"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[nobdysfool]

Originally Posted by Ben

Can a Christian HAVE sin, but still ENTER Heaven? You seem to be saying "yes"; of course from Scripture I find an emphatic "no"...
​

Posted by NBF:
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.")

Notice how he did not answer the question. What we can deduce from Ben's "non-answer" is that he does not believe that all of a Believer's sins are forgiven, unless they add to Christ's work. Notice also that he tried to twist my question around, to make it appear that I was advocating knowingly planning sins in the future. That is not what I was saying, or implying. He's trying to set things up for the specious "anti-nomian" charge against Calvinism.

Every Christian has to deal with sin every day. Now Ben would have us believe that those sins are unforgiven, even though he has believed on Christ, and received the forgiveness of his sins, which Christ bought with His Own Blood. Ben would have us believe that unless one consciously asks forgiveness (repents) of every sin he commits, after being saved, those sins will be held against him, and he will not be covered, and will be held accountable for those sins, even though Christ already died for them.

What this shows is that Ben does not understand what it means to be "in Christ', and does not understand Justification. A christian doesn't "have" sin any longer. Christ dealt with ALL of the Believer's sins. They are ALL under the Blood. If they weren't, the Believer would still be lost.

Ben's non-answer to my question should be ignored because it does not addres the question. It is an avoidance tactic.

Posted by NBF:
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!

So we must add to Christ's work or we won't be saved? Is that it?

Posted by NBF:
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...

Sure, just as soon as you answer this one:

Seems Ben can't decide whether faith is simultaneous with the various parts of salvation, or the cause of them. Hence, his confusion about regeneration.

Here is what Ben has not, and will not answer: If Belief is simultaneous with repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, as he claims, then faith cannot be "causal" to those things, because the effect cannot be simultaneous with its cause, nor can the cause be its own effect. If faith is equivalent to repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, then it is the effect, along with those other things, and cannot be the cause. The cause can only be something or Someone other than the effect, i.e. God.

If, however, faith is the cause of repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration and adoption, then it logically follows that faith precedes repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, and there is a period of time where the following are true, no matter how short that time may be:

• There is a time when men believe but are not justified
• There is a time when men believe but are still children of the devil
• There is a time when men believe but are not born again
• There is a time when men believe but are not adopted sons of God
• There is a time when men believe but are not in Christ
• There is a time when men believe but are not elect
• There is a time when men believe but are not saved

As can clearly be seen, Ben has a problem in his theology. If faith is causal to salvation, then the above list applies, and he must explain how these things can be, because they flow logically from his contention that faith is "causal" to one's salvation. This presents a problem, because he cannot demonstrate how the unregenerate can believe savingly without the prior working of the Holy Spirit to convict them, which implies a regenerated heart.

If, however, faith is simultaneous to the other components of salvation, and equivalent and interchangeable, as Ben has said on occasion, then Monergism is logically upheld, seeing that the cause is not the effect (salvation), and no effect can exist without a cause. Ben's theology stands in contradiction to that fact.

This shows a fatal flaw at the heart of Responsible Grace. All of the attacks and bluff and bluster against Predestination, and "Sovereign Regeneration" (which begs the question, if God does not Sovereignly regenerate, then who does?) are a huge smokescreen to hide the fact that Responsible Grace has this huge, fatal flaw, which I have detailed above. The question is, will Ben address this?

The direction is this --- is "regeneration" resistible, or not?​

Posted by NBF:
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?

Why are you so intent on resisting God? That's a cardinal point with you. Resisting God is rebellion, which scripture says is "as the sin of witchcraft." You are promoting rebellion against God, Ben.

The Truth is, if God regenerates you, He doesn't ask your permission, or try to convince you beforehand. He regenerates you, and your life is changed. That's His prerogative, His choice, and His Right.

Regeneration is not unto perfection. Jesus said "no teacher is greater than his master". Jesus, our Master, learned obedience by the things He suffered. So must we. Regeneration does not make us perfect, it makes us able to walk with Christ, and to learn obedience to God, just as He did. He didn't have a sin nature to deal with, but we do.

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".

No, Regeneration is by the Sovereign Will of God, UNTO faith in Him. You cannot 'fall from regeneration", any more than you can "unbirth" yourself.

Posted by NBF:
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.

Regeneration is never accomplished that way. I have explained this many times, as have others. The heart must be regenerated to be able to believe savingly on Christ. Faith is a response to regeneration, not its cause. Both of you questions do conflict scripture, rightly divided.

