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

[pcwilkins]

...cont.

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

Yes - so do those that believe have a better heart, or do they just make better use of it?

(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....)

Well that doesn't make much sense. "If it's from a heart, then it is not from the heart".

The fact that the heart is regenerated does not make any difference - man still believes with the heart, not against the heart. In fact if the heart was not regenerated, it would not be possible to believe with the heart, only against it.

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

Not at all. I believe we must believe before we come to God - if we didn't believe, we wouldn't come. The fact that we come to Christ indicates that we believe Him to be able to save us.

Like the woman with the issue of blood. She knew she had something wrong with her - she was brought to see that Christ could heal her - and she came to Christ believing that she would be healed. It is the first stage here - conviction of sin - that you are unclear about. Natural man does not think he is a sinner.

Paul said "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Rom 7:9). Did he choose to die? Or was it the direct result of the commandment coming? Was it the case that Paul thought "Hmm, shall I feel to be a sinner, or not? Yes, I think I will" or was it the case that Paul was enabled to see the spiritual nature of the law - to see his real inability to keep it in the spirit, not just in the letter - and brought to cry "Oh wretched man that I am!"

(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...)

But look at verse 8: "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me."

Is it not evident that they were given unto Christ first - Christ then 'gave them the words which' His Father gave Him - and then they received those words and believed. I.e. they were given to Christ before they believed.

In any case, the division you make between a person belonging to God and a person belonging to Christ is false - because Christ said in verse 10 "all mine are thine, and thine are mine." A person cannot belong to the Father without belonging to the Son, because the Father and the Son are one.

How do I convince you that "faith comes from hearing", rather than "from monergistic election"?

You don't need to - I already believe that faith cometh from hearing. What I also believe is that hearing comes by the word of God, not the decision of man.

The Gospel has the power TO convict; yet some choose to be convicted, some don't.

Again, it is when a man is brought to see the law that he is convicted. There is no conviction in a person knowing that Jesus died for sinners. It is when a person is brought to see their own state by God impressing upon them the spiritual nature of the law that they are convicted.

I don't know how to overcome your belief that man cannot think and reason.

Here we are again. That is not my belief. My very objection to your belief is that man can and does think and reason. And if a man hates God, all his decisions are going to be affected by that hatred.

That the sincere call TO salvation has the power to OVERCOME his sin-devotion.

Again, I don't disagree. When a man sees the real nature of sin, and what it cost Christ, he no longer loves it, but hates it.

In any case, we both know that in many cases, the 'sincere call' to salvation does not have the power to OVERCOME man's sin-devotion. Most people who hear the sincere call remain devoted to sin. Is that because those people are 'different' from those who are convicted?

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.

2 Tim 3:15 reads "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." I don't see where this speaks of "those who study the Scripture, gain WISDOM (conviction) that leads to saving-faith."

What it does say is that the scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ
Jesus. And again, I don't think we disagree there. We both know that the scriptures are able to do that. But only if God applies them to the heart. Only if the Gospel comes in power. Not becomes power through our decision to believe, but comes to us in power.

Being made wise unto salvation is competely different to being convicted of sin. There is no salvation in a knowledge of sin. So why you choose to paraphrase 'wisdom' as 'conviction' is beyond me.

Yet in Jn5:39-47 Jesus is "blasting" them for studying the Scriptures and REFUSING to believe in Jesus, REFUSING to believe even Moses.

Yes, because unbelief is a sin. Unfortunately it is in our nature to sin. Isn't it?

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?

Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 54:13. You can see who the "all" refers to there. Hint: it doesn't refer to all mankind. That completely undermines that argument.

Only God's people are taught - only God's people hear - only God's people learn. And therefore only God's people come. The rest of mankind choose not to.

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

No. That is why I stick with the verse as it is written. As I said, I am quite comfortable with the verse remaining as God intended - literally, word for word. No changes are required.

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

And hearing comes by...the decision of man? No, the word of God.

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".

When a man sees his own state - when he sees how sinful he really is - when he sees the eternal danger his soul is in - then when Christ is revealed, He is irresistable, yes! Don't you think so? Isn't He the chiefest among 10,000, the altogether lovely? Can you not say with Peter "to whom else can we go?"

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

When the will is freed from its love to sin and drawn by the love of God - when Christ is revealed and known in the heart - only then is the will truly free. "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Glorious liberty!

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

Yes! Truly free! No longer under Satan's control.

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?

Both! They were free to choose blue or yellow, but they chose red because they had something that tended to make them choose red!

Quite a good analogy, actually - here is a sinner, seeing his own state. Here is Christ revealed to that sinner in all His perfection, all His sufficiency. What will the decision be? "Oh, well, I do need a saviour...but...no, I don't think I will, thanks"?

Or, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine....Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon...he is altogether lovely"?

How true it is that "the love of Christ constraineth us"!

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

No, I don't. I agree, they were entering. But they did not enter. That is all I'm saying. Do you think they did succeed in entering? No, because the Pharisees hindered them.

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

I was merely saying that if something does not happen, it was obviously not God's will for it to happen. It is one of the crowning mercies that "our God is in the heavens. He hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." That verse is as true today as it was when it was written. God has always "done whatsoever he hath pleased."

It pleased the LORD to bless Israel (Numbers 24:1), it pleased the LORD to make Israel his people (1 Samuel 12:22), it pleased the LORD to bruise Christ (Isaiah 53:10), even the unbelievers accepted that "thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased thee" (Jonah 1:14), it pleases God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Corinthians 1:21), it pleased God to set the members every one of them in the body (1 Corinthians 12:18), it pleased God to give grain a body (1 Corinthians 15:38), it pleased God to reveal His son in Paul (Galatians 1:14,15), and it pleased the Father that in Christ should all fulness dwell (Colossians 1:19). All these things God did/does because it pleased/pleases Him to do so. No other reason.

It doesn't say they were not elect.

So you're arguing that election cannot be true because the Bible doesn't say that those who aren't saved aren't elect? Right.

Jesus said, "They WERE entering"....

Again, agreed. But the fact that they did not enter indicates that they were not elect.

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

No, because it was the Pharisees fault that they did not enter. Just like it was the Jews fault that Jesus was crucified - and Judas' fault, and Pilate's fault. They were all responsible. But at the same time Jesus was sent down to be crucified. It was God's will that He would be.

Do you see how "election", is presumed?

No, I honestly don't. The word "elect" or "election" appears in the new testament over 20 times.

Wait! I'm confused! What does "make sure", mean?

It means strive to enter in at the straight gate - examine yourself - don't be complacent.

Can we be "UNSURE-saved"?

Yes. Many of God's people go through times of doubt. But they are still God's people.

"UNdiligent-saved"?

Our salvation doesn't depend on our diligence, it was accomplished in the death of Christ. God's people are not diligent in good works because they need to be to be saved - they perform good works out of love to God, because they are 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!" ???

You can read what he actually says (not what men think he is trying to say) just as well as I can. We don't need to paraphrase scripture.

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

That is a different set of people. God says "I will gather you, and you will come and take away the abominations." Then those "whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations" (i.e. those who God did not gather) will be punished.

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

But why would a man believe in a Saviour if he didn't see his need of a Saviour?

When did Paul believe? After he had seen that he was all wrong - when he saw that all his "righteousness" was worthless!

When did Peter go out and weep bitterly? When he saw that what he had done was wrong.

When did the Jailor start to seek salvation? When he saw that God existed and that he needed salvation.

When did you and I start to seek salvation? When we saw that we needed it.

Well I failed completely im my aim to keep this post short! Sorry about that.

Peter

 

[frumanchu]

One facet of "OSAS" (Calvinism) asserts that "man is too corrupt* to EVER seek God; he must be regenerated before he can even THINK of believing."


* There is a difference between "total depravity", and "utter depravity"; against the charge of "Pelagianism", many of us who believe in "OSNAS", accept that we are totally depraved; our righteousness is to God as filthy rags. Apart from Him, we have nothing, we are nothing, we can only die. Jn15:6 WITH Him --- we are perfect (Matt5:18), we are righteous (2Cor5:21), we can do ALL THINGS (Philip4:13).

Us who accept "total depravity" of all mankind, agree that we always tend towards sin; but this differs from "utter depravity", in that with "TD", God's call of everyone TO Himself, overcomes our depravity in enough measure that we CAN believe.

Utter depravity, on the other hand, asserts that those who are NOT elected, are not even called --- they are both totally depraved AND utterly depraved --- without chance or faint hope of redemption.

It is a subtle point; but foundationally important. Pelagius asserted that "man has inherent goodness, and can find God if he seeks"; Responsible Grace asserts that man IS totally depraved, and must be CALLED to salvation; yet that call is sufficient to overcome his sinfulness, and place him squarely at the Door of salvation, before JESUS --- he can enter in and BECOME "saved-sheep", or he can turn away and choose depravity. All are called, and those who ANSWER that call receive Jesus (by their own faith), believe and are saved. Calvinism asserts that the very faith that SAVES believers, is something that God sovereignly INSTALLS (or gifts, or instills, etc) in our hearts by monergistic (unilateral) decision (we have no choice in our election)...

Truly amazing how your argument morphs over time. I presume the above is from your paper/work/manuscript/book?

Anyway, you are DEAD WRONG on the above, Ben. You've completely redefined terms here.

As has been explained to you before, here is the difference between "total depravity" and "utter depravity."

Total depravity means that man's depravity affects every aspect of his being...his total person is affected.

Utter depravity means that man is as depraved as he possibly can be...that he sins as much as he possibly can without restraint or hindrance.

The former is the Reformed view. The latter is not. You have been clearly told this. Why you would redefine these terms and claim Calvinists believe in "utter depravity" when this has been EXPLICITLY DENIED AND EXPLAINED is beyond me.

Hence the question:

"Do we seek God and FIND Him (and He finds us)? ​

Or does He find us FIRST and then the 'founders' seek Him (consequentially)?"​

First, let's look at:
"There is none righteous, none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, they have become uselyess; none who does good, not even one; their throat is an open grave, their tongues keep deceiving; the poison of asps lies under their lips; ...there is no fear of God before their eyes..." Rom3:10-19

This reads to the Calvinist, as: "You CANNOT seek God EVER". They reason that "God must CHANGE the heart so that they CAN seek Him."

Is this Scriptural truth?

Rom3:10-19 is not "Pauline writing"; he is merely citing Psalms 14, and 51. Is the "NONE-SEEK", being written as DICTATE? Or is it a lamentation, exaggerating in saying "NO one seeks"?

You cannot ignore the context in which Paul quotes those verses, Ben. Your reasoning here is exactly the same reasoning present-day orthodox Jews use to dismiss claims of fulfilled prophesy in Christ, claiming that the original context of the prophetic verse clearly pointed to something else and that the NT writers were looking for verses to support their new religion without paying attention to what they clearly meant (a GREAT example is Matt 2:15).

There are two things working against you on this passage:

1. Context - Paul is laying forth the universal need of all men for the Gospel. He is not exaggerating, but rather cites these verses in support of his assertion that "all...are under sin."

2. Consistency - If we apply the "exaggeration" argument to the phrase "there is none who seeks God" so that we believe there really are those who do, then consistency dictates it must also be applied to the other portions of the citation. Thus we would be left with believing there really are those who are righteous, there really are those who understand, there really are those who have done good, there really are those who have not turned aside, there really are those who have fear of God before their eyes, etc.

