"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Charis kai Dunamis]

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

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

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

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

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

How can regeneration NOT be sovereignly decided... the greek for being "born again" means "born from above". It must be an act of God, not an act of man on that principle alone?

And how in the world does one become un-born again???

 

[nobdysfool]

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

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

Very funny....it gets "cold" in Tulsa? I've been in Tulsa in December. It's not that cold. Not as cold as Northern Ohio.....

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

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

Hey, you and your buddies are always the ones arguing for man's supposed ability to choose Christ all by himself, with no outside help, by his all-powerful free will. I don't deny that man has the ability to choose. What I do deny is that he can choose Christ (or make a choice which is pleasing to God) while still unregenerate.

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

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

Already answered, multiple times. Your refusal to accept those answers does not make them disappear, nor does it allow you to claim they have not been answered. That would be bearing false witness.

Posted by NBF:
WE (Calvinists)...​

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

With respect, I qualified my statement of "we" by indicating who "we" is. You on the other hand, stated "we" without qualifying it, and you still have not. We both know the "frog" doesn't exist. We Calvinists don't have to hold elections to speak for each other.

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians Chapters 1 through 3 inclusive, do establish that the gospel is spiritual, and unable to be received by the unregenerate (natural) man. That is indisputable FACT.

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

Calvinist doctrine. Please back it with Scripture.

Just did. 1 Corinthians chapters 1 through 3. Your blindness is not my problem.

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

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

Why isn't He sovereign enough???

Romans 6 and 7, Ben. Read it, learn it, and make an effort to understand it.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
How can regeneration NOT be sovereignly decided... the greek for being "born again" means "born from above". It must be an act of God, not an act of man on that principle alone?​

Ahhh --- here is where we must be clear on Scriptural definitions. "Born from above", is "born again", is "alive in Jesus"; and it is 100% of God and nothing of us. John1:13 is very clear.

With me?

In context, that "born-again", or "begotten-of-God", is a gift --- and it is received by faith. John1:13 follows verse 12: "To as many as received Christ, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name".

The begottenness (born-of-God), is all of Him and nothing of us; but becoming begotten, is us receiving His gift, by believing and receiving Jesus.

Quote:
And how in the world does one become un-born again???​

The best explanation is probably in Hebrews 12.

"Begottenness", is "being God's child". In Heb12 is a discussion of receiving discipline. God disciplines us as children. But if we are without discipline, then we are illegitimate and not sons. We submitted to earthly fathers' discipline; shall we not much rather be subject to the (discipline of the) Father of Spirits, AND LIVE?

"Live", can only mean "eternally"; "sons" is "born-of-God", which is by faithful submission to His discipline. As Heb5:9 says, He is the source of salvation to all who obey Him.

If anyone does not think that Heb12 speaks "eternally", verse 25 says: "Do not refuse Him who warns from Heaven; much less shall they escape who turn away from God".

In one chapter is the idea of "submitting to God's discipline", contrasted against "disobeying/refusing-discipline" (and not being His sons), and it's concluded warning "not to turn away from God".

We-who-are-saved, sin; after each sin is the same choice --- to sin again, or to repent and run to Him for forgiveness. If we WALK in sin, then Jesus does not walk with us. Clearly regeneration does not make us sinless; and against "Antinomianism", one cannot walk in sin and still expect to waltz into Heaven.

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

...we do NOT sin, only as we draw close to Him, and HIS power overcomes sin, in and through us...

"Humble yourselves before God, and He will exalt you. Submit yourselves therefore to God; resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you." James4...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
no such thing as a "regenerated reprobate" !​

Exactly. Thus, one cannot be "born-of-God", and "unrepentant/unbelieving". The two concepts must be simultaneous.

...which ruins the idea of "new birth, before belief"...

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

Just did --- it is impossible to be "born again", without being "child of God", and being "repentant" and "believing".

Faith cannot come after rebirth...