Posted by NBF:
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


As usual, you gloss right over God's promise, and focus on our response. The only reason we are able to keep ourselves in the faith, is because God rescues us from trials, and keeps us from stumbling, and leads us by His Spirit, even when we don't think He's doing so. He says nothing can separate us from the Love of God, and your reply is "not really", we can separate ourselves, because we can resist God. Do you have any idea of how foolish that sounds, to "resist God" as though your resistance could actually separate you from Him....Didn't work too good for Saul on the road to Damascus, did it?

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.

Jude is right, but not the way you try to twist what Jude said. And, if you don't answer the questions I put in this post, then you will have conceded that Responsible grace has a fatal flaw. Turnabout is fair play, Ben. You have left other posts unanswered, so I am taking it that you have conceded them.

 

[AndOne]

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

He absolutely is soveign enough to do it completely. It happens in eternity. Why it isn't instaneous is His perrogative. I - the thing created - do not want to question my creator.

 

[AndOne]

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.​

​

You are right - I suppose if you follow it logically through then it really is all HIS decision. I completely agree with that - and I apologize for my inconsistency in presenting my position.

​

 

[AndOne]

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.

It doesn't matter how you put it - you are still having to do something to maintain your salvation. Bottom line - it's works.

Again more inconsistencies. If we do not keep ourselves sinless and only overcome sin by Him-in-us - then we aren't doing anything. But you are constantly saying we have to choose or do something else. Dude - why can't you see how these two things simply don't match up. You can't have one or the other. You either trust in Him for salvation or you don't.

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".

All I am saying is that you cannot loose your salvation once you are saved. If we are saved by faith and not works then either scenario makes no difference and both are indeed sound.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

The Truth is, if God regenerates you, He doesn't ask your permission, or try to convince you beforehand. He regenerates you, and your life is changed. That's His prerogative, His choice, and His Right.

But neither scripture nor historical Christianity for 2000 years agrees with you. It is quite the opposite.
If there is a sequence, then regeneration is almost at the end of the transformation of man in entering into the Kingdom of His dear Son. It should be also noted that "enlightened" "regeneration" are used synonomously by many Fathers. They all ALWAYS refer to baptism. See Rom 6, the baptismal Chapter, especially verses 4-6
See the following Church Fathers, some of the very early ones:....
Justin Martyr (ca 150 a.d.) - First Apology (Chapter 61)
"Those who are PERSUADED and BELIEVE that what we teach and say is true...are instructed to pray and ask God with fasting, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS that are past. (We also pray and fast with them). Then they are BROUGHT by us to where there is WATER, and are REGENERATED in the same way in which we ourselves were REGENERATED: in the name of God...and of our savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the WASHING WITH WATER. Christ said, `Except you are born again you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.'"
"In order that he may obtain IN THE WATER, the REMISSION OF SINS formerly committed, the name of God the Father is pronounced over whoever CHOOSES to be BORN AGAIN, and has REPENTED of his sins,"

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)
"Righteousness is not found in Jewish rites, but is found in the CONVERSION OF THE HEART which is given by Christ IN BAPTISM."
"that same BAPTISM is a LAVER OF REPENTANCE and [and gives a] knowledge of God, and...is ALONE able to PURIFY those who have REPENTED, and this is the WATER OF LIFE."

Clement of Alexandria (ca 180 a.d.)The Instructor (Chapter 6)
"Immediately, in our REGENERATION, we obtained that perfection which we sought, for we were illuminated, which is to know God."
"But He (Christ) was perfected by the WASHING OF BAPTISM, ALONE, and [He] was sanctified by the descent of the Spirit... The same also occurs in our case.
Christ thus became our example.
BEING BAPTIZED, we are illuminated;
being illuminated, WE BECOME SONS;
being made sons, we are made perfect...immortal.
This act is variously called grace, illumination, and perfection, and WASHING;
washing, BY WHICH WE CLEANSE AWAY OUR SINS;
grace, BY WHICH THE PENALTIES accruing to transgressions ARE REMITTED; and
illumination, BY WHICH THE HOLY LIGHT OF SALVATION IS BEHELD. That is, BY WHICH WE SEE GOD CLEARLY."
"Thus believing alone, AND regeneration, is perfection in life;"
"We who are baptized, AFTER WE WIPED OFF THE SINS which hide the light of the Divine Spirit...gaze upon the Divine, while the Holy Spirit FLOWS down to us from above."
"...our transgressions were taken away by the baptism of the Word [Eph 5:26]. We are WASHED FROM ALL OUR SINS...our characters are not the same AS BEFORE OUR WASHING."
"After repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, and being PURIFIED BY BAPTISM, we speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father."
"...so that we may become a new, holy people by REGENERATION, and may keep the man undefiled."
"...such is the union of the Word with baptism...FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEANSING,"