Look now at:
"You will call upon Me, and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will SEEK Me and you will FIND Me, when you search with all your heart. I WILL BE FOUND BY YOU" declares the Lord God..." Jeremiah 29:11-14

This was written to the Israelites; does it apply to us today?

Yes, these conditional statements do indeed still apply. Those who seek with all their heart ar those whose hearts have been turned from stone to flesh and given the desire to seek Him.

Romans 3 continues with:
"God is just, and justifier of he who BELIEVES in Jesus". Which comes first --- belief, or justification? Does God justify the believer? Or does he believe whom God justifies?

This is no argument agains the Reformed position, Ben. The point is that in putting forward a propitiation by his blood He is both just (His justice is upheld by Christ's satisfaction) and the justifier (by grace through faith men are declared just in His sight by the imputed righteousness of Christ) of men.

Find me one Calvinist...ANY CALVINIST...who has argued that men are declared just apart from or prior to faith and you might have an argument. Faith is the instrumental means of our justification. We believe we are justified at the point of faith, not prior to it as you seem to be claiming we believe.

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I certainly understand that God is not one who show partiality (is no respecter of persons), but in every natnion the man who fears Him (reveres) and does right is welcome to him." Acts10:34-35

Calvinism asserts that "man is elect by God's SOVEREIGN choice" --- casting God forever as the ultimate "respecter of persons".

Is He a "respecter of persons", or not?

Once again this verse is ripped from its context and propped up falsely. The context of the verse is Peter's realization that salvation is not limited to the Jews but rather the covenant has expanded to the "uttermost parts of the Earth." The inclusion of the Gentiles in God's covenant community was a MAJOR revelation in the NT.

Using the same argument, any Universalist could challenge that you have God being a "respector of persons" by His only applying the benefits of Christ to believers when He could apply it to all men.

"He who asks, receives. He who seeks, finds. To him who knocks, it shall be opened..." Matt7:8

He who seeks, finds? Does this apply to salvation? Do seekers find, or do the found seek?

Apart from God's grace in regeneration, nobody would seek and find, and nobody would knock and have it opened.

"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

A rewarder of those who seek. This seems not to support "monergistic-instilled-saving-faith", doesn't it? Instead, the whole chapter of Heb11 speaks of faith, and places faith as causal towards God's favor.

God's pleasure in the faith of His children does not preclude His monergistic role in bringing that faith about.

That's opposite of "Predestined-Election", which asserts "God's favor is CAUSAL to saving-faith".

One of these days you'll actually acknowledge the difference between a formal cause and an instrumental cause. (I'm taking the glass half full view here)

Thus is Romans3 cast solidly as a "lamentation", not a dictate; exaggerating that no one seeks God --- but not contradicting that if you DO seek Him, you WILL FIND Him.

See above. This argument doesn't hold.

"Many are called, but few are chosen". Matt22:2-14 This parable is called by Calvinists, as "not indicating eternal salvation". That denies the context, "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE...." It is referring to "salvation".

By parable's end, all have been called --- Jew (first-called), and Gentile (second-called) alike. Those who RECEIVE the invitation, come and put on the king's clean garments (HIS righteousness!), become the chosen.

What you are missing here is the distinction made between the general outward call of the Gospel and the inward "call' of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. This parable is in the framework of the former. The Gospel call goes out to all men. Only some will respond and show up to the wedding, and of those only they who are properly dressed (clothed in the righteousness of Christ by faith) enjoy the feast.

Again, I know of no Calvinists who believe this parable does not refer to eternal salvation. They would however object to your insistence that the "call" spoken of here is meant to represent the inward call of the Holy Spirit for the same reason we would object to the insistence that "choose" in John 6:70 was in the context of election.

Over and over faith is charged to us, and makes us responsible. By faith we seek God, and He receives our faith. By faith we walk in Him (Col2:6 --- everyone better be lookin' these up!), and by faith we abide in Him (1Jn2:26-28)

God rewards those who SEEK Him. It does not say "they seek whom God has pre-chosen"...

Over and over again it's explained that this responsibility is Biblically couched in the context of God's sovereignty in election, and that these conditions set forth in Scripture are conditions which God sovereignly grants obedience to.

You continue to argue from necessary implication when the implication is anything but necessary.

 

[Edial]

One facet of "OSAS" (Calvinism) asserts that "man is too corrupt* to EVER seek God; he must be regenerated before he can even THINK of believing."

Ben, how do you explain that I am OSAS yet not a 5-Point-Calvinist?

I really see a certain fixation on your part against anything that is OSAS.

I am not even certain that you are against Calvinism.

If Calvinism would not have a topic of OSAS and some Amish Brethren would have it - you would start making a case against the Amish Brethrens (I made up the term).

I liked some of your posts against the Calvinism, but I sensed some things missing.

I think I know what it is.
It is sincerity.

I am not saying you are not sincere. No. Do not take it that way, please.

I am saying you are against Calvinism just because you cannot stand OSAS.

It is like someone is a Protestant because he hates Catholics.

I am against Calvinism because I do not agree against some of their specific points, yet I accept the others.

So I personally like Calvinists, yet disagree with them.

But you appear to dislike anyone who associates himself with OSAS, although there is not even one verse that proves OSAS. !

Is this a "Let's hate Bush campaign?"

Fascinating. Just fascinating.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi again!
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.

The problem is that he's presenting "they are not all children because they are Abraham's descendants, ...but children of the promise are REGARDED as descendants"." Rm9:7-8 So I don't think we can impose "only called/have-mercy-on JEWS".

In saying, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy", he's conveying God's attitude of: "If I want to save ALSO-GENTILES, who are YOU to OBJECT?"

The idea of "concluding them ALL in unbelief", must refer to "all unbelievers"; He therefore has mercy on who BELIEVES.

"God is the Savior of all men, malista-specially (above all) believers". 1Tim4:10

No, her eyes were opened to Jesus 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.

She was a WORSHIPPER of God --- believer. Do you accept that "loving God, is loving Jesus" (Jn8:42)? Do you accept that "if you have seen Me you've seen the Father" (Jn14:9)? So then doesn't it follow, that "all who BELONGED to God, were (therefore) given to Jesus"? (Jn17:6)

 

[Ben johnson]

It's a little unfair of you to say "show me a scripture that says this, but you can't use that one"!

If you can overturn the refutations (that remove those verses from the argument), then you're welcome to use those verses.

Mark 4:11 reads "unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God". Who gave them to know that mystery, and why didn't he give that to all?

I think a better question, is "Who is 'YOU' in that passage?"

"You who BELIEVE".

It's the same idea as in John10. "I told you (that I'm the Messiah), but you do not believe (that I'm the Messiah); you don't believe (in My Messiahship) because you are not of My Sheep (because you have not believed in ME). If tis-anyone enters through Me (believes!), he shall be saved (beCOME My sheep!) and go in and come out and find pasture (become My sheep!)."

Yes, but why will they turn? Why does it say "when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away", not "if they shall turn to the Lord..."?

For the same reason that Ezekiel wrote: "WHEN they come here they WILL REMOVE detestable things and abominations... but as for those whose hearts (REMAIN) after abominations and detestable things I will bring it down upon their HEADS." 11:18-21

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?

An excellent point. James is laboring to convey what KIND of belief saves. Mere "head-acknowledgement" (such as demons have), is not enough. James says, "only the true belief that CAUSES good works, IS saved-belief".

"What use is it, if your brother or sister comes to you in need of basic things, and you say 'go your way be warmed and clothed and fed' --- and you do not even give them the things they NEED?! That faith (belief!) can NOT save you, CAN it!!!"

Does God show to every man his sinfulness?

In passages like Romans1, "What is known about God is evident to them, for God MADE it evident". They are without excuse.

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

Suppose I was abused as a child; when I become a man, can I live out my life excusing myself for my bad past? Do I not bear the responsibility of taking whatever steps needed to HEAL myself?

So too we cannot ascribe to "past factors" things that are freely chosen by man's will.

"Let whosoever WILL take of the water of life FREELY." Rev22:17

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

No. You have contributed nothing to its existence.

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.

Suppose I want to join "Blue Man Group". I run down to a factory that is spray-painting things blue and jump in front of the sprayers. Would my blueness therefore be anything that I created? No. But it was my DECISION to run under the sprayer, wasn't it?

So it works with Jesus' blood; His blood washes us CLEAN --- but we must decide to place ourselves at the foot of the Cross, UNDERNEATH His blood.

Make sense?

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.

It's a gift to all who WILL receive it.

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

Yes --- but they have to believe. No one is begotten BEFORE (apart from) belief. And if begottenness happens to GENERATE belief, then it IS apart from belief.

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?

That's the point --- how can God condemn for that which cannot be avoided, ever?

It's the idea of "total depravity" (no one can avoid our nature of sinning), and "ultimate depravity" (he has no choice BUT to sin, he has no hope EVER).

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.

In America, there is no one dictating where I work, where I live, what I eat and wear; in communist countries there is. A "free decision" to me, means I encounter many crossroads in life; I try to look down each and decide which is best. I ask God to give me wisdom in that decision.

...but I make the choice...

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?

Paul explains it well in 1Cor1. God's wisdom is FOOLISHNESS to the world (and world's wisdom is foolish to God); but God is pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message (wise to God, but foolish to unregenerate) to save those who BELIEVE. How can we deny that "unregnerate man CAN believe THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached"? How can we deny that it is BELIEF that CHANGES the message from "foolish" to "power" (AS he believes)?

 

[Ben johnson]

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?

Because he can hear about Jesus; he can study Jesus' words, and be confronted with the undeniability of the ACCURACY of the writings. He can be faced with the lunacy of evolution; and the absolute fact of fulfilled prophecy. He stands at the crossroads --- one way leads to Christ, the other to the world. He says, "I cannot deny all these facts; there is NOTHING of error in Christ's way". He then goes to his knees, and asks: "Jesus --- will You reveal Yourself to me, will You receive me?"

That is EXACTLY what happened to "Josh McDowell". Recounted in the book, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict".

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?

Technically, we have NOT the power to "not sin". But we can choose to receive Jesus, and His strenght indwells us and ENABLES us to avoid sin.

Even then --- saved Christians sin; so the choice to abide in Jesus or abide in sin, is constant and continuous.

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"?

What the Calvinist misunderstands in Rom8:28-29 --- it DOES say "whom He foreknew ...He also called" --- but it does NOT say "He didn't call anyone ELSE".

"Foreknew" (proginosko) connotes "believers". Thus, "whom He called and they CAME".

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.

It doesn't say "all men"; it says "who love God".

But look at verse 8: "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me."

Is it not evident that they were given unto Christ first - Christ then 'gave them the words which' His Father gave Him - and then they received those words and believed. I.e. they were given to Christ before they believed.

They believed in Christ BECAUSE they believed (first!) in God.

A person cannot belong to the Father without belonging to the Son, because the Father and the Son are one.

Well said --- you're making my point! In Jn8:42, "If God was your Father, you would love Me!" And Jn5:39-47: "If you BELIEVED Moses' words (loved God and believed what Moses wrote of Me, and sought GOD'S glory rather than your OWN), THEN you would believe My words."

You don't need to - I already believe that faith cometh from hearing. What I also believe is that hearing comes by the word of God, not the decision of man.

