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

[Ben johnson]

So you are not willing to think about what makes a man a seeker, beyond giving the stock answer - "Oh, it's free-will"?

That is where we disagree, Ben - and that is where you have yet to produce a satisfactory answer.

Peter --- first, thank you for your continued participation, and continued patience.

Jesus said, "They WERE entering in". I have no reason to doubt what He said.

He berated three cities for NOT believing; saying that "even horrible SODOM would have believed". He's clearly speaking of choice.

He said (Jn8:42), "If God was your Father (a free choice), then you would love Me." Meshes perfectly with Jn17:6, "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me."

He said, "You think the Scriptures will give you eternal life; but they speak of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life. HOW can you believe, when you seek man's glory rather than God's? IF you BELIEVED Moses' words, then you would believe MINE.

1. Unwilling
2. Willful unbelief
3. Voluntary seeking own glory and not God's.
4. Denial of Jesus the same as refusing to believe Moses --- NOT "because unchosen"

...yet you see all this, as CONSEQUENCE of "unelection" (and then speak of "no excuse"? If they could ONLY be saved by God's monergistic election, then they have the ultimate excuse! "God! It was YOUR DECISION!")

Paul, in Rom2:6-8, casts salvation completely as consequential to choice: "To those who by doing good seek for glory (God's!) and honor and immortality, ETERNAL LIFE; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, WRATH (Hell)."

Your main point seems to be "If election was true, why would Jesus have said this or that?" What that really means is "I do not understand why, if election is true, Jesus would have said this or that" - and that is simply confessing your lack of understanding rather than forming any serious arguments.

I understand very clearly Jesus saying "They WERE entering IN to salvation".

And Him saying, "You think you have salvation; but you REFUSE to come to Me that you may have life." Jn5:39-40

And Him saying, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My burden is easy, and My load is light..." Matt11:28-30

And you are confused because you still have not recognised the difference between God's revealed will and God's secret will. And because you do not understand this difference, you seem to find it easier to imply that we 'Calvinists' (who apparently 'accuse others of twisting scripture' - talk about sweeping generalisations!) simply refuse to recognise the 'obvious meaning' of scripture than to think too deeply about these things.

"Secret" will? God has only two wills; "decree" (boulema), and "desire" (thelema). God decrees NO one to perish (2Pet3:9). God DESIRES that ALL who see Jesus and believe, may be saved (Jn6:40). God desires ALL to be saved (1Tim2:1-4). God commands ALL to repent (Lk17:30). God is impartial; all who do good and revere Him He welcomes (Acts10:34-35). ("Predestination" by definition means that God is PARTIAL --- He CHOOSES who will be saved)

He who believes is saved (Mk16:16); he who does NOT believe is condemned, BECAUSE he has not believed (Jn3:18, 1Jn5:10).

God is JUST, and justifier of he who BELIEVES (Rm3:26).

There is no "secret will of predestination", Peter --- because that would flat contradict Scripture.

People object the same objections about the law. "If man cannot love God by nature, then why would the first and greatest commandment be to love God? Obviously we must be able to love God, after all - or else God wouldn't have commanded us to do it!" In the same way that you imply Jesus was wasting words, they imply that God was wasting words by giving a law which He knew we couldn't fulfil.

Jesus was rebuking them for a REASON. It fits with "all should repent". It does not fit with "some are predestined".

The objection still stands. Unregenerate man hates God. Therefore he will not want to seek God. Therefore he will not seek God. He is completely - will and mind and body - under Satan's control. And until God breaks that bondage, unregenerate man will do satan's will.

Free-will is an illusion. The reason why I had rice crispies for breakfast and my wife had muesli is because I like rice crispies, she likes muesli. Why do I prefer rice crispies to muesli? Well it's a mixture of physical factors, mental factors, environmental factors, and so on.

Peter --- this is 100% fatalism. And it denies that man has a soul.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God; for he who COMES to God must believe that he IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him." Heb11:6

That is as opposed to predestination as can get. It denies "unilateral-gifted-saving-faith". It is speaking of salvation, "believing that God IS". And it places SEEKING as causal.

Do you not think that it is important to understand why people make certain decisions? I'm in the field of education, and I know that kids do not misbehave for no reason. They do not just randomly decide to be rude. Their decision to be rude is based on a million factors - their home-life, their friends, what they ate for lunch, the weather, etc etc. To take your ideas and simply say "These kids are misbehaving because of their free-will - therefore we just need to punish them enough, and they will change their mind and start behaving" would be, to say the least, extremely counterproductive. Understanding the root cause of peoples behaviour is key to understanding why people behave as they do.

With respect, Peter -- we don't hafta discuss "psychology". We have Scripture.

As for your frankly pathetic attempt to set up a strawman of what you think is Calvinistic thinking so that you can trample all over it, try this instead.

"Not only did YOU not enter in (because of your inate hatred to God) --- but you PREVENT (by deceiving others for your own gain) others who WERE entering (in that they came to you in order for you to fulfil your responsibility and lead them to God) --- from entering. (And I'm saying this to make it clear that you have no excuse for deliberately transgressing God's revealed will in this way)".

Jesus said "they WERE entering IN". You have a device to change that into "they were not REALLY entering."

On what grounds could you or I overturn Jesus' words?

The only understanding that makes sense, is: "Not only do YOU refuse to enter in, but you deceive others and hinder (cause-fall) those who WERE entering."

Two things are established in this passage:
1. Those being rebuked, freely chose NOT to be saved.
2. It is possible to deceive others FROM salvation.

Verse after verse after verse fits together in perfect harmony; so many warnings to "abide", to "watch ourselves against deceivers", to "not be deceived away from Christ" --- yet your prior-platform has changed all of them into "those who are TRULY saved cannot be REALLY deceived away from Christ". It takes understandings of "secret wills" and "hidden guaranteed fulfillment of conditionals" (like Heb3:14, Col1:23), and "subject-changes in the MIDDLE of one breath" (like 2Jn1:7 and 8), to continue with predestination.

Will you consider the possibility that Predestined-Election, really twists simple Scripture?

---------------------

What have we established thus far?

1. There aren't any verses in support of "regeneration-then-belief". Clearly, regeneration is through the RECEIVED Spirit, who was received through belief in Jesus. (To deny this, you must prove that "fell-upon" and "gifted" and "received" and "sealed" and "POURED" do NOT all refer to one event --- when a person RECEIVES the Spirit. OR you hafta prove that the Spirit is received BEFORE belief.

1b. Titus 3:5-6 plainly says "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit". Can you contend that "poured", is not "received"?

2. Each verse attempted to show that "man's heart must be changed before he CAN believe", is overturned in that understanding; it is BELIEF that receives Jesus and then washed-sanctified-justified. Every verse instead supports "turn-to-Him FIRST".

3. Jesus rebukes people over and over again for NOT believing; and those rebukes conveyed the sincere admonishment TO believe.


In addition, we can show that "true believers", can REFUSE God and BECOME illegitimate children. We can become deceived to fall away from God. We can be led astray to "thanatos" death and Hell. We can be deceived away from Jesus. It IS possible to "deceive the elect". What else could James have meant in 5:19-20?

"I know the plans I have for you, plans for prosperity and not adversity, to give you a future and a hope; then you will come to Me and pray to Me, and I will hear you; you will seek Me and you will FIND Me, when you search with all your heart; I WILL BE FOUND by you!" Jeremiah 29:11-14

That's Scripture, Peter. Seekers find.

Unrighteous men can turn to God and receive His righteousness; righteous men can turn from God and forfeit their eternity. See Ezk18.

God is sovereign; AND we are responsible.
God desires ALL to be saved ("let WHOSOEVER WILL take of the water of life FREELY!" Rev22:17)
God commands ALL to repent.
God is not partial --- he who does good and fears God is WELCOME

And "we are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." Heb3:14

"He has reconciled us to God through His flesh, in order to present us before God holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed we continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus-the-Hope". Col2:21-23

That's a real "if", not a fake "if" that God always meets.

 

[pcwilkins]

Peter --- first, thank you for your continued participation, and continued patience.

Ben, no problem. But this will be my last post, I think.

Jesus said, "They WERE entering in". I have no reason to doubt what He said.

I don't doubt what He said either. If they didn't enter, they weren't saved. The Pharisees are responsible, partially at least, for them not being saved, because they prevented them from entering. They were seeking salvation, and the Pharisees led them astray.

