"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[frumanchu]

Just curious -

Has Ben ever responded to any of these posts that clearly point to the Greek text for support of the Calvinist position?

Seems like the boards go dead once those proficient in Greek show up to do battle....

No, because Ben knows absolutely nothing about the Greek language...or the English language for that matter. I don't claim to be proficient in Greek, but I know enough about linguistics to understand certain basic principles such as subject-verb agreement. Ben's errors are such that a junior high English student who doesn't know anything about Greek can still point out the clear error in verses like 2 Peter 3:9.

Ben sprinkles Greek words into his arguments as though they add some scholarly weight to it, but it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he has no knowledge of the Greek language and can't even identify basic English structures.

In short, he has no defense for his made-up translations, so he just ignores the posts and keeps repeating the same errors.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

Hi, Dean. I believe if you'll go back and read the 1Cor2:14 thread, every point was fully established, and Calvinism was faring very badly. One of the biggest points made there, was the problem with "born-again" and "adopted"; if those two concepts are separate, even for a microsecond, then a man can be born-of-God but NOT repentant. And if they are coincident, then "born-of-God", is after belief. Both positions ruin "predestination".

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

Here is the problem --- it is individual choice to "set our minds on God, and not on the flesh". Rom8:12-13 aligns with Col3:1-17, and reflects perfectly on Rm6:11-23. Shall we quote those passages?

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

And this is another "fatal flaw". "Life" is given to us, by the Spirit --- you are clearly espousing that we gain life, and THEN believe and then receive the Spirit. How then does Jesus say "...come to Me that you may HAVE life"?

If "regeneration" is sovereignly-accomplished, then why are we NOT sinless? We are not, because it is not. "Life" begins with the faith that receives Jesus' sacrifice, and receives the Spirit, and the Spirit regenerates as He ENTERS the believer's heart. In Titus3:5-6 "poured" is a characteristic of the regenerating Spirit.

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

You gave the answer already --- "prior to BELIEVING". Belief is the beginning, not the end. Causal, not consequential.

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

What happened in Acts2:37? They were convicted ("pierced to the heart", or "smitten in conscience"); then they believed.

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

If men have no choice in their regeneration, and if regeneration changes the NATURE, then why do men still sin?

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

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

Most Calvinists misunderstand "see", as "perceive"; but in all 38 occurrences of "idein", it means "physically-behold/participate". Flat repeated in verse 5, "unless born of the Spirit ...cannot ENTER INTO the kingdom of God".

In vain is the verse sought that says "unless monergistically-changed cannot UNDERSTAND Jesus' Gospel". That was the point of the 1Cor2:14 thread, proving that no one overturned what I said about "the passage does not assert prior regeneration".

Quote:
What is regeneration? What is meant by "regeneration?"

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

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

Several errors occur here --- first, the "change-heart-from-stone", happens after they turn from abominations towards God (but not all TURN, those who refuse are condemned). Second, "made alive" is clearly "through faith" in Eph2:5-8, fully aligning with what Jesus said in John5:40 --- coming to Him that they may HAVE life. In no sense can "come", be made separate from "believing". Third, if man is "completely renewed to the image of God", how does man SIN?

God is resistible. Sinning can deceive to spiritual death, clearly stated in James1:14-16, in Heb3:6-14 (4:11!), and in many other passages. The same choice that allows men to TURN AWAY from God (Heb12:25), also allows men to turn TO God (Jn5:40).

 

[Ben johnson]

FAKE GREEK SCHOLARSHIP ALERT

Not a single major translation of the Scriptures renders this as anything but past tense, and that's because the aorist tense is virtually always rendered as past tense in English. Even your beloved Roberson renders it as past.

When are you going to admit that YOU DON'T KNOW A THING about New Testament Greek and are literally making stuff up to support your theology?

Make sense? I think I've explained it better, and shown the connection with more Scriptures...