Irenæus (ca 185 a.d.) Against Heresies (Bk III, Chapter 17)

1. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me." (Isa 61:1) That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you." (Mt 10:20) And again, giving to the disciples THE POWER OF REGENERATION into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt 28:19) ...
2. ...Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the Comforter, (Jn 16:7) who should join us to God. For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of DRY wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so in like manner, neither could we, being many, be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as DRY earth does not bring forth unless it receives moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a DRY tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls, by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God...

He didn't have a sin nature to deal with, but we do.

We don't either. Sin is not objective. It is not a state of being such as our nature. We have a nature, fallen, corrupt that causes us to sin. Man sins, not our nature. This is why it is also the act of the will which rationalizes, the influences upon man to make choices.

No, Regeneration is by the Sovereign Will of God, UNTO faith in Him. You cannot 'fall from regeneration", any more than you can "unbirth" yourself.

First it is NEVER unto faith. However one can fall from a relationship which is what that regeneration resulted in, entrance into His Kingdom, a relational existance. We can unbirth ourselves anytime we actually wish. But for the physical it is more like natural, that is we can die. So it is with a spiritual relationship we have with Christ. Sin causes death, this death is a spiritual death, or unbirthing to use your words.

Christians do sin and we can sin ourselves out of Christ and into death (separation) and without repentance and confession into the second death (permanently).
It is all about living the Life of Christ IN Christ. It takes a synergistic, mutual, continual relationship, endured to the end in order to be saved. We are saved through our faith. I Pet 1:3-5. The promise awaits at the end. The inheritance IF we are faithful.

Regeneration is never accomplished that way. I have explained this many times, as have others. The heart must be regenerated to be able to believe savingly on Christ. Faith is a response to regeneration, not its cause. Both of you questions do conflict scripture, rightly divided.

It is obviously correctly divided per Calvinism or Reformed faith, but it a blatant contradiction of Scripture as it has always been understood. As I stated before, using the word regeneration is not the correct word for what you want to take place. The better word is transformation, which is what Christ did for mankind on the Cross, His Incarnation, His saving mankind from the bondage to death and sin. He restored mankind to life. Man needs life before he can respond to God. A dead mortal, non-eternal creature cannot have an eternal existance simply by faith. It took Christ to save mankind. Faith does not save us either.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

The professor of Greek and the textbooks of Greek I read and studied indicated that whatever 2 Cor 5:17 is referring to, it's referring to a completed event. "The Greek is not participle."

So what?

The Greek is aorist. Aorist is punctual in time, referring to a completed event.

Paul says in this context we should regard the new creation as a completed event, and treat others this same way.

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

And let's repeat this for clarification -- the grammar isn't helping you here, it's hurting you. Don't expect the grammar to come to your aid on this point, because it doesn't.

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".

We regard the event as complete. Paul is instructing us not to regard it as in progress. That's the main point of aorist tense in all its uses.

As I said, the grammar doesn't defend you here.

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?

You're not answering my question.

And I've no reason to answer another derail of the topic.

I've already described Heb 3-4 elsewhere, I'm not about to have you bound past the basic problem with your view here by derailing to yet a third passage, now that you've been unable to carry on 1 Cor 2:14 and are progressively losing ground on 2 Cor 5:17.

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.

I never said the "things" did change. Why don't you try listening to an answer instead of trying to shoehorn them into your categories?

Since the plural grouping of "[spiritual] things" never changed, it never fit into your view. But spiritual things aren't limited to the assertions Paul makes concerning them. Just because Paul says spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit and taught by the Spirit, doesn't mean they aren't revealed by other means or taught by other means as well.

And that's the basic problem with your view. You think that by saying "they're revealed by the Spirit" it means "they're not revealed to those without the indwelt Spirit". And that's denied pointblank in the context. It says natural people didn't understand what was shown to them. It says natural people don't accept what's taught to them. And what's that? Those "things" you keep talking about [2:8, 2:13]!

So you, Ben. You: deal with the context.

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."

you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. Jn 10:26

Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
"He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them." John 12:39-40
​

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.

Ben first you say '"Received", denotes "belief"'. Then you derail off to this "they are not 'two things'".

Bait and switch.

They are two things, Ben. "Received the Spirit" does not denote "belief". They are two different things. You're simply wrong here. There's no reason to consider these the "same spiritual things". Not a reason at all.