He berated three cities for NOT believing; saying that "even horrible SODOM would have believed". He's clearly speaking of choice.

Ben, I have never denied that believing is a choice. What I deny is that man makes irrational decisions. The choice to believe or not is not random. It is based on factors - just like every decision you or I ever make, including what to have for breakfast.

He said (Jn8:42), "If God was your Father (a free choice), then you would love Me." Meshes perfectly with Jn17:6, "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me."

I cannot see how we can choose for God to be our father. Adoption is God's work - He adopts us. We do not 'claim' Him. By nature we are the children of wrath!

He said, "You think the Scriptures will give you eternal life; but they speak of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life. HOW can you believe, when you seek man's glory rather than God's? IF you BELIEVED Moses' words, then you would believe MINE.

Ok, so we cannot believe, until we are willing to seek God's glory. Agreed. Now can you explain why an unregenerate, God-hating man would ever want to seek God's glory?

1. Unwilling
2. Willful unbelief
3. Voluntary seeking own glory and not God's.
4. Denial of Jesus the same as refusing to believe Moses --- NOT "because unchosen"

...yet you see all this, as CONSEQUENCE of "unelection"

No I don't! I see 'all this' as a result of the fall and of man's subsequent depravity! If you're not sure what I think then please ask.

(and then speak of "no excuse"? If they could ONLY be saved by God's monergistic election, then they have the ultimate excuse! "God! It was YOUR DECISION!")

No, Ben. You are misunderstanding. Man's responsibility is not dimished by his lack of ability.

Look at it again. We are responsible for our sins. We will be damned for those sins unless Christ has suffered for them.

God didn't have to save anyone! If he decided to damn us all, we still could not blame him - we would have to blame ourselves because it was us that sinned!

So those who are damned will not be able to blame God for the fact that they are 'not saved'. They are damned because of their sins. The fact that God didn't save them does not excuse those sins!

Paul, in Rom2:6-8, casts salvation completely as consequential to choice: "To those who by doing good seek for glory (God's!) and honor and immortality, ETERNAL LIFE; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, WRATH (Hell)."

Yes, Ben. Once again I don't disagree with Paul. My argument is that unregenerate man will never 'seek for Glory' by 'doing good' - He can't! He is unregenerate - he cannot do good!

He will always fall into the second category. He will always be selfishly ambitious. We see this all around us, Ben, and I see it inside me! Before conversion, man cares only about one thing - himself.

You almost seem to be implying that unregenerate man can seek God's glory by doing good! Do you really believe that unregenerate man can do good? If so, unregenerate is a meaningless term.

Do you see where I am coming from? The promise stands - seek and ye shall find. The problem lies in our unwillingness to seek!

I understand very clearly Jesus saying "They WERE entering IN to salvation".

Yes! We both know what Jesus said. But they never actually entered - were never actually saved - because they were prevented from entering by the Pharisees!

And Him saying, "You think you have salvation; but you REFUSE to come to Me that you may have life." Jn5:39-40

Yes! They must have been really stupid, to refuse, mustn't they? They must have been really stupid to turn away from the only way of salvation! I'm so glad I wasn't that stupid!

Seriously, Ben - why did they refuse? Because they saw no attraction in coming - they saw no reason to come! Why? Because they thought they didn't need Christ. Just like every other unregenerate man - they thought they could find their own way, make their own path to Heaven.

And Him saying, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My burden is easy, and My load is light..." Matt11:28-30

Yes! "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden...." Think about this, Ben, please! What makes a man weary? Is unregenerate man weary and heavy laden in a spiritual sense? No, he is content to carry on in his own way, seeking his own happiness. Thats where you and I were before we saw the emptiness of it all.

That invitation is extended only to those who are weary and heavy laden, and that is not the condition of every man and woman.

"Secret" will? God has only two wills; "decree" (boulema), and "desire" (thelema). God decrees NO one to perish (2Pet3:9).

You know the Calvinistic interpretation of that verse as well as I do.

God DESIRES that ALL who see Jesus and believe, may be saved (Jn6:40)

Yes! All who see Jesus and believe will be saved! God's desire will be fulfilled! The problem is that not everyone sees Jesus and believes!

God desires ALL to be saved (1Tim2:1-4).

Yes, in the same way that the Queen desires us all to pay our taxes.

God commands ALL to repent (Lk17:30).

Yes! God also commands ALL to believe, to be holy, to love God, to pray...but will unregenerate man do any of these? Nope!

God is impartial; all who do good and revere Him He welcomes (Acts10:34-35).

That counts out any unregenerate man then - because an unregenerate man will never "do good and revere" God.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, time and time again!

("Predestination" by definition means that God is PARTIAL --- He CHOOSES who will be saved)

God 'chooses who will be saved' whichever way you look at it. You say that God saves believers, not unbelievers. Doesn't that make Him partial, too?

Partial means "Favouring one person or side over another or others". I say He favours His people because He loves them - you say He favours them because they believe.

He who believes is saved (Mk16:16); he who does NOT believe is condemned, BECAUSE he has not believed (Jn3:18, 1Jn5:10).

Yes! Totally agree! He who believes IS saved! He who doesn't, is condemned! We agree on these things, Ben!

God is JUST, and justifier of he who BELIEVES (Rm3:26).

Again, totally agree! He is! And He does justify believers!

There is no "secret will of predestination", Peter --- because that would flat contradict Scripture.

You'll have to show where the contradiction is, I'm afraid.

Jesus was rebuking them for a REASON. It fits with "all should repent".

Yes, all should repent! But until converted, they won't!

All should also love God! But until converted, they won't!

All should also love their neighbour as themself! But until converted, they won't!

It does not fit with "some are predestined".

It doesn't support creationism either, so creationism must be false too, right?

Peter --- this is 100% fatalism. And it denies that man has a soul.

Classic tactic! If you can't argue with a point, simply stick a label on it and dismiss it!

"Without faith it is impossible to please God; for he who COMES to God must believe that he IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him." Heb11:6

Yes! He is a rewarder of those that seek Him! Again, 100% agreed, Ben!

That is as opposed to predestination as can get.

It has nothing to do with predestination. The verse does not discuss what makes a man a seeker - it merely promises that those that do seek will be rewarded.

It denies "unilateral-gifted-saving-faith". It is speaking of salvation, "believing that God IS".

You are wandering. We are discussing what makes a man a seeker, not where faith comes from. That is an entirely different discussion.

And it places SEEKING as causal

Seeking is causal! It causes finding - seek and (as a result of that seekeing) ye shall find! We both agree on that!

With respect, Peter -- we don't hafta discuss "psychology". We have Scripture.

With respect, Ben, this is simply admitting that you aren't willing to consider my points, and therefore you're simply labelling them and pushing them aside! Having scripture does not prevent the use of your brain.

****

The problem you have is that man is a rational creature. He thinks.

No decision that you or I ever make is random. It's based on circumstances and feelings.

What you cannot seem to produce is any factor - any real, solid, factor - that would tend to turn a man from a hater of God into a seeker of God. Answers like 'sentience' are just meaningless. Until you think about this point, we are just going to go round and round.

So here is the challenge. Can you produce a single solid factor which would tend to result in a man deciding to seek God?

I can think of many factors that would tend to result in a man deciding not to seek God - the predominant one being that unregenerate man hates God. In order for him to seek God, something needs to overcome that hatred - something needs to make him act against that hatred. Can you give us any clues as to what that 'something' might be?

The decision to have cornflakes for breakfast was a decision of my free-will. But it was a rational decision, based on my desires, my feelings, the circumstances - it was not based on the flip of a mental coin!

*****

Jesus said "they WERE entering IN". You have a device to change that into "they were not REALLY entering."

I don't. They were entering. I see that. But they did not enter - they were not saved.

On what grounds could you or I overturn Jesus' words?

I hope neither you nor I would ever want to do that.

The only understanding that makes sense, is: "Not only do YOU refuse to enter in, but you deceive others and hinder (cause-fall) those who WERE entering."

Ok...

Two things are established in this passage:
1. Those being rebuked, freely chose NOT to be saved.

Yes! It's a good job we weren't as stupid/wicked/deceived as they were, isn't it? Isn't it wonderful that we were intelligent/good/farsighted enough not to make that choice!

2. It is possible to deceive others FROM salvation.

That passage does not establish that at all. All it says is that the Pharisees hindered those that were entering.

