"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Rightglory]

Jesusfreak5000,

Regeneration/Justification is monergistic. Sanctification is synergistic.

How can man be involved a both, having a will and not having a will. Is man bipolar in your view, does his nature change? IF sanctification is synergistic, wherewith man has a choice, a will, can make a volitional act, then so is justification and regeneration. All are the result of man's faith, beliving. We are justified by faith, and when we are, we a believers repent and are baptised, which then regenerates man. This enters us into Christ where we are then in the process of being saved. It is either one or the other, it cannot be both. Scripture says man is free, man is a free volitional agent respective of his relationship with God.
What text could you use to show that justification is not by faith, and also regeneration?

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

If the elect aren't people who do you think they are

never said they are not people, but they are a group of people. It is the Body of Christ. It never says that a person is predestined to be one of the elect. or is chosen to be an elect. All it ever says is that those who are elect, those that love God, that believe, were predestined to be conformed to His Image, to become like Christ, to be made holy and blameless.
But to be an elect person, one must of necessity first believe, enter into that Kingdom.

Faith takes place in time , election takes place in eternity and it is always unconditional !!

A contradiction per scripture. One has nothing to do with the other. No person was elected to believe, no person was selected, predestined, chosen to believe.

In every use of the word "chosen" it is for some person to fulfil a purpose for God. Noah, to preserve some, and was chosen because of his faith, Abraham was chosen as the father of believers because of his faith. Jacob later for the same reason, to continue the line. Has nothing to do with the personal salvation of each. The disciples were chosen for a specific task, but were not chosen to believe. You cannot find any text anywhere that will support your view that a person is either predestined to believe or chosen to believe. The ONLY way is for a person to believe, volitionally, by faith, to enter into the Body of Christ.

Depersonalising election is something scripture doesn't do ... only those who have a problem with it attempt to make Election mean very little or nothing .

No it does not, it just does not exist as you interpret it. The Church never has had a problem with it. You are the one that has the problem with it. Show that it existed over the last 2000 years as a doctrine of Christianity.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

If the elect aren't people who do you think they are

never said they are not people, but they are a group of people. It is the Body of Christ. It never says that a person is predestined to be one of the elect. or is an elect. All it ever says is that those who are elect, those that love God, that believe, were predestined to be conformed to His Image, to become like Christ, to be made holy and blameless.

But to be an elect person, one must of necessity first believe, enter into that Kingdom.

Faith takes place in time , election takes place in eternity and it is always unconditional !!

and one has nothing to do with the other. No person was elected to believe, no person was selected, predestined, chosen to believe.

In every use of the word "chosen" it is for some person to fulfil a purpose for God. Noah, to preserve some, and was chosen because of his faith, Abraham was chosen as the father of believers because of his faith. The disciples were chosen for a specific task, but were not chosen to believe. You cannot find any text anywhere that will support your view that a person is either predestined to believe or chosen to believe. The ONLY way is for a person to believe, volitionally, by faith, to enter into the Body of Christ. OT or NT.

Depersonalising election is something scripture doesn't do ... only those who have a problem with it attempt to make Election mean very little or nothing .

No it does not, it just does not exist as you interpret it. The Church never has had a problem with it. You are the one that has the problem with it. Show that it existed over the last 2000 years as a doctrine of Christianity.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

If the elect aren't people who do you think they are

never said they are not people, but they are a group of people. It is the Body of Christ. It never says that a person is predestined to be one of the elect. or is an elect. All it ever says is that those who are elect, those that love God, that believe, were predestined to be conformed to His Image, to become like Christ, to be made holy and blameless.

But to be an elect person, one must of necessity first believe, enter into that Kingdom.

Faith takes place in time , election takes place in eternity and it is always unconditional !!

and one has nothing to do with the other. No person was elected to believe, no person was selected, predestined, chosen to believe.

In every use of the word "chosen" it is for some person to fulfil a purpose for God. Noah, to preserve some, and was chosen because of his faith, Abraham was chosen as the father of believers because of his faith. The disciples were chosen for a specific task, but were not chosen to believe. You cannot find any text anywhere that will support your view that a person is either predestined to believe or chosen to believe. The ONLY way is for a person to believe, volitionally, by faith, to enter into the Body of Christ. OT or NT.

