"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Behe'sBoy:
Based on the inconsistencies you have written here I can honestly say I don't believe you. You may have faith in Christ to save you - but you have explicity stated over and over again that it is your responsibility to maintain your own salvation by remaining close to God, not sinning, etc - which is in the strictest sense of the term - works.​

I've never said "not-sinning". Sin is disobedience/unbelief; it comes from giving in to lust (James1:14-16), from being deceived by sin (Heb3:12-14). Is there any way to change those words in your copy, into "you won't really perish"?

Read only 1Jn2:26-28; does it present "shrink-in-shame" as not completely possible? And is "shrink-in-shame", compatible with "saved"? We keep ourselves in His love (Jude21!!), we do not keep ourselves sinless; we overcome sin ONLY by Him-in-us.

That's the problem --- Him-in-us, is fully (constantly) our choice. 2Cor13:5 is very clear.

Quote:
The question is really irrelavant to the topic. Of course I believe the decision was mine - BUT I could not have made it had God not enabled my spirit and heart to be able to do so. I know I've said this before.​

No, there is a contradiction in your position; if all your faith and actions are irresistibly cast BY God's sovereign decision TO regenerate you, it's really all HIS decision, not yours.

Quote:
This as all the "admonishment" verses that you guys mention does not give an end result of loosing salvation or ending up in hell. The verses are meant to encourage and edify. They are talking about Christians doing the right thing because we are saved.​

Follow the logic. You're proposing either "it's not possible to ever FORSAKE being in His love", or that "we can fall from His love but still be saved".

Neither are sound.

Read Col2:6-8 --- walk (abide) in Him, do not be deceived by worldly philosophies away from Christ. There's no way to remove "away from Christ".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
Ben, you didn't say that, what you said was it was "pass-ING away".

I'm not going to argue with you about another proposal for how Greek works.​

The Greek is not participle. The sermon I heard equated the concepts of "passing" with "passes" --- it's not a once-and-forever-event. If it had been, we would be sinless.

Let's repeat that for clarification --- if Paul had meant "passed away completely", then we would be sinless.

Quote:
It's simply aorist tense, meaning it's punctiliar in time. the event happens -- "passed away" -- and all things become new. No "pass-ING away".​

As you said, "happens". Not "happened".

Quote:
If you think God would resurrect your sinful nature, whatever. I don't know a thing in Scripture that would help you carry that. Are you speculating or presenting some entrenched doctrine?​

Exactly what do you think the message is in Heb3:6-14 (with 4:11)? Are those words removed from your copy?

Quote:
Quite at all. They're a much wider class of things than you're willing to agree to. As we pointed out, 1 Cor 1:30, the whole of Jesus Christ is "Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God".​

Deal with the context.
Verse 9 speaks of "all that God has prepared" --- speaking of spiritual things.
Verse 10 says "God revealed THEM through the Spirit" --- speaking of spiritual things.
Verse 11 says "The thoughts of God" --- speaking of spiritual things.
Verse 12 says "the RECEIVED Spirit is by whom we know the THINGS freely taught by the Spirit".
Verse 13 says "The THINGS we also speak, in words taught by the Spirit combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words".
Verse 14 says "natural men do not accept the THINGS of the Spirit, because they are spiritually understood".

No case has been made that "things" change, between 13 and 14.

QUote:
The understanding of the Gospel is introduced as precisely one of these "things": "but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" 1 Cor 2:7-8​

Nowhere has belief-in-God been denied anyone; and as Jesus said "If you believed God and Moses, then you would believe Me."

Quote:
Nope. Your theology merges these two things.​

They are not "two things"; verse 14 is speaking of the same "spiritual things" as verse 13, 12, 11, 10, 9. We just cited all of them.

Quote:
The Present Indicative case in Greek is primarily a continuing case. That's why the ESV has stopped translating this so woodenly in English present tense, and translated the verbs as continuances:

You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

And so John's being practical. We find sin in our lives and we make a practice of stopping it. But as 1 John 1:8-10 so eloquently puts it, we're not free of sin. He never meant to say so in 1 John 1:8-10. He certainly didn't contradict himself to say so in 1 John 3:5-10. Don't make him say it. He didn't say it.