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".

No, that's simply the refrain you again and again fall into, but it's wrong. It collapses under the distinctions John is making. John says in 1 John 1:8 that we don't escape sins and when we think we do, we deceive ourselves.

1 John 3:5-10 says that we reduce the sinful practice in our lives, and even with the sin that remains, a reduction of sin is the process of stopping the practice of sin. Someone who increases the practice of sin, is not in the process of stopping the practice of sin. He's shown not to be a child of God.

 

[heymikey80]

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".

Nope, wrong. The translation as woodenly as you can stand it is, "add-atop in your faith". The word isn't simply "supply". It's "add-atop".

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.

Ben, these words are explicitly, openly, directly stated in 2 Peter 1:5.

I'll say it again, and note that each word is explicitly stated. To say it's not there, to say it's not saying what it flatly says is to dream up a theology of what Peter means. It's not to listen to Peter. It's just to listen to yourself.

The verses point out the "unproductive"ness and "forgetful"ness omong those who neglect the "added" attributes of "godly character" and its disciplines to "faith". They say what you're not saying. They call out, "assure"ance, these verses say so explicitly.

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"

I didn't miss it. You're simply missing the excluded middle. Peter isn't saying there's just one or the other. In fact he's talking to people who are in this excluded middle. It's sitting right in the context. All you had to do was just read it sitting there.

But instead, your own theology interjected only two situations. When there are three.

--- and you're proposing that "the IMPURE, will enter HEAVEN". No they won't. Eph5:5-6!!!!!

I don't expect them to enter heaven right at that moment, so not I'm not. But you're attacking my position with more falsehoods from your two-situation viewpoint. More error, more falsehoods, more allegations.

Once again -- you've made yet another mistake about my position. With no repentance.

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.

He will. In fact it's the only way He will redeem. Redemption requires He have something to redeem. You're demanding there be nothing to redeem for Jesus to have fellowship.

I'm sorry, that's an error. "If we claim to be without sin, we lie, the truth isn't in us." It's a fact. "Jesus came to redeem sinners, of whom I am the chief."

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.

GRACE.

And with that, I leave you to ponder what God's favor is actually doing in the Gospel, in fellowshipping with sinners, redeeming them, and cleansing them.

 

[frumanchu]

He absolutely is soveign enough to do it completely. It happens in eternity. Why it isn't instaneous is His perrogative. I - the thing created - do not want to question my creator.

Don't get sucked into the vortex here, friend. Ben asked why God isn't sovereign enough to regenerate completely...not sanctify completely. The truth is that God DOES in fact regenerate completely. You're either fully born again or you're not...there is no partial birth (which of course would then make falling from salvation a partial birth abortion).

Ben is using terms in a completely different way than we are, and that has perpetuated a lot of these arguments, and he often uses the close relationship between two things (such as regeneration and justification) as a means of conferring the properties of one upon another such that he then uses the terms interchangeably.

Don't get sucked into the vortex...focus on the definitions of these terms because that lies at the core of our disagreement. It's already been shown that he holds a fundamentally different definition of salvation than we do (and historical Christianity for that matter).

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Ben:
Scriptural basis? (None.)
Quoted by NBF:
On the contrary. Absolutely true. He has perfectly described your false doctrines, Ben. He's got your number.​

You endorse his position with a sweeping statement, absent of Scriptural citation. If you cannot provide the Scripture on which to base the position, the same as HE could not, are we just to accept your statement on your “say-so”?

Quote:
Modern Evangelicalism has taken the attitude that man can respond at any time they wish by a mere act of man’s will. This reduces the Gospel to a matter of a "decision" on the part of the individual, or a mere reciting of an incantation called the "Sinner’s Prayer."​

A statement that aligns with Scripture (men can choose), followed by a straw-man (mere reciting).

Men can choose, but TO follow God, and TO turn away. I’d post a dozen Scriptures to support that, but I’ve already done so repeatedly; what good does it do?

Quote:
Yet unless the Holy Spirit is pre-eminent and active, nothing will happen. The Spirit is not received at man's behest, it is received when He Himself has brought conviction to the man's heart, and quickened him to receive the Word which will save his soul. Patton's words are true, too many churches preach the incantation of the Sinner's Prayer as the means by which people obtain salvation.​

How many times has Ben been accused of “rewriting Scripture”? Yet here you change “the Spirit was received after believing”, into “the Spirit is received by God’s UNILATERAL DECISION”.

