"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
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.​

I wish you weren't so quick to be hostile, Mike; the discussion would be better.

So --- "imperishable wreath", isn't "salvation"; in spite of the other verses I gave you.

Let's add another one:

"Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author (prince/leader) and perfecter (chief-example) of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.​

Clearly the RACE, is for "imperishable wreath" --- and I have established through various Scripture citations that means "salvation".

Further --- what CAUSES us to stumble on the race, is "sin that easily entangles us". Shall I quote Heb10 as to what happens if we continue in sin? How about Heb3 about sin that can harden our hearts to falling away from the living God?

It's not looking good for your position, Mike.

Quote:
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.​

I pointed out the connection with the word "adokimos-disqualified", between 1Cor9:27 and 2Cor13:5.
Clearly stated, "disqualified", is the opposite of "in Christ". Point fully established.

Quote:
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.​

Strange movie.

Quote:
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.​

Wait --- you just berated me for saying "He's saying race for OTHERS' imperishable-wreaths" --- what was the berating for?

Quote:
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!"​

The bigger fonts, were to emphasize the establishing of "internal race".

Ben der, dun dat. What I said, stands. Complete refutation.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
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.
​

I wish you weren't so quick to be hostile, Mike; the discussion would be better.

Ah. So if I say something it's hostility. But if you say it it's loving counterpoint.

"If we judged ourselves, we wouldn't be judged ..."

So --- "imperishable wreath", isn't "salvation"; in spite of the other verses I gave you.

"In spite"? "Consistent with"

Let's add another one:

Let's not add passages that are
1 -- Addressed to people completely different from Paul's
2 -- in situations different from that Paul outlines
3 -- out of context with Paul's letter to the Corinthians

When you cross-circuit illustrations you end up with nothing credible.

"Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author (prince/leader) and perfecter (chief-example) of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
​

Clearly the RACE, is for "imperishable wreath" --- and I have established through various Scripture citations that means "salvation".

Here's why: now you're taking the race analogy and demanding it everywhere refer to exactly the same concepts.

When a race is just a race. It's used as an illustration.

Here's a concept: let's say I interpret your postings about recent political races are actually about salvation.

What kind of theology would you have?

The result would be a clear Bait & Switch of your statements.

Yet you're doing this with Scripture. With God?

The discussion is about 1 Corinthians 9. Not Hebrews 12. They both use illustrations of a race. The illustrations are not for the same thing.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ah. So if I say something it's hostility. But if you say it it's loving counterpoint.

Ben doesn't like it when the inconsistencies and logical dead-ends of his views are detailed and highlighted, so he interprets such attention as hostility, trying to paint himself the "victim". However, when he tries to point out imagined problems with Calvinism (which exist only in his mind), that's not hostile, even though he has disingenuously claimed victory I don't know how many times, claiming to have "overturned" this or that, claiming to have "overturned" Predestination, a clearly biblical doctrine, and claiming to have dealt a deathblow to Calvinism. The threads show that his claims are uniformly without merit, false, and of no consequence.

 

[frumanchu]

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.

Alas, while the Catholics are logically consistent on this point, "Responsible Grace" is not. When you point out this obvious logical conclusion of the teachings of "Responsible Grace" theology, the ambiguous "practicing" escape clause is invoked. In this way, it can be said that they still sin but they don't lose their salvation because they aren't practicing sin.

Good luck trying to pin down exactly what constitutes "practicing" sin because it can only be defined by what it's not: not the type of sinning that paints "Responsible Grace" in an undesirable light by having Christians oscillate in and out of salvation several times a day or by allowing for the notion that a Christian can have any sort of serious struggle with sin. As best I can tell, the sins of the "Responsible Grace" advocates are merely random happenstances of sin that are something less than fully willful acts and have no discernable relationship to each other.

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.

Quite true...within the context of the teachings of "Responsible Grace" the very term "Responsible Grace" is an oxymoron.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Ah. So if I say something it's hostility. But if you say it it's loving counterpoint.
"If we judged ourselves, we wouldn't be judged ..."​

Show me where I've ever said "You're bearing false witness" ("You're lying").