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 Jn 1:8-1​

And there is the problem --- each time we sin, we have the SAME choice, to sin AGAIN --- which is "practicing".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by heymikey80:
The verses point out the "unproductive"ness and "forgetful"ness among those who neglect the "added" attributes of "godly character" and its disciplines to "faith".​

Mike --- the mistranslation of 2Pet1:5 is "ADD to your (saved) faith". It does not --- it says "SUPPLY IN your faith". The only way that a person can be "ungodly-saved", is for Jesus' words to be REMOVED from Matt7:16-20. "No good tree produces bad fruit, no bad tree produces good; therefore you will KNOW them by their fruit."

Quote:
They say what you're not saying. They call out, "assure"ance, these verses say so explicitly.

If you rephrase what Peter actually said, you make it "how to be saved / how to stay saved". Yeah, I've seen you do that to this passage. But that would be removing words from Scripture. So Calvinism leaves them in, and reaches the meaning that Peter actually wrote. It's about assurance. It says so.​

No, it doesn't. It makes five clear points:
1. Supply in your faith godliness, moral excellence, self-control, kindness and love.
2. He who LACKS these qualities has FORGOTTEN FORMER PURIFICATION.
3. Therefore (against the man who WAS saved but is no longer) be diligent about your calling and election
4. As long as these qualities are yours, you will not stumble-become-wretched
5. In THIS way the gates of Heaven will BE (abundantly) provided to you.

There is are not "abundant AND sparse" entrances, it is "abundant", or not at all. You're completely missing "he who LACKS these qualities has FORGOTTEN former purification" --- and you're proposing that "the IMPURE, will enter HEAVEN". No they won't. Eph5:5-6!!!!!

Quoted by Ben:
Can a man now be IMPURE (ungodly), but still BE regenerated? No.
Quoted by Mikey:
ROFL! Yes.​

This is it --- the heart of the discussion. If we come to agreement on nothing else, let us agree on this --- salvation is being "indwelt by Jesus and the Spirit", therefore a SAVED man, cannot be "impure/ungodly". Else JESUS would FELLOWSHIP with impurity.

He will not.

Quote:
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Rom 4:4​

Then what separates the "SAVED-UNGODLY", from the "REPROBATE-ungodly"? Nothing.

You're missing the principle that "justification", brings "godliness". They are inseparable.

Quote:
And since you demand that indwelling be regeneration, I merely point it out. Judas was given the Spirit, Who gave Judas power over the spirits. So your theology has an inconsistency here.​

We have every reason to believe Judas was at some point, SAVED. Further, there is no way to deny Jesus' words in Jn6:67-70 --- He is plainly saying to the Disciples "You think you cannot leave? I chose all twelve of you, and one IS leaving."

There's nothing else He could have been communicating.

Quote:
Regeneration is not glorification. Glorification is the endpoint of regeneration, "we will be like Him". New Birth is a starting point, "What's born of spirit is spirit". Purification is what happens in between.​

Regeneration never occurs separate from "sanctification" and "justification". Ever.

Quote:
The missing Scripture word is "richly". The question is whether we can be assured of our wealth as sons as long as we're living as beggars with a crust.​

And exactly what does that mean, Mike? "Beggars"? Someone who is NOT fellowshipping with Christ, who is NOT indwelt?

Therefore, he is BURIED in SIN. How is it that you perceive such a person as "slithering into Heaven"?

A woman cannot be PARTLY pregnant; so too we cannot be a LITTLE saved.

We are, or we are not. Christ is in us, or He is not. As Paul said in Rom6, we are EITHER slaves to sin, OR slaves to righteousness and God. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me, is against Me."

Quote:
This is a serious blind spot in your theology, Ben: the neglect of words that are clearly present in the Scriptures it's citing; the lumping of words together that aren't synonyms; the promotions of distinctions into differences. And of course, the demand that everything feed the "how to be saved" side of the equation, and none of it feed the "now that you're saved" side of the equation.​

Yes, very "blind" of me, Mike, to not consider the possibility of "sinningly/wretchedly/beggarly/impurely SAVED". No, sorry --- I will never consider that, let alone accept it.

Quote:
It's about a 30%. If the theology factored all this into its view, and then took into account the meanings of dozens of other passages that actually address the questions directly, then the theology would be accurate.

