"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[MamaZ]

Jesusfreak5000,
but now you have changed topics again.
Here is how it works by scripture.
Mankind is saved BY GRACE. This is all men. Man has absolutely nothing to contribute to the salvation from the fall. Death and sin. Faith is irrelevant. It neither effects or affects what Christ did on the Cross.

However, the purpose for which we were created, to be in union with God is a synergistic relationship from beginning to end, for Adam to us now. This is what was restored by God's Grace, through Christ, in overcoming the fall. this is what is known as the salvation of ones personal soul. It has nothing to do with the fall. This is what Adam was created to do BEFORE THE FALL ever happened. THIS IS THE RELATIONSHIP THAT
This union is begun with Justification by faith.
It is a living of that faith, which is being saved THROUGH FAITH. which is all works. Faith and works cannot be separated. Faith alone is dead, works alone is dead. It is ONLY through faith/works that a believer can be saved. The works are the concrete evidence that a believer is in fact IN Christ. You can believe all you want, but if you have no evidence of that faith, it is null and void. Dead. Very simple understanding.

what works do one need to do to show evidence? not all men have the working of God in them but yet you say all men are saved?

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymkey80:
What do you think "one" is?​

Do we race against others? First let's establish what "imperishable wreath" means.

Exegesis demands context.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 1 Cor 9:19
​

What's Paul winning? Hm? Tell me from the context: what is Paul winning? What does the wreath represent?

It's not his salvation. It's the conversion of the evangelized.

I've looked at your citations for months -- hm, years. They have no context. You're cobbling together (and that's an accurate word for it, btw) words from different books addressing different issues in different contexts. And then you're repeating them, jumping from verse to verse in a deflection of the real context that each represents, that contradicts your claim.

You've demonstrated this tactic throughout this thread, and throughout the prior thread where I pointed this out to you. And you demonstrate it with the prior posting:

Look at James1:12: "Blessed is he who perseveres under trial; for when he has passed the test, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."

Now 1Pet1:3-5: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in Heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Explain to me what possible understanding denies "imperishable wreath", is the exact same thing as "crown of life" in James1. It's "salvation". Sometimes things ARE "about soteriology".

Done.

So we do not race against others to salvation; our race is within. And we WIN, or LOSE.

The result is a theology with no basis in fact. Your emphasis simply emphasizes your error about this verse. The race is not within. The prize is without.

 

[Ben johnson]

QUote:
Just another example of twisting scriture to fit an certain point of view or ideology. You might want to look up the word "predestined" in the dictionary.
​

What happens when you look up the word "blameless", in a Concordance?

You find 2Pet3:14. Is it OUR choice, or GOD'S choice there? (Ours.)
And you find Col1:21-23, blameless if we CONTINUE in the faith and not forsake Jesus. Our choice?
And you find Jude24 --- which is in context with 21, "KEEP YOURSELVES in His love". Our choice again?
And you find Philip2:15, that we may "PROVE OURSELVES blameless". Our choice again?

If all these instances of "blameless before God" are our choice, then what happened to "sovereign-predestination"?

 

[Ben johnson]

QUote:
Better yet, he ought to look up the etymology on the Greek word which is translated "predestined".​

Better to look up Scripture. Tell me --- in Rom8, WHO are the "predestined"? Verse 28, "those who love God".

WHAT are they predestined TO? To "be conformed to the image of Christ" --- to be Christlike.

Show me "predestined-to-salvation".

My post asking where was the dictate of "new-heart before faith", went unanswered; because it can't be answered...

Quote
If you take Ben's argument to fruition, he believes every time he sins he loses his salvation, and every time he confesses/repents he regains it. Sounds an awful lot like Catholicism.​

Straw man, and you know it; sin does not condemn us, nor does lack-of-sin save us.

The "Fatal Flaw" --- if our regeneration is sovereignly-accomplished, why DO we sin? Answer --- because God is resistible. AFTER sinning --- we have the same choice, to sin again, or to repent.

It is the "again" that endangers us. If we CONTINUE in sin, then we are not continuing in Christ. That is the stark reality of salvation.