By making up your own translation of Scripture? I don't think so. All you've done is shown that truth takes a back seat to your own preconceptions.

------------------

No, because Ben knows absolutely nothing about the Greek language...or the English language for that matter. I don't claim to be proficient in Greek, but I know enough about linguistics to understand certain basic principles such as subject-verb agreement. Ben's errors are such that a junior high English student who doesn't know anything about Greek can still point out the clear error in verses like 2 Peter 3:9.

Ben sprinkles Greek words into his arguments as though they add some scholarly weight to it, but it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he has no knowledge of the Greek language and can't even identify basic English structures.

In short, he has no defense for his made-up translations, so he just ignores the posts and keeps repeating the same errors.​

If you know that I do not respond to your posts, wouldn't it be more respectful not to respond to mine? Especially not with such hostility and ridicule. Address the issue, not the person.

Let's see if we can keep this thread open, by fostering kindness and civility.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

Hi, Dean. I believe if you'll go back and read the 1Cor2:14 thread, every point was fully established, and Calvinism was faring very badly. One of the biggest points made there, was the problem with "born-again" and "adopted"; if those two concepts are separate, even for a microsecond, then a man can be born-of-God but NOT repentant. And if they are coincident, then "born-of-God", is after belief. Both positions ruin "predestination".

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

Here is the problem --- it is individual choice to "set our minds on God, and not on the flesh". Rom8:12-13 aligns with Col3:1-17, and reflects perfectly on Rm6:11-23. Shall we quote those passages?

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

And this is another "fatal flaw". "Life" is given to us, by the Spirit --- you are clearly espousing that we gain life, and THEN believe and then receive the Spirit. How then does Jesus say "...come to Me that you may HAVE life"?

If "regeneration" is sovereignly-accomplished, then why are we NOT sinless? We are not, because it is not. "Life" begins with the faith that receives Jesus' sacrifice, and receives the Spirit, and the Spirit regenerates as He ENTERS the believer's heart. In Titus3:5-6 "poured" is a characteristic of the regenerating Spirit.

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

You gave the answer already --- "prior to BELIEVING". Belief is the beginning, not the end. Causal, not consequential.

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

What happened in Acts2:37? They were convicted ("pierced to the heart", or "smitten in conscience"); then they believed.

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

If men have no choice in their regeneration, and if regeneration changes the NATURE, then why do men still sin?

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

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

Most Calvinists misunderstand "see", as "perceive"; but in all 38 occurrences of "idein", it means "physically-behold/participate". Flat repeated in verse 5, "unless born of the Spirit ...cannot ENTER INTO the kingdom of God".

In vain is the verse sought that says "unless monergistically-changed cannot UNDERSTAND Jesus' Gospel". That was the point of the 1Cor2:14 thread, proving that no one overturned what I said about "the passage does not assert prior regeneration".

Quote:
What is regeneration? What is meant by "regeneration?"

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

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

Several errors occur here --- first, the "change-heart-from-stone", happens after they turn from abominations towards God (but not all TURN, those who refuse are condemned). Second, "made alive" is clearly "through faith" in Eph2:5-8, fully aligning with what Jesus said in John5:40 --- coming to Him that they may HAVE life. In no sense can "come", be made separate from "believing". Third, if man is "completely renewed to the image of God", how does man SIN?

God is resistible. Sinning can deceive to spiritual death, clearly stated in James1:14-16, in Heb3:6-14 (4:11!), and in many other passages. The same choice that allows men to TURN AWAY from God (Heb12:25), also allows men to turn TO God (Jn5:40).

all these points have been refuted , there is nothing new here , is it "just keep repeating error hoping that someone will ignore those refutations" just as ben does .

how many times have you been born again ben ?

how many times have you been justified by faith ben ?

 

[Ormly]

all these points have been refuted

No they haven't. They have been totally ignored and the scripture references, as well. That is all too obvious.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Behe'sBoy:
Just curious -

Has Ben ever responded to any of these posts that clearly point to the Greek text for support of the Calvinist position?