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

Don't need "logic", when I've supported everything with Scripture. (This in opposition to someone who said "don't need Scripture when we have sound logic"...)

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

Gosh, I hope not. OTOH, I responded to NBF and Mikey, completely overturning their answers...

There is not any "order", which means "sequence". "Born-again", is inseparable from "adoption" --- and adoption is after belief. Case closed...

Quote:
there we go again , now demonstrate it !​

I did --- were ya' snoozing? (You do know I'm teasing...)

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

It all hinges on how Scripture defines "predestination". We are predestined to be Christlike --- and context clearly says "we WHO LOVE God". Rom8...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
are you thinking straight ben ???​

Yes I am.

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

I cited 2Cor5:17, but didn't quote it. Let's:
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold all has become new."

Where is the room for "sinning", when sinning consequents from the OLD nature? The fact that we DO sin, proves God is resistible.

Connect that verse with 2Cor13:5 --- we are to examine ourselves to see if we are IN Christ, evaluating our position by our works.

...uhmmm, isn't that exactly what Peter said in 2:1:5-10?

Yup...

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

You just misunderstand the application of God's sovereignty.

God does not decree ANYONE to perish, but patiently waits for ALL to repent. God commands all men everywhere to repent. God desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. God delights in the death of no one who dies; so (He says) "Repent and LIVE".

Do not be arrogant towards the natural branches --- you stand by faith, they fell by unbelief; if God did not spare the NATURAL branches, neither will He spare YOU. Behold then the kindness and severity of God --- to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness else YOU TOO will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in again.



You know those Scriptures; would you like the books, chapters and verses?

 

[Ben johnson]

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

No problem at all, Cygnus --- the point is that if "regeneration" was by GOD, "sovereignly predestined", then we would be completely and finally regenerated.

Thus, sinless. Else God is not completely sovereign.

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

Correct --- and you're missing Rom8:12-14...

 

[cygnusx1]

Quoted by Cygnus:
are you thinking straight ben ???​

Yes I am.

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

I cited 2Cor5:17, but didn't quote it. Let's:
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold all has become new."

Where is the room for "sinning", when sinning consequents from the OLD nature? The fact that we DO sin, proves God is resistible.

it seems you still can't make up your own mind ben , that is why you skipped replying to the post that shows your contradiction.

no ben , that doesn't work , The fact that we do sin proves the old nature is not eradicated , instead of pushing the false and absurd dogma approving supporting and enticing creatures to resist God saying they can when scripture says they can't *; you need to study the doctrine of mortification... instead of trying to destroy Predestination!

*Romans 9

[18] Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Pilate thought he could act autonomously but Christ rebuked him.

Pharoah thought he could resist God and discovered the very idea wreckless and absurd , for God resists the proud.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

No problem at all, Cygnus --- the point is that if "regeneration" was by GOD, "sovereignly predestined", then we would be completely and finally regenerated.

ben , your talking past me , please either address what I have written or don't reply , it's of no value just to repeat your theory over and over because you are ignoring in a underhanded way RELEVANT objections , the reader will easily perceive deflection is as good as no answer.

Thus, sinless. Else God is not completely sovereign.

Rubbish!

Right , Let's have it out for all to see ben ;

Do you still sin , Yes or no ... don't equivocate and don't deflect.

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

Correct --- and you're missing Rom8:12-14...

Impossible !! I think you will find "Rom 8:12-14" within Romans 7-8 which I already quoted

 

[cygnusx1]

Quoted by Cygnus:
no such thing as a "regenerated reprobate" !​

Exactly. Thus, one cannot be "born-of-God", and "unrepentant/unbelieving". The two concepts must be simultaneous.

...which ruins the idea of "new birth, before belief"...

Nonsense !

take for arguments sake the case of an infant ; he/she may be Regenerate/Born Again , not by baptism , but by a gracious act of God , and have no concept of the Gospel .

what you fail to realise is that REGENERATION and SALVATION are not interchangable terms , yes they are related , but not interchangable.