Depersonalising election is something scripture doesn't do ... only those who have a problem with it attempt to make Election mean very little or nothing .

No it does not, it just does not exist as you interpret it. The Church never has had a problem with it. You are the one that has the problem with it. Show that it existed over the last 2000 years as a doctrine of Christianity.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

If the elect aren't people who do you think they are

never said they are not people, but they are a group of people. It is the Body of Christ. It never says that a person is predestined to be one of the elect. or is an elect. All it ever says is that those who are elect, those that love God, that believe, were predestined to be conformed to His Image, to become like Christ, to be made holy and blameless.

But to be an elect person, one must of necessity first believe, enter into that Kingdom.

Faith takes place in time , election takes place in eternity and it is always unconditional !!

and one has nothing to do with the other. No person was elected to believe, no person was selected, predestined, chosen to believe.

In every use of the word "chosen" it is for some person to fulfil a purpose for God. Noah, to preserve some, and was chosen because of his faith, Abraham was chosen as the father of believers because of his faith. The disciples were chosen for a specific task, but were not chosen to believe. You cannot find any text anywhere that will support your view that a person is either predestined to believe or chosen to believe. The ONLY way is for a person to believe, volitionally, by faith, to enter into the Body of Christ. OT or NT.

Depersonalising election is something scripture doesn't do ... only those who have a problem with it attempt to make Election mean very little or nothing .

No it does not, it just does not exist as you interpret it. The Church never has had a problem with it. You are the one that has the problem with it. Show that it existed over the last 2000 years as a doctrine of Christianity.

 

[MamaZ]

There can be three men standing in one area and only one can be an elect out of the whole group. For Jesus calls each of His disciples individually..

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
All believers still sin, Ben. That sin doesn't still separate us from God in a judicial sense, does it?​

Yes. Repentance is our choice, and Jesus said "Unless you repent you will perish".

Quote:
No, because there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.​

Here is the Scriptural dynamic you're denying.
1. Those who are "in Christ Jesus", can be recognized by their fruits.
2. Peter warns us to "be diligent about our calling and election, that we have godly fruits, ...so that the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) provided. 2:1:5-10
3. Paul warns us to "examine ourselves, to see if we are in Christ; Christ is in us, unless we FAIL the test.
4. "There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ", continues with "...who walk not after the flesh, but according to the Spirit". (Rm8:4)
5. Paul says "if you walk according to the flesh ...you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death ...the flesh, you will live." Rm8:13

You see man as passive in his salvation, Jesus said a man is active in salvation. Matt7:24-27

Quote:
So we do not lose our salvation when we sin... but we are obviously exercising another nature, because the new man does not sin. Not only biblically, but experientially I am correct that we have two natures, warring against each other.​

Then what should I be preaching?

"You must receive Jesus as your personal Lord (Master) and Savior, and He will give you a new nature; oh but don't worry, you'll still have the OLD nature, you don't have to stop sinning; Jesus will just overlook those sins and consider you 'righteous'."

Quote:
The regenerate/saved man is positionally sanctified, but not practically sanctified.​

Is that kinda like when a woman is PARTLY pregnant? Maybe she's "only a LITTLE 'with child' "?

Quote:
That is, God sees us as holy and blameless (due to our sins imputed to Christ and His righteousness imputed to us)...​

Please do a search on "blameless", with an online Bible. www.blueletterbible.org is a good one. You will find:
1. "Blameless" is fully our choice in Col1:21-23, and is conditioned on "if we CONTINUE in the faith ...and not be moved away from Jesus-the-hope".
2. We are warned to "Be diligent to be FOUND by Him blameless", in 2Pet3:14.
3. God is ABLE to keep us blameless, but we build OURSELVES in faith and KEEP OURSELVES in His love in Jude1:24, 20-21.
4. By our actions we PROVE OURSELVES blameless, in Philip2:15.

Our "blamelessness" is OUR choice, not GOD'S.

Quote:
yet we are still warring with our flesh, and therefore, fail at times - we are sanctified before God judicially yet continue to sin in reality.​

No, we are NOT "warring with our flesh". The war is detailed in Rom7; the solution is in ch8 --- we walk NOT in the flesh, but in the SPIRIT.