Quote:
And who do you suppose was behind that, and inspired Peter's words, Ben??? What we see in Acts 2:37 is the Holy Spirit in action, speaking the Word of God through Peter to those who were there. Peter was no "salesman". He was the oracle of God at that moment, and it was the Holy Spirit who quickened the Word to the hearers, not Peter and his "eloquence". .​

You’re writing into Scripture the concept of “they responded because of the Spirit’s unilateral action”. What’s really there, is that Peter told them the truth and they believed him.

Quote:
Manipulation and salesmanship may yield large numbers of people coming forward and affirmative answers on prayer cards, but it cannot do what really counts, that is, "convert" the soul to Christ. This is solely the domain of the Holy Spirit.​

The concept is clearly stated in Rom10 --- men tend not to believe in what they have not heard, and they cannot hear without a preacher. You take Jude 23 (“save others, snatching them from the fire”) --- and turn it into “GOD determines who WILL be saved, if our words convict we’re only pawns in God’s 100%-sovereign-control.

And your concept of God is “desiring to give no hope to the majority of men”. I do not know how to convince you of the fallacy of that perception of His nature.

Quote:
The Holy Spirit does not have to indwell to quicken, regenerate, enlighten, reveal, or influence anyone.​

Prove that. Per Titus3:5-6, washing of regeneration that saved us, is by the Spirit who WAS POURED on us through Jesus our Savior. “Savior” precedes “poured”, and “poured” is asserted as an aspect of the regenerating Spirit. It does not convey “regeneration and THEN Spirit-poured”.

Quote:
Conversion is what prepares the person to be indwelt.​

Another statement with no basis in Scripture offered --- because there isn’t one. Cite the basis, or change your position.

…or ignore the request and continue saying “Scripture proves”…

Quote:
Salvation is of the Lord. You need to learn what that means, Ben, because you clearly don't know.​

Explain to me what “save yourselves” means in 1Tim4:16.

 

[frumanchu]

You are right - I suppose if you follow it logically through then it really is all HIS decision. I completely agree with that - and I apologize for my inconsistency in presenting my position.

Again, don't get sucked in here, bro. The definition of a contradiction is something which is both a and non-a at the same time in the same relationship. The truth is that it is BOTH God's decision and man's decision, but not in the same way. It is God's decision in that He purposes it and efficaciously brings it about, but it is still man's decision in that he chooses according to his desire from the available options. That God superintended it does not remove the reality of man's decision (see Joseph in Genesis).

What is being argued is for a libertine version of "free will" whereby the will is autonomous and unecumbered by anything, including God's sovereign intentions and the very nature of the human will in choosing according to desire.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
cognitive dissonance. You seem unable to read something without twisting it and distorting it in your mind, and then spitting our some ridiculously contorted, almost unrecognizable version of what was said. Look at that verse as a prayer.​

I would appreciate if you would cease the hostility and ad-hominem. I’ve been documenting stand after stand you are making, without Scriptural support. The few times you do post Scripture, I show you it does not mean what you thought; and so many verses I’ve cited you ignore. Please take what you just said, and consider how it might apply to yourself.

Quote:
No he did not. This phrase completely ruins your contention. Which were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God."

Your entire false doctrine is ruined by that phrase.​

Show me how “which were born”, describes our ability to believe. Jeff writes his own ideas into Scripture. And unless you can dispute what I said about the verses, you write them too.

Quoted by Ben:
John1:13 says the BEGOTTENNESS is all of God and nothing of ourselves; but John1:12 says BECOMING begotten, is by believing and receiving Jesus. It is as someone giving a gift; the gift is all of the giver and nothing of the receiver --- but it is the receiver’s choice to accept the gift.​

Not to mention the fact that you’ve never addressed the failure of denying that “born-again” and “adoption” are coincident, clearly placing “born-again” (begottenness) after belief.

With respect, the very foundation of “predestined-election” is destroyed; and all that’s happened in response is just for some to close their eyes and say “No it’s not!”

If you think that’s wrong, SHOW me how “belief” is “sovereignly-decided” in John1:12-13. Show me how “regeneration” is NOT ”through the poured Spirit” in Titus3:5-6. Show me how salvation is not “the outcome of OUR FAITH” in 1Pet1:9.

You can’t. None of those ideas are in Scripture. And we cannot write them in…

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

Sorry, justification is in response to faith. God responds to faith in Heb11:6. In Acts10:34-35. In James4:8. And so many other places. NOWHERE does God initiate anything redemptive in men before they believe. If so, show me where.