Then how can "lack of preachers", influence who WILL believe? Rm10:14

Again, it is when a man is brought to see the law that he is convicted. There is no conviction in a person knowing that Jesus died for sinners. It is when a person is brought to see their own state by God impressing upon them the spiritual nature of the law that they are convicted.

Agreed. At which point they can decide which they will love more; God or abominations?

Here we are again. That is not my belief. My very objection to your belief is that man can and does think and reason. And if a man hates God, all his decisions are going to be affected by that hatred.

When I say "cannot think and reason", it reflects what you just said: "His thinking and reasoning is confined to boundaries he cannot avoid".

If unelect, he always chooses sin and cannot recognize Jesus.
If elect he recognies sin and always chooses Jesus.

I don't see that paradigm in Scripture...

What it does say is that the scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ
Jesus. And again, I don't think we disagree there. We both know that the scriptures are able to do that. But only if God applies them to the heart. Only if the Gospel comes in power. Not becomes power through our decision to believe, but comes to us in power.

You see "God's decision to create a receptive heart"; I see "their decision to receive what God is teaching." Which is right?

 

[Ben johnson]

Being made wise unto salvation is competely different to being convicted of sin. There is no salvation in a knowledge of sin. So why you choose to paraphrase 'wisdom' as 'conviction' is beyond me.

They are inseparable. One convicted of sin, is by definition wise to salvation (and his need for Jesus' blood for FORGIVENESS of that sin.)

Yes, because unbelief is a sin. Unfortunately it is in our nature to sin. Isn't it?

Not if we take hold of the Hope. "Ultimate depravity" asserts that a man can NEVER recognize his need for forgiveness.

Jesus is quoting from Isaiah 54:13. You can see who the "all" refers to there. Hint: it doesn't refer to all mankind. That completely undermines that argument.

Only God's people are taught - only God's people hear - only God's people learn. And therefore only God's people come. The rest of mankind choose not to.

Again, "not all are children who are descendants of Abraham"...

And hearing comes by...the decision of man? No, the word of God.

But without preachers the Word of God cannot come to save them. Is God's sovereignty hindered by our technology (our ability to send missionaries)?

When a man sees his own state - when he sees how sinful he really is - when he sees the eternal danger his soul is in - then when Christ is revealed, He is irresistable, yes! Don't you think so? Isn't He the chiefest among 10,000, the altogether lovely? Can you not say with Peter "to whom else can we go?"

First, Stephen blasts them FOR "resisting the Holy Spirit" (Acts7:51). Second, Jn6:67-70 really reads to me as Jesus asking if they WERE going to forsake Him.

"YOU aren't going to leave TOO, are you?"

(Of course not; we know You're the Messiah.)

"Did I not choose ALL TWELVE of you, and one IS a devil?"

How can He not be clearly saying, "ONE of you LEFT; are the REST of you going to leave (like he DID)?"

No, I don't. I agree, they were entering. But they did not enter. That is all I'm saying. Do you think they did succeed in entering? No, because the Pharisees hindered them.

In the next post I present the same problem to Fru. First I ask for you to explain why it's not a contradiction.

• First is the view that "Man CANNOT believe, CANNOT seek God AT ALL (without monergistic regeneration)

• But there are those in Lk8:13 who "received the word with joy and BELIEVED".
• There were those in Matt23 who "WERE entering in" (and Lk11:52)

You agree that they WERE "entering", they WERE "believing". How? You just contended that "man CANNOT believe because it's his nature NOT to believe." How then can he be "entering in", but be DECEIVED (away FROM belief)?

Again, agreed. But the fact that they did not enter indicates that they were not elect.

You define "elect", as "God's choice". I define "elect" as "those who believe".

No, because it was the Pharisees fault that they did not enter. Just like it was the Jews fault that Jesus was crucified - and Judas' fault, and Pilate's fault. They were all responsible. But at the same time Jesus was sent down to be crucified. It was God's will that He would be.

How can it be their fault, if they were doing God's WILL to KEEP the others FROM believing?

No, I honestly don't. The word "elect" or "election" appears in the new testament over 20 times.

Sorry. I'll word it this way: "Can you see how PREDESTINATION is presumed in that passage?"

My bad...

It means strive to enter in at the straight gate - examine yourself - don't be complacent.

Do we have a choice TO enter the gate? (That's how I read 2Pet1:5-11...)

Yes. Many of God's people go through times of doubt. But they are still God's people.

If "doubt", is "faithless", how can "by grace through faith" be saved, if it becomes "faithless"?

Our salvation doesn't depend on our diligence, it was accomplished in the death of Christ. God's people are not diligent in good works because they need to be to be saved - they perform good works out of love to God, because they are saved.

Paul says it does. 1Tim4:16, Heb6:11-12 Peter says it does. 2:1:10-11

That is a different set of people. God says "I will gather you, and you will come and take away the abominations." Then those "whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations" (i.e. those who God did not gather) will be punished.

If God GATHERED them, why did SOME of them still seek abominations?

Well I failed completely im my aim to keep this post short! Sorry about that.

I know the feeling! God bless you!!!

 

[Ben johnson]

Truly amazing how your argument morphs over time. I presume the above is from your paper/work/manuscript/book?

The concept (and the book) has not changed, only been polished.

Anyway, you are DEAD WRONG on the above, Ben. You've completely redefined terms here.

You mean, "redefined terms", like "BROTHER doesn't really MEAN brother" (it's saved-brother in ONE verse but quickly changes to mere-PROFESSING [unsaved] brother a few verses LATER)? And, "it's not REAL belief, because they fell AWAY"?

In another post, I have realized that "utter" creates confusion; it is too close to "total". So let's use, "ultimate depravity".

We agree that man is "totally depraved". But I understand that God's sincere (and universal) call TO salvation, has the power to OVERCOME his depravity in enough measure that he CAN believe. You understand that man's ULTIMATE depravity places him (withong monergistic intervention) as BEYOND HOPE.

• First the Calvinsts says "Man CANNOT believe, CANNOT seek God AT ALL (without monergistic regeneration)

• But there are those in Lk8:13 who "received the word with joy and BELIEVED".
• There were those in Matt23 who "WERE entering in" (and Lk11:52)
• There are those referred to as "BROTHERS", who FALL

So the Calvinst is forced to say, "he cannot REALLY believe without regeneration, he only FALSELY believes --- evidenced by the fact that he FALLS AWAY".

And, "They weren't REALLY entering in, oh they COULD believe but the Pharisees deceiving them was GOD'S PLAN to KEEP them from believing".

And, "even though man left to his own CANNOT SEEK God, cannot believe in ANY measure, there were those who believed superficially and PROFESSED to be 'brothers' (but weren't REALLY in their hearts) --- it is THESE who wander away from truth (that they never really had, they wandered away from SUPERFICIAL perspectives); and the term 'bring them BACK' really means 'turn to Him in the FIRST place' (because one cannot come BACK to where he never WAS)."

And so Jesus berated them over and over and over again for NOT believing (Matt23:13, 11:21-24) even though He know that belief is the CONSEQUENCE of God's monergistic CHOICE (and without that one-sided-election they COULD NEVER believe, even though so many, FALSELY believe...)

Eventuallly you'll begin to realize you can no longer deny the contradictions...

1. Context - Paul is laying forth the universal need of all men for the Gospel. He is not exaggerating, but rather cites these verses in support of his assertion that "all...are under sin."

Paul recognies that ALL MEN need the Gospel; all the while realizing that MOST men will never be GIVEN the Gospel?

2. Consistency - If we apply the "exaggeration" argument to the phrase "there is none who seeks God" so that we believe there really are those who do, then consistency dictates it must also be applied to the other portions of the citation. Thus we would be left with believing there really are those who are righteous, there really are those who understand, there really are those who have done good, there really are those who have not turned aside, there really are those who have fear of God before their eyes, etc.

Which is the truth, Fru? Tnat NONE seek, NONE desire righteousness, NONE fear (revere) God?

Or:
• "Those who FEAR God and do right are WELCOME to God" (Acts10:35)
• "He who comes to God must believe God IS, and is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him" (Heb11:6)

Yes, these conditional statements do indeed still apply. Those who seek with all their heart are those whose hearts have been turned from stone to flesh and given the desire to seek Him.

Once again the sequence you need is not there. Their hearts are turned to flesh BECAUSE they forsook abominations and turned to Him. But those who KEPT after abominations are CONDEMNED. Ezk11:18-21

Find me one Calvinist...ANY CALVINIST...who has argued that men are declared just apart from or prior to faith and you might have an argument. Faith is the instrumental means of our justification. We believe we are justified at the point of faith, not prior to it as you seem to be claiming we believe.

And yet you believe "justification came to the FEW", rather than to ALL (as it says in Rom5:17-18). You believe that saving-faith ITSELF is a "monergistic gift", and consequential TO election, not causal OF election.

Once again this verse is ripped from its context and propped up falsely. The context of the verse is Peter's realization that salvation is not limited to the Jews but rather the covenant has expanded to the "uttermost parts of the Earth." The inclusion of the Gentiles in God's covenant community was a MAJOR revelation in the NT.

True. But the context says, "God does not choose ANYONE (neither Jew nor Gentile), but ANYONE who reveres Him and does good IS WELCOME (regardless of Jewishness or Gentileness)."
Using the same argument, any Universalist could challenge that you have God being a "respector of persons" by His only applying the benefits of Christ to believers when He could apply it to all men.[/quote]"God-respecter", places Him as CHOOSING Thus by conspicuous CHOOSING, it is GOD who is the ultimate "respecter of persons". If mankind is free to choose Him, then each person is the respecer of himSELF. So your "universalist argument" is without merit.

Apart from God's grace in regeneration, nobody would seek and find, and nobody would knock and have it opened.

He who comes to God must believe He IS, and that He REWARDS those who seek. Your required sequence of "regeneration-then-belief/seeking", does not exist. Regeneration is THROUGH our belief...

One of these days you'll actually acknowledge the difference between a formal cause and an instrumental cause. (I'm taking the glass half full view here)

And one day you'll understand which is "cause" and which is "effect". Belief in Jesus RECEIVES the Holy Spirit; and through the RECEIVED (poured) Spirit comes regeneration. Not vice-versa.

Again, I know of no Calvinists who believe this parable does not refer to eternal salvation. They would however object to your insistence that the "call" spoken of here is meant to represent the inward call of the Holy Spirit for the same reason we would object to the insistence that "choose" in John 6:70 was in the context of election.

So you impose the idea of "inward sincere call", and "outward insincere call" to explain why SOME called answer, and OTHERS will not. You deny that "all twelve where chosen and appointed to bear fruit" (Jn6:70,15:16). Some day you'll recognize that your doctrine, though seemingly sturdy, only has certain passages resting on top of it rather than being solidly constructed OF Scriptures.

With respect, one understands the Calvinistic perspective by viewing all of Scripture in light OF the doctrine.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, how do you explain that I am OSAS yet not a 5-Point-Calvinist?

I really see a certain fixation on your part against anything that is OSAS.

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

But you appear to dislike anyone who associates himself with OSAS, although there is not even one verse that proves OSAS. !

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

I am against Calvinism because I do not agree against some of their specific points, yet I accept the others.