Quote:
"In spite"? "Consistent with"​

"Consistent with"?
1. Salvation is "imperishable inheritance" (1Pet1:4)
2. Salvation is "reward of the inheritance" (Col3:24)

And you say "race for the imperishable wreath", isn't talking about salvation. Based on what? Your "say-so"?

"if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.

...For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus {and} with {it} eternal glory." 2Tim2:5, 10​

Want to argue THAT verse "doesn't refer to eternal salvation", with the word "competes-as-athlete (race!!!!!) for THE PRIZE"? Further --- Paul states:

It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
Remind {them} of these things, and solemnly charge {them} in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless {and leads} to the ruin of the hearers.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
But avoid worldly {and} empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
{men} who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.​

Teach me how the entire passage doesn't align perfectly with "race so as to win SALVATION". How "faithless/denying/NOT-REIGNING" is not the real alternative to "enduring/racing-to-win". How Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have GONE ASTRAY FROM THE TRUTH, are not presented as the "DON'T-DO-THIS" example, in the context of "compete/race/endure, to WIN".

Teach me that, Mike. Convince me...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Let's not add passages that are
1 -- Addressed to people completely different from Paul's​

Really? They have a different Gospel of salvation, than we do???

Quote:
2 -- in situations different from that Paul outlines​

I s'pose those in 2Tim, were also in "different situation" --- he's somehow NOT plainly stating "race/compete for the prize of salvation?[/b]

With respect, don't you just strive to find some understanding that allows "predestination", no matter how obscure? No offense intended...

Quote:
3 -- out of context with Paul's letter to the Corinthians​

You have yet to SHOW it's "out of context". Heb12 speaks of "sin that so easily entangles us". Show me how that diverges from 2Tim, "Be diligent to prove yourself blameless ...avoid empty chatter that leads to ungodliness..."

Show me how 1Tim6:10-11 does not warn us to "flee from things like love of money, for some have WANDERED AWAY FROM THE TRUTH by longing for it". Or that 1Tim6:20-21 does not warn us to "avoid empty chatter ...(by) which ...some have gone astray from the faith".

Show me how that's out of context from "compete as an athlete to WIN --- avoid empty chatter which leads to ungodliness ...like Hymenaeus and Philetus who have gone astray from the truth".

Quote:
When you cross-circuit illustrations you end up with nothing credible.​

The only reason you say "cross-circuit", is because it ruins "predestinary theory". Not because it's "conflicting" or "outta-context" or "deviant" from Scripture.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Here's why: now you're taking the race analogy and demanding it everywhere refer to exactly the same concepts.

When a race is just a race. It's used as an illustration.​

Really.
"Race" (compete) is "salvation", in 2Tim2 --- you can't deny it.
"Race" is for "imperishable wreath" in 1Cor9; but you deny "imperishable wreath" connects to 1Pet1, and Col3.
"Race" is set opposed to "entangling sin", in Heb12.

They're all saying the exact same thing; it's your understanding that's not credible.
Show me the credibility if I'm wrong, Mike.

Quote:
Here's a concept: let's say I interpret your postings about recent political races are actually about salvation.

What kind of theology would you have?​

"Race for the imperishable wreath".
"Compete as an athlete for salvation".
"Run WITH ENDURANCE the race set before us, laying aside encumbering/entangling sin."

You have yet to support "non-context", at all. They are the same context.

Quote:
The result would be a clear Bait & Switch of your statements.​

No, "Bait-n-switch", and "rabbit-chasing", are only tags that allow dismissal of correlating Scriptures.

...but the dismissals aren't working, Mike.

Quote:
Yet you're doing this with Scripture. With God?​

Show me the disconnect/non-correlation in what I just said.

Quote:
The discussion is about 1 Corinthians 9. Not Hebrews 12. They both use illustrations of a race. The illustrations are not for the same thing.​

Yes, they are.

And Col9 is about individual competition --- race that YOU may win. Every Christian in Corinth is in the race. EACH ONE receives the "imperishable wreath". What James says, is precisely the same thing:

"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."​

Wanna re-visit 2Tim2:5, where the footnote says "IS NOT CROWNED"?