Verse after verse after verse fits together in perfect harmony; so many warnings to "abide", to "watch ourselves against deceivers", to "not be deceived away from Christ" --- yet your prior-platform has changed all of them into "those who are TRULY saved cannot be REALLY deceived away from Christ". It takes understandings of "secret wills" and "hidden guaranteed fulfillment of conditionals" (like Heb3:14, Col1:23), and "subject-changes in the MIDDLE of one breath" (like 2Jn1:7 and 8), to continue with predestination.

It saddens me to see how determined you are not to think about this. By the way, would you enlighten me as to who you are quoting, there?

The basic problem still remains. Man will not seek a thing unless he sees an attraction in it. Unregenerate man hates God. We are not attracted to things that we hate. Hence unregenerate man will never feel an attraction to God.

"I know the plans I have for you, plans for prosperity and not adversity, to give you a future and a hope; then you will come to Me and pray to Me, and I will hear you; you will seek Me and you will FIND Me, when you search with all your heart; I WILL BE FOUND by you!" Jeremiah 29:11-14

That's Scripture, Peter. Seekers find.

Ben, it's really unfair of you to keep insinuating that I believe seekers don't find. I believe seekers do find! I have said that repeatedly. Anyone who read your post would think that I believe that seekers do not find. That is untrue and it is difficult to discuss with you when you consistently (I hope not intentionally) misrepresent me.

This passage does not support your view at all. You conveniently 'forgot' to include verse 10. Let me show you:

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive."

Yes, it was a decision of their 'free-will' to seek God - but God had already appointed/decreed that they would seek!

Just read it, Ben! "I will visit you...and then shall ye call upon me, and pray unto me, and seek me, and search for me!" No support for your view here, Ben! God actively went down to them to visit them, and then they sought Him! Just as He does today!

Peter

 

[holdon]

Unregenerate man hates God. We are not attracted to things that we hate. Hence unregenerate man will never feel an attraction to God.

And since unregenerate man can never become "regenerated" by himself, it is only God who can "regenerate" him. (only then can he seek, believe, repent, etc..) In the Calvinist system, this happens solely because of God's will, solely because of God doing it in some and not in others.

So, the others perish, because it is God's will not to save them. According to Calvinism that is....

Not according to the bible, where it says that God wants to save all, that none perish, etc...

Calvinism has created a system that holds God responsible for everything (also called His Sovereignty), because He causes everything, including that sin entered the world and that the lost are not saved....

So, we get this image: God creates everything. Then picks and chooses only some of those for a happy destiny. Then sends a corruption into the world causing everyone to be lost. Then only saves those He chose prior in order to bring them to their happy destiny.
Then He destroys the corrupted world and makes a new one. Then He introduces the lucky ones into that world.

Makes sense?

 

[pcwilkins]

Holdon, can't you address my points? We all already know you don't understand (or want to understand) Calvinism.

Unregenerate man hates God.

Agree or disagree?

We are not attracted to things that we hate.

Agree or disagree?

Hence unregenerate man will never feel an attraction to God.

Agree or disagree? Is this an illogical conclusion from my two prior statements? If so, in what way is it illogical? Or are my two prior statements incorrect? If so, in what way are they incorrect?

Peter

 

[holdon]

Holdon, why don't you address my points instead?



Agree or disagree?



Agree or disagree?



Agree or disagree? Is this an illogical conclusion from my two prior statements? If so, in what way is it illogical? Or are my two prior statements incorrect? If so, in what way are they incorrect?

Peter

Unregenerate man is "unregenerate" because he has not accepted Christ.

Jn 1:12 but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name;

 

[pcwilkins]

Unregenerate man is "unregenerate" because he has not accepted Christ.

I would prefer to say "because he has not received Christ" but OK, I agree.

Jn 1:12 but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name;

Jn 1:13 "...Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

They believed and received Him because they "were born". Because they had been born again. Because they were no longer unregenerate. Because God had opened their eyes to see their need of Christ, opened their ears to hear the Gospel not only in word but in power, and opened their hearts to receive that Gospel.

In other words, they were the 'good ground' in the parable. Not naturally good - no man is - but good as in prepared to receive the seed. God prepared them. Ground cannot prepare itself, right?

They received Christ because they wanted Christ. You received Christ because you wanted Him. The fact that you wanted Him proves that you saw an attraction in Him. The fact that you saw an attraction in Him proves that you were not unregenerate - because the unregenerate do not see any attraction in Christ.

You still have not addressed any of my points that you quoted in your "I don't understand Calvinism" post, so I'll post them again for you:

Unregenerate man hates God.

Agree or disagree?

We are not attracted to things that we hate.

Agree or disagree?

Hence unregenerate man will never feel an attraction to God.

Agree or disagree? Is this an illogical conclusion from my two prior statements? If so, in what way is it illogical? Or are my two prior statements incorrect? If so, in what way are they incorrect?

Peter

See, in order to disprove my argument here, you only need to do one of the following:

a) believe and prove that unregenerate man doesn't hate God (which in unscriptural),
b) believe and prove that it is possible for a man to want something that he hates (which is both unscriptural and illogical), or
c) believe and prove that it is possible for a man to seek something which he does not want (which again is both unscriptural and illogical).

Have another go.

Peter

 

[holdon]

I would prefer to say "because he has not received Christ" but OK, I agree.

I think "accepted" is better, because it is active. Like the word "they took palm branches" in Jn 12.

Jn 1:13 "...Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

They believed and received Him because they "were born".

Well, that's the point to prove isn't?

New birth happens as consequence of receiving the seed of the Word.
See James 1:18 "According to his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we should be a certain first-fruits of his creatures."
And 1 Peter 1:23 "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God."

 

[Outrider]

Outrider, I believe you have missed my intent. We do not "keep Law" to be saved; we keep Jesus, and He now is the Law.

Our difference --- is that you see "saving-faith", as something directed "God-toward-man"; while I see it as "man towards God". Instead of faith being a source of MERIT for salvation, it is instead complete SUBMISSION (surrender) to Him.

So --- if it is by faith we are saved, it is fully HIS power, HIS sacrifice. Look at Jn1:12-13; one might focus on vs13 and think that we have NOTHING to do with becoming saved; are we pawns, mere flotsam and jetsam in the currents of an absolute machinating God? Instead --- I see verse 13 as speaking of the BEGOTTENNESS --- it IS all of Him and NOTHING of us.

...but verse 12 cleary says that we BECOME begotten by "believing/receiving Jesus".

And that's all I'm saying.

BTW, I would sincerely like you to also respond to the previous post I made, to Peter...

Ben,

Our difference --- is that you see "saving-faith", as something directed "God-toward-man"; while I see it as "man towards God". Instead of faith being a source of MERIT for salvation, it is instead complete SUBMISSION (surrender) to Him.

Which, Ben, is something you do. And if salvation is man-towards-God through submission, then man submitting to God must be rewarded by God with salvation and THAT is merit. If you don't see it, you're blind. Period.

 

[Ben johnson]

I don't deny what He said either. What I deny was that the Pharisees were able to act in opposition to God's secret will. If they didn't enter, they weren't saved. The Pharisees are responsible, partially at least, for them not being saved, because they prevented them from entering.

Hi, Peter. I haven't read anywhere about a "secret will for SOME to be DECREED saved". Can you show me?

Ben, I have never denied that believing is a choice. What I deny is that man makes irrational decisions. The choice to believe or not is not random. It is based on factors - just like every decision you or I ever make, including what to have for breakfast.

Yet --- that very choice, you believe to "flow invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably FROM God's regeneration", right?

What did you think of my assessment of you believing in "fatalism"?

I cannot see how we can choose for God to be our father. Adoption is God's work - He adopts us. We do not 'claim' Him. By nature we are the children of wrath!

There are a variety of verses that seem to offer themselves. 1Cor1:18 says to me that "man can believe THROUGH the foolishness of the message" (belief would then change the message from "foolish" to "power"). In your doctrine, wouldn't "regeneration" by definition change the message BEFORE (and so that he CAN) believe?

In Hebrews 12, he seems to present a full choice: "SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND LIVE?" Context says "we received discipline; but if we are WITHOUT discipline, then we are illegitimate and NOT sons! Continue with the rest of the chapter; verse 25 warns us not to REFUSE God (turn away); saying: "Much less shall WE escape who turn away from Him who warns from Heaven!" I just can't see any way to ignore "turn-away", and "not-escape", and "do not refuse God". How can that not be speaking eternally?