Quote:
This does not speak to anyone's ability to believe, Ben. All it says is that God is Just, and He justifies Believers. It's really a self-evident statement, kind of like "water is wet, and those who are in it are wetted by it."​

Go back to Acts10:34-35 --- not only is God respondent, the context clearly asserts that “God welcoming those who do NOT first revere Him and seek righteousness, is partiality that God is NOT.

Deny to me that Calvinism asserts ”God chooses men who do NOT revere Him and do NOT seek righteousness --- and on the basis of His sovereign choice and monergistic regeneration men THEN revere and seek.

Without that denial (which you cannot do), you’ll have to admit that “Calvinism is the partiality that Peter says “God is NOT”.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Parables are not the foundation of doctrine, Ben.​

YES, they are.
Jesus: “The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE…”
Calvinist: “Oh you can’t take that LITERALLY; it’s not REALLY like that.”

Quote:
Are you seriously going to tell us that 7th century Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders were called and equally able to believe and receive Christ as those in Europe, or the Roman Empire? How about China in the 1st Century? Or the entire world outside of Israel before Christ?​

Tell me how you understand Rom2:14-16.

Quote:
Ben, Scripture clearly shows that some are vessels of wrath created for destruction, and some are ordained to that end. God is Just in leaving anyone in their sins, if he chooses to. He doesn't "owe" them anything.​

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.

How many times have I cited Ezk18:24-32, to illustrate God’s attitude? Men can turn from righteousness to wickedness, and men can turn from wickedness to God.
Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.

Quote:
He supported what he said with scripture, and also with common sense.​

Look back at all the comparisons I’ve been making between ”Scripture” and ”Calvinism”, and tell me where is the “common sense”. With respect, how is it that man’s reasoning trumps clear Scriptural dictate?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Parables are not the foundation of doctrine, Ben.​

YES, they are.
Jesus: “The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE…”
Calvinist: “Oh you can’t take that LITERALLY; it’s not REALLY like that.”

Quote:
Are you seriously going to tell us that 7th century Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders were called and equally able to believe and receive Christ as those in Europe, or the Roman Empire? How about China in the 1st Century? Or the entire world outside of Israel before Christ?​

Tell me how you understand Rom2:14-16.

Quote:
Ben, Scripture clearly shows that some are vessels of wrath created for destruction, and some are ordained to that end. God is Just in leaving anyone in their sins, if he chooses to. He doesn't "owe" them anything.​

If we agree on nothing else, let this one point be resolved between us --- God cannot be responsible/causal/desirous of sin.

How many times have I cited Ezk18:24-32, to illustrate God’s attitude? Men can turn from righteousness to wickedness, and men can turn from wickedness to God.
Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.

Quote:
He supported what he said with scripture, and also with common sense.​

Look back at all the comparisons I’ve been making between ”Scripture” and ”Calvinism”, and tell me where is the “common sense”. With respect, how is it that man’s reasoning trumps clear Scriptural dictate?

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Don't break your arm, patting yourself on the back. We have been deconstructing your false doctrines for some time now. You are showing more and more that you are losing the debate, and your doctrines are crumbling and crashing down around you, yet you're like the Monty Python knight, claiming, "It's only a flesh wound! I'll be right as rain in the morning!"​

Then look no farther than THESE last few posts.

Quote:
If this wasn't so serious, it would actually be comical.​

I agree. It’s quite serious to perceive God as “creating vast numbers of men FOR sin, depravity, and Hell”.

Some day I would like to take a look at your copy of Scripture; I mean no disrespect --- are passages like Ezk18:24-32 “blacked out”?

 

[frumanchu]

Show me how “which were born”, describes our ability to believe. Jeff writes his own ideas into Scripture. And unless you can dispute what I said about the verses, you write them too.

Quoted by Ben:
John1:13 says the BEGOTTENNESS is all of God and nothing of ourselves; but John1:12 says BECOMING begotten, is by believing and receiving Jesus. It is as someone giving a gift; the gift is all of the giver and nothing of the receiver --- but it is the receiver’s choice to accept the gift.
​

John 1:12 does not say that. You assert it but fail to provide ANY grammatical/linguistic support for it. You have COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FAILED to provide a single credible argument as to why adoption or becoming children of God is the exact equivalent of being born of God or regenerated. NONE. They are two related but distinct Scriptural concepts, and you insist they be used interchangeably without ANY rational argument to back it up.

Not to mention the fact that you’ve never addressed the failure of denying that “born-again” and “adoption” are coincident, clearly placing “born-again” (begottenness) after belief.