Seems like the boards go dead once those proficient in Greek show up to do battle....
Edit/Delete Message​

Oh, you mean like Acts13:48? See this thread for a "Greek Scholar Discussion".

And RE 2Cor5:17, Blueletterbible.org says:

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.​

Clearly the "old" has not completely passed away, else we would be sinless; the old nature still exists, requiring us to walk by the power of the Spirit, in Christ's righteousness. Paul states "if we are in Christ, the old is passed away"; yet Paul very clearly asserts that being "in Christ", is changeable. See 2Cor13:5, and 1Cor9:25-27. Passages that are impossible to deny...

We are "saved", who believe Jesus; yet we are also BEING saved, reflecting the lifelong walk.

1Jn5:12-13, 1Cor1:18.

 

[nobdysfool]

Let's see if we can keep this thread open, by fostering kindness and civility.

Let's see if you can own up to the obvious documented contradictions of your theology and your replies in this thread.

"Fostering kindness and civility" to you seems to mean accepting what you say as the final definitive word on the subject. Given the clear, multiple, and troubling defects we see and have pointed out in your theology, and your seeming refusal to deal with them, makes it difficult. Kindness and civility can and should be fostered here, but it needs to start with you, and your owning up to issues that you clearly have not done.

The over-riding theme of your posts seems to be that you have never been refuted (when it is clear that you have been), and trying to create the illusion of 100% accuracy in everything you say. If that were really true, there would be no replies pointing out flawed reasoning, misquotes, inaccurate paraphrasing of scriptures, illogical declarations, and avoidance of the errors seen in your theology. These are legitimate concerns, which you don't seen to be interested in addressing.

Your reply to those things, if you choose to reply at all, is "not really".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
all these points have been refuted , there is nothing new here , is it "just keep repeating error hoping that someone will ignore those refutations" just as ben does .
Quoted by Ormly:
No they haven't. They have been totally ignored and the scripture references, as well. That is all to obvious.[/color]​

Ormly is right, Cygnus. Let's look at a couple of those "refuted points":

In Titus 3:5-6, "God saved us, not on the basis of deeds ...but by His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured on us through Jesus our Savior". Regeneration (us) is by the Spirit, who WAS POURED on US by Jesus OUR Savior. "Savior" first, "poured" second, "regeneration" third.

Exk36:26-27, presumed to assert "heart-change and THEN they irresistibly gurned to God". Yet, the "turn-from-abominations" precedes "heart-change", and some of them DO resist, in the parallel passage 11:18-21.

Show me how those were refuted. And show me the refutation for this:

Quoted by Ben:
Sinning can deceive to spiritual death, clearly stated in James1:14-16, in Heb3:6-14 (4:11!), and in many other passages. The same choice that allows men to TURN AWAY from God (Heb12:25), also allows men to turn TO God (Jn5:40)​

 

[frumanchu]

If you know that I do not respond to your posts, wouldn't it be more respectful not to respond to mine? Especially not with such hostility and ridicule. Address the issue, not the person.

If you know that I DO respond to your posts, wouldn't it be more respectful to at least acknowledge that they exist rather than claiming "no Calvinist has answered?" Not to mention the fact that saying you "do not respond" to my posts is an issue of semantics since you have directly referenced my posts and made claims as to their content several times.

The fact is I am addressing the issue. The issue is that you continue to to use clearly and demonstrably false arguments from the original NT Greek to support your case against the doctrinal system I hold. So long as you continue to do that I'm going to continue to point it out, and I will call it what it is.

Let's see if we can keep this thread open, by fostering kindness and civility.

Kindness and civility is best fostered by truth and accuracy. I don't like to see threads closed either, and I would assume any posts in this thread that are thought to be rule violations would be reported or otherwise dealt with.