John1:13 says that the "begottenness is ALL of Him and NONE of us"; but doesn't verse 12 place "believe/receive", as causal (to becoming adopted)?

Ok, so we cannot believe, until we are willing to seek God's glory. Agreed. Now can you explain why an unregenerate, God-hating man would ever want to seek God's glory?

There really isn't any answer from me that you'll accept, as long as you hold to that kind of "fatalism".

Personally, I am more than just the culmination of past events; I have a soul --- I have thought, I make choices. I have responsibility for those choices (and the consequences they BRING); and that seems to deny the idea of "only the product of chemical processes in my brain"....

No I don't! I see 'all this' as a result of the fall and of man's subsequent depravity! If you're not sure what I think then please ask.

I apologize for offending you. I did word that poorly; but it reflects my confusion over the idea of God condemning them FOR their sins, when they could NEVER choose anything ELSE....

So those who are damned will not be able to blame God for the fact that they are 'not saved'. They are damned because of their sins. The fact that God didn't save them does not excuse those sins!

Romans1 says "they are without excuse". At the judgment, men will say "I couldn't choose anything ELSE". How is that not the best excuse?

You almost seem to be implying that unregenerate man can seek God's glory by doing good! Do you really believe that unregenerate man can do good? If so, unregenerate is a meaningless term.

Do you see where I am coming from? The promise stands - seek and ye shall find. The problem lies in our unwillingness to seek!

What I respectfully think you fail to consider, is Jesus' effective call TO salvation. If Jn12:32 means what it seems to say (at face value), then Jesus draws ("helkuo-drags") ALL men to Himself. And that would be sufficient to overcome his depravity...

Yes! We both know what Jesus said. But they never actually entered - were never actually saved - because they were prevented from entering by the Pharisees!

If Jesus believed "predestination", why did He say those words? What was the point?

Yes! They must have been really stupid, to refuse, mustn't they? They must have been really stupid to turn away from the only way of salvation! I'm so glad I wasn't that stupid!

I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that calls them "stupid". But many verses speak of "deceived"....

Seriously, Ben - why did they refuse? Because they saw no attraction in coming - they saw no reason to come! Why? Because they thought they didn't need Christ. Just like every other unregenerate man - they thought they could find their own way, make their own path to Heaven.

A big question that remains separating us, is "why cannot NON-REGENERATED men be called to salvation, and BELIEVE?"

You know the Calvinistic interpretation of that verse as well as I do.

Yes I suppose I do. But I do not understand the sense of that interpretation.

"For God has not destined any of the ELECT to perish, but patiently waits for all of the ELECT to come to salvation".

Isn't that it?

1. Why would he state the obvious, "does-not-destine-ELECT-to-perish"?

The elect are by DEFINITION not destined to perish. Aren't they?

2. Why does He have to PATIENTLY WAIT for the elect to BE saved? Is He sovereign, or not?

My understanding reflects the Lexicon's definition of "boulemai" (doesn't decree any to perish), and "choreo" (makes room for ALL to come to repentance). Instead of seeing "special election" here, it seems more reflective of Acts17's "God commands ALL MEN to repent"...

I'm looking forward to reading your explanation of #1 and #2...

That counts out any unregenerate man then - because an unregenerate man will never do good and revere God.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, time and time again!

The one question that we need to settle between us (if we can), is sequence. Which comes first, regeneration, or belief? You say "regeneration"...

God 'chooses who will be saved' whichever way you look at it. You say that God saves believers, not unbelievers. Doesn't that make Him partial, too?

Partial means "Favouring one person or side over another or others". I say He favours His people because He loves them - you say He favours them because they believe.

Does He favor them because they believe? (My understanding.)

Or do they believe because He favors them? (Isn't that your understanding?)

Classic tactic! If you can't argue with a point, simply stick a label on it and dismiss it out of hand!

No, fatalism is what it is. "We are mere flotsam and jetsam in the cosmic flow; all that we are and do, are but the consequence of chemical reactions within our brains, and a long string of previous events; we can neither choose original courses for our paths, nor can we AVOID disasters...

I'm not understanding all of God's admonitions to FOLLOW Him, if our "following" is HIS determination...

It has nothing to do with predestination. The verse does not discuss what makes a man a seeker - it merely promises that those that do seek will be rewarded.

It says, "he who comes to God must believe that God IS..." Wouldn't that be a GIVEN, if he is "elected", that he WOULD "come to God"?

You are wandering. We are discussing what makes a man a seeker, not where faith comes from. That is an entirely different discussion.

No, it's the same discussion. "Sequence".

Is man regenerated, and THEN he seeks?
Or does He seek and believe, and THEN is regenerated?
Most Calvinists say that "saving-faith is a GIFT from God".
If that's true, then why say "He who COMES to God, must believe God IS"?
Wouldn't predestination turn that around, into: "whom God elects believes He IS, and then comes"?

So Ben, here is the challenge. Can you produce a single solid factor which tends to result in a man deciding to seek God?

When you say "tends", what do you mean? Do you mean, ABSOLUTELY? Or do you mean LIKELY?

Can you consider the possibility of God's call to salvation, being able to overcome man's depravity, so that he CAN choose? As I said, you hold a kind of "fatalism"; that man cannot make any choices --- so God makes it FOR him. Sinful man CANNOT chose God (ever), and those whom God elects ARE born again, therefore they WILL (always, 100%) choose Him. Is that accurate?

That passage does not establish that at all. All it says is that the Pharisees hindered those that were entering.

You've gotta decide, was "entering" possible for the hindered? Or did God not really INTEND for them TO enter? It reads to me as "they WERE entering, but the Pharisees did not allow them TO enter". They didn't use force; they used deception.

If "were entering" is real, then they WERE deceived from salvation.
If "were entering" is NOT real, then why did Jesus say it?

Yes! Take heed of those warnings, Ben! I need to watch against being deceived! I thank God for those warnings!

The problem with reading only print, is not knowing another's tone. Can we BE deceived, or not? If not --- then you were being sarcastic? If so --- then how can "deceived", still be "saved"?

The basic problem still remains. Man will not seek a thing unless he sees an attraction in it. Unregenerate man hates God. We are not attracted to things that we hate. Hence unregenerate man will never feel an attraction to God.

Unless he is sincerely called TO salvation.

Ben, it's really unfair of you to keep insinuating that I believe seekers don't find. I believe seekers do find! I have said that repeatedly.

It was a miscommunication of words. I'm only referring to sequence --- do men seek God and FIND Him, or does He find them and regenerate them, and THEN they seek Him?

Just read it, Ben! "I will visit you...and then shall ye call upon me, and pray unto me, and seek me, and search for me!" No support for your view here, Ben!

God actively went down to them to visit them, and then they sought Him! Just as He does today!

Not all of them turned to Him. Just like in Ezk11:18-21, most turned to Him away from abominations, and (then!) He gave them new hearts; but some remained in abominations...

 

[Ben johnson]

They believed and received Him because they "were born". Because they had been born again. Because they were no longer unregenerate. Because God had opened their eyes to see their need of Christ, opened their ears to hear the Gospel not only in word but in power, and opened their hearts to receive that Gospel.

This is a great place for a brief discussion on "sequence". Does "BORN AGAIN", come before belief? Or after?

The best discussion on "born again" is likely Romans6. He uses five terms interchangeably; "crucified", "died", "buried", "immersed" (nothing to do with water), "united". We are UNITED with Christ in His crucifixion. Our old selves were nailed right up there with Him; to live, we must first truly die (to sin).

THEN --- we are likewise united in Him in resurrection. "As God raised Him from the dead, so too shall we walk in newness of life".

...but look at the whole chapter, how "continuing IN Him and NOT in sin", is a constant choice.

Verse 17 says: "Though you were slaves to sin, you became obedient FROM THE HEART ...and became enslaved to righteousness" (enslaved to God, vs22).

How can this not connect with Rm10:10, "with the HEART man BELIEVES"?

Now --- I think we've discussed this before, but I don't remember if we've come to a conclusion. Five words:

"Fell" (Acts10:44, 11:15)
"Gifted" (Acts11:17)
"Received" (Acts10:47)
"Poured" (Acts10:45)
"Sealed" (Eph1:13)

Do these five words, all refer to ONE EVENT? The time when a person receives the Holy Spirit?

Eph1:13 says "AFTER belief".
Acts11:17 says "after believing".