And then it'd be Calvinism.​

With respect, if you are "spokesman for Calvinism", and if Calvinism proposes "impurely-SAVED", then Calvinism has NOT just been "splintered"; it's been turned to smoke and blown away.

We can disagree on how God works in His sovereignty; but let us not disagree on the reality that God cannot stand impurity. Not now, not ever.

 

[frumanchu]

Deal with the context.
Verse 9 speaks of "all that God has prepared" --- speaking of spiritual things.
Verse 10 says "God revealed THEM through the Spirit" --- speaking of spiritual things.
Verse 11 says "The thoughts of God" --- speaking of spiritual things.
Verse 12 says "the RECEIVED Spirit is by whom we know the THINGS freely taught by the Spirit".
Verse 13 says "The THINGS we also speak, in words taught by the Spirit combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words".
Verse 14 says "natural men do not accept the THINGS of the Spirit, because they are spiritually understood".

No case has been made that "things" change, between 13 and 14.

1. That's simply not true. A case HAS been presented based on:

a) The fact that the "things" in verse 14 are described the same way as the "Word of the Cross" (the Gospel) is in 1:18
b) There is a clear deictic shift in verse 14 to the third person
c) There is no demonstrative pronoun directly tying them together.

​

NONE OF THOSE THREE HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY "RESPONSIBLE GRACE." Yet you direct others to "deal with the context."

They are not "two things"; verse 14 is speaking of the same "spiritual things" as verse 13, 12, 11, 10, 9. We just cited all of them.

So far the ONLY REASON you've provided from the context and language for why they must be the same "things" is the fact that the same word is used. Yet you refuse to apply the same principle to 2 Peter 2:11-22 because it prevents you from using it as a prooftext.

Based on YOUR OWN HERMENEUTIC, here is how you MUST understand 2 Peter 2:

“18 For when they [false teachers] speak great swelling words of emptiness, they [false teachers] allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the oneswho have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19While they [false teachers] promise them liberty, they [false teachers] themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. 20For if, after they [false teachers] have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they [false teachers] are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning."
​

But instead you advocate the very same "subject change" you claim is impossible in 1 Cor 2:14.

And there is the problem --- each time we sin, we have the SAME choice, to sin AGAIN --- which is "practicing".

No actually, here is the problem with "Responsible Grace." So if you sin more than once without repenting you are "practicing sin" and therefore unjustified, unforgiven and unregenerate? If not, then how many times do you have to sin before it becomes "practicing sin?"

The truth is that "Responsible Grace" cannot give specific answers when it reaches this point because none of the answers can be reconciled with Scripture (or often even with other statements of "Responsible Grace").

 

[frumanchu]

This is it --- the heart of the discussion. If we come to agreement on nothing else, let us agree on this --- salvation is being "indwelt by Jesus and the Spirit", therefore a SAVED man, cannot be "impure/ungodly". Else JESUS would FELLOWSHIP with impurity. He will not.

No...we cannot agree on this. You have a fundamentally different view of salvation than we do, particularly in the area of justification.

By your definition, man must actually BE righteous/pure/godly in order for the Spirit to indwell them. You must therefore believe either in a legalistic righteousness obtained by perfect obedience, or a repeated infusion of Christ's rigtheousness in the person that is maintained by legalistic obedience. Neither of course can jibe with your "practicing sin" qualification for salvation, because a single sin makes a man impure and ungodly, and therefore according to you Jesus can no longer be in fellowship with him.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I'm sorry Fru, but I just have to point out that your profile pic of Sproul/Yoda is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

 

[frumanchu]

Thanks!

I made one for CDL as well.

 

[cygnusx1]

No...we cannot agree on this. You have a fundamentally different view of salvation than we do, particularly in the area of justification.

By your definition, man must actually BE righteous/pure/godly in order for the Spirit to indwell them. You must therefore believe either in a legalistic righteousness obtained by perfect obedience, or a repeated infusion of Christ's rigtheousness in the person that is maintained by legalistic obedience. Neither of course can jibe with your "practicing sin" qualification for salvation, because a single sin makes a man impure and ungodly, and therefore according to you Jesus can no longer be in fellowship with him.