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

Forfeitable salvation is clear on 1Tim4:1; in 2Tim2:11-13. In the entire letter of Galatians (they WERE saved, "known by God" --- but then BECAME "fallen from grace and severed from Christ" --- apo-katargeo, ekpipto-charis). In the entire letter of 2Pet. In James (1:14-16, 5:19-20). Paul sincerely warns us TO persevere in salvation over and over --- see the connection of "adokimos" between 2Cor13:5 and 1Cor9:27. See 2Cor11:3. Notice how "reconciliation to Jesus", is put forth with the CONDITION of "if indeed you CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and NOT be moved away from Jesus". Col1:21-23 (Jesus is the Hope --- 1Tim1:1)

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

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

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

 

[frumanchu]

You mean, "redefined terms", like "BROTHER doesn't really MEAN brother" (it's saved-brother in ONE verse but quickly changes to mere-PROFESSING [unsaved] brother a few verses LATER)? And, "it's not REAL belief, because they fell AWAY"?

Nice try, Ben. You are the one incorrectly making the presumption that being addressed as "bretheren" cannot possibly be understood as carrying anything but the indication of true salvation. Accusing me of redefining the term is laughable.

In another post, I have realized that "utter" creates confusion; it is too close to "total". So let's use, "ultimate depravity".

Changing the term you use doesn't solve the problem of you REDEFINING what "total depravity" means!

We agree that man is "totally depraved".

No, we do not. Not even remotely. What you are doing here is completely redefinin the term "total depravity" just so you can say "I believe in Total Depravity" every time we repeatedly point out that you deny it.

But I understand that God's sincere (and universal) call TO salvation, has the power to OVERCOME his depravity in enough measure that he CAN believe. You understand that man's ULTIMATE depravity places him (withong monergistic intervention) as BEYOND HOPE.

And this is clear proof that you DO NOT believe in "total depravity" (unless you completely redefine the term).

The whole point of total depravity as it relates to the Gospel is that the will and desire of man is affected by sin such that he is morally unable to incline himself to God because his heart is dead in sin and does not seek Him. Your claim that the outward call of the Gospel is in an of itself sufficient to nullify that depravity is ridiculous because it doesn't solve the problem. There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith.

• First the Calvinsts says "Man CANNOT believe, CANNOT seek God AT ALL (without monergistic regeneration)

• But there are those in Lk8:13 who "received the word with joy and BELIEVED".

And once again we have you manipulating the Word of God, arguing something from a verse that was never intended to address this issue. It is clear that their faith was not genuine by the fact they quickly fell away. I've shown over and over again how you are twisting this Scripture, including showing quote from both commentators that believe in perseverance and those who reject it all agreeing that this verse is not intended to speak to the issue of true believeers falling away. Yet you persist in this gross fallacy.

• There were those in Matt23 who "WERE entering in" (and Lk11:52)

Who is the focus here, Ben? The Pharisees or the other people? (not that you seem to be interested)

• There are those referred to as "BROTHERS", who FALL

Yes, they confessed faith in Christ and thus were looked upon as brothers in Christ, but showed that they never possessed the faith they professed by falling away.

So the Calvinst is forced to say, "he cannot REALLY believe without regeneration, he only FALSELY believes --- evidenced by the fact that he FALLS AWAY".

Yes, and 1 John 2:19 says it with us.

And, "They weren't REALLY entering in, oh they COULD believe but the Pharisees deceiving them was GOD'S PLAN to KEEP them from believing".

Riiiight....as though they would have believed of their own accord if not for the Pharisees, but God decided to prevent them from doing what they otherwise would have done on their own.

This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

And, "even though man left to his own CANNOT SEEK God, cannot believe in ANY measure, there were those who believed superficially and PROFESSED to be 'brothers' (but weren't REALLY in their hearts) --- it is THESE who wander away from truth (that they never really had, they wandered away from SUPERFICIAL perspectives); and the term 'bring them BACK' really means 'turn to Him in the FIRST place' (because one cannot come BACK to where he never WAS)."

Feel free to link to any post where a Calvinist has said unregenerate man "cannot believe in ANY measure." I have never denied that fallen men can possess some measure of "belief" at an intellectual level (assensus), just that he will never put his full faith in trust in what he has been presented with.

And so Jesus berated them over and over and over again for NOT believing (Matt23:13, 11:21-24) even though He know that belief is the CONSEQUENCE of God's monergistic CHOICE (and without that one-sided-election they COULD NEVER believe, even though so many, FALSELY believe...)

Eventuallly you'll begin to realize you can no longer deny the contradictions...

Eventually you'll realize what a contradiction actually is, and then realize how bereft of sound reason most of your arguments are.

Paul recognies that ALL MEN need the Gospel; all the while realizing that MOST men will never be GIVEN the Gospel?

Does the fact that the majority of men will reject the Gospel in any way change the fact that all of them need it? No.

Which is the truth, Fru? Tnat NONE seek, NONE desire righteousness, NONE fear (revere) God?

Or:
• "Those who FEAR God and do right are WELCOME to God" (Acts10:35)
• "He who comes to God must believe God IS, and is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him" (Heb11:6)

Don't evade, Ben. Running to your other verses (conditional statements as usual) doesn't solve the clear problem you have with consistency here. The context makes it clear that Paul is not exaggerating, and consistency reinforces that fact.

Or do you deny clear Scripture and believe that there are righteous unbelievers out there?

And yet you believe "justification came to the FEW", rather than to ALL (as it says in Rom5:17-18).

Nice try, but we've been over this passage before. Once again, consistency on your part here would lead you to either embrace Universalism (that all men are actually justified) or pure Pelagianism (that not all men are under condemnation).

You believe that saving-faith ITSELF is a "monergistic gift", and consequential TO election, not causal OF election.

Yup.

True. But the context says, "God does not choose ANYONE (neither Jew nor Gentile), but ANYONE who reveres Him and does good IS WELCOME (regardless of Jewishness or Gentileness)."

No, that is not what the context says, Ben. That is your vain attempt at clinging to this verse as a proof text regardless of what the context is.

The context is clear: salvation as manifest through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was no longer limited to the nation of Israel but was now being expanded to men of every tribe, tongue and nation.

"God-respecter", places Him as CHOOSING Thus by conspicuous CHOOSING, it is GOD who is the ultimate "respecter of persons". If mankind is free to choose Him, then each person is the respecer of himSELF. So your "universalist argument" is without merit.

No, it is using precisely the same errant logic that you are using in claiming this verse refutes Calvinism. No maneuvering will get you out of it.

And one day you'll understand which is "cause" and which is "effect". Belief in Jesus RECEIVES the Holy Spirit; and through the RECEIVED (poured) Spirit comes regeneration. Not vice-versa.

Ben, it's been clearly demonstrated that you do not have a firm grasp on causality. Declaring my inability to understand which is cause and which is effect is like having a fully blind person declare me color blind.

So you impose the idea of "inward sincere call", and "outward insincere call" to explain why SOME called answer, and OTHERS will not.

Actually, it would properly be termed the "inward particular call" and the "indescriminate outward call." But yes, you are correct.

You deny that "all twelve where chosen and appointed to bear fruit" (Jn6:70,15:16). Some day you'll recognize that your doctrine, though seemingly sturdy, only has certain passages resting on top of it rather than being solidly constructed OF Scriptures.

(I'm laughing at the irony.)

What I denied, Ben, was simply the extremely poor argument that the use of the word "chose" in John 6:70 was meant to convey election. What you conveniently glossed over was the fact that I know of no Calvinist who believes that parable to not involve eternal salvation. And my purpose in citing John 6:70 was to provide another example to stand alongside "call" in this parable showing how you are incorrectly applying concepts to terms at inappropriate times.

With respect, one understands the Calvinistic perspective by viewing all of Scripture in light OF the doctrine.

You're a funny guy, Ben.

 

[Ben johnson]

The whole point of total depravity as it relates to the Gospel is that the will and desire of man is affected by sin such that he is morally unable to incline himself to God because his heart is dead in sin and does not seek Him.

Scripture says "he who seeks, will find". You mistake Eph2:1 (5), to mean "you were SO dead you COULD not believe". But the context says "through faith".

If it was as you say, then Paul would have said: "By grace through grace have you been saved".

Your claim that the outward call of the Gospel is in and of itself sufficient to nullify that depravity is ridiculous because it doesn't solve the problem.

Not "nullify"; but "overcome". Each person is helkuo-dragged to the Door --- he then chooses to enter, or not.

There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith.

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.

And once again we have you manipulating the Word of God, arguing something from a verse that was never intended to address this issue. It is clear that their faith was not genuine by the fact they quickly fell away.

"By the FACT that they FELL". Do you have a chapter and verse reference for that? No.

You prove the point, by the PRESUMPTION of the conclusion.

Romans1:17 speaks of "beginning faith to ENDING faith". Fits perfectly with "persevere" (see many passages, for instance 1Tim4:16).

You fail to see the point in the Luke8 parable; what DIFFERS between the "good", and the "bad", is that the "good", "held FAST and bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE".

You speak to me as if you're an expert at "cause and effect". But the theme of Scripture is that "those who persevere, are CALLED 'good soil' (because they persevere), and those who FALL are CALLED 'bad soil' (because they do NOT persevere)."

The connection between the "parable of seeds", and passages like Heb6:7-8 is undeniable. The field is BLESSED, if it bears good fruit; and cursed if it bears thorns and thistles.

THAT is "cause and effect", which counters what you've been taught.

I've shown over and over again how you are twisting this Scripture, including showing quotes from both commentators that believe in perseverance and those who reject it all agreeing that this verse is not intended to speak to the issue of true believers falling away. Yet you persist in this gross fallacy.

I recognize that you truly think you have "shown me".

...but others (who are NOT of "Reformed THeology"), agree it has not been shown.

Who is the focus here, Ben? The Pharisees or the other people? (not that you seem to be interested)

Jesus is rebuking the Pharissees --- WHY? Because He hopes they WILL repent.

...just as "Hymenaeus and Alexander will be delivered to satan to be taught NOT to blaspheme" (to hope they WILL repent).

Yes, they confessed faith in Christ and thus were looked upon as brothers in Christ, but showed that they never possessed the faith they professed by falling away.

Presumption of the conclusion. NO verse asserts "all who fall away were NEVER saved".

Yes, and 1 John 2:19 says it with us.

NO --- once again, that verse says there were SPECIFIC PEOPLE who "were never with them". It never says "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us".

You deny that just a few verses later (26-28) is an admonition "to ABIDE in Christ, SO THAT we not shrink-in-shame at His coming".

Hmmm --- do you think "shrink-in-shame" is saved? Seems I remember you saying you DO (apologize if I remember wrong). But searching "blameless", it is wholly conditional upon our choices. And "blameful", is "shrinking-in-shame".

2Jn1:7-9 is a clear passage about those who ARE with us, but "go on ahead (out FROM us) and do not abide in Jesus' teachings, so as to NOT HAVE GOD."

You cannot cite one passage that says "EVERYONE who goes out from us was never WITH us".

Riiiight....as though they would have believed of their own accord if not for the Pharisees, but God decided to prevent them from doing what they otherwise would have done on their own.

This is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Jesus said "they WERE entering IN".

Was Jesus RIGHT, or WRONG?

Feel free to link to any post where a Calvinist has said unregenerate man "cannot believe in ANY measure." I have never denied that fallen men can possess some measure of "belief" at an intellectual level (assensus), just that he will never put his full faith in trust in what he has been presented with.