What remains, is to decide if "regeneration" occurs in a person who has not yet RECEIVED the Spirit.

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds.... but by the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit, whom He POURED out upon us ...through our Savior Jesus". Titus3:5-6

Is there anything in the text to reject the idea of "poured-through-belief-in-Jesus"?

 

[pcwilkins]

Hi, Peter. I haven't read anywhere about a "secret will for SOME to be DECREED saved". Can you show me?

Romans 9:15 - "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"

Yet --- that very choice, you believe to "flow invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably FROM God's regeneration", right?

I believe that all whose eyes are opened, all who see their own sinfulness, and all who see Christ, will see an attraction in Him and therefore will believe, yes.

The reason they seek God is because they feel to need salvation.

What did you think of my assessment of you believing in "fatalism"?

Firstly, it reminded me of some of the less mature members of this forum who prefer to simply call each other names rather than think. Secondly it seemed to be a ploy to avoid answering my point. Thirdly it was a completely unjustified 'assessment' anyway, and not really an 'assessment' at all, just an insult.

There are a variety of verses that seem to offer themselves. 1Cor1:18 says to me that "man can believe THROUGH the foolishness of the message" (belief would then change the message from "foolish" to "power"). In your doctrine, wouldn't "regeneration" by definition change the message BEFORE (and so that he CAN) believe?

I believe that for a man to believe, the Gospel must come not only in word but in power. Regeneration doesn't change the message - it changes man's attitude to the message. Unregenerate man will reject the message because he doesn't feel to be a sinner. Regenerate man feels to be a sinner, and therefore needs salvation.

In Hebrews 12, he seems to present a full choice: "SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND LIVE?" Context says "we received discipline; but if we are WITHOUT discipline, then we are illegitimate and NOT sons! Continue with the rest of the chapter; verse 25 warns us not to REFUSE God (turn away); saying: "Much less shall WE escape who turn away from Him who warns from Heaven!" I just can't see any way to ignore "turn-away", and "not-escape", and "do not refuse God". How can that not be speaking eternally?

It is speaking eternally. If we turn away from God, if we refuse God, then we shall not escape.

This verse says that if we do not receive discipline, then we are not sons. Do you receive discipline? Then you are a Son.

This is what is spoken of in Psalm 89:31-33:

"If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail."

John1:13 says that the "begottenness is ALL of Him and NONE of us"; but doesn't verse 12 place "believe/receive", as causal (to becoming adopted)?

Ben, if beggottenness is all of Him, and believing is causal to becoming begotten, then believing is, by definition, "of Him"!

There really isn't any answer from me that you'll accept, as long as you hold to that kind of "fatalism".

Isn't that just a way of saying you don't know any answers?

Personally, I am more than just the culmination of past events; I have a soul --- I have thought, I make choices. I have responsibility for those choices (and the consequences they BRING); and that seems to deny the idea of "only the product of chemical processes in my brain"....

And the choices you make are rational choices, not 'free' or 'random'.

I apologize for offending you. I did word that poorly; but it reflects my confusion over the idea of God condemning them FOR their sins, when they could NEVER choose anything ELSE....

So now you are contending that man can choose not to sin?

Romans1 says "they are without excuse". At the judgment, men will say "I couldn't choose anything ELSE". How is that not the best excuse?

It doesn't matter whether they were able not to sin! The fact is that they sinned! They broke the law - the fact that they couldn't keep it is no excuse! The wages of sin is death, whether you sinned by choice, compulsion, or accident!

Romans 9:19 - "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Isn't that exactly what you're saying?

What I respectfully think you fail to consider, is Jesus' effective call TO salvation. If Jn12:32 means what it seems to say (at face value), then Jesus draws ("helkuo-drags") ALL men to Himself. And that would be sufficient to overcome his depravity...

So does the "effective" call
a) stop a man hating God,
b) cause a man to see an attraction in a thing he hates, or
c) cause a man to seek that in which he sees no attraction?

If the effective call can result in a man seeking God, it must do at least one of these.

If Jesus believed "predestination", why did He say those words? What was the point?

The point was to show us that to lead other people astray is a sin! Always!

I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that calls them "stupid". But many verses speak of "deceived"....

OK, but wasn't it their choice to be deceived? And wouldn't you say that was a stupid choice?

A big question that remains separating us, is "why cannot NON-REGENERATED men be called to salvation, and BELIEVE?"

And the answer is that unregenerate man hates God and considers himself righteous. Therefore he sees no attraction in God, no need of God - and therefore he will not believe!

Yes I suppose I do. But I do not understand the sense of that interpretation.

"For God has not destined any of the ELECT to perish, but patiently waits for all of the ELECT to come to salvation".

Isn't that it?

We don't need to change it. We just need to consider who Peter was writing to, and therefore what he meant when he said "us".

If I write to you and say that the Queen has decided to give us £100, does that mean that the Queen has decided to give everyone in the world £100? No.

1. Why would he state the obvious, "does-not-destine-ELECT-to-perish"?

The elect are by DEFINITION not destined to perish. Aren't they?

Peter was explaining why the world was remaining for so long. And the reason was that God had not yet called all His people out of darkness into light - there were still some sheep left in other folds, who He had yet to bring and make part of that "one flock".

2. Why does He have to PATIENTLY WAIT for the elect to BE saved? Is He sovereign, or not?

Because not all the elect had been born, so they could not then immediately be born again. Yes, of course He could have simply created His people and called them immediately into Heaven, and not created the rest of the universe. Why didn't He? Because that was not His will.

My understanding reflects the Lexicon's definition of "boulemai" (doesn't decree any to perish), and "choreo" (makes room for ALL to come to repentance). Instead of seeing "special election" here, it seems more reflective of Acts17's "God commands ALL MEN to repent"...

But you still cannot avoid the word 'us'. And the 'us' is not universal.

I'm looking forward to reading your explanation of #1 and #2...

Good! There you are then.

The one question that we need to settle between us (if we can), is sequence. Which comes first, regeneration, or belief? You say "regeneration"...

You said in your last post that anyone who does good and reveres God is welcomed by God. Do you not admit that that excludes any unregenerate man, since the unregenerate, by definition, cannot do good?

Does He favor them because they believe? (My understanding.)

No, He favors them because He favors them. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy".

Or do they believe because He favors them? (Isn't that your understanding?)

More or less, yes! "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Somewhere in that chain - I believe after calling - those who are predestinated, believe.

No, fatalism is what it is. "We are mere flotsam and jetsam in the cosmic flow; all that we are and do, are but the consequence of chemical reactions within our brains, and a long string of previous events; we can neither choose original courses for our paths, nor can we AVOID disasters...

In other words "the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jeremiah 10:23)

You can call it as many names as you like (as long as you don't mind seeming immature), but until you prove that man is an irrational creature, I won't be convinced.

I'm not understanding all of God's admonitions to FOLLOW Him, if our "following" is HIS determination...

So do you believe
a) that unregenerate man doesn't hate God, or
b) that it is possible for a man to choose to follow someone he hates?

Must be one or the other.

It says, "he who comes to God must believe that God IS..." Wouldn't that be a GIVEN, if he is "elected", that he WOULD "come to God"?

Yes, "all that the Father giveth" to Christ "shall come" to Christ. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure I've understood it right.

No, it's the same discussion. "Sequence".

Is man regenerated, and THEN he seeks?

What I am contending is that man will not seek a thing that he hates. Unregenerate man hates God, therefore will not seek God. Something needs to change in a man to overcome that hatred.

Man will not seek a thing unless he wants it. And unregenerate man does not want God.

Or does He seek and believe, and THEN is regenerated?

That may be how it appears to a man because when he is convicted of sin and led to Christ, he may not recognise that that conviction was God's work.

Most Calvinists say that "saving-faith is a GIFT from God".

No doubt you've spoken to every Calvinist in the world to confirm that...

If that's true, then why say "He who COMES to God, must believe God IS"?

Because that is true! It is impossible to come to God if you don't believe that He exists!

Wouldn't predestination turn that around, into: "whom God elects believes He IS, and then comes"?

I could just as easily say that your beliefs turn it around into "whoever chooses to believe, believes that He IS, and then comes".

The fact is that I am quite comfortable with the verse remaining as God intended and I don't see any contradiction.

When you say "tends", what do you mean? Do you mean, ABSOLUTELY? Or do you mean LIKELY?