That is a demonstrable falsehood. It has been addressed several times by both NBF and myself. You ignore my explanations and pretend he didn't write his.

With respect, the very foundation of “predestined-election” is destroyed; and all that’s happened in response is just for some to close their eyes and say “No it’s not!”

That again is a demonstrable falsehood. It's more convenient for you to ignore devastating responses to your flawed arguments than to defend those arguments. They're simply defended by repetition and bluster.

If you think that’s wrong, SHOW me how “belief” is “sovereignly-decided” in John1:12-13. Show me how “regeneration” is NOT ”through the poured Spirit” in Titus3:5-6.

Those have been shown several times over, yet you promoted clear falsehood by claiming they have not and demanding we either explain them anew every single time you quote them or admit defeat (either explicitly or implicitly).

You can’t. None of those ideas are in Scripture. And we cannot write them in…

Why not? After all...[post=49106799]"Responsible Grace" does it all the time[/post].

"Responsible Grace" theology is indefensible, both in its flawed hermeneutics, fictitious linguistics and errant logic, and in its intellectually dishonest methods of defense. It's fruit is rotten on the vine.

 

[frumanchu]

Go back to Acts10:34-35 --- not only is God respondent, the context clearly asserts that “God welcoming those who do NOT first revere Him and seek righteousness, is partiality that God is NOT.

Deny to me that Calvinism asserts ”God chooses men who do NOT revere Him and do NOT seek righteousness --- and on the basis of His sovereign choice and monergistic regeneration men THEN revere and seek.

Without that denial (which you cannot do), you’ll have to admit that “Calvinism is the partiality that Peter says “God is NOT”.

This has already been demonstrated countless times. You ignore the clear and undeniable context of Peter's statement in order to manufacture an argument against Calvinism. The "partiality that God is not" is partiality towards one particular nation or people (specifically, the Jews). His statement is made in the middle of a tremendous revelation to Jesus' disciples that the scope of God's redemption is no longer limited to the nation of Israel but now extends to men of every tribe, tongue and nation. Salvation is not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles also.

Now, Ben...YOU DENY that the expansion of the scope of redemption to the Gentiles is not a MAJOR THEME of the New Testament.

 

[frumanchu]

Ezekiel: ”I (God) take NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE.”
Calvinist: “God CREATES people FOR Hell, does not WANT them to repent.”

I’m realizing that there is no way to convince you of the conflict of what I just stated.

That's right... because that conflict is a DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOOD. I have SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY corrected you on this, and yet you continue such a blatant and heinous misrepresentation of us. Calvinists do not believe that God creates people FOR Hell, yet you continue to put those words in our mouths.

There is nothing credible or respectful about your tone or your posts. You speak out of both sides of your mouth, prefacing falsehoods with "with respect" as though that somehow makes them less false...as though that somehow makes it OK that you put words in our mouths and bear false witness against us.

 

[nobdysfool]

Originally Posted by Ben

So don't worry, God will FORBID us to ever be deceived away from belief in Him? How should we understand Col2:6-8???
​

Posted by NBF:

cognitive dissonance. You seem unable to read something without twisting it and distorting it in your mind, and then spitting our some ridiculously contorted, almost unrecognizable version of what was said. Look at that verse as a prayer.​

I would appreciate if you would cease the hostility and ad-hominem. I’ve been documenting stand after stand you are making, without Scriptural support. The few times you do post Scripture, I show you it does not mean what you thought; and so many verses I’ve cited you ignore. Please take what you just said, and consider how it might apply to yourself.

The "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. This is nothing more than self-justification, because I have clearly shown where you do not read things as written.So what do you do? Try to throw it all back on me, as though I'm the one doing this. You're bearing false witness Ben.

Noooo, it says nothing about our "ability to receive Him". Verse 13 speaks of the "begottenness", verse 12 speaks about "BECOMING begotten". Begottenness is the gift (all of God and nothing of men), becoming begotten is by men's believing and receiving Christ.

Jeff is adding his own words to Scripture.

Posted by NBF:
No he did not. This phrase completely ruins your contention. Which were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God."

Your entire false doctrine is ruined by that phrase.​

Show me how “which were born”, describes our ability to believe. Jeff writes his own ideas into Scripture. And unless you can dispute what I said about the verses, you write them too.

Patton did not add a single word to scripture there, Ben, but you have tried to insert your own ideas, as is clearly documented. My point still stands, and I quoted scripture there, I just did not put the reference on it. You claim that regeneration is by our choice, and this verse clearly says it is not. Your doctrine is overturned at that point, and no amount of jiggering will change it.