Semantics. Many have been the posts asking "why would someone BELIEVE what he finds FOOLISH?" Asserting that his heart must change FIRST, before he CAN believe.

...but you assert "one can HALFWAY believe what he finds foolish, but not put FULL FAITH without regeneration?

You don't see discrepency?

Nice try, but we've been over this passage before. Once again, consistency on your part here would lead you to either embrace Universalism (that all men are actually justified) or pure Pelagianism (that not all men are under condemnation).

Or, door number THREE: justification CAME to all men, but it must be RECEIVED (by belief). See 1Tim4:10, "God is the Savior of ALL MEN, above all believers."

The context is clear: salvation as manifest through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was no longer limited to the nation of Israel but was now being expanded to men of every tribe, tongue and nation.

In Titus3, and Acts10-11, is the Holy Spirit ekcheo-poured BEFORE, or AFTER belief?

No, it is using precisely the same errant logic that you are using in claiming this verse refutes Calvinism. No maneuvering will get you out of it.

God electing some-few-whom-HE-chose, IS "respecter of persons" (partiality), defined.

Ben, it's been clearly demonstrated that you do not have a firm grasp on causality. Declaring my inability to understand which is cause and which is effect is like having a fully blind person declare me color blind.

I demonstrated your error in causality in respect to Luke8:13-15, and Hebrews 6:7-8. It is the FRUIT (good-fruit-with-perseverance, or thorns-thistles) that determines blessing or curse, not vice-versa.

Actually, it would properly be termed the "inward particular call" and the "indescriminate outward call." But yes, you are correct.

If He doesn't want them saved, why call at all?

(OH --- just where is that "insincere indiscriminate outward call to those who are never MEANT to be saved", in Scripture?)

What I denied, Ben, was simply the extremely poor argument that the use of the word "chose" in John 6:70 was meant to convey election. What you conveniently glossed over was the fact that I know of no Calvinist who believes that parable to not involve eternal salvation. And my purpose in citing John 6:70 was to provide another example to stand alongside "call" in this parable showing how you are incorrectly applying concepts to terms at inappropriate times.

It wasn't a "parable", Fru. Many followers left Him; only the 11 remained.

1. Jesus asked if the REST were going to leave
2. Jesus said He chose ALL TWELVE
3. ...and one was a devil...

Yet you resolutely cling to the idea that He didn't really MEAN that the other 11 COULD leave just like the ONE left. And you call YOUR view "sound hermenuetics", and MY view "faulty, poor, unsound", etcetera.

I would be interested in how the other readers here view our positions...

You're a funny guy, Ben.

I will accept "funny", if you can show in Scripture the idea of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING". Careful --- you're gonna hafta show me how "begun in the Spirit", and "running well" and "obeying the truth" (and "KNOWN by God"!) were not saved in the letter to Galatians --- OR show me how they were NOT "severed-from-Christ and fallen-from-grace".

Let's conclude with this:

"There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith.
"(show) where a Calvinist has said unregenerate man "cannot believe in ANY measure." I have never denied that fallen men can possess some measure of "belief" at an intellectual level (assensus), just that he will never put his full faith in trust in what he has been presented with."

If he believes in SOME measure, then he is NOT "devoid of faith".
If he is devoid of faith, then he does not even CONSIDER believing in God.

You choose one or the other as the discussion suits, and deny the contradiction therein.

No offense intended, Fru.

 

[frumanchu]

Scripture says "he who seeks, will find". You mistake Eph2:1 (5), to mean "you were SO dead you COULD not believe". But the context says "through faith".

If it was as you say, then Paul would have said: "By grace through grace have you been saved".

No, because that would be confusing the sufficient means with the instrumental means.

The fact remains that you do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity apart from redefining it to mean something else.

Not "nullify"; but "overcome". Each person is helkuo-dragged to the Door --- he then chooses to enter, or not.

A distinction without a difference, Ben. If the outward call of the Gospel is itself what is supposed to "overcome" man's depravity it does not solve the problem of there being a problem within the individual. It's the same as your "foolishness" argument. Man would have to willingly embrace that which he has no desire for in order for it to overcome his lack of desire for it.

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.

That's an argument from silence, presuming that because it doesn't mention God's prior work in them then it therefore didn't take place.

"By the FACT that they FELL". Do you have a chapter and verse reference for that? No.

You prove the point, by the PRESUMPTION of the conclusion.

Romans1:17 speaks of "beginning faith to ENDING faith". Fits perfectly with "persevere" (see many passages, for instance 1Tim4:16).

You fail to see the point in the Luke8 parable; what DIFFERS between the "good", and the "bad", is that the "good", "held FAST and bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE".

No, I have not failed to see the point of the parable. The point of the parable is quite clear. Christ is preparing the disciples for what kind of response they can expect to see from the preaching of the Gospel. Christ is not giving a lecture on the doctrine of perseverance.

What you are doing here is plain and blatant eisegesis. Period.

You speak to me as if you're an expert at "cause and effect". But the theme of Scripture is that "those who persevere, are CALLED 'good soil' (because they persevere), and those who FALL are CALLED 'bad soil' (because they do NOT persevere)."

That's right, and NOWHERE is there a commentary on whether the "bad soil" were actually saved. That part is the product of exactly what you are accusing me of: presumption of your conclusion. My position has consistently been that this parable simply does not speak to the issue, NOT that it in any way proves the doctrine of Perseverance. You on the other hand are reading your theology into the text where it does not exist.

[post=1542531]Again, for effect[/post]:

I have checked with several commentaries, by both Reformed commentators (Gill, Henry, Sproul) and decidedly

non-Reformed (Coffman, MacDonald, Clarke) commentators, and there is agreement among all of them. They all
see the lack of endurance through temptation to be an indication of a less-than-genuine faith. (citing 1 John 2:19)​

​

The connection between the "parable of seeds", and passages like Heb6:7-8 is undeniable. The field is BLESSED, if it bears good fruit; and cursed if it bears thorns and thistles.

THAT is "cause and effect", which counters what you've been taught.

Ben, you're still missing it. You are clearly not seeing your error here. Heb 6:7-8 says nothing as to why one field bears good fruit while another thorns and thistles. as with the parable of the sower, we should be content to let it say what it says and not force our doctrine upon it, which is PRECISELY what you are doing here. And you are only reinforcing your errors in understanding cause and effect.

I recognize that you truly think you have "shown me".

...but others (who are NOT of "Reformed THeology"), agree it has not been shown.

Ben, how many more times do I have to say it? The sources I referenced include those who are "not of Reformed Theology."

Jesus is rebuking the Pharissees --- WHY? Because He hopes they WILL repent.

...just as "Hymenaeus and Alexander will be delivered to satan to be taught NOT to blaspheme" (to hope they WILL repent).

Presuming Jesus Christ's motives when they are not clearly stated is a very unwise way to approach Scripture, Ben.

And in the case of Hymenaeus and Alexander we are shown the purpose of excommunication and withholding the means of grace from professing Christians: encouraging repentance and restoration. The Pharisees were not professing Christians, Ben. Apples and oranges.

Presumption of the conclusion. NO verse asserts "all who fall away were NEVER saved".
NO --- once again, that verse says there were SPECIFIC PEOPLE who "were never with them". It never says "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us".

I have never presented this per se as a verse that proves "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us." What I HAVE done is present it as definitive and undeniable proof of the Biblical concept that unbelievers may be among believers and appear themselves to be believers but ultimately show that they never were truly believers by their departure...a concept which you have steadfastly denied at every turn.

You deny that just a few verses later (26-28) is an admonition "to ABIDE in Christ, SO THAT we not shrink-in-shame at His coming".

Hmmm --- do you think "shrink-in-shame" is saved?

No, I do not deny the admonition. I deny the fallacious conclusion you draw from the presence of the admonition.

2Jn1:7-9 is a clear passage about those who ARE with us, but "go on ahead (out FROM us) and do not abide in Jesus' teachings, so as to NOT HAVE GOD."

You cannot cite one passage that says "EVERYONE who goes out from us was never WITH us".

First of all, to properly tie that to 1 John 2:19 you would have to show where it says they are OF us, not merely "from" or "with" us. Second, what you are attempting to portray as obvious is anything but. There is no clear implication of true believers losing their salvation unless you approach it with that presumption.

Jesus said "they WERE entering IN".

Was Jesus RIGHT, or WRONG?

You're ignoring the point, and now ading another emotive argument on top of the last one.

Semantics. Many have been the posts asking "why would someone BELIEVE what he finds FOOLISH?" Asserting that his heart must change FIRST, before he CAN believe.

...but you assert "one can HALFWAY believe what he finds foolish, but not put FULL FAITH without regeneration?

You don't see discrepency?

A valid point, Ben, but as is so often the case in the church these days the truth can be packaged in something that appeals to the carnal mind, and men may vainly deceive themselves if they find personal gain from embracing what they might otherwise simply dismiss.

Or, door number THREE: justification CAME to all men, but it must be RECEIVED (by belief). See 1Tim4:10, "God is the Savior of ALL MEN, above all believers."

Ahh...but THAT does not conflict at all with my position, and thus your entire point becomes moot as you are manufacturing disagreement where there is none.

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. He is the Savior of all men (in that there is no other name under Heaven by which one can be saved), but particularly believers (who are the actual partakers of this salvation).

So your entire argument that I'm changing the meaning of terms is invalid (unless for consistency's sake you want to also abandon your own position).

In Titus3, and Acts10-11, is the Holy Spirit ekcheo-poured BEFORE, or AFTER belief?

I've already answered this question several times, and the reason I'm not going to do so now is because you are deflecting from the point I made. The CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles.

God electing some-few-whom-HE-chose, IS "respecter of persons" (partiality), defined.

And, as I pointed out, so is 'God saving only-those-who-love-Him.' You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

I demonstrated your error in causality in respect to Luke8:13-15, and Hebrews 6:7-8. It is the FRUIT (good-fruit-with-perseverance, or thorns-thistles) that determines blessing or curse, not vice-versa.

Unfortunately you did no such thing. In fact you dug the hole deeper by showing that you're fixated on the wrong cause and effect relationship. The relationship at issue here is not what effect (blessing/curse) the soil brings about, but what causes it to bring about the fruit/thistles in the first place.

If He doesn't want them saved, why call at all?

(OH --- just where is that "insincere indiscriminate outward call to those who are never MEANT to be saved", in Scripture?)

Because it pleases Him to use the preaching of the Gospel by men as the instrumental means through which the elect are brought to faith.

It wasn't a "parable", Fru.

Matt 22:2-14 is not a parable??

Many followers left Him; only the 11 remained.

1. Jesus asked if the REST were going to leave
2. Jesus said He chose ALL TWELVE
3. ...and one was a devil...

Yet you resolutely cling to the idea that He didn't really MEAN that the other 11 COULD leave just like the ONE left. And you call YOUR view "sound hermenuetics", and MY view "faulty, poor, unsound", etcetera.

I would be interested in how the other readers here view our positions...

You're changing the argument again, Ben. My sole purpose in referring to John 6:70 was the error that simply the mere use of the word "choose" here necessarily implies an elective choosing. This is the same error made with Matt 22:14 in arguing that the mere use of the word "called" necessarily implies the inward call of the Holy Spirit. What you are doing here it going well beyond that point to get into an argument over a point about John 6 that I wasn't even trying to make.