I was Regenerate before I was saved , as scripture shows.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]1 John 5:1 - "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God", John 1:13, Rom 9:16[/FONT]

we are NOT born of faith , we are born of PROMISE , as are all the Elect. Just as Isaac was born of promise , so are we ;

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. Gal 4:28


God promised Abraham UNCONDITIONALLY a Son , a son even from a dead womb , Abraham's faith did not in any sense make this so , Abraham received this promise by faith ... our birth into the Kingdom is a SOVEREIGN matter , the wind blows where it wills , so is it with everyone born of the Spirit , not of mans will or efforts , born-again according to God's outstanding riches of Grace . Deny God's Sovereignty in bearing children at His pleasure and you turn to the heresy of decisional regeneration or baptismal regeneration.


we are "justified by faith" , but never does scripture say we are regenerated by faith !


we receive salvation by faith ; in contrast we are regenerated by a FREE decision of The Lord.

Here's some perspective on "Regeneration prior to faith" in Church history ;

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself." R C Sproul
[/FONT]

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Very funny....​

Well, hey, ya' know, you throw them out, and some "hit", and some fall flat. But if you can't laugh, what's the point?

BTW, a frog makes a much better pet than a cat. Think about it --- a cat may have nine lives, but a frog croaks EVERY nite...

Quote:
Hey, you and your buddies are always the ones arguing for man's supposed ability to choose Christ all by himself, with no outside help, by his all-powerful free will.​

Buddies? In many of these threads, I'm alone; against 6-8 or more Calvinists. Yes there have been some good "Responsible" posts; but often "it's just you (all) and me, kid"... (Kids? Here's looking at you...)

Quote:
Already answered, multiple times. Your refusal to accept those answers does not make them disappear, nor does it allow you to claim they have not been answered. That would be bearing false witness.​

Oh I answered the answers --- refuting them. Especially the John5:40 one --- Calvinism founds on "giving life and THEN coming to Jesus", but Jesus said "you will not come THAT you may HAVE life".

Life is after coming, NBF; no one can deny it.

QUote:
With respect, I qualified my statement of "we" by indicating who "we" is. You on the other hand, stated "we" without qualifying it, and you still have not. We both know the "frog" doesn't exist.​

You don't know that for sure; he might be right here, smiling.
...come to think of it, frogs are always "smiling"...

Quote:
1 Corinthians Chapters 1 through 3 inclusive, do establish that the gospel is spiritual, and unable to be received by the unregenerate (natural) man. That is indisputable FACT.​

Remind me of exactly where that happens --- which verses?

Quote:
Just did. Your blindness is not my problem.​

Did not.

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

Show us the Scriptures. Be specific.

Quote:
Romans 6 and 7, Ben. Read it, learn it, and make an effort to understand it.​

Hmmm; ch6 speaks of the difference between "enslavement to sin", and "enslavement to righteousness and God". Clearly stated, is "Do not continue presenting your bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

Does that sound like "alive is GOD'S choice, FOR us"? No.

Chapter 8 warns us "If WE walk after the lusts of the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

We must die, NBF --- what part of that does not sound like "choice"?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Very funny....​

Well, hey, ya' know, you throw them out, and some "hit", and some fall flat. But if you can't laugh, what's the point?

BTW, a frog makes a much better pet than a cat. Think about it --- a cat may have nine lives, but a frog croaks EVERY nite...

Quote:
Hey, you and your buddies are always the ones arguing for man's supposed ability to choose Christ all by himself, with no outside help, by his all-powerful free will.​

Buddies? In many of these threads, I'm alone; against 6-8 or more Calvinists. Yes there have been some good "Responsible" posts; but often "it's just you (all) and me, kid"... (Kids? Here's looking at you...)