If we are warring with the flesh, depending on our OWN strength to win, do you think we'll win?

Quote:
That's how.​

That's how not. I've answered every word with Scripture, given you detailed Scriptural principles, and shown you how we DECIDE to be blameless --- His power, but our decision. That's what "obligation" means, in Rom8:12-14.

One who is sovereignly-destined is not "under obligation", because obligation describes a DECISION.

Go back to Rom2; if repentance is GOD'S choice, then God's kindness can not be meant to lead to repentance, those who are not repenting.

Contrast how God's kindness is portrayed in Rom2:2-5 (meant to lead to repentance), with how it is in Rom11:21-23 (God's kindness is on us if we CONTINUE in faith, otherwise the severity that those who disbelieved received, will also be OURS.

"Severity" and "cut off" are for those who disbelieve; we are warned not to be arrogant towards those who were cut off, because we ALSO can be cut off.

"JF", this post is 100% Scripturally backed; if you can deny any principles here, please do. I respectfully ask you to either overturn what I've just said (with Scripture), or consider that our place in Christ is by faith, and faith is our choice.

 

[MamaZ]

Faith our own choice? I doubt it. Where does faith come from? What builds our faith?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
I believe we serve different gods . ..either that or you serve God accidently.

God does decree sin ... the Crucifixion was sin and God decreed it in total.​

God decrees sin. God HATES sin, Jesus came to DESTROY sin, but you perceive "God decrees sin".

I have no idea how to convince you otherwise...

Quote:
God does will many to perish for their sin as many scriptures affirm.

God's desire for all to repent is a conditional desire , not an absolute desire otherwise it would be done.

God is the God of all hope , not man with his so called abilities!​

God is the "God of all hope".
But God decreed the majority sin, and perish.
God WILLS for them to perish.

What hope do THEY have???​

In your own words, your perception of God is "He is NOT the God of 'all hope'."

 

[MamaZ]

Once again I ask. Where does faith come from? How does one build His most Holy Faith?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by MamaZ:
There can be three men standing in one area and only one can be an elect out of the whole group. For Jesus calls each of His disciples individually.. ​

First, Jesus "called all TWELVE" (Jn6:70), and "ordained that they bear fruit that REMAINS" (Jn15:16), and one of them left. Jn6:70

Second, "disciples CAN be deceived". Acts 20:29-30.

Third, we are to "be diligent to make sure of our calling and election, that the gates of Heaven BE abundantly provided". That's "abundant or-not-at-all", unless you can propose a SPARSE entrance to Heaven for the wicked.

Quote:
Faith our own choice? I doubt it. Where does faith come from? What builds our faith?​

Faith is our own choice in Heb11:6.
Salvation is the outcome of OUR faith in 1Pet1:9.

Several times Jesus said "Your faith has saved you."

Unbelief is condemned (1Jn5:10). Belief is rewarded (Rm11:21-23).

Jesus condemned His audience for having SEEN, but REFUSING to believe (Matt11:21-24); and He plainly said "You can believe in Me, just by looking at what I've DONE" (Jn10:38).

Read His words to Thomas: "You believe because you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe. Jn20:29

Believe because you see. Explain that in a "faith-is-not-ours" paradigm. Jesus plainly said that "seen-faith is fine, but unseen-faith is greater."

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by MamaZ:
Once again I ask. Where does faith come from? How does one build His most Holy Faith?​

Paul said, "Since childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Christ Jesus". 2Tim3:15

Studying Scripture leads to wisdom, which leads to saving-faith. It's undeniable.

Conversely, Jesus rebukes the Scribes and Pharisees, for studying the Scriptures and refusing to come to Him that they may HAVE life. Jn5:39-47.

He even says WHY they won't come to Him --- because they seek men's glory, and not God's. HOW can they believe in Jesus, WHEN Moses spoke of Jesus and they WILL not even believe MOSES? That's undeniable too.

Consider "seek His glory", and how it reflects "revere God and do what is right"; Peter said in Acts10:34-35 that those WHO revere God and WHO do right, are welcome; Peter further says that the OPPOSITE of that (which would be "God welcoming those who do NOT fear/seek"), would be partiality that God is NOT.