Then Paul makes it personal --- he states that he himself could be "disqualified". Show me how Paul does not put himself in the exact same place of RISK as Hymenaeus and Philetus, "that HE HIMSELF could be disqualified/unapproved".

You claim non-context --- but Paul continues his warning, into chapter 10:
Do not be idolaters
Do not be immoral
Do not tempt the Lord
Do not grumble
(In each case, Paul reminds how "many were destroyed")

"Therefore let he who thinks he STAND, take HEED, lest he FALL".​

​

Then follows a discussion of temptation, and how God provides a choice to resist it.

The rest of the chapter is just like that. Show me how it does not connect with Paul saying "I buffet MY (OWN!) body and make it my slave, lest after I have preached to others I MYSELF should be disqualified!"

Paul stating he could lose the race, Mike. The race for the "imperishable wreath", the "crown of life", "salvation". Warning US to "persevere" --- identical to 1Tim4:16: "PERSEVERE in (your teaching) --- as you do you will SAVE YOURSELVES"...

Do you understand now, that "predestinary theory", is ruined?

 

[Ben johnson]

No one has been able to deal with Heb3:6-14, and 4:11; the concept of "enduring", is clearly stated --- not being deceived by sin. The alternative is also stated, "falling away from the living God".

We are partners in Christ (in the Spirit, in a heavenly calling --- 3:1, 6:4) --- IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

And 4:11 warns us to "be diligent to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating the Israelites' unbelief and disobedience".

THings that cannot be denied:
1. We can fall.
2. "Falling", equates to "not-entering-God's-rest".
3. "Falling" is "not receiving the prize/crown, of eternal life".
4. Paul could fall; clearly stated.
5. Paul named men who FELL, and warned his listeners "don't be like them".
6. Paul warned against sin, and gave many examples of how people were destroyed.
7. The "race", is "for eternal life"; imperishable wreath is immortal crown.

THe race is INNER struggle; each person races not against others, but against their own temptations, for the crown of life.

The quoted Scriptures must either be answered (with credible exegesis, context and other passages), or accepted. They cannot be ignored.

 

[nobdysfool]

Stop with the double posts already, Ben. You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness, there's no other term for it, and you are guilty of it. You are so clearly not seeing the writing on the wall. It is not "Predestinary Theory" (your term) which is in trouble and being defeated, it is "Responsible Grace" (so called) which has been dealt the deathblow. As more and more people read your convoluted, scripture-twisting justifications for the obvious flaws in your pet doctrine, they are seeing it for what it is: a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

No one has been able to deal with Heb3:6-14, and 4:11; the concept of "enduring", is clearly stated --- not being deceived by sin. The alternative is also stated, "falling away from the living God".
We are partners in Christ (in the Spirit, in a heavenly calling --- 3:1, 6:4) --- IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".
And 4:11 warns us to "be diligent to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating the Israelites' unbelief and disobedience".
THings that cannot be denied:
1. We can fall.
2. "Falling", equates to "not-entering-God's-rest".
3. "Falling" is "not receiving the prize/crown, of eternal life".
4. Paul could fall; clearly stated.
5. Paul named men who FELL, and warned his listeners "don't be like them".
6. Paul warned against sin, and gave many examples of how people were destroyed.
7. The "race", is "for eternal life"; imperishable wreath is immortal crown.
THe race is INNER struggle; each person races not against others, but against their own temptations, for the crown of life.
The quoted Scriptures must either be answered (with credible exegesis, context and other passages), or accepted. They cannot be ignored

An excellent summary. You have discussed this with several people and so far no one has been able to refute them with Scripture as Scripture presents the Gospel on these points. A lot of denying and redefining terms.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness, there's no other term for it, and you are guilty of it. You are so clearly not seeing the writing on the wall. It is not "Predestinary Theory" (your term) which is in trouble and being defeated, it is "Responsible Grace" (so called) which has been dealt the deathblow. As more and more people read your convoluted, scripture-twisting justifications for the obvious flaws in your pet doctrine, they are seeing it for what it is: a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture.​

Hi, "NBF". I've never espoused "works-based-salvation", and have always answered that charge --- saying things like "works are the consequence of a changed heart", and "faith is not our works", citing even Jn6:28-29 --- our believing is GOD'S work, that WE WORK.