Either will do!

Can you consider the possibility of God's call to salvation, being able to overcome man's depravity, so that he CAN choose?

So what you are saying is that when an unregenerate man hears the Gospel, he stops hating God? Does he them see an attraction in God as well?

As I said, you hold a kind of "fatalism"; that man cannot make any choices --- so God makes it FOR him.

Where have I said that man cannot make any choices? If you can't produce a quote, then retract the statement, because it is totally false.

Man can make choices - but they are rational choices, based on intelligence. Not 'free' or 'random'.

Sinful man CANNOT chose God (ever),

They cannot because they will not.

and those whom God elects ARE born again, therefore they WILL (always, 100%) choose Him. Is that accurate?

A little simplistic, but yes, not far off. In other words "whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

You've gotta decide, was "entering" possible for the hindered?

No, because they were hindered. Would it be possible for you to enter my house if I stopped you from entering? No.

[/b]Or did God not really INTEND for them TO enter?

Well obviously not...God intended that the Pharisees would prevent them entering.

It reads to me as "they WERE entering, but the Pharisees did not allow them TO enter". They didn't use force; they used deception.

Yes.

If "were entering" is real, then they WERE deceived from salvation.

Yes, the pharisees deceived them, and yes, as a result they were not saved. They were not elect.

If "were entering" is NOT real, then why did Jesus say it?

They were entering. I don't deny that. But they did not enter.

The problem with reading only print, is not knowing another's tone. Can we BE deceived, or not?

Not if we are among the elect. But we must give diligence to make our calling and election sure.

If not --- then you were being sarcastic?

No, not at all.

If so --- then how can "deceived", still be "saved"?

The point is that we do not know who is elect and who is not. Our responsibility is to do God's will - that is, to seek Him, to be careful not to be deceived, to fight the good fight of faith, to run the race that is set before us.

Unless he is sincerely called TO salvation.

So are you maintaining that when an unregenerate man hears the Gospel, he then
a) stops hating God
b) starts to see an attraction in that which he hates, or
c) starts to seek that in which he sees no attraction?

It was a miscommunication of words. I'm only referring to sequence --- do men seek God and FIND Him,

Yes!

or does He find them and regenerate them, and THEN they seek Him?

Again, yes! God convicts them of their sin, of their need of salvation - then reveals to them the Way of salvation. It is only those who feel to be sinners that feel to need a saviour. And natural man does not feel to be a sinner.

...tbc

 

[pcwilkins]

...continued

Not all of them turned to Him.

Where do you get that from? It says:

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."

Notice God said He would visit them, and then says that they would call upon Him. He doesn't say that some of them would call upon Him.

If I say "I will drop ten pencils, and then they shall hit the ground", do you really think I could possible mean that some of them would hit the ground? No. The "you" in verses 10+11 is the same as the "ye" in verses 12+13. Every person who is included in the "you" is also included in the "ye". Every single person who God visited, subsequently called upon God. Just like today.

Every single person whose eyes are opened to see their need of a saviour then seeks for that saviour. And those that seek, always find.

Just like in Ezk11:18-21, most turned to Him away from abominations, and (then!) He gave them new hearts; but some remained in abominations...

Ooops, you've done it again. What about Ezk11:17? Don't you think that might be relevent somehow?

Read it:

"17. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.

18. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence."

Notice that God first says what He would do, and then what they would do. Not, what they might choose to do, but what they would do. Not that some of them would do, but that they would do.

God actively gathered them, assembled them, and gave them the land of Israel. Then they came (some of them probably thinking it was their own decision to come - which, in a way, it was) and took away the detestable things and abominations (probably some of them thinking it was their own decision to do so - which, in a way, it was).

Peter

 

[Ben johnson]

Romans 9:15 - "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"

Hi, Peter. That hasta fit with Rm11:32, doesn't it? Doesn't God have mercy on ALL?

I believe that all whose eyes are opened, all who see their own sinfulness, and all who see Christ, will see an attraction in Him and therefore will believe, yes.

The reason they seek God is because they feel to need salvation.

I would like for you to find a verse that says "their eyes were opened so that they COULD believe". Lydia* (Acts16:14-16) isn't it; Lydia was a worshipper of God (believer!), and (through her belief) her eyes were opened to Jesus. Mark4:11-12 isn't it; because the parallel passage in Matt13:15 says "they closed their OWN eyes" (and ears). 2Cor4:3-4 isn't it; because 2Cor3:16 says "they turn to God and THEN the veil over their heart is removed".

Where is the verse?

( * ---Lydia is a great example of how Jn17:6 applies to Jn6:37; rather than asserting "given to Jesus and THEN they believe", it clearly says "they BELIEVED in the Father, and THEN [through that belief] were given to Jesus....)

Thirdly it was a completely unjustified 'assessment' anyway, and not really an 'assessment' at all, just an insult.

I'm sorry, Peter; I didn't mean it as an insult. It seemed the right word in response to your saying something like, "Even the type of cereal I chose this morning was based on previous events".

The first thing that God shows to a man is his own sinfulness. Then, and only then, will he seek God.

Technically true; but you see it as "exclusive-showing" (to a FEW), and "everyone to whom God SHOWS, 100% WILL believe".

...while I see it as "God shows man his sinfulness; some are convicted, and repent --- some refuse and love sin more."

It is speaking eternally. If we turn away from God, if we refuse God, then we shall not escape.

This verse says that if we do not receive discipline, then we are not sons. Do you receive discipline? Then you are a Son.

But doesn't it show "submission to His discipline", as a choice? And conversely, REFUSING Him as the OTHER choice?

Ben, if beggottenness if all of Him, and believing is causal to becoming begotten, then believing is all of Him!

I don't follow. When is your birthday? Suppose I give you a fantastic jewelry box. I cut and shaped the wood, carved the designs; fitted it with hinges and latch and feet. I sanded and stained and varnished it, and coated the inside with felt. I wrap it, and then give it to you.

Is there anything of YOU in that box? It's all of ME, isn't it?

Suppose you do NOT receive it, but hit my arm and knock it into the river.[sup]#1[/sup] OR --- you receive it, and tomorrow you THROW it into the river.[sup]#2[/sup]

OR suppose you RECEIVE it, and place it on your dresser and appreciate our friendship.[sup]#3[/sup] Aren't all three events, POSSIBLE? Don't you have complete freedom to chose any ONE of them?

If you receive my gift, have you contributed anything to it? It remains all of me and none of you, doesn't it? You did nothing to choose the wood; nor to cut shape carve sand stain or varnish it. You only RECEIVED the gift, but it remains all of MY work.

Why isn't God's gift of grace just like that?

 

[Ben johnson]

So you can't prove that what you call 'fatalism' is actually wrong?

"Fatalism" opposes "justice". There can be no justice, if all eventualities are decided by an outside force. When people go to prison nowadays, are they sentenced for something they DON'T do? (I mean ideally). What if there was a law against green eyes? Would that be "just"?

And the choices you make are rational choices, not 'free' or 'random'.

What's the difference between "rational", and "free"?

So now you are contending that man can choose not to sin?

It really appears so in Scripture. Yet, not on his own; but he chooses to have the Spirit in his heart, and BY the Spirit's power he withstands sin. Look at Rm8:12-13; we can CHOOSE sin (and DIE!), or we can, BY the Spirit be putting to death the flesh --- and LIVE.

His power, our faith. Make sense?

You're reminding me of Romans 9:19 - "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" Isn't that exactly what you're saying?

With respect, that passage is communicating "ALSO Gentiles"! In other words, "If God wants to also save the Gentiles, who are YOU to OBJECT?"

So does the "effective" call
a) stop a man hating God, (Yes.)
b) cause a man to see an attraction in a thing he hates, or (Yes; once he believes, he no longer HATES it)
c) cause a man to seek that in which he sees no attraction? (Yes! If he is convicted, he SEEKS! Acts2:22-37 convicted them; and they BELIEVED.)

If the effective call can result in a man seeking God, it must do at least one of these.

All three, Peter! Jesus' call to salvation, has POWER. But it does not have compulsion.

The point was to show us that to lead other people astray is a sin! Always!

But "astray", was God's WILL (for those who WENT astray), wasn't it? Does that idea make sense?

OK, but wasn't it their choice to be deceived? And wouldn't you say that was a stupid choice?