Do you see the dynamic?

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnus,
never said they are not people, but they are a group of people. It is the Body of Christ. It never says that a person is predestined to be one of the elect. or is an elect. All it ever says is that those who are elect, those that love God, that believe, were predestined to be conformed to His Image, to become like Christ, to be made holy and blameless.

pure equivocation !

If election is of a people then that must mean individuals , and Paul said God had chosen him , so did Jeremiah , before they were born , as election is personal and according to God's will it often is the exact opposite to what is expected .

Paul didn't have saving faith when God elected him , neither did Jeremiah , neither did Jacob , do I really need to quote the scriptures , or will you just dismiss God's word with the usual "your only proof texting" answer.

as for an election beyond the bounds of salvation , sure there is that too. But don't confound the one with the other , and don't deny God has chosen some to be saved.

 

[cygnusx1]

"Chosen to Salvation"
A.W. Pink

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth"
2 Thessalonians 2:13

There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God's elect are "chosen to salvation": Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to "salvation" itself that God has chosen us. Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who "chose unto salvation", decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth. Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle express this - "we are bound to give thanks always to God for you. brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation", etc. Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quote:
I believe we serve different gods . ..either that or you serve God accidently.

God does decree sin ... the Crucifixion was sin and God decreed it in total.​

God decrees sin. God HATES sin, Jesus came to DESTROY sin, but you perceive "God decrees sin".

Did God decree the death of His Son yes or no ?

I have no idea how to convince you otherwise...

because you can't , you never could.

Quote:
God does will many to perish for their sin as many scriptures affirm.

God's desire for all to repent is a conditional desire , not an absolute desire otherwise it would be done.

God is the God of all hope , not man with his so called abilities!​

God is the "God of all hope".
But God decreed the majority sin, and perish.
God WILLS for them to perish.

What hope do THEY have???​

as long as they are alive and are willing to come to Christ they have every hope ben , the way is open to all.

"If thou seek him, he will be found of thee."
-- 1 Chronicles 28:9

don't ignore the "if " part ben.

In your own words, your perception of God is "He is NOT the God of 'all hope'."

In my own words ;

"God is the God of all hope , not man with his so called abilities! "


it is YOUR position that is truly hopeless , saying salvation depends upon ourselves ; a human , who is as changeable and as uncertain as the wind ....... your hoping you will not change your mind about Christ , because you believe YOU may do just that , and that Christ will simply then change his mind about YOU ..... a hopeless dogma if ever there was one.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Who said regenerate man only has one nature?​

Because of verses like 2Cor5:17; "the old has passed away, all things have become new --- he is a new creation". Do you now say "he's still ALSO an old creation"???

Have you ever read, "No one can serve two masters; he will hate the one and love the other"?

In Rom6, Paul says "How can we who have DIED to sin, still live IN it?"

The argument is back to this kind of random drop-texting.

2 Cor 5 points it out -- "we regard one another ... no longer". Paul is looking forward to an end result, and we should be living in that reality, which is in us now.

But if you're saying each sin indicates the other reality doesn't live in you -- then face it Ben. Paul would be talking to no one.

And the text of Jesus, "No one can serve two masters." Yep. The context -- that you can't serve them both at once. That's not the case for Christians. "But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Rom 6:17-18 Not two masters. But two natures. "I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members." Rom 7:22-23

And your statement of Romans 6 is classic. 'Paul says "How can we who have DIED to sin, still live IN it?"' Did you catch the point? Paul is answering a question -- quite clearly a question Christians have. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Rom 6:1

Resolve why the question would even be asked. Then you'll see the context can't possibly assert that Christians don't sin. And if Christians only have an unsinning nature -- then Christians don't sin. The contradiction is palpable. So it must be denied. Christians do have two natures.

 

[heymikey80]

This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:

A1: All events that occur are have only one and only one wilfull agent as their fully sufficient cause - God.

This assertion cannot be reconciled with the view that man has free will. By the very nature of the assertion A1, man cannot have free will. There are no issues of perspective here. If A1, as written, is true, man cannot have free will.

Why? Because unless man can have a wilfully determining role in respect to at least partially causing some event, then, by the very definition of free will, man does not have free will.