I will accept "funny", if you can show in Scripture the idea of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING".

I have. First John 2:19. It could not be any more explicitly stated than in that verse.

Careful --- you're gonna hafta show me how "begun in the Spirit", and "running well" and "obeying the truth" (and "KNOWN by God"!) were not saved in the letter to Galatians --- OR show me how they were NOT "severed-from-Christ and fallen-from-grace".

I already have. Why should I think this time would be any different?

Let's conclude with this:

"There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith.
"(show) where a Calvinist has said unregenerate man "cannot believe in ANY measure." I have never denied that fallen men can possess some measure of "belief" at an intellectual level (assensus), just that he will never put his full faith in trust in what he has been presented with."

If he believes in SOME measure, then he is NOT "devoid of faith".
If he is devoid of faith, then he does not even CONSIDER believing in God.

You choose one or the other as the discussion suits, and deny the contradiction therein.

No offense intended, Fru.

None taken.

Let me post it yet again:


Saving faith is composed of three dynamic elements:

Notitia (knowledge) – this refers to the content of our faith. The content must be correct for the faith to be valid. I can believe strongly and sincerely in Santa Claus, but the faith is ultimately false because the object of the faith is not true. True Christian faith does not require that we have exhaustive knowledge of the full content of the Gospel, but it does require that we have knowledge of the true basic fundamentals.
Assensus (theoretical assent) – this refers to intellectual assent to the truth of the notitia. It is the difference between saying “history says that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon” and “I believe Neil Armstrong landed on the moon.” Assensus and notitia alone are NOT sufficient for saving faith (James 2:19). The demons know that Jesus is the Son of God and acknowledge the truth of that fact.
Fiducia (trust or practical assent) – this moves beyond possession of the facts and agreement with one’s “head” to a practical trust in one’s “heart.” It is a combination of love with trust, inclination and agreement.

​

In the quotes above, "belief" and "faith" are not the same thing, Ben.

 

[Ben johnson]

"even though man left to his own CANNOT SEEK God, cannot believe in ANY measure"...

There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith.

Fru, please tell me how what you said, differs from what I said about Calvinists?

 

[Ben johnson]

The fact remains that you do not believe in the doctrine of total depravity apart from redefining it to mean something else.

Is there anthing of value in us, apart from Jesus? No. We are totally depraved. Remember how you get upset when someone says "you don't believe" something, and you say you do?

A distinction without a difference, Ben. If the outward call of the Gospel is itself what is supposed to "overcome" man's depravity it does not solve the problem of there being a problem within the individual. It's the same as your "foolishness" argument. Man would have to willingly embrace that which he has no desire for in order for it to overcome his lack of desire for it.

1. Unregenerated men can LISTEN to the Gospel.
2. The Gospel has the power to CONVICT.
3. Unregenerate men think the Gospel FOOLISHNESS; until it begins to make sense.
3b. As the Gospel convicts them, the Gospel changes from "foolish" to "power".

Paul says "faith comes from HEARING (the Gospel)".
..."HOW can they believe WITHOUT preachers?"
..."With the HEART man believes"...
..."You became obedient FROM YOUR HEART"...

Jesus said "I will CALL (helkuo-drag) ALL men to Myself".

Seems simple to me, Fru.

That's an argument from silence, presuming that because it doesn't mention God's prior work in them then it therefore didn't take place.

Silence? To the contrary --- it is LOUD. Saying, "regeneration is by the RECEIVED-THROUGH-BELIEF Spirit".

It does NOT assert (anywhere!) "regenerated-then-believed", and it DOES assert "believed-THEN-regenerated".

No, I have not failed to see the point of the parable. The point of the parable is quite clear. Christ is preparing the disciples for what kind of response they can expect to see from the preaching of the Gospel. Christ is not giving a lecture on the doctrine of perseverance.

Actually, He's showing the difference between those who "hold fast and PERSEVERE" (bear fruit), and those who succumb to temptation.

...and it connects directly with passages like 1Cor10:12-13, "let he who thinks he STAND, take heed, lest he FALL. For ...God will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you may endure; but with the temptation will provide a means of escape, that you may be able to stand..."

1. We can choose to take God's escape (endure)...
2. or we can FALL.

What you are doing here is plain and blatant eisegesis. Period.

So --- Heb6:7-8 does NOT "connect" with Lk8:13-15?

That's right, and NOWHERE is there a commentary on whether the "bad soil" were actually saved. That part is the product of exactly what you are accusing me of: presumption of your conclusion. My position has consistently been that this parable simply does not speak to the issue, NOT that it in any way proves the doctrine of Perseverance. You on the other hand are reading your theology into the text where it does not exist.

And quoting again (for effect) : "There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith."

...yet you sit there and propose that "they BELIEVED, with a FALSE belief; it was SHALLOW (false) faith."

How can "devoid of faith", and "they received the word with JOY and BELIEVED", co-exist?

I have checked with several commentaries, by both Reformed commentators (Gill, Henry, Sproul) and decidedly non-Reformed (Coffman, MacDonald, Clarke) commentators, and there is agreement among all of them. They all see the lack of endurance through temptation to be an indication of a less-than-genuine faith. (citing 1 John 2:19)

You know, I'm not really interested in what Gill, Henry, and Sproul say. Nor Pink, White, or Spurgeon. Nor Coffman, McDonald or Clarke.

We have Scripture. It says what it says.

That's right, and NOWHERE is there a commentary on whether the "bad soil" were actually saved. That part is the product of exactly what you are accusing me of: presumption of your conclusion. My position has consistently been that this parable simply does not speak to the issue, NOT that it in any way proves the doctrine of Perseverance. You on the other hand are reading your theology into the text where it does not exist.

Show me a verse that says "they showed by their departure they were NOT SAVED; EVERYONE who departs was NEVER-saved". (BTW, that's the same idea simply expressed twice.)

I have never presented this per se as a verse that proves "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us." What I HAVE done is present it as definitive and undeniable proof of the Biblical concept that unbelievers may be among believers and appear themselves to be believers but ultimately show that they never were truly believers by their departure...a concept which you have steadfastly denied at every turn.

See? "Showed-by-departure-NOT-SAVED", is "all-who-depart-NOT-SAVED". And you're caught by verses like 2Jn1:7-9, where some CAN depart ("go on ahead and not abide in the teachings of Christ") --- the consequence of not-heeding-the-warning ("WATCH yourselves against deceivers!").

Ben, you're still missing it. You are clearly not seeing your error here. Heb 6:7-8 says nothing as to why one field bears good fruit while another thorns and thistles. as with the parable of the sower, we should be content to let it say what it says and not force our doctrine upon it, which is PRECISELY what you are doing here. And you are only reinforcing your errors in understanding cause and effect.

What it says, is that the field is "blessed or cursed", as the CONSEQUENCE of the fruit it bears. You would have to find some reason to assert "the fields were tilled DIFFERENTLY --- one to produce FRUIT, the other TO produce thorns".

...and it's not there. Instead of the "effect-and-cause" that your view requires, it presents "cause-and-effect".

Ben, how many more times do I have to say it? The sources I referenced include those who are "not of Reformed Theology."

And the source that I use is Scripture itself. I don't see it as ambiguous.

The Pharisees were not professing Christians, Ben. Apples and oranges.

But those they PREVENTED (from entering), WERE.

No, I do not deny the admonition. I deny the fallacious conclusion you draw from the presence of the admonition.

"These things I have written you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. ...And now little children, ABIDE in Him, SO THAT when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink-in-shame...

Is "shrink-in-shame", NOT presented as "consequence of NOT-abiding in Christ"?
Is "shrink-in-shame", SAVED?

Is "shame and NOT-ABIDING", not the DANGER of the "deceivers"?

First of all, to properly tie that to 1 John 2:19 you would have to show where it says they are OF us, not merely "from" or "with" us. Second, what you are attempting to portray as obvious is anything but. There is no clear implication of true believers losing their salvation unless you approach it with that presumption.

First of all you said "I have never presented this per se as a verse that proves "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us."

Do you accept that "true believers CAN 'go out from us' "? Or do you HAVE a verse that says "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us"?

The passages warns us against deceivers, to "watch ourselves that WE not lose what was WROUGHT". There is no reason to assert any separation between verse 8, and verse 9; "Watch yourselves --- (BECAUSE) anyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teachings HAS NOT GOD".

To deny the "because", is to impose presumption; and to change the meaning of the context.

You're ignoring the point, and now ading another emotive argument on top of the last one.

That's a dodge, Fru. Jesus said "they WERE entering in". What reason do you or I have to assume "they weren't REALLY entering in to salvation"?

Doesn't the context FORCE the understanding, of "they WERE truly believing and receiving salvation"?

Why not?

Ahh...but THAT does not conflict at all with my position, and thus your entire point becomes moot as you are manufacturing disagreement where there is none.

God cannot be the Savior of all men, if He does not want all men to BE saved.

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. He is the Savior of all men (in that there is no other name under Heaven by which one can be saved), but particularly believers (who are the actual partakers of this salvation).

Sufficient for ALL? Please tell me how He can be sufficient for those who are left in depravity and forever have NO HOPE or CHANCE. How is that "sufficient"?

I've already answered this question several times, and the reason I'm not going to do so now is because you are deflecting from the point I made. The CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles.

No deflection; those passages prove the sequence of "belief RECEIVES the Holy Spirit AND His regeneration".

...that is, unless you can credibly assert that that "one event", is not ALL described as "fell-upon", "received", "gifted", "poured", "sealed". Do you have ANY grounds for removing any ONE of those terms from the idea of "received-the-Holy-Spirit"?

And, as I pointed out, so is 'God saving only-those-who-love-Him.' You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

If GOD decides who will love Him, HE is the respecter.
If WE decide if we will love Him, He is NOT the respecter.

Matt 22:2-14 is not a parable??

We were talking about John6:67-70.

You're changing the argument again, Ben. My sole purpose in referring to John 6:70 was the error that simply the mere use of the word "choose" here necessarily implies an elective choosing.

Why is there any reason to think that ANY of the twelve were chosen DIFFERENTLY?

This is the same error made with Matt 22:14 in arguing that the mere use of the word "called" necessarily implies the inward call of the Holy Spirit. What you are doing here it going well beyond that point to get into an argument over a point about John 6 that I wasn't even trying to make.

Where in the parable of Matt22:2-14, is ANYONE "not invited"? Where in that parable is any HINT of the KING deciding who CAME and who did NOT?

I have. First John 2:19. It could not be any more explicitly stated than in that verse.

I thought you said that verse does NOT assert that "ALL who go out from us were never OF us"?

Saving faith is composed of three dynamic elements:
Notitia (knowledge) – this refers to the content of our faith. The content must be correct for the faith to be valid. I can believe strongly and sincerely in Santa Claus, but the faith is ultimately false because the object of the faith is not true. True Christian faith does not require that we have exhaustive knowledge of the full content of the Gospel, but it does require that we have knowledge of the true basic fundamentals.
Assensus (theoretical assent) – this refers to intellectual assent to the truth of the notitia. It is the difference between saying “history says that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon” and “I believe Neil Armstrong landed on the moon.” Assensus and notitia alone are NOT sufficient for saving faith (James 2:19). The demons know that Jesus is the Son of God and acknowledge the truth of that fact.
Fiducia (trust or practical assent) – this moves beyond possession of the facts and agreement with one’s “head” to a practical trust in one’s “heart.” It is a combination of love with trust, inclination and agreement.

