, contributed much to those who believed through grace. (DBY)

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: (KJV)

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he had come, helped them much who had believed through grace. (WBS)

Then, as he had made up his mind to cross over into Greece, the brethren wrote to the disciples in Corinth begging them to give him a kindly welcome. Upon his arrival he rendered valuable help to those who through grace had believed; (WEY)

and he being minded to go through into Achaia, the brethren wrote to the disciples, having exhorted them to receive him, who having come, did help them much who have believed through the grace, (YLT)

notice faith is the result not the cause of Grace !!!!

compare

Phillipians 1:29

Because it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer on his behalf, (WEB)

because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf: (ASV)

Because to you it has been given in the cause of Christ not only to have faith in him, but to undergo pain on his account: (BBE)

because to you has been given, as regards Christ, not only the believing on him but the suffering for him also, (DBY)

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; (KJV)

For to you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; (WBS)

For you have had the privilege granted you on behalf of Christ--not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer on His behalf; (WEY)

because to you it was granted, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also on behalf of him to suffer; (YLT)

Saving Faith is a gift of grace ............. clear as crystal!

this should not need arguing , but who is the author and finisher of our Faith ......
....... der who can it be , not us , it is yes , Jesus!

holdon · Mar 8, 2006

cygnusx1 said:
"...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

Doesn't say "regeneration first, then faith". Sorry, try again.

"born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husband's will, but born of God" (Jn 1:13) [author's emphasis].

See verse 12 when they are born: "but as many as received him, to them gave he ...." [/quote] And, again, as Paul says, "it depends not on him who wills or runs, but on God's mercy" (Rom 9:16).[/quote]It has nothing to do with running, but believing, receiving, repenting. Not on the basis of works (running) but on the basis of mercy and grace.

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him (Phil 1:29).

Where Christ is presented as the object of faith: "on Him". That object is God's gift. But where does it say here that "regeneration precedes faith"???

He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created (Jm 1:18).

But that's is contrary to "regeneration precedes faith", because it is clearly the word of truth that is the seed needing to be received, before the conception. (see the parallel with verse 15)

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last" (Jn 15:16)

What has this to do with "regeneration". Didn't He say: "I chose you twelve and one of you is a devil"?

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message (Acts 16:14).

Again, what has this to do with "regeneration"? Lydia was already a believer.

"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Mat 11:27).

Again, what has this to do with "regeneration before faith"? See the next verse:
"Come to me, all ye who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest."

"For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him" (Jn 17:2)

Ok, this is verse about "giving life (eternal). But it still doesn't say anything about "life preceding faith". And aren't all things given to Him. See your text in Mt 11:27. But look also at 17:12 "those thou hast given me ..., but the son of perdition" Judas was given to Him, but did not have eternal life..... So, the giving of the Father to the Son, does not necessarily imply eternal life....

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth(2 Tim 2:24-25)

So, how does this prove that "regeneration precedes faith"?? Isn't it clear that the "instructing" of such is the means to them acknowledging the truth. Isn't it faith in that truth that makes them repent? How can one repent (change his mind) if he is not presented with truth, and if he does not believe that truth?

"According to his own will begat he us by the word of truth"

frumanchu · Mar 8, 2006

Ben johnson said:
You are trying to impose, "They never WERE 'of' us".

But it says, "they WERE not 'of'us; ....they went out in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

This idea fully accommodates the possibility, that they once WERE "true believers".

If a true believer, ceases to believe, he then BECOMES "not-of-us". And if all this happened some time in the past, then "he went out from us, in order that it might be shown that they were not really of us. But he once, WAS 'of us'."

The wording in the passage, "antichrists", might imply that they WERE "never-saved". But think about it --- if true apostasy is possible, then even a believer, can BECOME an 'antichrist'."

So your charge is moot....

"IF they were of us THEN they would have continued with us."

NOT "If they are of us then they will continue with us."

Peter makes it EXPLICITLY CLEAR that they were never believers. Only blatant and eggregious exegesis says otherwise. It worries me that your conscience is not screaming at you for contorting and mangling the infallible and inspired Word of God the way you are, Ben.

Because of the context of the chapter, and context of the entire letter.

It does not follow that "escaped-defilements through the TRUE-knowledge ('epignosis') of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", is something only OUTWARD. Further, "better to have never KNOWN (epiginosko) the way of righteousness..." --- this strongly conveys "they KNEW it" (escaping through true belief in Jesus). THEN, "...than after KNOWNING, to have turned away FROM it".

The structure, including epistrepho-ek, solidly conveys "true spiritual turning away FROM (the way of righteousness)".

There is nothing in the context to convey "it was the FALSE, only escaping on the SURFACE."

A false-escaped (but still condemned), would not be better escaped-condemned than if he became re-entangled-CONDEMNED.

Condemned is condemned. One condemned position cannot be "better" than another condemned position.

I've already directly and specifically addressed every single one of those arguments. You're wrong. Period.

It proves it to me. The only difference I see between 13 & 15, is that one held fast and PERSEVERED (see Heb3:14), while the other FELL (to persecution/affliction/temptation).

Of course it proves it to you, because you have a vain human philosophy you're holding onto steadfastly against God's truth, and you're clearly bent on doing anything you can to force Scripture to support it, even when Scripture explicitly contradicts it.

I don't know how many time I have to state it. The passage DOES NOT SPEAK to the issue of WHY some persevere while others do not. You ASSUME your conclusion in order to prove it from the text.

Actually it changes in verse eighteen.

That's all that needs be said. You point the finger at me for advocating and abrupt subject chance when YOU are the person advocating one, not me. One would have to ASSUME your subject change in order to argue that I changed BACK to the original subject in v20.