To be exceedingly precise you would have to admit (as all followers of Calvin do) that from your logical construction one admissible possibility is to have a will that wills as the First Cause willed it to will.

So man need not have a wilfully determining role.

He needs to have a wilful role.

Calvin declared such.

The issue between compatible determinism and libertarian free will is not the same as the issue between fatalism and libertarian free will.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
"Chosen to Salvation"
A.W. Pink

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth"
2 Thessalonians 2:13

There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God's elect are "chosen to salvation": Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to "salvation" itself that God has chosen us. Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who "chose unto salvation", decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth. Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle express this - "we are bound to give thanks always to God for you. brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation", etc. Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself.​

First, Paul very clearly says "chosen ...THROUGH BELIEF". Belief comes fist. It's the same as in Jesus' parable, Matt22:2-14 --- many are called, few are chosen. Only those who CAME, and who put on righteousness, became the chosen.

Second, Pink ignores what's happening in Heb10:29, when he speaks of "sanctification"; there is presented a man who WAS SANCTIFIED, and by Jesus' blood. He is no longer. Further, this man is the consequence of the warning --- "if WE continue sinning willfully after having received knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but terrifying expectation of judgment, and fury of fire that consumes the adversaries." That's a bold of a "you-can-fall" verse as ever was written.

Third, when Pink says "shrink back in horror", he would have done well to consider 1Jn2:26-28; WE are to watch ourselves against deceivers, that we not "shrink in shame at Jesus' return".

Shrink-in-shame before Jesus, does not accommodate "saved". Full possibility, severe warning.

Remember when I said "I like Pink, he's easy to refute"?

Told ya' so.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
The argument is back to this kind of random drop-texting.

2 Cor 5 points it out -- "we regard one another ... no longer". Paul is looking forward to an end result, and we should be living in that reality, which is in us now.​

"Should be"? What if we're not???

Quote:
But if you're saying each sin indicates the other reality doesn't live in you -- then face it Ben. Paul would be talking to no one.

And the text of Jesus, "No one can serve two masters." Yep. The context -- that you can't serve them both at once. That's not the case for Christians.​

Oh --- I need to write that down, on my "exceptions-to-Scripture" list...

How else would I know, if not for my (thankfully) list???

Quote:
"But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." Rom 6:17-18​

Hmmm; "obedient from the heart"? Does that sound like "God-decided", or does it reflect Rom10:10 "with the heart man believes"?

Quote:
Not two masters. But two natures. "I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members." Rom 7:22-23​

Question --- is Rom8:12-13 one of them "exceptions"?

Quote:
And your statement of Romans 6 is classic. 'Paul says "How can we who have DIED to sin, still live IN it?"' Did you catch the point? Paul is answering a question -- quite clearly a question Christians have. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Rom 6:1​

Did you miss the dynamic? "Stop submitting your bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead." The whole chapter speaks of "turn from sin, to Jesus".

...sounds like a choice to me...

Quote:
Resolve why the question would even be asked. Then you'll see the context can't possibly assert that Christians don't sin. And if Christians only have an unsinning nature -- then Christians don't sin. The contradiction is palpable. So it must be denied. Christians do have two natures.​

Not two simultaneous natures --- but choose whether to BE enslaved to sin, or to BE enslaved to God.

Back to the "fatal flaw"; if God monergistically gives us a "new nature", how is it He's not competent enough to make it more powerful than the OLD nature?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
To be exceedingly precise you would have to admit (as all followers of Calvin do) that from your logical construction one admissible possibility is to have a will that wills as the First Cause willed it to will.

So man need not have a wilfully determining role.

He needs to have a wilful role.

Calvin declared such.

The issue between compatible determinism and libertarian free will is not the same as the issue between fatalism and libertarian free will.​

"Fatalism" asserts that "men are hopeless pawns of fate, flotsam and jetsam in the Universal Flow; all that will happen, has been determined before --- all men's choices are decided. There is nothing any man can do to change his destiny."

"Predestinary Theory" asserts that "men are completely subject to God's sovereign choice, flotsam and jetsam before His predestined-election; all who believe and live forever, were selected by God long before the world began. There is nothing any man can do to change his destiny."

Strikingly similar, aren't they?