It's great that we have such educational treatises, giving us terms like "assensus" and "notitia" and "fiducia", to tell us what Scripture REALLY means. How erred we would be if we just read what they wrote.

(Forgive the mild sarcasm...)

In the quotes above, "belief" and "faith" are not the same thing, Ben.

Yet in SCRIPTURE, "saving-faith", is "saving-belief".

"By grace THROUGH FAITH have you been saved".
"With the heart man BELIEVES, resulting in righteousness; with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation."

 

[frumanchu]

Fru, please tell me how what you said, differs from what I said about Calvinists?

It wouldn't be different except for the fact that you equate the usage of the words "belief" and "faith" and then project that onto Luke 8:13 to argue that they were saved.

 

[frumanchu]

Is there anthing of value in us, apart from Jesus? No. We are totally depraved. Remember how you get upset when someone says "you don't believe" something, and you say you do?

I have no doubt that you believe there is nothing of value in us apart from Jesus. The problem, Ben, is that is NOT the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity, the Reformed doctrine which you are constantly arguing against.

This is no different then me redefining "responsible grace" as that I believe God alone is responsible for our salvation by His efficacious grace and then claiming that I believe in "Reponsible Grace" and you don't.

For the sake of clarity, could you at least pick a term that doesn't already have a common definition? Maybe you could refer to yours as "total depreciation" or something.

1. Unregenerated men can LISTEN to the Gospel.
2. The Gospel has the power to CONVICT.
3. Unregenerate men think the Gospel FOOLISHNESS; until it begins to make sense.
3b. As the Gospel convicts them, the Gospel changes from "foolish" to "power".

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

Paul says "faith comes from HEARING (the Gospel)".
..."HOW can they believe WITHOUT preachers?"
..."With the HEART man believes"...
..."You became obedient FROM YOUR HEART"...

Jesus said "I will CALL (helkuo-drag) ALL men to Myself".

Seems simple to me, Fru.

You conveniently start changing your tune as soon as your "preaching is causal to belief" argument gets applied to the circumstance of those who never hear the Gospel.

With the heart man believes, and obedience does indeed come from the heart. And apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, fallen man's heart does not believe and there is no obedience.

Silence? To the contrary --- it is LOUD. Saying, "regeneration is by the RECEIVED-THROUGH-BELIEF Spirit".

It does NOT assert (anywhere!) "regenerated-then-believed", and it DOES assert "believed-THEN-regenerated".

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

Actually, He's showing the difference between those who "hold fast and PERSEVERE" (bear fruit), and those who succumb to temptation.

...and it connects directly with passages like 1Cor10:12-13, "let he who thinks he STAND, take heed, lest he FALL. For ...God will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you may endure; but with the temptation will provide a means of escape, that you may be able to stand..."

1. We can choose to take God's escape (endure)...
2. or we can FALL.

There you go again, running off to another one of your proof texts as though it will somehow save you.

You are engaged in blatant eisegesis in Luke 8, Ben. Commentator after Biblical commentator agree. This parable does not speak definitively to either of our positions, and yet you are manipulating it to prove yours.

[quote[So --- Heb6:7-8 does NOT "connect" with Lk8:13-15?[/quote]

The quote you prefaced this statement with said NOTHING about any connection between the two. You are now quoting my words out of context right to my face to make youre argument.

And quoting again (for effect) : "There needs to be a change in the person first or he will still be in his depraved state, undesirous of God and devoid of faith."

...yet you sit there and propose that "they BELIEVED, with a FALSE belief; it was SHALLOW (false) faith."

How can "devoid of faith", and "they received the word with JOY and BELIEVED", co-exist?

How many times do I have to explain it to you? There is a difference between accepting something as true for the sake of some self-serving motivation, and putting your full trust and dependence into something.

Give it up, Ben. You cannot manufacture this supposed contradiction you seem bent on proving. I have a firm grasp on what I believe and am extremely careful in how I state it.

[quote[]You know, I'm not really interested in what Gill, Henry, and Sproul say. Nor Pink, White, or Spurgeon. Nor Coffman, McDonald or Clarke.

We have Scripture. It says what it says.[/quote]

Yup, and where Scripture is silent YOU SHOULD BE SILENT ALSO!

Show me a verse that says "they showed by their departure they were NOT SAVED; EVERYONE who departs was NEVER-saved". (BTW, that's the same idea simply expressed twice.)

See? "Showed-by-departure-NOT-SAVED", is "all-who-depart-NOT-SAVED". And you're caught by verses like 2Jn1:7-9, where some CAN depart ("go on ahead and not abide in the teachings of Christ") --- the consequence of not-heeding-the-warning ("WATCH yourselves against deceivers!").

Ben, do you concede that 1 John 2:19 shows a clear and irrefutable example of those who showed they were not true believers by their departure? YES or NO?

What it says, is that the field is "blessed or cursed", as the CONSEQUENCE of the fruit it bears. You would have to find some reason to assert "the fields were tilled DIFFERENTLY --- one to produce FRUIT, the other TO produce thorns".

...and it's not there. Instead of the "effect-and-cause" that your view requires, it presents "cause-and-effect".

NO! A thousand times NO, Ben! The blessings or curses it receives are indeed the consequence of the fruit it bears, BUT IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY BEAR THE FRUIT THEY DO. I am NOT arguing about how the soil was tilled, etc. because the verse doesn't speak to that. If I did try to make that argument from this verse I would be guilty of the same eisegesis you are.

And the source that I use is Scripture itself. I don't see it as ambiguous.

You said: "I recognize that you truly think you have "shown me"....but others (who are NOT of "Reformed THeology"), agree it has not been shown."

I pointed out the fact that I DID cite others who "are not of Reformed Theology" and that they agree it HAS been shown. If you don't accept their words either that's fine, but don't speak as though the non-Reformed support your view of this parable because they do not and I've explicitly stated as much.

But those they PREVENTED (from entering), WERE.

You made a declaration of Jesus' motives that you clearly cannot support from Scripture. You equated it with the situation of Hymenaeus and Alexander, but as I pointed out it is an apples and oranges comparison. Apparently all you are left with is restating your assertions absent any support.

"These things I have written you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. ...And now little children, ABIDE in Him, SO THAT when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink-in-shame...

Is "shrink-in-shame", NOT presented as "consequence of NOT-abiding in Christ"?
Is "shrink-in-shame", SAVED?

Is "shame and NOT-ABIDING", not the DANGER of the "deceivers"?

Did my "repeated explanations" of the concept of instrumental causality ever get through?

First of all you said "I have never presented this per se as a verse that proves "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us."

Do you accept that "true believers CAN 'go out from us' "? Or do you HAVE a verse that says "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us"?

I'll provide that right after you give us a verse that clearly shows an actual believer losing their salvation.

I don't need to have an explicit verse, Ben. It is sufficient to my case to establish the concept. You have steadfastly denied throughout our exchanges that this concept is even a valid explanation for how men can appear to be saved but not actually be saved. Do you still deny it?

The passages warns us against deceivers, to "watch ourselves that WE not lose what was WROUGHT". There is no reason to assert any separation between verse 8, and verse 9; "Watch yourselves --- (BECAUSE) anyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teachings HAS NOT GOD".

To deny the "because", is to impose presumption; and to change the meaning of the context.

WHAT?!? I am guilty of presumption for not ADDING a word to Scripture that ISN'T THERE?!?

You have truly outdone yourself on this one, Ben.

That's a dodge, Fru. Jesus said "they WERE entering in". What reason do you or I have to assume "they weren't REALLY entering in to salvation"?

Doesn't the context FORCE the understanding, of "they WERE truly believing and receiving salvation"?

Why not?

The context is the condemnation of the Pharisees for their false teachings. If they would have entered in had it not been for the Pharisees, could not God have found a way to overcome their obstruction?

Why not?

God cannot be the Savior of all men, if He does not want all men to BE saved.

That's absurd. I could take the same stance and argue "God cannot be the Savior of all men, if He does not SAVE all men.

Sufficient for ALL? Please tell me how He can be sufficient for those who are left in depravity and forever have NO HOPE or CHANCE. How is that "sufficient"?

I'm speaking in terms of value. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient in value to atone for every single sin ever committed.

No deflection; those passages prove the sequence of "belief RECEIVES the Holy Spirit AND His regeneration".

...that is, unless you can credibly assert that that "one event", is not ALL described as "fell-upon", "received", "gifted", "poured", "sealed". Do you have ANY grounds for removing any ONE of those terms from the idea of "received-the-Holy-Spirit"?

This IS a deflection..YET ANOTHER deflection! You simply cannot bring yourself to admit that the CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles, can you?

THAT is the verse in question, and yet again you are deflecting away from it rather than answering to it.

If GOD decides who will love Him, HE is the respecter.
If WE decide if we will love Him, He is NOT the respecter.

This grand distinction you are making makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE since it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that Peter's words have NOTHING to do with election but rather with the revelation of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant people of God.

We were talking about John6:67-70.

No, go back and look. You brought up the parable in Matt 22 and I simply mentioned John 6:70 to cite a linguistic fallacy there similar to the one you were making with "called" in Matt 22:14:

And my purpose in citing John 6:70 was to provide another example to stand alongside "call" in this parable [Matt 22] showing how you are incorrectly applying concepts to terms at inappropriate times.

Why is there any reason to think that ANY of the twelve were chosen DIFFERENTLY?

Your error, Ben, is in assuming that choose=elect in this case in order to prove that Judas being chosen (and thus elect) subsequently fell. Jesus chose Judas to be among the twelve according to His purpose. It doesn't mean Judas was elect.

Where in the parable of Matt22:2-14, is ANYONE "not invited"? Where in that parable is any HINT of the KING deciding who CAME and who did NOT?

That's the whole point!! Matt 22 doesn't deal with the inward call of the Holy Spirit because regeneration is not the focus of the parable. The point is that Jesus came to Israel but they did not receive Him, so He expanded the invitation to everyone. But once the wedding begins, only those who have answered the outward call in faith (as evidenced by being properly clothed in the righteousness of Christ through faith) show themselves to be truly chosen.

I thought you said that verse does NOT assert that "ALL who go out from us were never OF us"?

That is incredibly disingenuous, Ben. You said:

"I will accept "funny", if you can show in Scripture the idea of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING"." (bolded for emphasis)

I pointed out the fact that 1 John 2:19 does indeed clearly demonstrated the IDEA of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING."

I met your challenge, and now you're changing the rules.

It's great that we have such educational treatises, giving us terms like "assensus" and "notitia" and "fiducia", to tell us what Scripture REALLY means. How erred we would be if we just read what they wrote.

(Forgive the mild sarcasm...)

Once again, you are completely changing the context of what I said, Ben. I provided the "educational treatise" to explain WHAT I MEANT in the face of your accusation of changing positions as the discussion suits and then denying the contradiction.

I was responding to YOUR ACCUSATION about MY STATEMENTS, and now you dismiss my defense of my own words on the grounds that it is unnecessary to understand Scripture?

How am I supposed to continue a rational discussion with you if all my responses are taken out of context and twisted into something they were never intended to be, Ben?

Yet in SCRIPTURE, "saving-faith", is "saving-belief".

"By grace THROUGH FAITH have you been saved".
"With the heart man BELIEVES, resulting in righteousness; with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation."

And, as always, context is crucial. Context is quite clearly something for which you have NO regard, whether it's Scripture or anyone else's words.

 

[Ben johnson]

It wouldn't be different except for the fact that you equate the usage of the words "belief" and "faith" and then project that onto Luke 8:13 to argue that they were saved.

And yet, when I use such terms in saying things like "Calvinsists believe ____", I'm confronted with accusations of misrepresentation and even false witness. I often feel like I'm being condemned for calling something BLUE, when I SHOULD have called it INDIGO!

 

[cygnusx1]

I have no doubt that you believe there is nothing of value in us apart from Jesus. The problem, Ben, is that is NOT the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity, the Reformed doctrine which you are constantly arguing against.

This is no different then me redefining "responsible grace" as that I believe God alone is responsible for our salvation by His efficacious grace and then claiming that I believe in "Reponsible Grace" and you don't.

For the sake of clarity, could you at least pick a term that doesn't already have a common definition? Maybe you could refer to yours as "total depreciation" or something.



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





You conveniently start changing your tune as soon as your "preaching is causal to belief" argument gets applied to the circumstance of those who never hear the Gospel.

With the heart man believes, and obedience does indeed come from the heart. And apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, fallen man's heart does not believe and there is no obedience.



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



There you go again, running off to another one of your proof texts as though it will somehow save you.

You are engaged in blatant eisegesis in Luke 8, Ben. Commentator after Biblical commentator agree. This parable does not speak definitively to either of our positions, and yet you are manipulating it to prove yours.



The quote you prefaced this statement with said NOTHING about any connection between the two. You are now quoting my words out of context right to my face to make youre argument.



How many times do I have to explain it to you? There is a difference between accepting something as true for the sake of some self-serving motivation, and putting your full trust and dependence into something.

Give it up, Ben. You cannot manufacture this supposed contradiction you seem bent on proving. I have a firm grasp on what I believe and am extremely careful in how I state it.



Yup, and where Scripture is silent YOU SHOULD BE SILENT ALSO!



Ben, do you concede that 1 John 2:19 shows a clear and irrefutable example of those who showed they were not true believers by their departure? YES or NO?



NO! A thousand times NO, Ben! The blessings or curses it receives are indeed the consequence of the fruit it bears, BUT IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY BEAR THE FRUIT THEY DO. I am NOT arguing about how the soil was tilled, etc. because the verse doesn't speak to that. If I did try to make that argument from this verse I would be guilty of the same eisegesis you are.



You said: "I recognize that you truly think you have "shown me"....but others (who are NOT of "Reformed THeology"), agree it has not been shown."

I pointed out the fact that I DID cite others who "are not of Reformed Theology" and that they agree it HAS been shown. If you don't accept their words either that's fine, but don't speak as though the non-Reformed support your view of this parable because they do not and I've explicitly stated as much.



You made a declaration of Jesus' motives that you clearly cannot support from Scripture. You equated it with the situation of Hymenaeus and Alexander, but as I pointed out it is an apples and oranges comparison. Apparently all you are left with is restating your assertions absent any support.



Did my "repeated explanations" of the concept of instrumental causality ever get through?



I'll provide that right after you give us a verse that clearly shows an actual believer losing their salvation.

I don't need to have an explicit verse, Ben. It is sufficient to my case to establish the concept. You have steadfastly denied throughout our exchanges that this concept is even a valid explanation for how men can appear to be saved but not actually be saved. Do you still deny it?



WHAT?!? I am guilty of presumption for not ADDING a word to Scripture that ISN'T THERE?!?

You have truly outdone yourself on this one, Ben.



The context is the condemnation of the Pharisees for their false teachings. If they would have entered in had it not been for the Pharisees, could not God have found a way to overcome their obstruction?

Why not?



That's absurd. I could take the same stance and argue "God cannot be the Savior of all men, if He does not SAVE all men.



I'm speaking in terms of value. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient in value to atone for every single sin ever committed.



This IS a deflection..YET ANOTHER deflection! You simply cannot bring yourself to admit that the CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles, can you?

THAT is the verse in question, and yet again you are deflecting away from it rather than answering to it.



This grand distinction you are making makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE since it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that Peter's words have NOTHING to do with election but rather with the revelation of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant people of God.



No, go back and look. You brought up the parable in Matt 22 and I simply mentioned John 6:70 to cite a linguistic fallacy there similar to the one you were making with "called" in Matt 22:14:





Your error, Ben, is in assuming that choose=elect in this case in order to prove that Judas being chosen (and thus elect) subsequently fell. Jesus chose Judas to be among the twelve according to His purpose. It doesn't mean Judas was elect.



That's the whole point!! Matt 22 doesn't deal with the inward call of the Holy Spirit because regeneration is not the focus of the parable. The point is that Jesus came to Israel but they did not receive Him, so He expanded the invitation to everyone. But once the wedding begins, only those who have answered the outward call in faith (as evidenced by being properly clothed in the righteousness of Christ through faith) show themselves to be truly chosen.



That is incredibly disingenuous, Ben. You said:

"I will accept "funny", if you can show in Scripture the idea of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING"." (bolded for emphasis)

I pointed out the fact that 1 John 2:19 does indeed clearly demonstrated the IDEA of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING."

I met your challenge, and now you're changing the rules.



Once again, you are completely changing the context of what I said, Ben. I provided the "educational treatise" to explain WHAT I MEANT in the face of your accusation of changing positions as the discussion suits and then denying the contradiction.

I was responding to YOUR ACCUSATION about MY STATEMENTS, and now you dismiss my defense of my own words on the grounds that it is unnecessary to understand Scripture?

How am I supposed to continue a rational discussion with you if all my responses are taken out of context and twisted into something they were never intended to be, Ben?



And, as always, context is crucial. Context is quite clearly something for which you have NO regard, whether it's Scripture or anyone else's words.

a brilliant post Fru !!! .......... I am keeping this one

"I have a firm grasp on what I believe and am extremely careful in how I state it." Fru

I can vouch for that!!!

 

[Ben johnson]

I have no doubt that you believe there is nothing of value in us apart from Jesus. The problem, Ben, is that is NOT the definition of the doctrine of Total Depravity, the Reformed doctrine which you are constantly arguing against.

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

For the sake of clarity, could you at least pick a term that doesn't already have a common definition? Maybe you could refer to yours as "total depreciation" or something.

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

Still doesn't solve the problem. First of all, you have no account for why the Gospel fails to convict and convert most people.

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

Second, you are still advocating men being convicted by foolishness. This whole argument is patently absurd.

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

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

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

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

You conveniently start changing your tune as soon as your "preaching is causal to belief" argument gets applied to the circumstance of those who never hear the Gospel.

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

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

They were not predestined either way.

With the heart man believes, and obedience does indeed come from the heart. And apart from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, fallen man's heart does not believe and there is no obedience.

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

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

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

You are engaged in blatant eisegesis in Luke 8, Ben. Commentator after Biblical commentator agree. This parable does not speak definitively to either of our positions, and yet you are manipulating it to prove yours.

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

How many times do I have to explain it to you? There is a difference between accepting something as true for the sake of some self-serving motivation, and putting your full trust and dependence into something.

Again, they BELIEVED. They were NOT "devoid of faith".

Throughout Scripture is the concept of "abide IN Christ, persevere IN faith". Both groups BEGAN believing; the difference is that the fifteeners "bore fruit with perseverance", and the thirteeners "FELL under persecution/affliction/temptation". That's the only difference stated.

Ben, do you concede that 1 John 2:19 shows a clear and irrefutable example of those who showed they were not true believers by their departure? YES or NO?

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

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

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

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

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

NO! A thousand times NO, Ben! The blessings or curses it receives are indeed the consequence of the fruit it bears, BUT IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO WHY THEY BEAR THE FRUIT THEY DO. I am NOT arguing about how the soil was tilled, etc. because the verse doesn't speak to that. If I did try to make that argument from this verse I would be guilty of the same eisegesis you are.

Were the fields tilled the same, or not?

I pointed out the fact that I DID cite others who "are not of Reformed Theology" and that they agree it HAS been shown. If you don't accept their words either that's fine, but don't speak as though the non-Reformed support your view of this parable because they do not and I've explicitly stated as much.

Do the "non-reformed-men" you quoted, speak for all "non-reformed men"? If the "reformed" whom you quote were wrong, then the "non-reformed" you quote also can be wrong.

We are trying to prove which view Scripture supports.

You made a declaration of Jesus' motives that you clearly cannot support from Scripture. You equated it with the situation of Hymenaeus and Alexander, but as I pointed out it is an apples and oranges comparison. Apparently all you are left with is restating your assertions absent any support.

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

Did my "repeated explanations" of the concept of instrumental causality ever get through?

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

I'll provide that right after you give us a verse that clearly shows an actual believer losing their salvation.

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

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

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

You have steadfastly denied throughout our exchanges that this concept is even a valid explanation for how men can appear to be saved but not actually be saved. Do you still deny it?

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

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

WHAT?!? I am guilty of presumption for not ADDING a word to Scripture that ISN'T THERE?!?

You have truly outdone yourself on this one, Ben.

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

The context is the condemnation of the Pharisees for their false teachings. If they would have entered in had it not been for the Pharisees, could not God have found a way to overcome their obstruction?

Why not?

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

The Pharisees CAUSED them to forsake salvation.

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

Same thing, Fru.

I'm speaking in terms of value. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient in value to atone for every single sin ever committed.

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

(in your understanding)...

This IS a deflection..YET ANOTHER deflection! You simply cannot bring yourself to admit that the CLEAR CONTEXT of Peter's statement was the revelation that God was extending the community of His covenant people beyond national Israel to Gentiles, can you?

THAT is the verse in question, and yet again you are deflecting away from it rather than answering to it.

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

Your error, Ben, is in assuming that choose=elect in this case in order to prove that Judas being chosen (and thus elect) subsequently fell. Jesus chose Judas to be among the twelve according to His purpose. It doesn't mean Judas was elect.

It's the same question as "was the field tilled any differently". Was Jesus asking "are the REST of you going to leave like JUDAS did", or wasn't He?

I pointed out the fact that 1 John 2:19 does indeed clearly demonstrated the IDEA of "demonstrating non-genuine faith by virtue of their FALLING."

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

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

Once again, you are completely changing the context of what I said, Ben. I provided the "educational treatise" to explain WHAT I MEANT in the face of your accusation of changing positions as the discussion suits and then denying the contradiction.

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

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

Those passages are consistent with "saved-brethren" and "saving-belief" and "saved-escaped".

I was responding to YOUR ACCUSATION about MY STATEMENTS, and now you dismiss my defense of my own words on the grounds that it is unnecessary to understand Scripture?

How am I supposed to continue a rational discussion with you if all my responses are taken out of context and twisted into something they were never intended to be, Ben?

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

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

And, as always, context is crucial. Context is quite clearly something for which you have NO regard, whether it's Scripture or anyone else's words.

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

Give it up, Ben. You cannot manufacture this supposed contradiction you seem bent on proving. I have a firm grasp on what I believe and am extremely careful in how I state it.

Yup, and where Scripture is silent YOU SHOULD BE SILENT ALSO!

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

That means the Parisees KEPT them from salvation.

We are likewise warned not to ruin others' salvation.

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

(Did I say that right?)