We can "continue in sin" --- Scripture is clear. Read only Rom6:13 --- "Do not GO ON PRESENTING your bodies to sin..."

Quote:
Just looking at his arguments, you can see that he doesn't have a clue as to what it means to be saved "by grace". I don't think he knows what the word "grace" even means.​

ONE of us "doesn't know". One of us thinks "grace", happens twice --- first by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, second by GIFTED FAITH to BE saved.

....and then God judges men for what He Himself DECIDED...

Quote:
Ben, you ought to read Grace by L.S. Chafer.​

With respect, I would rather read it from Scripture; I have a great understanding of Jesus' gift of grace, which is received by faith.

Explicitly stated so in Rom5:17...

 

[cygnusx1]

JC Ryle

First of all let me entreat every reader of this paper not to refuse this doctrine of Election, merely because it is high, mysterious, and hard to be understood. Is it reverent to do so? Is it treating God's Word with the respect due to revelation? Is it right to reject anything written for our learning, and to give it hard names, merely because some misguided men have misused it, and turned it to a bad purpose? These are serious questions. They deserve serious consideration. If men begin rejecting it, they are on slippery ground. There is no saying how far they may fall. ...

 

[cygnusx1]

Salvation Charms: Dont Leave Home Without Them

http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.585

One can only wonder how many people are carrying around these assurance trinkets nowadays. It seems so medieval and primitive, but apparently there is no shortage of folks who will put some amount of eternal trust in "a thing" that they can carry on their person. Here's an interesting side-by-side look at the eerie similarities between the Catholic and Protestant versions of good luck charms for the soul. ...

[Read More!]

 

[AndOne]

With respect, I would rather read it from Scripture; I have a great understanding of Jesus' gift of grace, which is received by faith.​

It's not grace if you have to do something to maintain it...

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Been quoting it to you again and again.

a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter ROm 2:29

So change your viewpoint. Or I'll consider your challenge to me was vacuous.​

The challenge was to find one verse which places "new-heart", before "belief". The challenge remains.

ROFL! Another Bait & switch, Ben? I can rise to that.

"With the heart a man believes."
​

So you're telling me, without a heart that believes, a man can believe? And in fact you're demanding that a heart of stone ... believes.
Logic would tend to detract from your position!
The reality is that "new heart" is never given after belief.

The challenge is yours.

The challenge was to find one verse which places "new-heart", before "belief". The challenge remains.

Oh, and by the way: No it wasn't.
Let's take a nice, close look at what was said.

Quote [of heymikey80]:
​

Circumcision is by the Spirit. Circumcision is about the heart being circumcised, not the flesh. The Spirit performs it. The heart is changed. With the heart man then believes.
​

You will never find that doctrine in Scripture. Men believe and THEN their heart is changed. It's that way in Ezk36:26-27 ( & 11:18-21), it's in Rom10:9-10, it's in 2Cor4:3-4 ( & 3:16). Back up what you just said with Scripture, or consider changing your viewpoint.​

The challenge was to find my view in Scripture. Rom 2:29. The challenge is fulfilled.

But wait, there's more!

You cited Scriptures saying they suppport your view. But they don't force belief before heart-change. It's not even that way in your cited texts. So back up what you just said with Scripture, or consider changing your viewpoint.

The heart believes -- so the heart must be changed in order to believe. The heart changes from unbelief to belief.

You're saying an unchanged heart changes. I'm saying a changed heart changes.

Your view is overturned.

You changed the problem to try to squeeze out of the challenge being satisfied. It's satisfied. But I doubt you will live up to your own challenge.

What does "Responsible Grace" theology say about hypocrisy? What does it say about inconsistency, about owning up to error, about stating one thing and doing another?

"A man had two sons ..."

I know what Sovereign Grace says about both inconsistent sons. What does Responsible Grace say about them?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Jesusfreak5000,
but now you have changed topics again.
Here is how it works by scripture.
Mankind is saved BY GRACE. This is all men. Man has absolutely nothing to contribute to the salvation from the fall. Death and sin. Faith is irrelevant. It neither effects or affects what Christ did on the Cross.