Quote:
Already answered, multiple times. Your refusal to accept those answers does not make them disappear, nor does it allow you to claim they have not been answered. That would be bearing false witness.​

Oh I answered the answers --- refuting them. Especially the John5:40 one --- Calvinism founds on "giving life and THEN coming to Jesus", but Jesus said "you will not come THAT you may HAVE life".

Life is after coming, NBF; no one can deny it.

QUote:
With respect, I qualified my statement of "we" by indicating who "we" is. You on the other hand, stated "we" without qualifying it, and you still have not. We both know the "frog" doesn't exist.​

You don't know that for sure; he might be right here, smiling.
...come to think of it, frogs are always "smiling"...

Quote:
1 Corinthians Chapters 1 through 3 inclusive, do establish that the gospel is spiritual, and unable to be received by the unregenerate (natural) man. That is indisputable FACT.​

Remind me of exactly where that happens --- which verses?

Quote:
Just did. Your blindness is not my problem.​

Did not.

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

Show us the Scriptures. Be specific.

Quote:
Romans 6 and 7, Ben. Read it, learn it, and make an effort to understand it.​

Hmmm; ch6 speaks of the difference between "enslavement to sin", and "enslavement to righteousness and God". Clearly stated, is "Do not continue presenting your bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

Does that sound like "alive is GOD'S choice, FOR us"? No.

Chapter 8 warns us "If WE walk after the lusts of the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

We must die, NBF --- what part of that does not sound like "choice"?

 

[AndOne]

Buddies? In many of these threads, I'm alone; against 6-8 or more Calvinists. Yes there have been some good "Responsible" posts; but often "it's just you (all) and me, kid"... (Kids? Here's looking at you...)​

​

It hasn't always been like this - it wasn't too long ago when the Calvinists and those who hold to eternal security were in the minority around here.

Not that it makes a difference in either case.... But at least now you know it's not so fun when you are in the minority for a change.
​

 

[cygnusx1]

Show us the Scriptures. Be specific.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall seek My judgments, and do them" (Ezek. 36:26, 27).

Spiritual Regeneration preceeds the "obedience of faith" , every time !

a man needs to be born again BEFORE he can see (understand) the Kingdom of God. see John 3


Those who preach 'regeneration follows the obedience of faith' are making the same mistake as Abraham , who by his own efforts and under a misunderstanding even though he believed and had faith sought to obtain the promise by human power , he was later corrected in that the Promise is By God's Sovereign intervention when Sarah's womb was as good as dead , just as the sinner is raised with Christ ; reconciled to God BEFORE he has faith .....

while we were enemies Christ died for us , was raised for us , ,

while we were dead in trespasses and sins we were quickened ;


Eph.2

[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
[3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
[4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved :


we are born of God UNTO a saving faith ; for what is hope that is certain if not faith therefore this "hope" is certain which is faith ;


we are elect through santification of the Spirit UNTO obedience , the obedience of faith!

we are not elected through sanctification of the Spirit bECAUSE of the obedience of our faith !

1Pet.1

[1] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
[2] Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
[4] To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

We are Born Again UNTO a lively hope , what is this "lively hope" ?
now faith is being sure of what we hope for; and certain of what we do not see ... Heb11:1

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, why don't you eliminate one of your double posts. And let me remind you, to check the posts you copy offline to reply to, to make sure I haven't changed something after I posted to it. I added some things to that last one. You didn't reply to the post as it exists.

 

[cygnusx1]

Ben, why don't you eliminate one of your double posts. And let me remind you, to check the posts you copy offline to reply to, to make sure I haven't changed something after I posted to it. I added some things to that last one. You didn't reply to the post as it exists.

good point bro , me too ben.

gotta get some sleep , it's 3:34 AM here , catch you later

 

[A Brother In Christ]

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

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

Thus, the post, from our brother Cygnus:

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

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

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


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


why the difference in creation ?

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

so which is it ben ?