Nope. Not saying "it's regeneration".

Saying "it's RECEIVING the Spirit".

Poured is poured. Received is received.

...problem is, that regeneration is then by the RECEIVED Spirit. And that places "BELIEF", rock-solidly forever BEFORE regeneration...

Still you evade. Still you force-fit your doctrine upon Acts 10. Nobody with any shred of Biblical knowledge would make the argument you are making.

You don't do that?

I don't "dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees"; I see their disagreement with Scripture.

Ben, you have clearly demonstrated you have no grasp whatsoever of Scripture or basic logic.

The focus changes IN verse 18. "False", entice the "true".

"The false entice with sensuality and fleshly desires, those who TRULY ('barely' in some trnsltns) escaped... for if, after having ESCAPED the defilements of the world through the true-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled and overcome... better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness, than HAVING-KNOWN, to have turned away FROM it".

That's as Peter wrote it. Here is "as Fru understands it":
"The false entice with sensuality and fleshly desires, those who TRULY ('barely' in some trnsltns) escaped... for if, after those false-never-cease-from-sin (slaves to corruption, carouse and adulterate ALL DAY) --- have ESCAPED (outwardly) the defilements of the world through the true-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled and overcome... better to have never KNOWN (superficially, so they could OUTWARDLY-escape-defilements) the way of righteousness, than HAVING-KNOWN, to have turned away FROM it (but they only RETURNED to where their hearts always really WERE)".

I just don't find your understanding, credible, Fru.

That's because you're blinded by your own false teachings to what Scripture actually says. I continue to pray that you be healed of this blindness and that your false teachings not lead others astray from the truth.

Ben johnson · Mar 8, 2006

Cygnus said:
When he had determined to pass over into Achaia, the brothers encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he had come, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace;

"Believed through grace". Why do you think this contradicts what I've been sayin'?

Grace was Jesus-on-the-Cross.
Faith is when someone BELIEVES and RECEIVES His graceful gift.
Salvation is when someone BELIEVES.

Predestination asserts "salvation is God's choice, and THEN they believe".

Conflicts yours, doesn't conflict mine.

Phillipians 1:29

Because it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer on his behalf

Somehow this reads to you, as "IMPOSED belief"?

"Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, may hear of you that you are STANDING FIRM in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents --- which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you --- and that too, from God. For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me."

"Granted", is "charisomai" --- to give graciously, give freely, bestow

Connects with Eph1:5: "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ...which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved..."

So --- is BELIEVING predestined, or is JESUS predestined?

The "kind intention of His will", is clearly stated in verses like Jn6:40: "This is the WILL of God, that EVERYONE WHO sees Jesus and believes in Him, may have eternal life..."

So --- the "predestining-as-adoption", is "according to His will" --- it is to those who WILL believe.

"Granted to believe", is not "IMPOSED-belief" --- it is a BESTOWMENT (Jesus! The Beloved!!!) --- which can be RECEIVED, or REJECTED.

"To as many as RECEIVED Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God (adopted!), even to those who believe on His name." Jn1:12

I can understand why you think the verses imply "monergistic-granted-belief"; but it all comes back to sequence. Belief does NOT succeed adoption --- belief is CAUSAL towards adoption.

Jesus was bestowed; it was granted to us to believe, by virtue of Jesus dying on the Cross. THAT was the "grant". No one has their believing chosen FOR them.

"Bestowed on us in the Beloved" --- Jesus came to live, to die, and to live again. That is the bestowment. NOT "saving-faith".

John1:12 says that "believing/receiving Jesus, is CAUSAL to our adoption".
John1:13 says that adoption, is NOT of us, but OF GOD.
...yet it is still our choice to RECEIVE the "adoption-of-God"...

And --- it is up to us to CONTINUE in His adoption, or to LEAVE! The Prodigal Son left. So can we.

"It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as SONS. What son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are WITHOUT discipline, then you are illegitimate and NOT SONS. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND LIVE?" Heb12:7-9

The passage continues, admonishing us to submit to His discipline; and to strengthen OTHERS that THEY also submit. Verse 15 speaks of roots of bitterness, warning us to see that "no one FALLS SHORT of God's grace". Verse 25 warns us NOT to "refuse Him who warns from Heaven" --- else "WE shall NOT ESCAPE who turn away from Him!"

I see perfect harmony in all of these verses, Cygnus; adoption-as-sons is fully voluntary; CONTINUING as sons, involves SUBMITTING to His discipline (else we are NOT sons any more!). So it's not a "monergistic grant-instillment"; to the contrary, the only idea that fits all these together (and perfectly), is that JESUS is predestined, gracefully bestowed; and WHOEVER receives Him and believes Him, will be saved.

Cygnus --- can you make such harmony out of these verses, in a "predestinary" perspective? How can you?

this should not need arguing , but who is the author and finisher of our Faith ......
....... der who can it be , not us , it is yes , Jesus!

Do you really believe that we have no accountability? If Jesus monergistically AUTHORS and FINISHES our faith, then it is not WE who believe but Jesus who believes FOR us.

Instead, Heb12:2 simply says, "He is the ARCHEGOS (leader, prince) and TELEIOTES (chief example --- one who raises up in himself the MODEL) of faith".

Not "monergism", at all; but "responsibility".

Can you deny any of this?

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

Legend

God's justice does not demand second chances

Well-Known Member

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus !!!

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

God's justice does not demand second chances

Jacob the twister.....

Well-Known Member

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Legend

Jacob the twister.....

Well-Known Member

God's justice does not demand second chances

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency