"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Ben johnson]

I would like to copy a post here from another thread, for illustration of a point. I have the kindest regards for the poster, as I have for all of you. I pray that we can remember we serve the same Lord, have the same goals, and regardless of "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" or "Responsible Grace", or "Catholic" or "Protestant" or "Messianic Jewish", we unite together in agreement that men need Jesus, and His gospel of grace through faith.

I pray that we uphold respect for each other in the face of differing opinions (realizing no two people in the world will agree on everything), that we only promote love and fellowship and Christlike maturity between us. There is only one Savior, it's not me, and it's not you; we are only commanded to love each other, and to teach the Gospel. Towards that, it is desirable that we have solid Scriptural doctrine. (Yet, if any of us thinks another has not "solid Scriptural doctrine", we allow the other to be "wrong", understanding that what each person believes is between him/her, and God)...

Thus, the post, from our brother Cygnus:

Quoted by Cygnus:
men choose according to their PREFERENCES , if men had no preferences "choice" would be indifferent , and wouldn't be choice but passivity ; so men are either divided into ;

a) Men who choose Christ because they prefer good .
b) Men who choose sin because they prefer evil.

Christ said men prefer sin , to light , they actually love darkness rather than light (John 3:19)


If there are men created by God who love light rather than darkness then why are all men not created with this propensity ?


why the difference in creation ?

Truth is , either
1. Men are changed from a depraved nature by God ,
or
2. SOME Men are born with a depraved nature while others arn't.

so which is it ben ?

either way it isn't down to your decision to be born with or without a fallen nature ; a wicked disposition that is at war with God , or on the contrary to be born desiring the light and loving God , which btw , describes someone Regenerate !


if men have been born , some good , some bad , how is that anything to do with human choice ? Folks it isn't!!!

either way taking the anti-Calvinist view , or the Biblical view , it all comes down to God's Sovereignty. ​

This is the Calvinist platform --- that "man is too depraved to ever believe/turn to God, he must be regenerated BEFORE he CAN understand Jesus' Gospel". We demonstrated on the other thread that 1Cor2:14 does not place "regeneration" before "belief/receive-the-Spirit", nor has any other Scripture saying that been forthcoming. But the concept of "sovereign regeneration" itself, has irreconcilable conflicts.

As Cygnus stated, "men choose according to their PREFERENCES; if left alone by God, a man always chooses sin and rebellion against God (completely impossible for him ever to believe savingly and receive Christ) --- and if sovereignly-regenerated a man always chooses belief and God's righteousness.

Here is the problem --- saved people SIN.

Why? If a man is regenerated so that his nature is "godly", and if each man "follows his nature", how is sin even POSSIBLE? Is not God sovereign enough to regenerate a man sufficiently that he does not DESIRE sin?

Their answer is "Men still have fallen FLESH, so they struggle between the new spiritual nature, and the old flesh nature. That is of course the correct answer. But while many do not find "eternity at risk" in this concept, Scripture does assert that.

The conflict is in proposing that "unregenerated men cannot resist their sinfulness long enough to believe in Jesus", while accepting that "regenerated men can resist their new natures long enough to sin". Why? If unregenerated men cannot believe, then Jesus spent much time rebuking the unregenerated TOWARDS belief. This is clear in Jn5:39-47, Matt23:13, Matt11:21-24, and many other places.

And conversely, "regeneration" is the same as "made-alive" --- when Jesus clearly said "...come to Me that you may HAVE life". Jn5:40 No one comes to Jesus apart from belief; belief precedes "having-life". In the other thread it was proposed this idea was refuted; but no support was presented --- the four links offered were shown not to overturn the idea of "coming/believing", preceding "having-life". Thus, "regeneration" does not precede "believing". As Titus3:5-6 states --- regeneration is by the POURED-THROUGH-BELIEF Spirit...

Nowhere in Scripture is the idea that "most people are not desired/called/commanded by God to believe and repent. So there are "two calls" proposed --- one to the SOVEREIGN-ELECT" (who because of sovereign-regeneration will believe anyway), --- this is the "effective call" --- and another call to the UN-elect, who have not the capacity to believe --- this is the "INEFFECTIVE call". I've never read of God issuing any kind of a call that He doesn't intend for men to answer.

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

"God's kindness and patience and forebearance are MEANT to lead you to repentance; but because of your stubborn unrepentant hearts, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of ...God's judgment." Rom2:2-8​

So how can God's kindness be meant to lead to repentance, men who obviously are NOT repentant --- and how can those who are "regenerated/received-new-natures" ever sin? Clearly stated "men prefer good, therefore choose Christ" --- but at times they choose SIN.

A preacher on radio said yesterday, "If you back-slide, oh you'll still get into HEAVEN, but you'll lose REWARDS". What is the difference between "back-slidden-sinning", and "unsaved-sinning"? If salvation is "Christ-in-you" (and it is), then any kind of sinning is turning away from Christ-who-came-to-DESTROY-sin", isn't it? It would make sense if "walking in Christ, crucifying the flesh daily by the Spirit" is a constant choice; but if Christianity allows men to steal, fornicate, carouse, be drunken, without fear of eternal peril, then what an easy belief that would be!

To be fair, Calvinists do NOT assert "wanton sin"; but many do assert "back-slidden-saved". It seems to me that we must agree that regeneration means the END of the old nature, and the beginning of a "new creation" (2Cor5:17); and this is for anyone who is "in Christ".

That sin is still an option, exposes the reality that "Christian", is a constant walk. Thus admonishments like 1Jn2:26-28 are critical: "Brethren, abide in Him, SO THAT when He returns you we will not shrink in shame at His appearing".

And this makes 2Jn1:7-9 equally critical: "Watch yourselves (against deceivers), that you not lose what was wrought, but have full reward; he who goes too far (on ahead) and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God. He who abides, has the Father and the Son."

In light of passages like Heb3:6-14, "not-abiding-in-Christ's-teachings", is identically the same as "deceived by sin to hard hearts that fall away from the living God".

Succinctly stated, to "unbelief". Not-abiding, is walking-in-sin, is hard-heart, is unbelieving.

This is the risk; not just to "get a few less crowns", but as Peter plainly said in 2:1:5-10, "that the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) provided". It's clear that "abundantly" is parenthetical, because there is no sparse entrance into Heaven for the wicked.

Christianity, is therefore a WALK. It is as Col3 warns, we daily set our minds on things above, not on things below; for above is life, and below is death.

...real spiritual death...

 

[Ben johnson]

Furthering the concept that we "must walk in regeneration", is Rom8:12-14; if WE walk in sin, we must die; but if by the Holy Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

A constant walk, not by our power, but by His --- yet through our faith.

We sin, because regeneration is by faith, and faith is a constant choice.

 

[Ormly]

Furthering the concept that we "must walk in regeneration", is Rom8:12-14; if WE walk in sin, we must die; but if by the Holy Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

A constant walk, not by our power, but by His --- yet through our faith.

We sin, because regeneration is by faith, and faith is a constant choice.

Amen!

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

We sin, because regeneration is by faith, and faith is a constant choice.

If regeneration is by faith, and faith is a constant choice (which is a terrible definition), then regeneration is an ongoing process, no?

 

[nobdysfool]

I would like to copy a post here from another thread, for illustration of a point. I have the kindest regards for the poster, as I have for all of you. I pray that we can remember we serve the same Lord, have the same goals, and regardless of "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" or "Responsible Grace", or "Catholic" or "Protestant" or "Messianic Jewish", we unite together in agreement that men need Jesus, and His gospel of grace through faith.

No disagreement on that.

I pray that we uphold respect for each other in the face of differing opinions (realizing no two people in the world will agree on everything), that we only promote love and fellowship and Christlike maturity between us. There is only one Savior, it's not me, and it's not you; we are only commanded to love each other, and to teach the Gospel. Towards that, it is desirable that we have solid Scriptural doctrine. (Yet, if any of us thinks another has not "solid Scriptural doctrine", we allow the other to be "wrong", understanding that what each person believes is between him/her, and God)...

Well then, we can expect you to stop trying to administer the "coup de grace" to Calvinism, right? That's what you're saying here, let's see you walk it out.

Thus, the post, from our brother Cygnus:
Posted by Cygnusx1:
men choose according to their PREFERENCES , if men had no preferences "choice" would be indifferent , and wouldn't be choice but passivity ; so men are either divided into ;

a) Men who choose Christ because they prefer good .
b) Men who choose sin because they prefer evil.

Christ said men prefer sin , to light , they actually love darkness rather than light (John 3:19)


If there are men created by God who love light rather than darkness then why are all men not created with this propensity ?


why the difference in creation ?

Truth is , either
1. Men are changed from a depraved nature by God ,
or
2. SOME Men are born with a depraved nature while others arn't.

so which is it ben ?

either way it isn't down to your decision to be born with or without a fallen nature ; a wicked disposition that is at war with God , or on the contrary to be born desiring the light and loving God , which btw , describes someone Regenerate !


if men have been born , some good , some bad , how is that anything to do with human choice ? Folks it isn't!!!

either way taking the anti-Calvinist view , or the Biblical view , it all comes down to God's Sovereignty.
This is the Calvinist platform --- that "man is too depraved to ever believe/turn to God, he must be regenerated BEFORE he CAN understand Jesus' Gospel". We demonstrated on the other thread that 1Cor2:14 does not place "regeneration" before "belief/receive-the-Spirit", nor has any other Scripture saying that been forthcoming. But the concept of "sovereign regeneration" itself, has irreconcilable conflicts.

"We" didn't do any such thing. Who's "we"? You and your pet frog?

The Calvinist platform is that men by the fact of their corrupted, sin-bound, dead to spiritual knowledge natures, have no desire to turn to God, and willingly and actively resist all such calls to that turning. they have the mental ability, but lack the moral ability to turn. Their moral natures are so corrupted that they have no desire to choose the moral good, and will only do so for selfish reasons, which are sinful. They are not prevented from it, they simply will not do so. They are not as bad as they could be, but they are altogether corrupted, sinful, and deserving of judgment for their sins, which they willingly and enthusiastically commit.

WE (Calvinists) have shown that the larger context of 1 Cor 1-3 shows that unregenerate men are unable to understand spiritual things, which include the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as all of the other "things of God" which are spiritual in nature, and can only be understood by those who can hear and understand spiritual things, which are those who are quickened by the Holy Spirit, and indwelt by Him after faith in Christ. That quickening must take plave before they can even understand and receive the Gospel. The quickening should not be confused with indwelling, as the Responsible Grace advocate so often does, despite repeated corrections.

Sovereign Regeneration has no conflicts, other than the fact that you clearly do not understand the concept.

As Cygnus stated, "men choose according to their PREFERENCES; if left alone by God, a man always chooses sin and rebellion against God (completely impossible for him ever to believe savingly and receive Christ) --- and if sovereignly-regenerated a man always chooses belief and God's righteousness.

Where did Cygnus say that the Regenerated ALWAYS chooses belief and God's righteousness? It isn't in the quote you posted. Either provide the quotation wherein he said those exact words, or admit that you have misrepresented his words, and put words in his mouth that he did not say.

What is the alternative to Sovereign Regeneration? "Co-operative Regeneration"? "Anthropogenic Regeneration"?

Who is it that regenerates? God? Or the man himself?

Here is the problem --- saved people SIN.

Which presents a HUGE problem for "Responsible Grace", whether you choose to acknowledge it, or ignore it, as you clearly do.

Why? If a man is regenerated so that his nature is "godly", and if each man "follows his nature", how is sin even POSSIBLE? Is not God sovereign enough to regenerate a man sufficiently that he does not DESIRE sin?

Their answer is "Men still have fallen FLESH, so they struggle between the new spiritual nature, and the old flesh nature. That is of course the correct answer. But while many do not find "eternity at risk" in this concept, Scripture does assert that.

Then you have a problems with the fact that the saved have had ALL of their sins forgiven, which includes those yet future for them. But your false doctrines deny that fact, by making each saved person in danger of loss if they don't consciously repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed after their initial faith in Christ.

The conflict is in proposing that "unregenerated men cannot resist their sinfulness long enough to believe in Jesus", while accepting that "regenerated men can resist their new natures long enough to sin". Why? If unregenerated men cannot believe, then Jesus spent much time rebuking the unregenerated TOWARDS belief. This is clear in Jn5:39-47, Matt23:13, Matt11:21-24, and many other places.

Jesus rebuked them FOR their unbelief, and stated to the Disciples that it was intended by God that they (the people Christ rebuked) not hear and see and understand. The reason is that, as Israelites, they should have believed, on the strength of the Word already given them, through Moses, and through the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They of all people had no excuse, and God deliberately left them in their unbelief, for a larger purpose, that ultimately the Gentiles would be included in the household and family of God, as He promised to Abraham.

You clearly do not see the Truth of Jesus' own words, and misinterpret them, as well as ignore His Words where they would damage your doctrines.

Stop putting quotations around sentences that you make up yourself, and then try to pass them off as quotes from Calvinists. That is deceitful and promoting falsehoods.

And conversely, "regeneration" is the same as "made-alive" --- when Jesus clearly said "...come to Me that you may HAVE life". Jn5:40 No one comes to Jesus apart from belief; belief precedes "having-life". In the other thread it was proposed this idea was refuted; but no support was presented --- the four links offered were shown not to overturn the idea of "coming/believing", preceding "having-life". Thus, "regeneration" does not precede "believing". As Titus3:5-6 states --- regeneration is by the POURED-THROUGH-BELIEF Spirit...

Like a dog returning to it's mess, you have returned to your declarations of victory over Calvinists, by asserting that no support was presented, which is a flat-out falsehood, as the support has been provided here as well as here and the entire 1 Cor 12 thread, with multiple posts which refute your statements. And you have been corrected multiple time on your false interpretation of Titus 3:5-6

Men are dragged to Jesus by the Father. Only those whom the Father drags to Christ, are given to Christ. They do not believe when they are dragged to Christ, they believe after they have been dragged to Him. That is the plain, clear meaning of Jesus' words. Your doctrine denies Jesus' words.

Nowhere in Scripture is the idea that "most people are not desired/called/commanded by God to believe and repent. So there are "two calls" proposed --- one to the SOVEREIGN-ELECT" (who because of sovereign-regeneration will believe anyway), --- this is the "effective call" --- and another call to the UN-elect, who have not the capacity to believe --- this is the "INEFFECTIVE call". I've never read of God issuing any kind of a call that He doesn't intend for men to answer.
"God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent." Acts17:30

"God's kindness and patience and forebearance are MEANT to lead you to repentance; but because of your stubborn unrepentant hearts, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of ...God's judgment." Rom2:2-8
So how can God's kindness be meant to lead to repentance, men who obviously are NOT repentant --- and how can those who are "regenerated/received-new-natures" ever sin? Clearly stated "men prefer good, therefore choose Christ" --- but at times they choose SIN.

Why do you choose to sin at times Ben? You know you do. In fact, if one has sinned recently, and they remain unrepentant for it, where does that leave their salvation? If they tell us that we can, at any moment, lose our salvation, have they not lost theirs, by remaining unrepentant? A theology which does not apply to its supporters as well as their opponents, is worthless, and therefore cannot be true.

A preacher on radio said yesterday, "If you back-slide, oh you'll still get into HEAVEN, but you'll lose REWARDS". What is the difference between "back-slidden-sinning", and "unsaved-sinning"? If salvation is "Christ-in-you" (and it is), then any kind of sinning is turning away from Christ-who-came-to-DESTROY-sin", isn't it? It would make sense if "walking in Christ, crucifying the flesh daily by the Spirit" is a constant choice; but if Christianity allows men to steal, fornicate, carouse, be drunken, without fear of eternal peril, then what an easy belief that would be!

Sounds to me like that radio preacher has a more secure salvation than you do. He certainly has a better grasp on what Christ has done for him.
A man sins when he give in to his selfish lusts and/or carnal desires, and takes his eye and mind off of Christ. That doesn’t mean he has abandoned Christ. The charge that Christianity “allows” men to steal, fornicate, carouse, be drunken without fear of eternal peril, is a false charge, a straw man set up to make your doctrine look good, when it contradicts scripture. You try to set the whole argument as either/or, but you provide wrong descriptions and depictions of what you claim are the choices.

To be fair, Calvinists do NOT assert "wanton sin"; but many do assert "back-slidden-saved". It seems to me that we must agree that regeneration means the END of the old nature, and the beginning of a "new creation" (2Cor5:17); and this is for anyone who is "in Christ".

Those who have truly trusted in Christ, are new creatures, who for a time, live in the old man’s body, and that is the source of the temptations to sin. When the redemption of our bodies, which is the adoption as sons, takes place, we will be delivered from that pressure, and sin will no longer have any temptation for us.

You‘re correct, no Calvinist advocates wanton sin, but you consistently try to portray Calvinist doctrine as promoting that very thing, so your denial is somewhat disingenuous.

That sin is still an option, exposes the reality that "Christian", is a constant walk. Thus admonishments like 1Jn2:26-28 are critical: "Brethren, abide in Him, SO THAT when He returns you we will not shrink in shame at His appearing".

Sin is not an “option”, it is a temptation. And before someone misconstrues what I am saying, we are tempted to sin all the time. The temptation itself is not the sin, giving in to the temptation is the sin. It is wrong to view sin as an "option". Only someone who doesn't want to understand would say that I said that temptation is a sin. I am saying no such thing.



continued....

 

[nobdysfool]

Continued.....

And this makes 2Jn1:7-9 equally critical: "Watch yourselves (against deceivers), that you not lose what was wrought, but have full reward; he who goes too far (on ahead) and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God. He who abides, has the Father and the Son."

Which is why you need to start truly listening and considering what we’re trying to correct you about. We’re not trying to win an argument; we’re trying to help you see more accurately, the truth of scripture. But to do that, you will have to let go of that which holds you back, the investment you have in your made-up doctrine.

In light of passages like Heb3:6-14, "not-abiding-in-Christ's-teachings", is identically the same as "deceived by sin to hard hearts that fall away from the living God".

Succinctly stated, to "unbelief". Not-abiding, is walking-in-sin, is hard-heart, is unbelieving.

You really need to quit making these bogus equations. It leads to error. The terms are not equivalent.

This is the risk; not just to "get a few less crowns", but as Peter plainly said in 2:1:5-10, "that the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) provided". It's clear that "abundantly" is parenthetical, because there is no sparse entrance into Heaven for the wicked.

Christianity, is therefore a WALK. It is as Col3 warns, we daily set our minds on things above, not on things below; for above is life, and below is death.

...real spiritual death...

The problem is, you make it 100% up to us to maintain and retain our salvation, by wrong interpretations of scripture, and in the process you have really removed God from the picture from having any active role in keeping the Christian, in helping the Christian in their walk. No, your whole emphasis is all of man, none of God.

Can you not see how unbalanced your doctrine is? And how you’ve robbed God of His rightful place as the author and finisher of the Christian’s faith? You’ve replaced that with a teaching that makes it all up to us, 100%. Talk about a “white-knuckle” belief system! Yours is the ultimate!

 

[Ormly]

Temptation is a sin??? Jesus was tempted. <scratching head> Hmmm??

 

[DeaconDean]

"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory? Hum...

Well Ben, I gotta give you credit, at least your consistant.

Unable to win in your other thread, you start another with the "claim":

We demonstrated on the other thread that 1Cor2:14 does not place "regeneration" before "belief/receive-the-Spirit", nor has any other Scripture saying that been forthcoming. But the concept of "sovereign regeneration" itself, has irreconcilable conflicts.

Sitting at work last night, I was reading my commentaries on Romans. Something that I had forsaken due to the fact I have been researching a thesis project entitled "The Law and the Christian." Research done, notes taken, outline wrote, abstract wote, now, just taking the time to actually formulate and do some typing.

It was while I was reading last night that I happened to run across this:

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." -Rom. 8:7-11 (KJV)

This passage, as practiacally all of the commentators hold, is part of a contrast between the unregenerate and the regenerate...The most important implication in that light, is that it is totally impossible for the saved man to reach the mind of the lost man with any presentation of the gospel.The mind of the unsaved man will not submit to the law of God, and, much more important, it cannot thus be subject. There are those who reject this truth because they tenaciously cling to the error that man is capable of doing something for himself, of having some part in the inception of his own salvation. If one dares to confromt them with this text that the unsaved man has a mind that is a sate of hostility to God, and that his mind neither will nor can submit to God, they ignorantly babble that "whosoever will" (Mk. 8:34) certainly must mean that "whosoever will may come." Applied to the unsaved our text sets forth that the mind of the lost man is one that is totally alienated from the life of God. If you go and preach "whosoever will" to the unsaved masses, and if God does not intervene to do His work of grace, not one human being will come to God. If God had sent masses of angels to preach the gospel to the lost race and had not applied any supernatural power within the individual, not one member of the human race would have ever accepted Christ as Savior. THe innate hostility of thye mind of man tot he laws of GOd would (and does) make any such acceptance impossible...All the volumes which have been written to prove the existance of GOd have never brought one man to believe in God. All the volumes which have been written to prove the Bible is the Word of God have never brought one soul to believe in divine revelation. All the volumes which have been written to prove the historicity of Christ and His life after death through bodily resurrection have never brought one soul to know the power of that resurrection. It makes no difference what men wish to say: ontology, teleology, natural theology, and the braches of apologetic thought can never bring one soul to Christ, "because the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, it will not submit to the law of God indeed it cannot thus be subject; so then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God. The mind is the noblest part of man, and if the mind is at emnity, then all the rest follows. It is not merely said the the carnal mind is an enemy, for enimies can be reconciled, but that it is emnity, and emnity cannot be reconciled."

-Donald Grey Barnhouse, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1946, 1952, 1958, 1963, Romans, Volume III, Book II, God's Heirs, Chapter 4, The Indwelling Spirit, p. 37-40

Then he takes it a step further to say:

Present Triumph

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." -Rom. 8:11 (KJV)

It was when Abraham believed that God ws able to bring life out of his body which he knew to be sterile that the Lord counted faith unto him forrighteousness...Now the same "if" question is before us once more. But this time it is the manifestation of the power of God to bring a continuing life out of the horrible death that is our living body of sin. There is nothing short of the believer's triumph in the living moment by moment the resurrection life of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Once more we must understand that the "if" here is not followed by the subjunctive which would imply doubt; both the conditional and the principle clauses are in the indicative; the fact is accepted; the Spirit of the God who raised Jesus from the dead is dwelling in us who are believers.

Ibid, Present Triumph, p. 47; God's Power, p. 48.

All this set before us is the present state of believers after regeneration. After being regenerated we have life, the same life that dead Abraham experienced that brought life to him and produced life in the form of heirs. And it was only after belief that the Spirit indwelt.

But let us look at ourselves prior to regeneration. Barnhouse also points out:

Our thext declares that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead, and that it is His own Spirit who is dwelling in us to give life within our mortal bodies. Think of it! What was this body, and what has this body become? The throat was an open grave, the tongue was an instrument of deciet, the poison of asps was under our lips, our mouth was full of curses and bitterness, our feet were swift to shed blood, our track was marked by destruction and misery, and there was no fear of God before our eyes. Can even God do anything with such a an anatomy of corruption?

Our text cries out that the purpose of God is a daily transformation in these very bodies of death. This dust forms the walls of the temple of the Holy Spirit. This clay makes the platform for the exercise of God's glory. This throat which once was a grave, has now become a flowing fountain; this tongue which once used deciet now speaks the truth in love. Under those lips where once poison was stored lies the refreshing spring of the grsve of God; the cursing and bitterness of this mouth have been banished by songs of praise and the sweetness of gratitude. These feet, once swift to shed blood, are now swift to proclaim the glories that flow from the Redeemer. Salvation and peace mark our ways; we know no other way than the way of peace, and before our eyes there is loving fear of God. We are now proof of Christ's own prophesy, "He that believeth on me, as the scriptures hath said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water" (Jn. 7:37) "This spake he of the SPirit" and we have the fountain of life springing up, even in the midst of these mortal bodies. All of God's tresure in earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7), and surely the excellency of this transcendant power is of God and not of us!

Ibid, Triumph in the Body, p. 50

If the above passages are true, then this piece of scripture is true also:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." -Jer. 13:23 (KJV)

If your mind, body, and soul are an enmity to God, prior to believing, how can the unregenerate person dare to say that they could all of a sudden stop doing evil, do that which is good and acceptable to God?

Did you Ben, or I, all of a sudden one day stop in our tracks and say I'm going to stop drinking, doing drugs, stealing, cheating, commiting adultry, lying, (btw, I'm not accusing you of any of this, just using you and I for illustration purposes only) plotting evil, cheating on our taxes, etc, and say I'm going to start going to church. I'm going to believe in GOd and Jesus. I'm going to do what is right and acceptable and well pleasing unto God?

It is only after regeneration that this possible. It is only after indwelling that we are able to do that which is right, good, anf acceptable unto God.

In John 3, Jesus seet forth this doctrine clearly.

What is regeneration? What is meant by "regeneration?"

Regneration is derived from a form of the verb "gennao" (gennaw) which means "to begat, generate." John L. Dagg says:

Various forms of expression are employed in the Scriptures, to denote the change of heart; and they signify it with various shades of meaning.. It is taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh;[122] giving a new heart;[123] putting the law in the heart;[124] quickening or making alive;[125] a resurrection from the dead; an illumination;[126] a conversion, or turning back to God.[127] So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature,[128] as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed,[129] as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed. With reference to the mode in which the descendants of Adam come into the world, the change is denominated regeneration;[130] and the subjects of it are said to be born again.[131]

[122] Ezek. xxxvi. 26.

[123] Ezek. xviii. 31.

[124] Heb. viii. 10.

[125] John vi. 63; Eph. ii. 1; Rom. vi. 11, 13.

[126] Heb. x. 32.

[127] Ps. li. 13; Matt. xviii. 3; Ps. xxv. 16; Isaiah lix. 20.

[128] 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.

[129] Col. iii. 10; Rom. xii. 2; Tit. iii. 5.

[130] Tit. iii. 5.

[131] John iii. 3, 7; 1 Pet. i. 23.

Link

James Petigru Boyce wrote:

REGENERATION AND CONVERSION.
At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration.

Link

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -Jn. 3:3 (KJV)

Beginning here, the very first step in the process is being "born-again", "generated" is from God and not by man. Jesus said here that you must first be regenerated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ormly]

"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory? Hum...

Well Ben, I gotta give you credit, at least your consistant.

Unable to win in your other thread, you start another with the "claim":



Sitting at work last night, I was reading my commentaries on Romans. Something that I had forsaken due to the fact I have been researching a thesis project entitled "The Law and the Christian." Research done, notes taken, outline wrote, abstract wote, now, just taking the time to actually formulate and do some typing. When you are able I might just have someone to discuss the scriptures with.

That is your first mistake, i.e., reading the understanding of others. Throwum away, study to show yourself approved, and write your own commentary.

 

[Ormly]

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -Jn. 3:3 (KJV)

Beginning here, the very first step in the process is being "born-again", "generated" is from God and not by man. Jesus said here that you must first be regenerated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

But not for salvation, did he say that, right? The righteous were already justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
If regeneration is by faith, and faith is a constant choice (which is a terrible definition), then regeneration is an ongoing process, no?
​

Hi, "JF". As I said, "regeneration must be walked-in".

Throughout Scripture are warnings against "deception to unbelief"; Col2:6-8 is one, James1:14-16 is another; Heb3:6-14 (and 4:11) is the best.

He who comes to unbelief, returns to practicing sin, and ceases to be regenerated.

...a that would not be possible if "regeneration" was sovereignly decided...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Well then, we can expect you to stop trying to administer the "coup de grace" to Calvinism, right? That's what you're saying here, let's see you walk it out.​

The "coup de gras", si vou plait, is delivered by the text itself. Take what happened on the other thread --- first "born-again" was nearly simultaneous with "adoption", leaving a time when a person was "regenerated reprobate". Then it was "simultaneous", leaving the person "born-again, AND adopted, AFTER belief". Both places deny "predestination".

Third, a person has a LOGICAL order but without TEMPORAL order, as if this answers the "nearly-simultaneous-delay" and/or the "simultaneous-AFTER-BELIEF". It doesn't.

The concept of "order", is by definition "sequence"; two events that occur at the same instant, have no sequence. Two events that occur in order, do.

...and neither perspective allows "predestination"...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
"We" didn't do any such thing. Who's "we"? You and your pet frog?​

Why, yes, actually, I do have a pet frog in my pocket. And that's no small feat; especially as the weather grows cold. He doesn't like the cold...

Quote:
The Calvinist platform is that men by the fact of their corrupted, sin-bound, dead to spiritual knowledge natures, have no desire to turn to God, and willingly and actively resist all such calls to that turning. they have the mental ability, but lack the moral ability to turn.​

"Mental ability"? Has such a person EVER turned? You can only answer, "no". So there is no ability whatsoever...

Quote:
Their moral natures are so corrupted that they have no desire to choose the moral good, and will only do so for selfish reasons, which are sinful. They are not prevented from it, they simply will not do so. They are not as bad as they could be, but they are altogether corrupted, sinful, and deserving of judgment for their sins, which they willingly and enthusiastically commit.​

As we discussed (you, and I, and everyone here, and my little froggy) --- (the frog is quite an intent listener) --- (you might even say he finds my words RIVITTING...) --- this makes all of Jesus' rebukes, "hyperbole". Matt11:21-24, 23:13, John 5:39-47 to mention a few...

Quote:
WE (Calvinists)...​

With respect, were you elected "spokesman"???

Quote:
have shown that the larger context of 1 Cor 1-3 shows that unregenerate men are unable to understand spiritual things, which include the Gospel of Jesus Christ,​

No, you haven't shown that "it includes the Gospel of Jesus". Your claim to the passage, is not supported.

"things", are "things"; as verse 14 says "spiritually discerned" --- this aligns with "taught by the Spirit with spiritual thoughts and words".

...that is, "RECEIVED Spirit"...

Quote:
as well as all of the other "things of God" which are spiritual in nature, and can only be understood by those who can hear and understand spiritual things, which are those who are quickened by the Holy Spirit, and indwelt by Him after faith in Christ. That quickening must take plave before they can even understand and receive the Gospel. The quickening should not be confused with indwelling, as the Responsible Grace advocate so often does, despite repeated corrections. ​

Calvinist doctrine. Please back it with Scripture.

Quote:
Sovereign Regeneration has no conflicts, other than the fact that you clearly do not understand the concept.
​

If "regeneration" is sovereignly decided by God, why do we sin?

Why isn't He sovereign enough???

 

[cygnusx1]

Quoted by NBF:
Well then, we can expect you to stop trying to administer the "coup de grace" to Calvinism, right? That's what you're saying here, let's see you walk it out.​

The "coup de gras", si vou plait, is delvered by the text itself. Take what happened on the other thread --- first "born-again" was nearly simultaneous with "adoption", leaving a time when a person was "regenerated reprobate".

no such thing as a "regenerated reprobate" !

Then it was "simultaneous", leaving the person "born-again, AND adopted, AFTER belief". Both places deny "predestination".

show in detail how any argument , or order of salvation denies Predestination !!

Saying repeatedly that this or that denies Predestination isn't going to cut it , you need to show by demonstrating it logically , until you can do that , then all we have is a man who openly hates Predestination but cannot tell us why!

Third, a person has a LOGICAL order but without TEMPORAL order, as if this answers the "nearly-simultaneous-delay" and/or the "simultaneous-AFTER-BELIEF". It doesn't.

The concept of "order", is by definition "sequence"; two events that occur at the same instant, have no sequence. Two events that occur in order, do.

This has already been answered by Fru , NBF and Mikey , so why act as if you are ignorant ? are you ignorant ben ?

...and neither perspective allows "predestination"...

there we go again , now demonstrate it !

I cannot think of one solitary thing (other than pure Atheism) that can logically deny Predestination , even Free-agency ; the free acts of men are within God's will.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Where did Cygnus say that the Regenerated ALWAYS chooses belief and God's righteousness? It isn't in the quote you posted. Either provide the quotation wherein he said those exact words, or admit that you have misrepresented his words, and put words in his mouth that he did not say. ​

Ah --- if he (or you) believe it's possible for a "sovereignly-regenerated" person, to NOT believe, and to NOT seek righteousness (but to seek sin), against his new "regenerated nature", then of course I'll apologize for misrepresenting him.

Do you (or he) assert that?

Quote:
What is the alternative to Sovereign Regeneration? "Co-operative Regeneration"? "Anthropogenic Regeneration"?

Who is it that regenerates? God? Or the man himself? ​

God. Through faith. Just as there is only ONE Savior --- but Paul plainly says "save YOURSELVES". 1Tim4:16

Thus, our participation in salvation, and regeneration, is faith.

Quote:
Which presents a HUGE problem for "Responsible Grace", whether you choose to acknowledge it, or ignore it, as you clearly do.​

Not at all; if we are sovereignly-regenerated, and have the new spiritual nature, and if men always follow their natures, exactly how is it that we sin???

Quote:
Then you have a problems with the fact that the saved have had ALL of their sins forgiven, which includes those yet future for them. But your false doctrines deny that fact, by making each saved person in danger of loss if they don't consciously repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed after their initial faith in Christ. ​

Really? 2Pet1:5-10 speaks of a man who WAS purified, but now has FORGOTTEN that purification. Will he enter Heaven? And if he's only "hypothetical", he is the example against which Peter says "THEREFORE be all the more diligent about your calling and election, that these fruits are yours; as long as you continue ...you will not stumble (become-wretched) --- in THIS way the gates of heaven will BE (abundantly) provided to you." So clearly conveyed is a LOSS of purity, and a warning for us to not DO THE SAME.

Quote:
Jesus rebuked them FOR their unbelief, and stated to the Disciples that it was intended by God that they (the people Christ rebuked) not hear and see and understand. The reason is that, as Israelites, they should have believed, on the strength of the Word already given them, through Moses, and through the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They of all people had no excuse, and God deliberately left them in their unbelief, for a larger purpose, that ultimately the Gentiles would be included in the household and family of God, as He promised to Abraham. ​

Where is that, NBF? Where does it say that "God PURPOSED for men to disbelieve and go to hell"?

Quote:

You clearly do not see the Truth of Jesus' own words, and misinterpret them, as well as ignore His Words where they would damage your doctrines. ​

Hmmm; too many passages say the same.

...especially ones like Matt11:21-24 --- why would Jesus say "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, they would have believed; it will go better for them in the Judgment than for YOU!" --- why would He say that, if all along he WANTED them to disbelieve and perish???

Quote:
Stop putting quotations around sentences that you make up yourself, and then try to pass them off as quotes from Calvinists. That is deceitful and promoting falsehoods.
​

Heh heh --- I read this aloud, and my frog is laughing too...

 

[cygnusx1]

​

If "regeneration" is sovereignly decided by God, why do we sin?

are you thinking straight ben ???

the answer is exactly the same EVEN if Regeneration was not monergistic (which it is) even if regeneration happened by an act of man's will , we still sin after regeneration , der!

Why isn't He sovereign enough???

not according to ben , no God isn't Sovereign enough , if He ever was .. .. because man has a sovereign will and "ben's God" is trapped by that will and what will be !

 

[cygnusx1]

................

Here is the problem --- saved people SIN.

Why? If a man is regenerated so that his nature is "godly", and if each man "follows his nature", how is sin even POSSIBLE? Is not God sovereign enough to regenerate a man sufficiently that he does not DESIRE sin?

Their answer is "Men still have fallen FLESH, so they struggle between the new spiritual nature, and the old flesh nature. That is of course the correct answer. But while many do not find "eternity at risk" in this concept, Scripture does assert that.

To be fair, Calvinists do NOT assert "wanton sin"; but many do assert "back-slidden-saved". It seems to me that we must agree that regeneration means the END of the old nature, and the beginning of a "new creation" (2Cor5:17); and this is for anyone who is "in Christ".

Can anyone else see the problem with ben's post ?, I have enlarged the type to display the 'bait and switch' , how can ben speak of his choice when he can't even make up his mind about the sin nature in all Christians - the real difficulty is finding ben agreeing with himself.

These are not side issues these are fundamental to a sound walk with Christ - Romans 7-8 has the answers ben is looking for , and I cannot see how he is not on the road to sinless perfectionism which is the natural error of Free-will theory.

 

[frumanchu]

The "coup de gras", si vou plait, is delivered by the text itself.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist this one. Not only do you not know Greek, you clearly don't know French either!

(It's s'il vous plait...which happens to be the SVP in RSVP. To be fair, it's also coup de grâce. Five years of high school French paid off I guess )

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
Well then, we can expect you to stop trying to administer the "coup de grace" to Calvinism, right? That's what you're saying here, let's see you walk it out.​

The "coup de gras", si vou plait, is delvered by the text itself. Take what happened on the other thread --- first "born-again" was nearly simultaneous with "adoption", leaving a time when a person was "regenerated reprobate". Then it was "simultaneous", leaving the person "born-again, AND adopted, AFTER belief". Both places deny "predestination".

What you're glossing over (and hoping no one will notice) is that I corrected myself, in the thread. And, I have been studying the issue further, and adoption as sons does not occur at initial salvation, it occurs when our bodies are redeemed, which is for us still future. So, I am further correcting myself, and clarifying my position, which further erodes yours.

You try to administer a "coup de grace" through misrepresentation, ignoring refutations that have been made, and claiming things to be as you weant them to be, rather than as they are. All of your flowery talk about getting along, and allowiong each other to differ, as you say here ,

(Yet, if any of us thinks another has not "solid Scriptural doctrine", we allow the other to be "wrong", understanding that what each person believes is between him/her, and God)...

All that is just so much hot air, because you don't intend to allow us to differ, you intend to destroy Calvinism. You will, of course, fail, but you haven't learned that yet.

Predestination is not denied by this understanding at all.
and according to your doctrines, and your stated positions, the following are true:

If anyone thinks this is a valid argument by "Responsible Grace" review the last several pages and notice that "Responsible Grace" refuses to acknowledge or answer the following conclusions drawn from its own reasoning:

There is a time when men believe but are not justified
There is a time when men believe but are still children of the devil
There is a time when men believe but are not born again
There is a time when men believe but are not adopted sons of God
There is a time when men believe but are not in Christ
There is a time when men believe but are not elect
There is a time when men believe but are not saved

You have never addressed these points.

Third, a person has a LOGICAL order but without TEMPORAL order, as if this answers the "nearly-simultaneous-delay" and/or the "simultaneous-AFTER-BELIEF". It doesn't.

The concept of "order", is by definition "sequence"; two events that occur at the same instant, have no sequence. Two events that occur in order, do.

...and neither perspective allows "predestination"...

And you once again demonstrate your ignorance of the concept of logical order apart from temporal sequence, which is a valid and wholly logical means of determining how something happens. The analogy I gave of scientists looking at the logical sequence of events in a nuclear explosion is rock-solid because they do not consider time in their analysis, in order to identify the events which comprise a nuclear explosion. It is exactly the same for theological examination of the logical sequence of events in Salvation, in order to identify what actually happens. Time is not considered in that examination. That is what you refuse to acknowledge, or even consider. Why? Because it does serious damage to your false doctrines.

Sequence can exist apart from time. That fact is the basis for much scientific and theological study, and has increased the understanding of m any improtant things. Too bad your denial of it prevents you from benefiting from it.

And once again, you try to key everything to Predestination. We know why you try so desperately to do so, because Predestination, biblical Predestination, is absolutely 100% TOXIC to your false doctrines.

 

[nobdysfool]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist this one. Not only do you not know Greek, you clearly don't know French either!

(It's s'il vous plait...which happens to be the SVP in RSVP. To be fair, it's also coup de grâce. Five years of high school French paid off I guess )

Ok, what's the ASCII code to get that little thing over the a?

I'll go back and correct my spelling....