As far as our personal disagreement, I will move this to PM.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

OK , men resist God , (and a blade of grass resists a Hurricane) what does that prove but that God willingly permits sin , governs the actions of men , and for good reasons Decrees that sin should serve a good purpose .

I have asked this question many times and have been ignored this far for obvious reasons , but I am not deterred ;

Now back to King David , David numbered the people under Satanic influence ;

1Chr.21

[1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
[2] And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
[3] And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
[4] Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.
[5] And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
[6] But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
[7] And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
[8] And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.


clearly this was sin and David acknowledged it . Everyone can read that Satan "provoked" David to sin . But according to ben sinful acts of men have nothing to do with God , God doesn't will sin , men sin proving that they can resist God , and God RESPONDS by punishing men , for God can do no other , being passive , and man granted freedom to act against God's will means God must permit man to resist Him , such is the argument for "man's autonomous will" .

But is that a true picture of the way things REALLY are ?

Is that "the Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth " ?

If it isn't then it is a distortion of the truth , half a truth is at best a white lie , at worst a devious device sent to delude men.

If scripture openly states David sinned , it equally proclaims Satan as the instigator of David's sin , BUT ,

Scripture no less affirms God's role as LORD Sovereign over all , even here , even where sin is being mentioned , God is not absent ; few realise the scriptures are not written from one single vantage point , the same event is often viewed at a different angle granting a FULLER firmer picture , instead of a distorted selective unbalanced view , here we see David's sin from God's perspective ;


2Sam.24

[1] And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
[2] For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
[3] And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?
[4] Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.
[5] And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:
[6] Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon,
[7] And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hibites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beer-sheba.
[8] So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
[9] And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
[10] And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

So it was The Lord himself who moved David to number the poeple , and later punish him , how does this fit ben's "logic" , how does this fact fit ben's definition of how God is Just ... friends , it doesn't !


This action of numbering the people lead to a REAL choice ; David was given a choice three ways of being punished , and David chose wisely!

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by Cygnus:
all these points have been refuted , there is nothing new here , is it "just keep repeating error hoping that someone will ignore those refutations" just as ben does .
Quoted by Ormly:
No they haven't. They have been totally ignored and the scripture references, as well. That is all to obvious.[/color]​

Ormly is right, Cygnus. Let's look at a couple of those "refuted points":

In Titus 3:5-6, "God saved us, not on the basis of deeds ...but by His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured on us through Jesus our Savior". Regeneration (us) is by the Spirit, who WAS POURED on US by Jesus OUR Savior. "Savior" first, "poured" second, "regeneration" third.

You are imposing "sequence" in this scripture where none is warranted. It has been shown multiple times that your interpretation of this scripture is false, and eisegetic. You are reading into this verse what you want it to say. Your reply is to say "not really" and post as though nothing had been said to refute your absurd interpretation, which is false.

Exk36:26-27, presumed to assert "heart-change and THEN they irresistibly gurned to God". Yet, the "turn-from-abominations" precedes "heart-change", and some of them DO resist, in the parallel passage 11:18-21.

Show me how those were refuted.

Your refutation is nothing more than claiming that one passage "overthrows" another, which is scripturally impossible. Cygnusx1 DID show the refutation.

And show me the refutation for this:

Quoted by Ben:
Sinning can deceive to spiritual death, clearly stated in James1:14-16, in Heb3:6-14 (4:11!), and in many other passages. The same choice that allows men to TURN AWAY from God (Heb12:25), also allows men to turn TO God (Jn5:40)​

Here's another one we will see repeated ad nauseum. The flaw is that it assumes that men have the natural ability to choose the good as well as evil, which is only true of those who are already born again. So what has been created here is a flawed comparison, which is only true of regenerated men, but applied as though it were true of all men without exception. And, it further ignores the active participation of the Holy Spirit to keep those He has regenerated, so that they do not finally fall away. Ben teaches that perseverance is entirely up to man's efforts, and that men can, at any time fall away beyond restoration, and God cannot do anything about it. Ben teaches that men lose their salvation if they sin and do not immediately repent. He claims that one ceases to be regenerated if they sin, claiming that regeneration is NOT a sovereign act of God, but clearly avoiding the implications of that stance.