The Jews said: "What must we do, that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe."

His work, that we do, or not. His gift, our faith in receiving it adds nothing, changes nothing, works nothing.

Yet most every time we hear "a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture."

Add to that, "You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness..."

What would you call repeated claims of me holding "works-based-salvation"? The claims have been answered, they are "straw men".

I just made four detailed and precise posts, fully citing Scripture, and asking for explanations of proposed "error".

Your post simply states "wrong" (and "Scripture twisting"), without any factual basis offered. Until we are clearly shown that my understanding (with the full Scripture on what it is based) is in error, those posts stand.

 

[MamaZ]

Funny that what has been presented against has been refuted by scripture many times. Questions have been asked that some cannot answer they ignore the questions and build a wall on something else..

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness, there's no other term for it, and you are guilty of it. You are so clearly not seeing the writing on the wall. It is not "Predestinary Theory" (your term) which is in trouble and being defeated, it is "Responsible Grace" (so called) which has been dealt the deathblow. As more and more people read your convoluted, scripture-twisting justifications for the obvious flaws in your pet doctrine, they are seeing it for what it is: a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture.​

Hi, "NBF". I've never espoused "works-based-salvation", and have always answered that charge --- saying things like "works are the consequence of a changed heart", and "faith is not our works", citing even Jn6:28-29 --- our believing is GOD'S work, that WE WORK.

The Jews said: "What must we do, that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe."

His work, that we do, or not. His gift, our faith in receiving it adds nothing, changes nothing, works nothing.

Yet most every time we hear "a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture."

Add to that, "You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness..."

What would you call repeated claims of me holding "works-based-salvation"? The claims have been answered, they are "straw men".

I just made four detailed and precise posts, fully citing Scripture, and asking for explanations of proposed "error".

Your post simply states "wrong" (and "Scripture twisting"), without any factual basis offered. Until we are clearly shown that my understanding (with the full Scripture on what it is based) is in error, those posts stand.

 

[heymikey80]

No one has been able to deal with Heb3:6-14, and 4:11; the concept of "enduring", is clearly stated --- not being deceived by sin. The alternative is also stated, "falling away from the living God".

=boing=, off to the next verses Ben goes, as if there's never been a single commentary on Heb 3 or 4:11 dealing with his issue.

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. Heb 3:12
​

Reformed thought takes the verse quite plainly, to watch out for your hearts being evil and unbelieving. Of course endurance is something people can observe as a result of saving faith -- the 5th Point of Calvinism is readily seen to be embraced by ... Calvinism.

We are partners in Christ (in the Spirit, in a heavenly calling --- 3:1, 6:4) --- IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

And 4:11 warns us to "be diligent to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating the Israelites' unbelief and disobedience".

And of course people depart from all covenant with the living God through unbelief.

Things which cannot be denied:
1. Unbelievers are termed as undergoing a fall in Heb 3-4.
2. The Apostle warns a plural group of people not to follow their example of unbelief and fall thereby.
3. The Apostle declares these kinds of falls are performed, not by people losing their belief, but by people being unbelievers.
4. An exegesis of 1 Cor 9:27 points to Paul's potential for being disqualified from proclaiming the Gospel -- not Paul's qualification for salvation.

Ben's demand that "disqualified" always be "disqualified for salvation", that "falling" always be "falling from salvation", that "full knowledge" is "full knowledge to their salvation" -- it's clear isn't it? Ben's referring all these things to an individual person's salvation -- how to be saved -- to soteriology. And not everything is soteriology.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Ah. So if I say something it's hostility. But if you say it it's loving counterpoint.
"If we judged ourselves, we wouldn't be judged ..."​

Show me where I've ever said "You're bearing false witness" ("You're lying").

You think stating the fact is hostility? You have made false statements about my views. =shrug= I've mentioned this to you before. It's a fact. Is it a constant mistake on your part? Incredulity at my response? I am an authority on my own personal views.