This post ought to be framed !

ben any chance of you sticking this post in your signature so that you don't forget it ?

 

[Rightglory]

frumanchu,

No...we cannot agree on this. You have a fundamentally different view of salvation than we do, particularly in the area of justification.
By your definition, man must actually BE righteous/pure/godly in order for the Spirit to indwell them. You must therefore believe either in a legalistic righteousness obtained by perfect obedience, or a repeated infusion of Christ's rigtheousness in the person that is maintained by legalistic obedience. Neither of course can jibe with your "practicing sin" qualification for salvation, because a single sin makes a man impure and ungodly, and therefore according to you Jesus can no longer be in fellowship with him.

Since you want me to engage directly to the topic and posts I will do so. I have taken this response you made to Ben. I will do my best to give to you the contrast between Scripture, the Orthodox understanding and almost all protestants whether Calvinists or other.

First, with no surprise, there is a vast difference in terminology of how Christians obtain this righteousness.
Orthodox believers are imparted with righteousness. Whereas for the reformers it is imputed. All agree that righteousness is a gift as all things are a gift from God. Man cannot obtain anything being a creature other than from God.

The reformers stated that one must be justified before he can be accepted by Christ. That righteouness is a prerequisite to enter into God's presence. This for the Orthodox would be quite unbiblical to suppose that *first* we must be righteous and *then* be admitted to the presence of God. That isn't how it worked for Moses when God appeared to him in the burning bush, or for Isaiah, who thought he was going to die, for he was impure and had seen God, or for Peter who said, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man." Or for the woman caught in adultery, or for the Simon the Pharisee at whose house Jesus ate, or for Zaccheus or the woman at the well.

It's rather Divine Presence that imparts sanctification, like a coal touched to our lips. And if we accept that purifying "coal," God gives us more, purifies us further. If we invest the "talents" given us, use them well, God entrusts us with more. More of what? More of His justifying, purifying, sanctifying Divine Presence.

What Scripture and Orthodoxy insist upon is that true righteousness is not a status; and conversely, that no mere legal status can ever equal true righteousness. Christ's righteousness, if genuinely imparted to us, is a reality manifest in our living of it. It is being sanctified, being changed from glory to glory, being transformed into His Image, to be made holy, blameless. If we do not manifest that, then for God to declare us righteous would be a falsehood. If we do have authentic righteousness, then for God to declare it would seem superfluous.

For the Orthodox, to enter into a relationship with Christ(by faith) is to enter into righteousness. But note, one has only entered. The path of righteousness upon which one has only embarked is long and perfection still lies ahead. It is the daily living, the enduring, the faithfulness by which we are saved, through that faith.

For the reformers justification by faith and faith alone, (sola fide) became a one-time event. Upon 'faith' God imputed Righteousness to man. Thus faith saves. It is part of the forensic formula of soteriology.

It puts the imputation of sin under the jurisdiction of the Law. Likewise, the conception of the imputation of righteousness. If it is of Law than it cannot be of grace and sola gratia then seems to be established by Law. This also extends back to the concept of original sin: namely that mankind is imputed with the sin and guilt of Adam.

For the Orthodox the process, theosis, attaining salvation, represents the whole of the Christian life, from beginning to the all-glorious end.
God fits us for His Presence by His indwelling Presence, by the Holy Spirit.

For all of Church history salvation was seen as comprehending all of life. Christians were baptised, entered INTO Christ were indwelt, (regenerated) a renewing of a relationship lost in the fall. A relationship for which man was specifically created. The believer was nutured in their salvation in the Church, the Body of Christ.

Justification and God's mercy. Orthodoxy emphasizes it is first God's mercy- not our faith-which saves us. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Rom. 5:1, 2). It is God who initiates or makes the New Covenant with us.

Another major difficulty for Orthodox Christians is the word alone. Justification by faith, though not the major New Testament doctrine for Orthodox as it is for Protestants, poses no problem. But justification by faith alone brings up an objection. It contradicts Scripture, which says: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (James 2:24). We are "justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28), but nowhere does the Bible say we are justified by faith "alone." On the contrary, "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17).

Thus in summary, your statement is quite a long way from scripture as it has been believed and understood for 2000 years.