This comparison does not properly handle the scriptures cited, and draws a false conclusion based on that mishandling of the scriptures. proper theology is not derived from just throwing out scriptures that seem to say what you want them to say, it is derived from seeing what scripture as a whole actually says, and adjusting one's theology to conform to scripture, not trying to conform scripture to one's theology.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quoted by Cygnus:
all these points have been refuted , there is nothing new here , is it "just keep repeating error hoping that someone will ignore those refutations" just as ben does .
Quoted by Ormly:
No they haven't. They have been totally ignored and the scripture references, as well. That is all to obvious.[/color]​

Ormly is right, Cygnus. Let's look at a couple of those "refuted points":



Exk36:26-27, presumed to assert "heart-change and THEN they irresistibly gurned to God". Yet, the "turn-from-abominations" precedes "heart-change", and some of them DO resist, in the parallel passage 11:18-21.

Show me how those were refuted.

that has been refuted here , because you replied with graffiti doesn't change a thing.

 

[Ormly]

"And God hardened Pharaoh's heart". It is plain to see in these threads that God does not harden a heart that is already tender towards Him. What can account for the hardness of hearts readily seen in these threads. Is it God or man? If it is God, it won't nor can be reversed.

 

[Ormly]

OK , men resist God , (and a blade of grass resists a Hurricane) what does that prove but that God willingly permits sin , governs the actions of men , and for good reasons Decrees that sin should serve a good purpose .

I have asked this question many times and have been ignored this far for obvious reasons , but I am not deterred ;

Now back to King David , David numbered the people under Satanic influence ;

1Chr.21

[1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
[2] And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
[3] And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
[4] Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.
[5] And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
[6] But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
[7] And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
[8] And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.


clearly this was sin and David acknowledged it . Everyone can read that Satan "provoked" David to sin . But according to ben sinful acts of men have nothing to do with God , God doesn't will sin , men sin proving that they can resist God , and God RESPONDS by punishing men , for God can do no other , being passive , and man granted freedom to act against God's will means God must permit man to resist Him , such is the argument for "man's autonomous will" .

But is that a true picture of the way things REALLY are ?

Is that "the Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth " ?

If it isn't then it is a distortion of the truth , half a truth is at best a white lie , at worst a devious device sent to delude men.

If scripture openly states David sinned , it equally proclaims Satan as the instigator of David's sin , BUT ,

Scripture no less affirms God's role as LORD Sovereign over all , even here , even where sin is being mentioned , God is not absent ; few realise the scriptures are not written from one single vantage point , the same event is often viewed at a different angle granting a FULLER firmer picture , instead of a distorted selective unbalanced view , here we see David's sin from God's perspective ;


2Sam.24

[1] And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
[2] For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
[3] And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?
[4] Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.
[5] And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:
[6] Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon,
[7] And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hibites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beer-sheba.
[8] So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
[9] And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
[10] And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

So it was The Lord himself who moved David to number the poeple , and later punish him , how does this fit ben's "logic" , how does this fact fit ben's definition of how God is Just ... friends , it doesn't !


This action of numbering the people lead to a REAL choice ; David was given a choice three ways of being punished , and David chose wisely!

God will give anyone over to sin who is bent on having own way and even help him in the way of doing it that that one might see his error and repent. David did. . . . He is man known as one after God's heart. Reconcile that?
Consider Balaam while in your journey to understand. See if that account might help you see how you get things wrong.

 

[cygnusx1]

"And God hardened Pharaoh's heart". It is plain to see in these threads that God does not harden a heart that is already tender towards Him.

no-one said God did !

there has NEVER been one single person who was willing to be saved who was denied :- the reprobate are incapable of loving God.