However, the purpose for which we were created, to be in union with God is a synergistic relationship from beginning to end, for Adam to us now. This is what was restored by God's Grace, through Christ, in overcoming the fall. this is what is known as the salvation of ones personal soul. It has nothing to do with the fall. This is what Adam was created to do BEFORE THE FALL ever happened. THIS IS THE RELATIONSHIP THAT
This union is begun with Justification by faith.
It is a living of that faith, which is being saved THROUGH FAITH. which is all works. Faith and works cannot be separated. Faith alone is dead, works alone is dead. It is ONLY through faith/works that a believer can be saved. The works are the concrete evidence that a believer is in fact IN Christ. You can believe all you want, but if you have no evidence of that faith, it is null and void. Dead. Very simple understanding.

According to this, you believe one is justified as righteous apart from works. That is, the faith is the basis for justifying one as righteous, and the works are the outworking (or proof) of that same faith. Am I correct in asserting that you believe this?

 

[nobdysfool]

QUote:
Better yet, he ought to look up the etymology on the Greek word which is translated "predestined".​

Better to look up Scripture. Tell me --- in Rom8, WHO are the "predestined"? Verse 28, "those who love God".

WHAT are they predestined TO? To "be conformed to the image of Christ" --- to be Christlike.

Show me "predestined-to-salvation".

If they are predestined to Christ-likeness, they are of necessity predestined to salvation. QED

My post asking where was the dictate of "new-heart before faith", went unanswered; because it can't be answered...

Quote
If you take Ben's argument to fruition, he believes every time he sins he loses his salvation, and every time he confesses/repents he regains it. Sounds an awful lot like Catholicism.​

Straw man, and you know it; sin does not condemn us, nor does lack-of-sin save us.

"New heart before faith" is all over scripture. It just isn't spelled out in a verse somewhere, which is what you seem to think that any truth of scripture must be, in order to be true. Yours is a very shallow, one-dimensional view.

As to what you're calling a straw man, poppycock! That is exactly where your theology leads. Your refusal to own up to it shows a clear lack of honesty and consistency even within your own view.

Sin does not condemn us? What kind of theology is that??? Sin is exactly why men are condemned. It is those who have believed on Christ, who have been joined with Christ, who will not be condemned for their sins, because their sins have already been dealt with, by Christ, in their stead.

Saying that "a lack of sin does not save us" is only half true. Since there is no man who is sinless (except for Jesus Christ), the situation is moot. BUT, if there were such a man born of Adam, that man would have no need of salvation, because he is without sin. Sinners need salvation. Sinless people don't. So your reasoning is loose and very turbid in this point. You have not thought through what you're saying, you're just reacting in opposition to Calvinists. Shooting from the hip, as it were.

The "Fatal Flaw" --- if our regeneration is sovereignly-accomplished, why DO we sin? Answer --- because God is resistible. AFTER sinning --- we have the same choice, to sin again, or to repent.

The continuation of the rebellion of Adam is to state that God is resistible. A little thought on the idea should cause you to see the absolute folly of your statement. Who can ultimately resist God? Your question is a clear indication that even after years of trying to explain it to you, you refuse to understand exactly what Calvinist/Reformed believers mean by regeneration. You stubbornly refuse to be educated or to be corrected in your manifestly false and distorted view of what you imagine Calvinist/Reformed believers to believe. You imbue what you imagine us to believe with more than we have ever stated, and have in fact denied and attempted to define more clearly, seemingly to no avail. You are the one putting up straw men and making big show of setting them on fire, all the while not realizing that the light from those fires makes more clear the errors in your own doctrines.

It is the "again" that endangers us. If we CONTINUE in sin, then we are not continuing in Christ. That is the stark reality of salvation.

No, it is the stark reality of a works-based and works-driven false salvation.

We can "continue in sin" --- Scripture is clear. Read only Rom6:13 --- "Do not GO ON PRESENTING your bodies to sin..."

And those who are His, and walk by the Spirit, do not go on presenting their bodies to sin.

Quote:
Just looking at his arguments, you can see that he doesn't have a clue as to what it means to be saved "by grace". I don't think he knows what the word "grace" even means.​

ONE of us "doesn't know". One of us thinks "grace", happens twice --- first by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, second by GIFTED FAITH to BE saved.