In James1:14-16, SIN deceives us to eternal death ("thanatos"). In Heb3:12-14, sin again deceives to "falling away from God". Next chapter, 4:11, we are to "take care that we not IMITATE their unbelief/disobedience and FALL and NOT enter His rest!" 1Tim4:1, "deceived by deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, to FALLING FROM THE FAITH".

So --- it's not "intelligence" that keeps us in Christ; it's not "stupidity" that casts us into Hell; it's sin that deceives us, and it's our own perseverance that "keeps us in the love of Christ". Jd20-21, 2Pet1:5-10

 

[Ben johnson]

If I write to you and say that the Queen has decided to give us £100, does that mean that the Queen has decided to give everyone in the world £100? No.

But how can "us" not mean "us-SAVED", in Heb10:26? Us who "WERE sanctified" in Heb10:29? Us saved in 2Pet1, to be diligent NOT to forget former purification, but to RECEIVE the very gates of Heaven!

Diligent to make SURE of our calling and election, Peter.
SO THAT the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) provided.

You said in your last post that anyone who does good and reveres God is welcomed by God. Do you not admit that that excludes any unregenerate man, since the unregenerate, by definition, cannot do good?

I'm hoping to show you that "believing in God", is NOT "doing good", but is receiving the good that He has done...

No, He favors them because He favors them. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy".

He has mercy on ALL, Peter. Rm11...

More or less, yes! "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Somewhere in that chain - I believe after calling - those who are predestinated, believe.

Actually, verse 28 says "those who LOVE God"....

In other words "the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jeremiah 10:23)

You can call it as many names as you like (as long as you don't mind seeming immature), but until you prove that man is an irrational creature, I won't be convinced.

God us just, and justifier of he who BELIEVES. In your paradigm, God chooses who WILL believe.

I remain unconvinced of the sense of that....

So do you believe
a) that unregenerate man doesn't hate God, or
b) that it is possible for a man to choose to follow someone he hates?

Must be one or the other.

No --- I believe what Paul wrote. They believe THROUGH the foolishness (formerly) of the message preached (which is now POWER, since the moment they believed!).

The Gospel has the power to convict. Paul says, "with the HEART man believes". And, "You became obedient FROM THE HEART, ...and became enslaved to God".

Salvation is directed from man's heart towards God (belief), in receiving God's gift from Him towards us (grace, Jesus on the Cross). By grace (His) through faith (ours) have you been saved.

From the heart; that does not fit "predestined".

(If it's from a heart that God ELECTED and monergistically REGENERATED, then it is NOT from the heart, but from God THROUGH a predestined heart....)

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes, "all that the Father giveth" to Christ "shall come" to Christ. Does that answer your question? I'm not sure I've understood it right.

Not really; it places belief, BEFORE coming-to-God. Wrong sequence for predestination.

(And as I said before, "all that God gives, come" --- fits with Jn17:6, they belonged to God BEFORE --- it was through belief that they were given to Jesus...)

What I am contending is that man will not seek a thing that he hates. Unregenerate man hates God, therefore will not seek God. Something needs to change in a man to overcome that hatred.

Man will not seek a thing unless he wants it. And unregenerate man does not want God.

How do I convince you that "faith comes from hearing", rather than "from monergistic election"? The Gospel has the power TO convict; yet some choose to be convicted, some don't. I don't know how to overcome your belief that man cannot think and reason. That the sincere call TO salvation has the power to OVERCOME his sin-devotion.

That may be how it appears to a man because when he is convicted of sin and led to Christ, he may not recognise that that conviction was God's work.

Is there anything in Scripture that implies "conviction is God's decision"? In 2Tim3:15, Paul speaks of those who study the Scripture, gain WISDOM (conviction) that leads to saving-faith. Yet in Jn5:39-47 Jesus is "blasting" them for studying the Scriptures and REFUSING to believe in Jesus, REFUSING to believe even Moses.

Jn6:45 says "ALL shall be taught; (but) those who have heard and LEARNED come to Me" That's choice, Peter. Do you see how it all makes sense?

No doubt you've spoken to every Calvinist in the world to confirm that...

Ha ha ha!
No; but alotta them here, do.

I could just as easily say that your beliefs turn it around into "whoever chooses to believe, believes that He IS, and then comes".

The fact is that I am quite comfortable with the verse remaining as God intended and I don't see any contradiction.

Are you certain that God intended it as you see, rather than I?

So what you are saying is that when an unregenerate man hears the Gospel, he stops hating God? Does he them see an attraction in God as well?

Faith comes from hearing. Ben didn't write it.

Where have I said that man cannot make any choices? If you can't produce a quote, then retract the statement, because it is totally false.

Man can make choices - but they are rational choices, based on intelligence. Not 'free' or 'random'.

It's a conflict of doctrines; you say "free choice", but I say "it's also the irresistible choice that invariably flows FROM God's regeneration".

You say "that's free", I say "no it's not"...

and those whom God elects ARE born again, therefore they WILL (always, 100%) choose Him. Is that accurate?

A little simplistic, but yes, not far off. In other words "whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

They follow Him 100%, but you see that as "free will".

Suppose a group of kids are offered red, blue, and yellow toys; there is something in their hearts that CAUSES them ALL to choose red; but there is no one standing OVER them to FORCE that choice. 100% choose red; was that a FREE choice, or were they CONSTRAINED by what was previously in their hearts?

 

[Ben johnson]

No, because they were hindered. Would it be possible for you to enter my house if I stopped you from entering? No.

Jesus said "they WERE entering". You say "they weren't really". I don't understand how you can say that.

Well obviously not...God intended that the Pharisees would prevent them entering.

With sincere respect, doesn't that seem to come more from presumption, rather than "Scriptural dictate"?

Yes, the pharisees deceived them, and yes, as a result they were not saved. They were not elect.

It doesn't say they were not elect. Jesus said, "They WERE entering"....

They were entering. I don't deny that. But they did not enter.

What was the CAUSE of their "not-entering"? Jesus blasted the Pharisees FOR causing it. He said nothing about "election".

Do you see how "election", is presumed?

Not if we are among the elect. But we must give diligence to make our calling and election sure.

Wait! I'm confused! What does "make sure", mean? Can we be "UNSURE-saved"? "UNdiligent-saved"? Or is he saying "do not BE like the one who has FORGOTTEN former purification (he WAS saved!) --- be all the more diligent to make sure of your calling and election SO THAT the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) provided!" ???

Where do you get that from? It says:

It says, "But as for those whose hearts go AFTER their abominations, God will bring their conduct down upon their heads."

Not all forsook abominations for God.

Every single person whose eyes are opened to see their need of a saviour then seeks for that saviour. And those that seek, always find.

You have yet to demonstrate from Scripture, "God opens their eyes and THEN they believe".

 

[pcwilkins]

*edited*

 

[pcwilkins]

*edited*

 

[pcwilkins]

Hi again! This is getting confusing now. I'll try and keep this post short.

Hi, Peter. That hasta fit with Rm11:32, doesn't it? Doesn't God have mercy on ALL?

Romans 11:32 reads "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Who is the "them" here? The answer is in verse 26 - it's speaking of the conversion of the Jews.

I would like for you to find a verse that says "their eyes were opened so that they COULD believe". Lydia* (Acts16:14-16) isn't it; Lydia was a worshipper of God (believer!), and (through her belief) her eyes were opened to Jesus.

Lydia was a worshipper of God, but then so where the scribes and pharisees. She had to be shown that that form of worship was no longer required, that the law had been fulfilled, that the old covenant had passed away, that the way of salvation had been revealed more clearly. Who taught here these things? Paul, surely. And why did she listen to Paul? Because God opened her heart.

Her eyes were opened to Jesus not through her belief, but through the words of Paul. And she attended unto the words of Paul because the Lord opened her heart. Many others who heard the words of Paul didn't attend unto them.

It's a little unfair of you to say "show me a scripture that says this, but you can't use that one because I've already decided that that one should be interpreted in accordance with what I think"!

Mark4:11-12 isn't it; because the parallel passage in Matt13:15 says "they closed their OWN eyes" (and ears).

Ok we'll ignore those who closed their eyes and ears then, and think about those whose eyes and ears were open. Mark 4:11 tells us that unto them it was "given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God". Who gave them to know that mystery, and why didn't he give it to all?

2Cor4:3-4 isn't it; because 2Cor3:16 says "they turn to God and THEN the veil over their heart is removed".