And you're not. You're quoting in citations things I haven't said. You've done the same with others here. You've misrepresented your opposition. That's false witness, Ben: the very essence of it.

Now, you claimed I was hostile when I applied your theology back to you. I am skeptical your theology permits you to offend the Ninth Commandment and not repent.

Does it?

A theology unapplied isn't a theology. It's an imagination. If it can't be realistically applied, then it doesn't realistically apply.

If your theology is hostile to the way you are living, don't attack me about its hostility. Paul didn't become your enemy by telling you the truth -- I've no reason to consider I am your enemy by telling you this, either. Your offense is entirely from the logic of your position.

You made false assertions. That's bearing false witness, Ben. Don't attack me for pointing out the implications of sin in your theology. Apply your theology and state where it differs. And either adjust your life commensurate with your theology, admit its conclusions, qualify them, or reject them.

Or don't. But don't expect the credibility of your theology to be enhanced thereby.

Quote:
"In spite"? "Consistent with"​

"Consistent with"?
1. Salvation is "imperishable inheritance" (1Pet1:4)
2. Salvation is "reward of the inheritance" (Col3:24)

Not everything is salvation. Not even everything imperishable is salvation. In fact, someone else's salvation is not Paul's salvation. Even according to you -- that would be imperishable, yet would not be Paul's salvation.

And it would qualify as a wreath that only one person could win. "Run in such a way as to win it!"

And you say "race for the imperishable wreath", isn't talking about salvation. Based on what? Your "say-so"?

I pointed out that "all the runners run, but only one receives the prize."

Unless you're talking about only Jesus being saved, this is not about salvation.

I've no reason to bound around from verse to verse. Of course you can bound around all you like. It just doesn't reflect well on the credibility of your theology to act as if objections and contradictions have not been brought up concerning your view.

 

[Rightglory]

heymikey80.

I would consider myself an authority on my own personal views.

that would be great if we were discussing the differences between religions. But if it is the Gospel, or historical Christianity, then opinions or personal views is not the barometer of Truth. The Gospel once given, preserved by the Holy Spirit, is a universal gospel. Every Christian should have the same Gospel since there is ONLY ONE.

It is why you have been unable to refute what Ben has been saying. I don't agree with some of his terminology or the way he states it necessarily, but the Truth of what He is saying has been the consistant Gospel since the Apostles.

You have shown that it is your opinion which hardly makes it Gospel Truth. Isn't any wonder that any other Christian cannot identify with it, surely the Apostles, nor a Christian of the 2nd century or any century could identify with it.

To have credibility is to show that it has authentic historical witness as the Gospel once given.

 

[frumanchu]

No one has been able to deal with Heb3:6-14, and 4:11;

Stating it does not make it so. I've addressed those particular verses several times.

We are partners in Christ (in the Spirit, in a heavenly calling --- 3:1, 6:4) --- IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

And 4:11 warns us to "be diligent to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating the Israelites' unbelief and disobedience".

THings that cannot be denied:
1. We can fall.

It can be denied. It has been denied. And it has been backed up with Scripture and sound reasoning (despite empty claims to the contrary).

The quoted Scriptures must either be answered (with credible exegesis, context and other passages), or accepted. They cannot be ignored.

But apparently the answers...answers with credible exegesis, context and other passages...CAN be ignored by you, since you have persistently and chronically ignored them for YEARS.

"Responsible Grace" theology is indeed a works-based theology in that man's salvation depends 100% on his work in maintaining his state of grace and righteousness. It promotes the notion that God's mercy is something which must not merely be accepted as a free gift but also actively maintained as a status. In other words, salvation is not a free gift at all under "Responsible Grace" theology. There is no grace in "Responsible Grace" theology.



BTW, the difference between the statements regarding "Responsible Grace" being a works based salvation and the blatant misrepresentation and false witness you engage in is that we present ours as a logical conclusion and demonstrate it as such, whereas you make statements (often as direct quotes) that are demonstrably false and in explicit contradiction to our words.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Let's not add passages that are
1 -- Addressed to people completely different from Paul's​

Really? They have a different Gospel of salvation, than we do???