What can account for the hardness of hearts readily seen in these threads.

be careful , on finger pointing at others means ..........

Is it God or man? If it is God, it won't nor can be reversed.

which reminds me of ben's greatest difficulty ; apostates in Heb 6 CANNOT come back . (so much for free-will)

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Then you have a problems with the fact that the saved have had ALL of their sins forgiven, which includes those yet future for them. But your false doctrines deny that fact, by making each saved person in danger of loss if they don't consciously repent and ask forgiveness for sins committed after their initial faith in Christ.
Quoted by Ben:
Really? 2Pet1:5-10 speaks of a man who WAS purified, but now has FORGOTTEN that purification. Will he enter Heaven? And if he's only "hypothetical", he is the example against which Peter says "THEREFORE be all the more diligent about your calling and election, that these fruits are yours; as long as you continue ...you will not stumble (become-wretched) --- in THIS way the gates of heaven will BE (abundantly) provided to you." So clearly conveyed is a LOSS of purity, and a warning for us to not DO THE SAME.
Quoted by NBF:
That’s it, Ben, avoid the point I brought up, and throw a “not really” at it. ​

Excuse me? How was that an "empty Five-Way"?

Do you assert the man in 2Pet1:5 was never REALLY saved? Or that he didn't REALLY fall? Or that he is not real, just the "hypothetical-example held out to accomplish God's effective means of keeping us diligent in our calling and election"?

I on the other hand, see him as real, and the warning "therefore do not be like him". Precisely as Heb4:11 says: "Do not imitate their disobedience (and unbelief), and fail to enter God's rest".

Quote:
First, let’s clear up something. What you just said that I said here, is NOT what I said. I did not say anything about God purposing for men to "disbelieve and go to Hell". This is a blatant example of how you twist the words of others, and disrespect them by neither quoting them correctly, or answering directly what they have asked. You spin everything to try and make it work to your advantage,. You have proven that charge very graphically right here.
​

Ah --- I'm pleased that I was wrong. So you do not believe God wants/desires/decrees/decides for anyone to go to Hell.

We agree on this point, completely.

Quote:
If Jesus wanted all to understand and to see, he would not have spoken in parables. But He clearly states that He does so for a reason, and that reason is to prevent them from hearing and understanding. He is leaving those in their unbelief, and hardness of heart and blindness, for a reason. That reason had to do with opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles, and making the Gentiles able to be heirs of the promise, alongside the Jews. ​

Sorry, NBF --- they didn't understand His parables, because they didn't believe in God or Him. If you're going to assert "GOD made their hearts dull so they COULD NOT believe", they you'll have to take back what you just asserted about "I did not say anything about God purposing for men to "disbelieve and go to Hell".

Besides, per Rom11, He shut them ALL up in disobedience, that He may have mercy on ALL...

Quote:
Let's see if you can own up to the obvious documented contradictions of your theology and your replies in this thread.​

What contradictions? Cygnus claimed that, and I responded --- patiently showing what I'd said was not a contradiction.

Quote:
You claim to not respond to Fru's posts, then did so right here. So you do respond when it suits you, when you can try and make it appear that you are being persecuted, but you will not reply to the substance and points of his posts, because in reality, you can't.​

Quote:
You show no respect to Calvinists, and then complain when Calvinists rightly take you to task for your contradictions, glossing over of what others say, claims of victory over Calvinist theology, mis-quoting and manufactured "quotes", and clear avoidance of problematic issues raised in your theology. You demand respect from us, but show no respect in return.

"Fostering kindness and civility" to you means accepting what you say as the final definitive word on the subject. Given the clear, multiple, and troubling defects in your theology, that is not possible on your terms. Kindness and civility can be fostered here, but it needs to start with you, and your owning up to issues that you clearly have not done.​

Show me where I have been "unkind" or "uncivil", that I may seek forgiveness.