....and then God judges men for what He Himself DECIDED...

Baloney. Despite repeated corrections, and explanations, you stubbornly cling to your wrong, dishonest, twisted, straw men caricatures of what you imagine (and desperately need) us to believe. What you state is not what we believe, never has been, and never will be. It is a falsehood of your own creation.

Quote:
Ben, you ought to read Grace by L.S. Chafer.​

With respect, I would rather read it from Scripture; I have a great understanding of Jesus' gift of grace, which is received by faith.

Explicitly stated so in Rom5:17...

In other words, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up." This from the same person who once said that with a Bible, a lexicon, and a concordance, he is the equal of any theologian living or dead. Ben has no need of instruction, according to him. You just saw him state so in nearly as many words. As for the claim that he has "great understanding" of Jesus' gift of Grace, well.....opinions vary.....

 

[Rightglory]

Jesusfreak5000,

According to this, you believe one is justified as righteous apart from works. That is, the faith is the basis for justifying one as righteous, and the works are the outworking (or proof) of that same faith. Am I correct in asserting that you believe this?

First, the words justify and righteous are the same word, they mean the same thing. It is to put into a correct relationship. To be made correct, right, acceptable.
Christ made all men acceptable to God. Gave life and atoned for the sin of the world. One, LIFE is imposed upon man, the other is made available if one desires to be IN Christ. It is for the purpose of forgiveness of sins, since we are still sinners and cannot be IN Christ as sinners. We are called upon to live in the spirit with the Spirit and not in the flesh. But being sinners, we sin and need forgiveness of those sins in order to remain reconciled to God. We, mankind recieve this great Gift of mercy by Grace, NOTHING man could do could save mankind.

Now the relationship:
Faith, the justification by faith, puts us in an acceptable relationship with Christ. It is entering into His fellowship, relationship, union, having communion, with Him.
Faith, entering is by repentance and baptism. We enter we are regenerated, that is we now have a relationship with Christ that was lost due the fall. We also receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But this relationship is totally dependent on man's desire and willingness to be IN Christ.
Just like Adam we are free, free to join and free to leave. The whole purpose of our existance and living IN Christ in this life, to bring glory to Him is to live as He wants us to live. Not as we would like to live. Thus it is a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit in man. We must endure that struggle. We are here for that very reason.
We know that we are IN Him if we are aligning our will with His will. We constantly must check how we are living our lives. Are they IN Christ, in the spirit with the Spirit or have we quenched the Spirit and slipped back into living in the flesh. It is this journey, this struggle that is the purpose of our existance and for which we shall be judged. Being faithful is what it is all about. There is nothing finite in this life.

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

We are saved. Bought. Sealed.. Gods own possession. Not all are this. Only to those who have been called and chosen..

All men have been saved -from the fall. All men have been bought.
All men are being called to join with God in a relationship with Him. Once one believes He is a member of the chosen race, the elect, the Body of Christ. Christ even gave HIS seal of promise to live up to His word.
But I have never seen you state YOUR seal upon YOUR promise to remain faithful to Him. This is a two way relationship, not a tied down arrangement.

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

what works do one need to do to show evidence? not all men have the working of God in them but yet you say all men are saved?

All men being saved means that all men have life. All men have been made acceptable to God in order that God might have a relationship with human beings. Man was dead, mortal, comdemned to non-existance.
What good is a relationship with God, If it ONLY WAS IN THIS LIFE TIME. God created man to be eternal. Man cannot make himself eternal. ONLY God can and this is what the Incarnate Christ did for mankind, actually the universe.
Now that man has life, and also all sin has been atoned for, God can enter into a relationship with human beings again for an eternity. But that relationship is the salvation of our soul. It is all about works. It is works the evidence of faith that we believe IN Christ. We live to do His Will. We align our will with His will This is the purpose of Revelation. To know what that purpose is and how to live in that purpose.

 

[AndOne]

Mamaz,



All men have been saved -from the fall. All men have been bought.
All men are being called to join with God in a relationship with Him. Once one believes He is a member of the chosen race, the elect, the Body of Christ. Christ even gave HIS seal of promise to live up to His word.