They're entirely different audiences. They have a different Gospel of salvation than you assume. And Paul's talking about different subjects: evangelism in 1 Cor 9. Christian Walk in Heb 12.

You haven't established what you want to be the Gospel Paul's teaching. You can't "bootstrap" your Gospel in this way.

Quote:
2 -- in situations different from that Paul outlines​

I s'pose those in 2Tim, were also in "different situation" --- he's somehow NOT plainly stating "race/compete for the prize of salvation?

=boing= And here you go, off to yet another verse. Have you accepted that 1 Cor 9 isn't relevant to your argument?

Your supposition of my view should be based on an exegetical context, Ben. You know: what Paul is talking about at the time.

To assume that my response to one passage is my response to another is exactly the same kind of mistake you've just made in merging multiple Scriptures together. Don't assume my answer to one Scripture must be an answer to all other Scriptures. That's just a silly presumption, don't you think?

Context informs the answer. Not vice versa.

Now more than once you've challenged me to reconsider my position, on the assumption your argument prevails. I'm challenging you to reconsider your position, on the point that your argument hasn't prevailed, and your theology doesn't have any better answer to the contrary of your challenges.

You previously asserted that no Scripture agreed with me and placed God's heart change before faith. I provided the Scriptures that indeed place heart change before faith, and placed the cause of heart change specifically on the Spirit of God.

And then I asserted that no Scripture placed faith before heart change.

While those assertions stand for you to answer, the bounce has gone. Scripture prevails on you to provide these answers -- or reconsider your position. For if you felt your theology would have required such of me, it now requires it of you.

With respect, don't you just strive to find some understanding that allows "predestination", no matter how obscure? No offense intended...

With respect I don't think your "with respect" recognized that, if your arguments expected to have any influence over me, then the counterarguments should certainly expect that influence over you. Unless, do you think you're immune to your own arguments' logic? Or does your reasoning only apply to me, and not to you?

Quote:
3 -- out of context with Paul's letter to the Corinthians​

You have yet to SHOW it's "out of context". Heb12 speaks of "sin that so easily entangles us". Show me how that diverges from 2Tim, "Be diligent to prove yourself blameless ...avoid empty chatter that leads to ungodliness..."

Hebrews is not 1 Corinthians. They're two different letters, Ben. Y'can't get much more out of context than, "These things were never meant to be read-together. They may not even be about the same subject. And one certainly can't be using the illustration the same way as the other."

Quote:
When you cross-circuit illustrations you end up with nothing credible.​

The only reason you say "cross-circuit", is because it ruins "predestinary theory". Not because it's "conflicting" or "outta-context" or "deviant" from Scripture.

Humbug. You've yet to agree that "only one wins the prize" of salvation, because it ruins your concept of salvation. And of course I would reject this your view, because it doesn't work in context.

Paul says explicitly what the's winning -- it isn't his own salvation. It's the conversion of others. And it forces a rejection of your conclusion.

Exegetically simple answers deny your conclusion.

• In 1 Cor 9, what's Paul say he is winning?
• If winning is my salvation, how many people does 1 Cor 9 say, win? Is that count consistent with the rest of Scripture?

It's incredible to me you're going to so such lengths to assert 1 Cor 9 is talking about losing your salvation. It's not.

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness, there's no other term for it, and you are guilty of it. You are so clearly not seeing the writing on the wall. It is not "Predestinary Theory" (your term) which is in trouble and being defeated, it is "Responsible Grace" (so called) which has been dealt the deathblow. As more and more people read your convoluted, scripture-twisting justifications for the obvious flaws in your pet doctrine, they are seeing it for what it is: a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture.​

Hi, "NBF". I've never espoused "works-based-salvation", and have always answered that charge --- saying things like "works are the consequence of a changed heart", and "faith is not our works", citing even Jn6:28-29 --- our believing is GOD'S work, that WE WORK.

You need to decide which it is, God's work, or ours. You're not reading the verse correctly. Their belief is God's work, that He works in them. Their faith is simple response, not work. It is God who works in believers, both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

The Jews said: "What must we do, that we may work the works of God?"
Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe."