Meanwhile, the reality is that in especially the last couple of threads, "Sovereign-Predestination" has been shredded.

To John5:40, where Jesus said "...come to Me that you may HAVE life", it was asserted that "come" doesn't mean "believing". Yes, it does. Furthered by what He said about Moses: "If you BELIEVED Moses, then you would believe Me; HOW can you believe My words, IF you DO not believe Moses?"

On the concepts of "born-again" and "adopted", first you said "nearly simultaneous", which allows a period (however short) of "born-of-God but UNREPENTANT". Then you said "simultaneous, but logical ORDER without TEMPORAL order" --- which places "born-again" in the same time as "adopted", which is after belief.

You compared the process to a nuclear reaction; denying that the REACTION has time --- yet, the mousetrap ping-pong-ball experiment clearly demonstrates a time --- remember the room full of mousetraps, each loaded with a ping-pong ball --- and then ONE ball is thrown in. Do they all INSTANTLY go off? NO; it's rapid, but takes definite time for the balls to fly.

So too a neutron, moving at essentially the speed of light --- collides with a nucleus, liberating a couple more neutrons; which collide with more nuclei, and thus a definite progression, with a real (though short) TIME.

So even in trying to present an analogy, you did not support what you wanted.

Quote:
The over-riding theme of your posts is that you have never been refuted (when it is clear that you have been), and trying to create the illusion of 100% accuracy in everything you say. If that were true, there would be no replies pointing out flawed reasoning, misquotes, inaccurate parapharasing of scriptures, illogical declarations, and avoidance of the errors seen in your theology.​

And those replies have been replied, yet it's still treated as if they weren't.

Quote:
Your reply to those things, if you choose to reply at all, is "not really".​

No, each reply is fully backed by cited Scriptures. Take the 1Cor2:14 thread --- first it was asserted that "things" aren't the same "things" as in the previous five verses; then it was asserted that "spiritual things can be learned by OTHER means than by the Spirit", in the face of "Things taught by the Spirit with spiritual thoughts and words". Then it was back to "things aren't things", claiming Paul meant that "saving-faith in Jesus isn't possible BECAUSE they are unspiritual".

This in the face of "Natural men do not understand the things of the Spirit ...because they are spiritually discerned".
And, "We have received ...the Spirit that we may KNOW the things freely given, the things taught by the Spirit with spiritual thoughts and spiritual words".

So the only thing you or I CAN say about the passage, is "it makes no assertion as to why natural men are 'natural', but only says 'they cannot understand spiritual things because they have not believed Jesus and received the Spirit' ".

That's all it says; it does not say "cannot believe Jesus".

Quote:
If you want kindness and civility, you must be kind and civil.​

Again, show me where I have been unkind or uncivil, that I may ask forgiveness and make amends.

 

[frumanchu]

Oh, you mean like Acts13:48? See this thread for a "Greek Scholar Discussion".

Make sure you check out some of the other threads and [post=1545105]posts[/post] on this verse; the scholar Ben spoke with didn't bother to address the fact that without exception the periphrastic perfect and periphrastic pluperfect, middle-passive form (whether past, present, or future) is ALWAYS translated as a passive. It is NEVER translated as a direct middle in the New Testament, meaning it is not translated "appointed themselves."

We are "saved", who believe Jesus; yet we are also BEING saved, reflecting the lifelong walk.

So you would agree that we are "sanctified" at the point of faith, yet we are also BEING sanctified, reflecting the lifelong walk, right? I just want clarification because I believe you claimed once before that our sanctification was a past action only.

 

[Ormly]

that has been refuted here , because you replied with graffiti doesn't change a thing.

I reviewed it. Where is the refutation? All that you gave was an incorrect understanding-misrepresentation. .. and you call that a refutation??