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


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

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

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

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

Here is the problem --- saved people SIN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...real spiritual death...

we are still waiting for answers to scripture given in other threads...

same issues just starting over and over

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by NBF:
Very funny....​

Well, hey, ya' know, you throw them out, and some "hit", and some fall flat. But if you can't laugh, what's the point?

BTW, a frog makes a much better pet than a cat. Think about it --- a cat may have nine lives, but a frog croaks EVERY nite...

Don't quit yer day job....

Posted by NBF:
Hey, you and your buddies are always the ones arguing for man's supposed ability to choose Christ all by himself, with no outside help, by his all-powerful free will.​

Buddies? In many of these threads, I'm alone; against 6-8 or more Calvinists. Yes there have been some good "Responsible" posts; but often "it's just you (all) and me, kid"... (Kids? Here's looking at you...)

Interesting how your support evaporated....that might be a clue to you....

And you still better keep your day job....

Posted by NBF:
Already answered, multiple times. Your refusal to accept those answers does not make them disappear, nor does it allow you to claim they have not been answered. That would be bearing false witness.​

Oh I answered the answers --- refuting them.

In your mind maybe, but that's not the general consensus. But the problem is, you keep claiming that your posts haven't been answered by us, which is bearing false witness, because here you do admit that they have been, although you didn't like the answers. So, you can never again make that claim, can you?

Especially the John5:40 one --- Calvinism founds on "giving life and THEN coming to Jesus", but Jesus said "you will not come THAT you may HAVE life".

Mikey already picked that one apart and showed that this is not what the verse says.Sso, no, you have not finally refuted it. You have offered what you think is refutation, and we trumped it and refuted you. All you did was repeat what you said before. That's not refutation. End of story.

Life is after coming, NBF; no one can deny it.

Life comes after being dragged there by the Father. That is what cannot be denied.

Postedby NBF:
With respect, I qualified my statement of "we" by indicating who "we" is. You on the other hand, stated "we" without qualifying it, and you still have not. We both know the "frog" doesn't exist.​

You don't know that for sure; he might be right here, smiling.
...come to think of it, frogs are always "smiling"...

Larry the Cable guy you are not....and you avoided the point. As I knew you would.

Posted by NBF:
1 Corinthians Chapters 1 through 3 inclusive, do establish that the gospel is spiritual, and unable to be received by the unregenerate (natural) man. That is indisputable FACT.​

Remind me of exactly where that happens --- which verses?

1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:23-24 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.​

Same word, used three times. Just like you claim for "things". By your own measure, my point is made. The gospel is spiritual in nature, and is folly to the unregenerate.

Posted by NBF:
Just did. Your blindness is not my problem.​

Did not.

Just did, in detail.

Posted by NBF:
​

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

Show us the Scriptures. Be specific.

You can't be that dense, I just did.

Posted by NBF:
Romans 6 and 7, Ben. Read it, learn it, and make an effort to understand it.​

Hmmm; ch6 speaks of the difference between "enslavement to sin", and "enslavement to righteousness and God". Clearly stated, is "Do not continue presenting your bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

Does that sound like "alive is GOD'S choice, FOR us"? No.

Chapter 8 warns us "If WE walk after the lusts of the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

We must die, NBF --- what part of that does not sound like "choice"?

Do you still sin, Ben? If so, why? Are you saved when you sin? If so, how? What constitutes practicing sin? Does it have to be repetition of one sin, or can practicing sin be a range of sins, not necessarily repetitive, but cumulative? At what point does one lose their salvation because they sin above some threshhold amount? Surely you can answer these questions, since you Theology spends so much time telling us how we are in constant danger of losing our salvation, because we aren't diligent enough.

Tell us, Ben.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
it seems you still can't make up your own mind ben , that is why you skipped replying to the post that shows your contradiction.

no ben , that doesn't work , The fact that we do sin proves the old nature is not eradicated , instead of pushing the false and absurd dogma approving supporting and enticing creatures to resist God saying they can when scripture says they can't *; you need to study the doctrine of mortification... instead of trying to destroy Predestination!​

And that's the point, Cygnus --- the old nature is not destroyed. Thus, "in Christ" requires diligence, just as Paul and Peter and everyone else there said.