Regeneration and the New Birth are the same thing. That's how I see it, that's how I define it. I believe scripture, as well as logic, is in agreement with that view. Address those subjects on those terms and we might get somewhere.

poste by Ben:
John1:13 says the BEGOTTENNESS is all of God and nothing of ourselves; but John1:12 says BECOMING begotten, is by believing and receiving Jesus. It is as someone giving a gift; the gift is all of the giver and nothing of the receiver --- but it is the receiver’s choice to accept the gift.​

Not to mention the fact that you’ve never addressed the failure of denying that “born-again” and “adoption” are coincident, clearly placing “born-again” (begottenness) after belief.

I have directly address that very subject, several times, and you have studiously avoided answering. I am going to accept that you are wrong on that point, and have conceded the point, if you don't answer.

With respect, the very foundation of “predestined-election” is destroyed; and all that’s happened in response is just for some to close their eyes and say “No it’s not!”

There is no respect in that statement. Ben, so save the phony declarations of it. For you to declare this is to ignore the volumes of posts that have clearly shown the flaws in your doctrines, posts that you ignore. The ones you do answer, it has been shown that you twist other people's words, and twist God's own Word to try and shore up your phony doctrines. You seem to think that if you don't answer, then it wasn't addressed, and if you do answer, anything you say trumps anything anyone else has said. That is willful avoidance and self-deception.

If you think that’s wrong, SHOW me how “belief” is “sovereignly-decided” in John1:12-13. Show me how “regeneration” is NOT ”through the poured Spirit” in Titus3:5-6. Show me how salvation is not “the outcome of OUR FAITH” in 1Pet1:9.

You can’t. None of those ideas are in Scripture. And we cannot write them in…

Ben, you still do not have a correct working knowledge of Calvinism. No Calvinist has EVER said that belief is "Sovereignly decided". That is a flat-out falsehood for you to say that, because it is not true. You haven't been listening (big surprise there!). You have been refuted multiple times on your twisted take on Titus 3:5, and you completely misinterpret 1 Peter 1:9 as placing all of the responsibility on man to maintain and retain his salvation, and completely cut God and His promises and work in us to bring it about out of the picture.

You write your own ideas into scripture alll the time, as we have shown repeateldy here, and you have never owned up to any errors you have made. Not once. You won't even own up to false accusations against the brethren, even when you KNOW they are false, and have been proven false.

So don't start this falsehood that you've refuted everything we say, and we've refuted nothing you say, because it is a falsehood, a lie, and does not stand up to even a cursory examination. And save your phony respect, Ben. Until you resolve the issue between us, your respect is meaningless.

 

[nobdysfool]

Posted by NBF:
Don't break your arm, patting yourself on the back. We have been deconstructing your false doctrines for some time now. You are showing more and more that you are losing the debate, and your doctrines are crumbling and crashing down around you, yet you're like the Monty Python knight, claiming, "It's only a flesh wound! I'll be right as rain in the morning!"​

Then look no farther than THESE last few posts.

When I do, I see that you're losing, Ben. You doctrines are collapsing.

Posted by NBF:
If this wasn't so serious, it would actually be comical.​

I agree. It’s quite serious to perceive God as “creating vast numbers of men FOR sin, depravity, and Hell”.

And who are you quoting there Ben? Who said that? Or did you invent it, and put quotes around it, to try and make it appear that you were quoting a Calvinist? Do you realize that doing so is dishonest? Do you realize that it is bearing false witness? Do you realize that you are committing a sin by doing so?

Calvinism does not, will not, and never has taught such damnable things, Ben. You're making a false accusation, trying to pass off a falsehood of your own creation, told to try and bolster your failing doctrines by means of false quotes, deception, and hoping that no one will call you out on your errors.

Some day I would like to take a look at your copy of Scripture; I mean no disrespect --- are passages like Ezk18:24-32 “blacked out”?

I assure you, not one word has been blacked out in my Bible. How many words have you written into your bible, and how many marginal notes have you written which say "not really"? You started accusing us of that, and lo and behold!, we have caught you doing the very same thing! And the fact is, we were not doing what you accused, it was you doing so and projecting it on us. Imagine that! Accusing your opponent of what you yourself do.....

Sorry Ben, you have demonstrated not only a lack of correct knowledge of what Calvinism teaches, but a disturbing willingness to misrepresent, manufacture quotes, and flat out bear false witness against Calvinists, in order to defend your doctrines from the onslaught of examination that you cannot avoid. You have been caught red-handed doing these things, and your unrepentant attitude is plain for all to see.