So why don't all men believe?

 

[MamaZ]

All men have been made acceptable to God in order that God might have a relationship with human beings.

How are men acceptable to God when none are righteous? How are all men acceptable to God when they walk in rebelling towards Him? Mocking him. Not all men have been chosen. So those whom are not chosen are not predestined to be the image of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

How are men acceptable to God when none are righteous? How are all men acceptable to God when they walk in rebelling towards Him? Mocking him. Not all men have been chosen. So those whom are not chosen are not predestined to be the image of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

You are not using the terms correctly. You are assuming they have ONLY one meaning. However, I'm sure you heard of the idea of reconciling your checkbook with a bank statment. All you are doing is justifying the account, another word that means the same thing. All of it is to make your record correct, acceptable, in good standing.

That is the reconciliation, the righteousness of Christ to man that He gave LIFE to man. God cannot have an eternal relationship with a dead mortal being, a being that would only have a short temporal life. That is why Christ was needed, to overcome the condemnation of death and sin. That Resurrection made all men righteousness, or reconciled all things to Himself. All of this I have stated many times. However, you are not following the theological presentation of Scripture.
Relative to the relationship which God desires of all men we enter by faith, Again the word justifiy is used or to be made righteousness. Now we personally are reconciled to God and we do this by having our sins washed away, repenting. When we sin, we need to be washed again. That is the Purpose of Christ sitting in His High Priestly Chair, to be able to forgiven sins. For those that desire darkness, to sin, to live as they choose, they are not reconciled to God. For those believers that sin willingly, or just slip away because of benign neglect, they also will become un-reconciled. Repentance brings one back to God.
No man is actually chosen. You have never presented anything from Scripture that says a man is chosen to believe. A person that has believed becomes part of the chosen race, They will be subjected to a whole reel or predestined action, like, to be made holy, blameless, to be conformed to His Likeness. But nothing that ever says a person is chosen to believe or even chosen to remain a believer. It is wholly and completely in man's hand's to determine his eternal state, with or without Christ.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Exegesis demands context.​

Indeed it does; I shall hold my breath until we see exegesis that overturns what I said (or, until I turn blue, whichever happens first.)

Quote:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 1 Cor 9:19

What's Paul winning? Hm? Tell me from the context: what is Paul winning? What does the wreath represent?

It's not his salvation. It's the conversion of the evangelized.​

Really?
"Race in such a way that YOU may win.
...they (race) to receive an imperishable price, but we (to receive) an imperishable one.
...but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest after I have preached to others I MYSELF should be disqualified (from the RACE)."

So the "imperishable wreath", is not INDIVIDUAL to the runners, and "MYSELF-disqualified" is not the alternative to "receive imperishable wreath"?

Your only response, is "He's saying race for OTHERS' imperishable-wreaths"???

You've lost this point of the debate, Mike --- completely.

Quote:
I've looked at your citations for months -- hm, years. They have no context. You're cobbling together (and that's an accurate word for it, btw) words from different books addressing different issues in different contexts.​

Really?
"...lest I MYSELF be adokimos-disqalified".
"Examine yourselves, see if you are in the faith; Christ is in you, unless you are adokimos-disqualified". (1Cor9:27, 2Cor13:5)

You're saying "no context, no relation, cobbling together different issues/contexts".

You've lost this point in the debate, also.

Quoted by heymikey80:
And then you're repeating them, jumping from verse to verse in a deflection of the real context that each represents, that contradicts your claim.

You've demonstrated this tactic throughout this thread, and throughout the prior thread where I pointed this out to you. And you demonstrate it with the prior posting:
Quoted by Ben johnson:
Look at James1:12: "Blessed is he who perseveres under trial; for when he has passed the test, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."​

So "crown of life", is not "imperishable wreath". You have made no basis as to why not. I cited 1Pet1 to support the words "imperishable inheritance"; I can cite Col3:24 to support "receive the reward of the inheritance" --- to align with "receive the prize".

And you only say "You're jumping around to non-related texts".

This is the third point of the debate you have lost, Mike.