 

[nobdysfool]

RG, paragraphs and formatting are your friends. I won't even attempt to read a post like that, because of the eyestrain it would cause. Use the edit button, and insert some breaks, and format the text a little, please!

 

[nobdysfool]

Thank you. much easier to read.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
You throw out a phrase without definition. What exactly do you mean by "walk in sin". It's too broad a term to have any meaning in the discussion.​

What does "backslidden" mean? It means the same.

Question --- exactly what would a saved believer, have to do, to "lose crowns" (but not lose salvation)? Specifically what?

Quote:
What has been regenerated is obvious, it is the man's spirit, his heart. Regeneration is the beginning of the walk, not its end.​

If "regeneration" equates to "receiving new hearts" --- if "regeneration" is "washing", then how is it that men can still SIN? The Calvinist argument fails --- if we receive new natures (decided by God), and if a man always chooses according to his nature --- sin and rebellion without regeneration, and faith and Jesus WITH regeneration, then Calvinism fails to address the reason why Christians still sin.

Calvinists "rail" about God's sovereignty --- why isn't God sovereign enough to regenerate completely?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Your definition of regeneration is the fault in your view. Regeneration does not equal perfection or sinlessness. There is no scripture that would even begin to support such an absurd notion. And this constant bleating about God being resistible is a red herring.​

OK, if I misunderstand Calvinism, then help me out. Here is my understanding:
1. Men are too corrupt to ever truly believe (deep in their hearts)
2. Men always follow their natures; those who are not regenerated have a nature of sin and rebellion.
3. Regeneration brings a new heart and new spiritual nature, so that the man wills to believe and receive Jesus. The nature must be changed before a man can believe.

Is any of that wrong?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
The reality is, your doctrine requires that to be so. In reality, you are robbing God of His Sovereignty, His Power, and His absolute prerogative to do with His Creation as seems good to Him.​

If men always choose according to their natures, and thus unregenerate men have sinful natures (always choose disbelief and rebellion), and if regeneration imparts a new spiritual nature, why doesn't a regenerated man ALWAYS do according to his new sovereign-monergistic-spiritual-nature?

Quote:
Those called are not called because they already love God. That's absurd! We love Him because He FIRST loved us. Those who love God are those who have been called by Him, and His love shed abroad in their hearts by the actions of the Holy Spirit.​

You're proposing that Rom8:30 asserts "exclusive call" (that wasn't made to the others). Yet in Matt22, one call can be answered or declined. So it's valid to perceive "those He called", to be implying "those He called, who loved Him and responded" --- not "those FEW He called and He didn't call the REST".

There's no way around "Many are called but few are chosen" --- there is nothing in that parable about "two calls". And the only response I've heard, is "You cannot put too much stock in a parable".

Jesus: "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..."
Calvinist: "We can't take this too literally."

Yes, I can...

Quote:
You once again avoid what was actually said, and try to skew the discussion down a side trail. You have not answered what Cygnus posted.

You reject the effectual call because in your world, God cannot be Sovereign over men.​

In my world (and in my copy of Scripture), God cannot be causal to sin. THe principle is plainly laid out in passages like Ezk18 --- a righteous man can TURN and be EVIL, and a wicked man can TURN and be RIGHTEOUS; God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, so He commands men to "repent and live."

Ezekiel: "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live."
Calvinist: "It brings God glory when men perish; He has purposed for most men to NOT be saved."

Quote:
In your world, men call the shots. God must plead, cajole, beg, and hope that men will decide to come to Him. Contrast that with Jesus rebuking the people for their unbelief.​

Rebuke, yes; plead/cajole, no. What's the point of rebuking those who can never RESPOND TO a rebuke?

Quote:
Contrast that with Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple with a whip, overturning the tables, scattering money and other things everywhere. Contrast that with Jesus rebuking and calling out the Pharisees and Scribes for their religiosity, their duplicity, and their corruption. Was He trying to get them to come to Him and be saved? NO! He was pronouncing judgment on them. THAT'S the Sovereign God of Scripture, not the plastic bobblehead milque-toast, pretty-boy "Jeezzuzzz" that most churches teach.​

Was Jesus' ministry focused on teaching men that salvation is all GOD'S decision, everything they DO is but the consequence of what God decides?