You apparently haven't noticed that Jesus did not answer their question in the way they asked it. They asked Him how they could do what He had just done, feed five thousand people with five barley loaves, and two fishes. They wanted to know how to perform miracles. His answer was that faith was itself a miracle, that God works, not them.

His work, that we do, or not. His gift, our faith in receiving it adds nothing, changes nothing, works nothing.

Still confused, aren't you? His gift is our faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word of God. Who is the Word of God? Jesus. Faith comes by Christ. Faith is the gift of God.

Yet most every time we hear "a man-centered, works-based distortion of scripture."

Add to that, "You claim no one has been able to deal with this or that, when the reality is, you simply reject any statements that don't agree with you, and then claim nothing has been said. That is bearing false witness..."

What would you call repeated claims of me holding "works-based-salvation"? The claims have been answered, they are "straw men".

No, they are not. They are accurate assessments of the myriad statements you have made. I can't help it if you can't face up and own up to the destination your theology leads to. But your denial does not negate the truth. Your theology is man-centered and works-based. Your focus is all on man, and you deny God's part in the ordering of all things, and in preserving those who are His. You deny clear biblical doctrine (Predestination), and actively try to defeat the truth of it.

I just made four detailed and precise posts, fully citing Scripture, and asking for explanations of proposed "error".

And as has been pointed out, you are flitting from scripture to scripture, with no regard for context or subject. You're just stringing together scriptures which have some of the same words in them, in the mistaken belief that if the same word appears in two or more different scriptures, they must be related and mean the same thing, but you have not demonstrated that such is the case. HM80 has demonstrated that such is NOT the case, but you won't receive it, because then you would have to admit that you were wrong to make those connections, which, as we know from experience, you will never do, because you have never done so in the past.

Your post simply states "wrong" (and "Scripture twisting"), without any factual basis offered. Until we are clearly shown that my understanding (with the full Scripture on what it is based) is in error, those posts stand.

Alluding to the "imperial we" again? You are the only one espousing these things, Ben. There is no "we" here. HM80 has done an excellent job in deconstructing your failed arguments. So has Frumanchu. What do I need to add to their assessments? You won't receive it anyway. I'll save my hands, and my blood pressure. Responsible Grace is done. It's finished.

 

[cygnusx1]

You think stating the fact is hostility? You have made false statements about my views. =shrug= I've mentioned this to you before. It's a fact. Is it a constant mistake on your part? Incredulity at my response? I am an authority on my own personal views.

And you're not. You're quoting in citations things I haven't said. You've done the same with others here. You've misrepresented your opposition. That's false witness, Ben: the very essence of it.

Now, you claimed I was hostile when I applied your theology back to you. I am skeptical your theology permits you to offend the Ninth Commandment and not repent.

Does it?

A theology unapplied isn't a theology. It's an imagination. If it can't be realistically applied, then it doesn't realistically apply.

If your theology is hostile to the way you are living, don't attack me about its hostility. Paul didn't become your enemy by telling you the truth -- I've no reason to consider I am your enemy by telling you this, either. Your offense is entirely from the logic of your position.

You made false assertions. That's bearing false witness, Ben. Don't attack me for pointing out the implications of sin in your theology. Apply your theology and state where it differs. And either adjust your life commensurate with your theology, admit its conclusions, qualify them, or reject them.

Or don't. But don't expect the credibility of your theology to be enhanced thereby.

Not everything is salvation. Not even everything imperishable is salvation. In fact, someone else's salvation is not Paul's salvation. Even according to you -- that would be imperishable, yet would not be Paul's salvation.

And it would qualify as a wreath that only one person could win. "Run in such a way as to win it!"

I pointed out that "all the runners run, but only one receives the prize."

Unless you're talking about only Jesus being saved, this is not about salvation.

I've no reason to bound around from verse to verse. Of course you can bound around all you like. It just doesn't reflect well on the credibility of your theology to act as if objections and contradictions have not been brought up concerning your view.

Really enjoying your recent posts Mikey , especially this ;

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49748467

I pointed out that "all the runners run, but only one receives the prize."

Unless you're talking about only Jesus being saved, this is not about salvation.

Only Arminian (and feminist ) agenda attempts all men and women shall receive a prize .