 

[nobdysfool]

OK , men resist God , (and a blade of grass resists a Hurricane) what does that prove but that God willingly permits sin , governs the actions of men , and for good reasons Decrees that sin should serve a good purpose .

I have asked this question many times and have been ignored this far for obvious reasons , but I am not deterred ;

Now back to King David , David numbered the people under Satanic influence ;

1Chr.21

[1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
[2] And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
[3] And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
[4] Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.
[5] And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
[6] But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.
[7] And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
[8] And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.


clearly this was sin and David acknowledged it . Everyone can read that Satan "provoked" David to sin . But according to ben sinful acts of men have nothing to do with God , God doesn't will sin , men sin proving that they can resist God , and God RESPONDS by punishing men , for God can do no other , being passive , and man granted freedom to act against God's will means God must permit man to resist Him , such is the argument for "man's autonomous will" .

But is that a true picture of the way things REALLY are ?

Is that "the Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth " ?

If it isn't then it is a distortion of the truth , half a truth is at best a white lie , at worst a devious device sent to delude men.

If scripture openly states David sinned , it equally proclaims Satan as the instigator of David's sin , BUT ,

Scripture no less affirms God's role as LORD Sovereign over all , even here , even where sin is being mentioned , God is not absent ; few realise the scriptures are not written from one single vantage point , the same event is often viewed at a different angle granting a FULLER firmer picture , instead of a distorted selective unbalanced view , here we see David's sin from God's perspective ;


2Sam.24

[1] And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
[2] For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
[3] And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?
[4] Notwithstanding the king's word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the host. And Joab and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel.
[5] And they passed over Jordan, and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that lieth in the midst of the river of Gad, and toward Jazer:
[6] Then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim-hodshi; and they came to Dan-jaan, and about to Zidon,
[7] And came to the strong hold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hibites, and of the Canaanites: and they went out to the south of Judah, even to Beer-sheba.
[8] So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
[9] And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
[10] And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

So it was The Lord himself who moved David to number the poeple , and later punish him , how does this fit ben's "logic" , how does this fact fit ben's definition of how God is Just ... friends , it doesn't !


This action of numbering the people lead to a REAL choice ; David was given a choice three ways of being punished , and David chose wisely!

Add to that God's statement to Satan concerning Job,

Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"

​

Satans' reply,

Job 1:10-11 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. (11) But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face."

​

And God's reply to Satan,

Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

​

Satan can do nothing unless God permits him to do so. What Satan did to Job was by God's permission. What Satan did to David in tempting him was by God's permission, and scripture rightly shows that it was God who moved David to sin, through the agency of Satan.

This presents a huge problem for the "autonomous free will" crowd, because it undercuts the basis of their view, that God cannot move men to sin, either directly, or through the use of means. Scripture clearly shows otherwise. God uses men's sins to further His purpose.

 

[cygnusx1]

God will give anyone over to sin who is bent on having own way and even help him in the way of doing it that that one might see his error and repent. David did. . . . He is man known as one after God's heart. Reconcile that?

first God moved David to number the people , this wasn't merely a case of "handing over (Rom 1-2)

Second , what's to reconcile , David is proof positive that a Saint can sin , that a duality exists in saints , ben's mistake is to equate the standing of the unregenerate with the regenerate ;

He began this thread with the false idea that as a NEW principle is placed within a Christian giving him eyes to see , ears to hear and a new will to obey , therefore we should be the exact reverse of an unregenerate person who can ONLY sin!

Thus ben concluded that it would make a good argument against Calvinists (and against God's Predestination) that as a sinner can Only sin being void of a NEW birth , so a Christian should only be able to do righteousness , being void of the sin nature , this error was the point at which ben sought to found this thread , and now the storms are coming and ben's house is falling apart .

Consider Balaam while in your journey to understand. See if that account might help you see how you get things wrong.

read it meany times , it is an excellent place to study the sovereignty of God over sinners.