You cannot change what Peter wrote in 2:1:5-10; clearly warning us the consequence of non-diligence --- the warning is perishing, just like the man who WAS saved, but is no longer. Paul wrote the same thing; in many places --- see "adokimos" in 1Cor9:25-27 and 2Cor13:5, see the warning against deception to perishing in Col2:6-8 and 1Tim4:1&16, and I believe he wrote Heb3:6-14 (4:11). No way to alter what was written, is there?

Quote:
*Romans 9

[18] Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?​

So many times we've discussed this; God has mercy on ALL, Rom11:32. God does not make men sinful; He tempts no one (James1:12), and hates sin.

With respect, how is it that we discuss spiritual absolutes (just look at the precise citations quoted in this post), and the perception of Rom9 just "sweeps them away"? If that perception of Rom9 conflicts the rest of Scripture (start with what we just read), then the perception of Rom9, must change.

Quote:
Pilate thought he could act autonomously but Christ rebuked him.​

Jesus caused Pilate's actions? No.

Quote:
Pharoah thought he could resist God and discovered the very idea wreckless and absurd , for God resists the proud.​

And Pharaoh sinned and hardened his own heart. Black-n-white, Cygnus.

Quote:
ben , you're talking past me , please either address what I have written or don't reply , it's of no value just to repeat your theory over and over because you are ignoring in a underhanded way RELEVANT objections , the reader will easily perceive deflection is as good as no answer.​

The point, is that if "regeneration" was sovereignly decreed, we WOULD be sinless. Else God would not be sovereign enough.

But if "regeneration" is by faith (as Titus3:5-6 states, regeneration is by the POURED Spirit, and "poured" denotes "belief" --- Acts10:45 & 11:17.

Quote:
Rubbish!​

And that is why "regeneration" cannot be "sovereignly-done".

Quote:
Right , Let's have it out for all to see ben ;

Do you still sin , Yes or no ... don't equivocate and don't deflect.​

If I say "no", then I would be following the Calvinistic logical progression of "sovereign-predestined-regeneration"; for what God decrees, cannot be undone. I would not be able to sin.

But alas, I do sin; God does not want me to sin, therefore God is resistible.

See how it works? That we sin, PROVES that regeneration is not sovereignly-decreed by God. Else we COULD NOT sin.

Because regeneration is by voluntary faith, we CAN resist God, and like the man in 2Pet1:9, we can become unregenerated again.

See if you can deny that "formerly purified from sins", equates to "regeneration".

And you also won't be able to deny that "forgotten former purification, LACKS godly qualities", is no longer regenerate.

Fatal flaw, after fatal flaw, Cygnus. I pray these discussions cause you no harm; it has always been an extreme delight to converse with you; and I only seek the truth as revealed in Scripture, for I believe only then can both of us emerge more mature in Christ.

Quote:
Impossible !! I think you will find "Rom 8:12-14" within Romans 7-8 which I already quoted ​

The dynamic, is "if WE walk in sin, WE must die".

How can a sovereignly-elect, and monergistically-regenerated man, walk in sin and die? Obviously you'll have to employ a "Five-Way" here; perhaps it's "hypothetical, can't really happen".

Yes, it can; see Rom6:12-13...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
it seems you still can't make up your own mind ben , that is why you skipped replying to the post that shows your contradiction.

no ben , that doesn't work , The fact that we do sin proves the old nature is not eradicated , instead of pushing the false and absurd dogma approving supporting and enticing creatures to resist God saying they can when scripture says they can't *; you need to study the doctrine of mortification... instead of trying to destroy Predestination!​

And that's the point, Cygnus --- the old nature is not destroyed. Thus, "in Christ" requires diligence, just as Paul and Peter and everyone else there said.