Matt11:21-24 certainly is NOT supporting of "it's all God's decision".
Jesus: "If THEY had seen the miracles that YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED. It will go better for THEM in the Judgment, than for YOU!"

Tell me how "they would have believed", fits with "belief is God's choice".

You can't.

"If you do not believe Me, then believe My WORKS, and you will know I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." Jn6:38 Tell me how that is NOT saying "you can believe in Me just by looking at what I've done"? How does that not say exactly the same thing as we just read in Matt11?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Then you deny that their sins have been forgiven, unless they do something more in addition to what Christ did in bearing the penalty for them.

Question: Are all the sins of a Believer forgiven?​

All sins --- past, AND FUTURE?

Man: "God, forgive me for the man I killed yesterday, and the man I'm gonna kill tomorrow."
God: "Get lost." (Depart from Me, you who practice wickedness; I never knew you.")

Quote:
Judicially, the Christian is freed from sin. Their sins are not counted against them. So in that sense a Christian has no sin that God will judge him for. Or do you not understand what Christ did, and how it is applied to the Believer? Have you forgotten, in your haste to oppose Calvinists at every point, no matter what, in direct contradiction to your stated desire that we all deal respectfully and graciously with each other?​

Have you forgotten Heb10:26? If WE continue sinning willfully (no repentance!), Jesus' sacrifice no longer covers us! WE can expect judgment and fire!

Quote:
It's pretty clear that it's you who isn't listening, and avoiding the tough questions.​

These last posts are filled with tough questions; you cannot answer them. Though I'd like you to at least try...

Quote:
False question. Regeneration is a sovereign act of God, and is therefore not resistible. It's absurd to think otherwise. You certainly cannot regenerate your self, nor did you, so your declarations that "sovereign regeneration is wrong" are themselves wrong.​

We cannot "save ourselves" either, yet Paul says that in 1Tim4:16.

If regeneration is not resistible, how can we sin? Is God not sovereign enough in His regeneration of us?

The answer is that regeneration is BY faith, and therefore faith can become unbelief --- the word "fall" in 1Cor10:12, also means "fall from regeneration".

Quote:
If God did not, by an act of His Sovereign Will, regenerate you, then who did?​

What if regeneration is accomplished in response to my faith; does that conflict Scripture? No. Does that conflict God's sovereignty? No.

Quote:
You're trying to frame the entire argument as either/or, black/white, anything but what scripture actually says.

2 Peter 2:9 is the answer, and it clearly shows that it is God who preserves us, and not our own efforts exclusively, like you falsely teach.

2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,​

Nice! A Scripture citation! Let's discuss it.
"God is ABLE to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy.
Building YOURSELVES in holy faith, KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God." Jude24, 20-21

Is the letter of Jude RIGHT, or WRONG? This is an "either/or" question, if you do not answer then I accept that you concede the point.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
How about these?​

Oh you think one verse contradicts another? I'll answer the verses you post, and you answer the verses I posted; deal?

Quote:
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:​

The "work begun", was "salvation through faith"; this does not address the reality that faith can fail, as plainly stated in passages like Heb3:6-14.

Besides, Philippians 1:9-10 is nothing less than an admonishment to abide IN Christ. It is one of the "conditional-blamelessness" passages, that ruin the idea of "GOD determines who will be blameless before Him".

Quote:
Rom 8:31-39 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (32) He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (33) Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (34) Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (35) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (36) As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." (37) No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. (38) For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, (39) nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

How does this deny "KEEP YOURSELVES in God's love"??? You have two choices:
1. Jude is wrong, remove it from your copy.
2. "Nothing-separates", aligns with Jn10:28, "no ONE can harpazo-FORCE you from Him".

Quote:
Col 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, (14) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.​

What about Col3, "set your minds on things above, not on earthly things? What about Col2:6-8, "walk in Christ, do not be deceived away from Him"?

Quote:
And how do we guard what God entrusts? Is it not by the power and leading of the Holy Spirit? Your doctrine teaches that it is all by our power, our decision, our effort. Your doctrine is the very definition of the "White Knuckle Club".​

The same way as Paul stated in Rom8:12-14 --- if WE walk in the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we put to death the flesh, we live.

"By the Spirit", is through faith. His power, our decision.