Those two passages are talking about completely different people! 2 Cor 4:3 is talking about "them that are lost". 2 Cor 3:16 is talking about "the children of Israel".

The word of God tells us that the "god of this world hath blinded the minds of" the first group, and also tells us that the second group "shall turn to the Lord". Notice the shall? It doesn't say "they might".

( * ---Lydia is a great example of how Jn17:6 applies to Jn6:37; rather than asserting "given to Jesus and THEN they believe", it clearly says "they BELIEVED in the Father, and THEN [through that belief] were given to Jesus....)

But not everyone who believes in the Father is given unto Jesus. The devils also believe, don't they? Are they, through that belief, given to Jesus? If not, why not?

I'm sorry, Peter; I didn't mean it as an insult. It seemed the right word in response to your saying something like, "Even the type of cereal I chose this morning was based on previous events".

Not simply previous events but how I felt. It was a decision taken based on factors, not random. As was my 'decision' to believe - in that case, I had nowhere else to go.

Technically true; but you see it as "exclusive-showing" (to a FEW), and "everyone to whom God SHOWS, 100% WILL believe".

...while I see it as "God shows man his sinfulness; some are convicted, and repent --- some refuse and love sin more."

Does God show to every man his sinfulness?

But doesn't it show "submission to His discipline", as a choice? And conversely, REFUSING Him as the OTHER choice?

Even if it is a choice, that doesn't mean it is an irrational choice. So now consider: what factors affect that decision?

I don't follow. When is your birthday? Suppose I give you a fantastic jewelry box. I cut and shaped the wood, carved the designs; fitted it with hinges and latch and feet. I sanded and stained and varnished it, and coated the inside with felt. I wrap it, and then give it to you.

Is there anything of YOU in that box? It's all of ME, isn't it?

Suppose you do NOT receive it, but hit my arm and knock it into the river.[sup]#1[/sup] OR --- you receive it, and tomorrow you THROW it into the river.[sup]#2[/sup]

OR suppose you RECEIVE it, and place it on your dresser and appreciate our friendship.[sup]#3[/sup] Aren't all three events, POSSIBLE? Don't you have complete freedom to chose any ONE of them?

Yes! But if I choose to receive it, then I cannot say that the fact that I have it is "all of you". Yes, you made it - but the fact that I possess it is partially (you could say fully) due to the fact that I chose to accept it.

So, if we can choose whether or not to be "beggotten", then you cannot say that the fact that you are "beggotten" is "all of God". You can say that it was fully His work to make it possible for you to be beggotten - but the fact that you are beggotten was, at least partially, down to you.

The fact is that salvation is not an offering, but a gift. Your example above is you offering me something. God does not offer - He gives. And if you are given something, then you have it.

If you receive my gift, have you contributed anything to it?

No - but I have contributed to the fact that I possess it. The fact that I possess it was partially (or even entirely) down to me.

It remains all of me and none of you, doesn't it? You did nothing to choose the wood; nor to cut shape carve sand stain or varnish it. You only RECEIVED the gift, but it remains all of MY work.

Yes, the 'gift' is all your work, but the fact that I possess the gift is due to my own decision in accepting it. So if you want, you can say that salvation is fully the work of God, but the fact that we possess salvation is due to our own decision in accepting it.

But I maintain that God not only makes salvation possible, but saves. God not only makes "beggotteness" available, but actually "begets" people. D'you see?

Why isn't God's gift of grace just like that?

Because it is a gift, not an offering. It is something that is given, not offered. You can only offer me your present - you cannot give it to me if I will not accept it. So your present, strictly speaking, is an offering - it can be accepted or refused.

"Fatalism" opposes "justice". There can be no justice, if all eventualities are decided by an outside force.

That is simply argument by outrage. I believe that God is in control of everything - that doesn't detract from His justice. Who do you think is in control of the universe? Man? Satan? Not much comfort there, is there?

When people go to prison nowadays, are they sentenced for something they DON'T do? (I mean ideally). What if there was a law against green eyes? Would that be "just"?

Yes, of course! If don't pay my taxes I can go to prison for it, for example. When people go to Hell, they are not only sentenced for things they did that they shouldn't have (like lying, stealing) but also for things they didn't do that they should have done (like loving God with all their heart, soul and mind). They are condemned for their sins. But there are sins of omission - not doing something we should - as well as sins of commission.

Your implication is that it would be unfair to condemn someone for having green eyes because they cannot help it. By the same reasoning, wouldn't it be unfair for God to condemn someone for sinning - even though we both agree that unregenerate man cannot but sin?

What's the difference between "rational", and "free"?

I define the difference as 'rational' being an intelligent, informed, decision, based on our experience, the circumstances, and other factors.

A 'free' decision is one that is taken without regard to anything whatsoever. In fact it is impossible to conceive of a free decision because every thing that we do, we do for a reason.

It really appears so in Scripture. Yet, not on his own; but he chooses to have the Spirit in his heart, and BY the Spirit's power he withstands sin.

But the mistake you make is that you think unregenerate man would choose to have the Spirit in his heart.

Do you agree that unregenerate man hates God? Do you agree that the Spirit is God? Then how can you suppose that a man would choose to have something in his heart which he hates?

Look at Rm8:12-13; we can CHOOSE sin (and DIE!), or we can, BY the Spirit be putting to death the flesh --- and LIVE.

Romans 8:12 "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh." Notice there is a 'therefore'? In other words there is a reason why we are debtors to live after the Spirit - and the reason is given in verse 11, surprise surprise: "if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh." We are debtors to live after the Spirit because the Spirit dwelleth in us! That doesn't sound like an unregenerate man, does it?

What it says is that if the Spirit dwells in us, we are debtors to live after the Spirit. Doesn't concern those who are not indwelt, i.e. the unregenerate.

Verse 13 is simply a statement of fact. "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." This does not even suggest that living after the flesh is a choice - it simply says that if we do, we shall die. On the other hand, if we through the Spirit to mortify the deeds of the body, we shall live.

Notice it is "through the Spirit"? Do you think an unregenerate man can do anything "through the Spirit"? No, because they don't have the Spirit! If they did, they would be regenerate: "ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you".

All three, Peter!

Let me get this straight. You believe that the outward call of the Gospel stops a man hating God? In other words, if I was to go up to any person and tell them that Christ died for sinners, they would stop hating God?

You say that "once he believes, he no longer HATES it" but my question was what about before he believes? Why does he chose to believe in a thing that he hates?

Jesus' call to salvation, has POWER. But it does not have compulsion.

Why is it then that in some cases it has enough power to produce the decision to believe, whereas in many cases it doesn't have enough power? Is it some difference in man, or in the message?

So --- it's not "intelligence" that keeps us in Christ; it's not "stupidity" that casts us into Hell; it's sin that deceives us, and it's our own perseverance that "keeps us in the love of Christ". Jd20-21, 2Pet1:5-10

But you believe that we can choose not to sin. Would you not agree that any person who doesn't make that choice is obviously not very intelligent? Or is it something else lacking in them?

I'm hoping to show you that "believing in God", is NOT "doing good", but is receiving the good that He has done...

When the jailer came to Paul saying "what must I do to be saved" the answer was "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"! It is not plain that Paul thought that believing was something that had to be done? And if it was not a "good thing to do", why would Paul have told the Jailor to do it?

He has mercy on ALL, Peter. Rm11...

Do you reall think that the "all" in verse 32 means "all men"? Read the context, it's speaking of "all Israel".

Actually, verse 28 says "those who LOVE God"....

The whole verse reads "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose"

Is it not at least implied that "them that love God" are the same people as "them who are the called"?

If I say "I have decided to give £100 to every Christian, to everyone who attends Church" is the implication not that I am talking about only one group of people? If I said "I have decided to give £100 to every Christian, and to everyone who attends Church" then you could argue that I was talking about two groups.

If you believe that all men are called, you must also believe that all things work together for the good of all men. I'd like to see you try to convince, say, Judas Iscariot of that.

No --- I believe what Paul wrote. They believe THROUGH the foolishness (formerly) of the message preached (which is now POWER, since the moment they believed!).

So do men believe because the Gospel comes with power, or does the Gospel have power only if it is believed?

The Gospel has the power to convict.

The Gospel is the Good News. If I tell you you are a sinner, that is not good news. It's when a man is brought to see the perfection that is in the law, and how he is unable to meet the demands of that law, that he is convicted of his state.

But yes, it is still the work of the Holy Spirit.

...tbc