You cannot change what Peter wrote in 2:1:5-10; clearly warning us the consequence of non-diligence --- the warning is perishing, just like the man who WAS saved, but is no longer. Paul wrote the same thing; in many places --- see "adokimos" in 1Cor9:25-27 and 2Cor13:5, see the warning against deception to perishing in Col2:6-8 and 1Tim4:1&16, and I believe he wrote Heb3:6-14 (4:11). No way to alter what was written, is there?

Quote:
*Romans 9

[18] Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[19] Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
[20] Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?​

So many times we've discussed this; God has mercy on ALL, Rom11:32. God does not make men sinful; He tempts no one (James1:12), and hates sin.

With respect, how is it that we discuss spiritual absolutes (just look at the precise citations quoted in this post), and the perception of Rom9 just "sweeps them away"? If that perception of Rom9 conflicts the rest of Scripture (start with what we just read), then the perception of Rom9, must change.

Quote:
Pilate thought he could act autonomously but Christ rebuked him.​

Jesus caused Pilate's actions? No.

Quote:
Pharoah thought he could resist God and discovered the very idea wreckless and absurd , for God resists the proud.​

And Pharaoh sinned and hardened his own heart. Black-n-white, Cygnus.

Quote:
ben , you're talking past me , please either address what I have written or don't reply , it's of no value just to repeat your theory over and over because you are ignoring in a underhanded way RELEVANT objections , the reader will easily perceive deflection is as good as no answer.​

The point, is that if "regeneration" was sovereignly decreed, we WOULD be sinless. Else God would not be sovereign enough.

But if "regeneration" is by faith (as Titus3:5-6 states, regeneration is by the POURED Spirit, and "poured" denotes "belief" --- Acts10:45 & 11:17.

Quote:
Rubbish!​

And that is why "regeneration" cannot be "sovereignly-done".

Quote:
Right , Let's have it out for all to see ben ;

Do you still sin , Yes or no ... don't equivocate and don't deflect.​

If I say "no", then I would be following the Calvinistic logical progression of "sovereign-predestined-regeneration"; for what God decrees, cannot be undone. I would not be able to sin.

But alas, I do sin; God does not want me to sin, therefore God is resistible.

See how it works? That we sin, PROVES that regeneration is not sovereignly-decreed by God. Else we COULD NOT sin.

Because regeneration is by voluntary faith, we CAN resist God, and like the man in 2Pet1:9, we can become unregenerated again.

See if you can deny that "formerly purified from sins", equates to "regeneration".

And you also won't be able to deny that "forgotten former purification, LACKS godly qualities", is no longer regenerate.

Fatal flaw, after fatal flaw, Cygnus. I pray these discussions cause you no harm; it has always been an extreme delight to converse with you; and I only seek the truth as revealed in Scripture, for I believe only then can both of us emerge more mature in Christ.

Quote:
Impossible !! I think you will find "Rom 8:12-14" within Romans 7-8 which I already quoted ​

The dynamic, is "if WE walk in sin, WE must die".

How can a sovereignly-elect, and monergistically-regenerated man, walk in sin and die? Obviously you'll have to employ a "Five-Way" here; perhaps it's "hypothetical, can't really happen".

Yes, it can; see Rom6:12-13...

 

[Ben johnson]

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

Really --- we are not adopted until LONG AFTER we're saved?

To whom do we belong, meanwhile???

Look at this:

Gal 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,
Gal 4:2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.
Gal 4:3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
Gal 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Gal 4:7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.​

​

This is the same thing that Rom8 says, almost word-for-word 14-17. We are sons, not "will become sons at some point in the future". We receive the Spirit of adoption; there is no difference in position of "adopted/children-of-God", and "begotten/born-of-God".

Same position, same saved person.

Quote:
...adoption as sons does not occur at initial salvation, it occurs when our bodies are redeemed, which is for us still future.​

Nope, completely overturned that, with Gal4:1-7, and Rom8:12-17.