Quote:
You just love to invent stupid terms, don't you?​

You mean like "prevenient", and "superlapsarian", etcetera?

Quote:
We Calvinists know we are saved, by the promises of scripture, which we believe, and the witness of the Spirit inside us.​

We've discussed "professing-saved". Look at those in Matt7:21-23; they didn't know they were not saved. So too those in Rev3:14-22. Isn't it true that it is impossible to know whether one has "true faith" or "false-professing-faith", until the moment he DIES, and PROVES by perseverance his was "true"?

Quote:
The real question is, how do you know you are saved, Ben? Have you repented of every last sin you've committed? Is you slate clean? Really? Are you trusting in your own efforts to maintain and retain your salvation, or are you resting in Him? Do you believe that He is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you blamelss before Him?

Be honest.​

As we've discussed, repentance is a walk; I do not embrace the idea of "backslidden". I keep myself in His love, by seeking His face and His fellowship. That is FAITH, not effort; the effort was done by Him on the Cross. His victory is already mine, by faith.

As Paul said, "I know Whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard that which I entrusted to Him (by faith); now I guard the treasure entrusted to me."

That treasure, is eternal life.

 

[frumanchu]

OK, if I misunderstand Calvinism, then help me out. Here is my understanding:

I for one would be glad to help.

1. Men are too corrupt to ever truly believe (deep in their hearts)

Yes. The natural function of man's will is to operate according to desire, and because there is nothing but sinfulness in the heart of unregenerate man every moral choice they make is tainted by that sin and not done in faith.

2. Men always follow their natures; those who are not regenerated have a nature of sin and rebellion.

I will not presume to speak for anyone else here, but any time I've spoken to this particular issue and said "men always follow their nature" I was referring specifically to what I just explained above. This is why I spoke of unregenerate man having free will in the natural sense in that he still retains the ability to choose according to his desire. The problem is not with the natural function of his will, the problem is with the moral function of it; the heart.

Thus, man will always act according to his nature by choosing according to his desire.

3. Regeneration brings a new heart and new spiritual nature, so that the man wills to believe and receive Jesus. The nature must be changed before a man can believe.

Regeneration brings a new heart and nature insofar as the disposition of the heart. Regeneration does NOT eradicate, remove or otherwise eliminate the flesh. Scripture is abundantly clear on this, and Calvinists historically affirm this:

When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil." - WCF (IX,iv)
​

Regeneration is the work of the Spirit to free the will from its absolute bondage to sin, but the Spirit also then quickens and inspires that heart to faith in response to the Gospel. THAT is the "irrisistible grace" of the Calvinist TULIP. Regeneration overcomes the issue of moral ability, and the grace of the Spirit then works to efficaciously bring about saving faith from that regenerated heart.

Is any of that wrong?

Not wrong, just incomplete.

 

[frumanchu]

BTW, Ben...I sent you PM. Will you not at least read it?

 

[cygnusx1]

Quoted by NBF:
You throw out a phrase without definition. What exactly do you mean by "walk in sin". It's too broad a term to have any meaning in the discussion.
​

What does "backslidden" mean? It means the same.

Question --- exactly what would a <B>saved believer<B>, have to do, to "lose crowns" (but not lose salvation)? Specifically what?

Quote:
​

</B>
<B></B>

What has been regenerated is obvious, it is the man's spirit, his heart. Regeneration is the beginning of the walk, not its end.
​

</B>
If "regeneration" equates to "receiving new hearts" --- if "regeneration" is "washing", then how is it that men can still SIN? The Calvinist argument fails --- if we receive new natures (decided by God), and if a man always chooses according to his nature --- sin and rebellion without regeneration, and faith and Jesus WITH regeneration, then Calvinism fails to address the reason why Christians still sin.

To leave room for the EXERCISE of Faith

Calvinists "rail" about God's sovereignty --- why isn't God sovereign enough to regenerate completely?

a very poor question considering Regeneration is complete.

 

[frumanchu]

It is becoming quite clear that "Responsible Grace" and Reformed Theology have completely different fundamental definitions of justification, regeneration, salvation and many other core soteriological doctrines. Those definitions need to be sorted out and commonly understood before there can be any meaningful progress in terms of understanding each other.