Quoted by Ben:
Now 1Pet1:3-5: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in Heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Explain to me what possible understanding denies "imperishable wreath", is the exact same thing as "crown of life" in James1. It's "salvation". Sometimes things ARE "about soteriology".
Quoted by heymikey80:
Done.​

NOT "done". You have no basis on which to claim "imperishable wreath" is not "imperishable inheritance". You simply claim "done", with zero Scriptural support. Until you provide that support, this is the fourth position in the theological debate you have lost.

Quoted by Ben:
So we do not race against others to salvation; our race is within. And we WIN, or LOSE.
Quoted by heymikey80:
The result is a theology with no basis in fact. Your emphasis simply emphasizes your error about this verse. The race is not within. The prize is without.​

Please respond to this post, and tell me how it's not established that "WE race for OUR prize", and that "PAUL asserts HE HIMSELF can be disqualified".

With respect, it looks like you're just claiming "VICTORY", in the face of complete shredding of "predestinary theory"...
.

 

[Rightglory]

Behe's Boy,

So why don't all men believe?

Most prefer dearkness. Most prefer their own egoistic, selfish desires.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Behe'sBoy
So why don't all men believe?
Quoted by RightGlory:
Most prefer dearkness. Most prefer their own egoistic, selfish desires.​

It's more basic than that --- the doctrine of "total inability" violates Scripture.

"Predestinary Theory" requires "total depravity" to be increased to "total inability", and any opinion against this is branded "semi-Pelagianism". But:
1. Nowhere is "heart-change" placed before belief and turning to God.
2. Total depravity does not equate to total inability; Scripture is clear that ALL MEN are truly called TO salvation, and the CALL has the power to overcome depravity.

To be clear: Pelagianism/semi-pelagianism asserts MEN have the power to be good.
Scripture asserts all men are called, and the CALL has the power to overcome wickedness.

In Matt22:2-14, all are "invited/called"; but only the FEW who ANSWERED, are chosen.

"Predestinary theory" is most disgusted at the idea that "wicked men can EVER come under God's consideration"; towards this, Jeremiah17:9 is asserted:
"The heart is more deceitful than all else, and desperately wcked; who can understand it?"

But --- Predestinary theory ignores the next verse:
"I the Lord, search the heart, and test the mind, and give to each man according to his way!"

There it is --- God responding to wicked men. Flat overturning the whole idea of "total inability".

Wicked men, choose; as John recounts in 3:19-20, men WHO love darkness, hate the light; but men who SEEK truth COME to the light.

Zero of "total inability", 100% of "responsibility".

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Exegesis demands context.​

Indeed it does; I shall hold my breath until we see exegesis that overturns what I said (or, until I turn blue, whichever happens first.)

Quote:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 1 Cor 9:19
What's Paul winning? Hm? Tell me from the context: what is Paul winning? What does the wreath represent?
It's not his salvation. It's the conversion of the evangelized.​

Really?
"Race in such a way that YOU may win.
...they (race) to receive an imperishable price, but we (to receive) an imperishable one.
...but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest after I have preached to others I MYSELF should be disqualified (from the RACE)."

So the "imperishable wreath", is not INDIVIDUAL to the runners, and "MYSELF-disqualified" is not the alternative to "receive imperishable wreath"?

Your only response, is "He's saying race for OTHERS' imperishable-wreaths"???

Nope. More than one of your preconceptions about the passage fall. The point carries.

The wreaths aren't what you think they are. So point #1, putting quotes around something as if I said it is disingenuous at best. I've pointed out quite a few places where you've quoted your own dreams about what people say.

That's bearing false witness, Ben. By your own theology you should be avoiding that, at peril to your soul.


As I pointed out in the earlier post, "disqualified" doesn't point to Paul's salvation. It points to Paul's Apostolic qualification for ministry and mission -- and by his leadership, the qualification of the Corinthians.

Paul actually calls attention to what he's winning already. In context. It's people. "Soylent Green is ... people!" That's only a surprise to those who never really considered the context.

It's what Paul's talking about though. So get used to it.

The athletes race for a perishable prize. Paul wins people to Christ -- eternal lives -- you know -- an imperishable prize.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this to you before. Sorry you didn't take clearer note of it. But that's your problem now, isn't it. "Argument weak here. Use Bigger Fonts!"

Quote:
I've looked at your citations for months -- hm, years. They have no context. You're cobbling together (and that's an accurate word for it, btw) words from different books addressing different issues in different contexts.​

Really?
"...lest I MYSELF be adokimos-disqalified".
"Examine yourselves, see if you are in the faith; Christ is in you, unless you are adokimos-disqualified". (1Cor9:27, 2Cor13:5)

I'd say you've lost this point, long ago, per my earlier point. "disqualified" is a word commonly used to denote something that's in the context. Paul's personal salvation is not in the context.

Let's say I consider you "disqualified" to try to press this argument.

Does that mean I think you lost your salvation?

By your argument it does.

But that argument is not valid. Picking words that actually mean something to mean something else -- it doesn't make for a good theology, Ben.

Quoted by heymikey80:
And then you're repeating them, jumping from verse to verse in a deflection of the real context that each represents, that contradicts your claim.

You've demonstrated this tactic throughout this thread, and throughout the prior thread where I pointed this out to you. And you demonstrate it with the prior posting:
Quoted by Ben johnson:
Look at James1:12: "Blessed is he who perseveres under trial; for when he has passed the test, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him."​

So "crown of life", is not "imperishable wreath". You have made no basis as to why not. I cited 1Pet1 to support the words "imperishable inheritance"; I can cite Col3:24 to support "receive the reward of the inheritance" --- to align with "receive the prize".

They're different words, spoken by different people, pulled out of their context and placed alongside one another.

If someone did that with your words you would be up in arms.

"Clearly Ben believes this because Van wrote something that sounded similar."

And you only say "You're jumping around to non-related texts".

Clearly I've said much more than you can answer.

But I'm sure this one also carries. Just because you can't see these hits in the ballpark any more ... don't think they're in the catcher's mitt.

NOT "done". You have no basis on which to claim "imperishable wreath" is not "imperishable inheritance". You simply claim "done", with zero Scriptural support. Until you provide that support, this is the fourth position in the theological debate you have lost.

Done. Of course I have a basis. Can you read what's happening to your position? Have you read the Scripture?

No. You haven't even considered the viewpoint.

Like I said before, I doubt you will live up to your own challenge. But fortunately, your view is false. Because if it were actually true, your position would leave you with nothing but God's condemnation of your conduct.

That would be just. But God is gracious.

Quoted by Ben:
So we do not race against others to salvation; our race is within. And we WIN, or LOSE.
Quoted by heymikey80:
The result is a theology with no basis in fact. Your emphasis simply emphasizes your error about this verse. The race is not within. The prize is without.​

Please respond to this post, and tell me how it's not established that "WE race for OUR prize", and that "PAUL asserts HE HIMSELF can be disqualified".

I don't need to change your assertions -- just their meanings. Because your statements don't mean anything in the context. We do race for our prize --just not the prize you want it to be. Paul does assert he can be disqualified -- just not from what you want it to be.

You've mistaken what Paul seeks to win. What Paul's winning is quite clear from the context. And you deny it.

The rest falls out of that. If you realized that this wouldn't even be a question. You'd know that it is established that "we" (Paul's Apostolic group, 1 Cor 9:4-7, or even any evangelist, including the Corinthians) race for "our" prize, and that Paul HIMSELF can indeed be disqualified from the prize. The race isn't to attract the biggest crowd, and Paul would be disqualified from his command (9:16-17) were he drawing people to something that does not save them, to a church that would ultimately turn them away from Christ, obscure the Gospel, teach them something it should not, train them to hypocrisy and in ways God would not be pleased.

With respect, it looks like you're just claiming "VICTORY", in the face of complete shredding of "predestinary theory"...
.

From within your own portholes it may seem that all of reality is moving, when in fact your boat has lost its moorings and is floating off.

The reality is that the "new heart" is never given after belief.

The challenge is yours to provide just one Scripture where a new heart is given after belief. I've given you one that shows the new heart is given by the Spirit, and one that the heart is what believes.

Can you not show just one verse where belief occurs before the new heart is given?

How about any of the other challenges posed to you in my past five posts?