"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[frumanchu]

Cygnus, the problem is worse than that --- it's not "almost", it's "no one at all".

The "fatal flaw" includes not recognizing that we DO sin --- therefore, regeneration is resistible. If regeneration was sovereignly-decided, and/or righteousness imputed, and/or repentance unilaterally gifted/granted/bestowed by God, then we would be sinless.

That is simply a fiction invented by you to perpetuate your opposition to Calvinism. You refuse to even acknowledge what it is we believe regeneration is and what it accomplishes. You argue as though we have presented it as the eradication of the sin nature in favor of a righteous nature, when that's not the case at all. You've even been presented with clear quotes from historical Reformed creeds and confessions, yet you persist with this fiction. In so doing, you show your position to be built upon falsehoods and strawmen.

This exposes the reality of all the warnings --- including Heb3, 2Pet1, James1&5, 1Jn2, 2Jn1, Jude, several of Paul's letters, and most of Scripture. We are charged with "faith" and "abiding in Christ".

Yes, that's right...most of Scripture is about losing salvation. Thank you for making it that much more clear that loss of salvation is the very heart of your teachings.

As we abide, and He in us, His righteousness is ours; if we turn away, sin is possible --- and His righteousness will no longer be ours.

Oh, so you DO believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ? Seems you have a rather odd understanding of what justification actually means though. See, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is only half of it...you forget also that our sins are imputed to Christ on the Cross. Now, either ALL of our sins are imputed to him, or none of them are. Either we are actually forgiven ALL our sins when we believe, or we aren't really forgiven any until we die.

Each time we sin, it is resisting/rejecting God; what we do after sinning determines our future.[/b] We can sin again, or we can be convicted and throw ourselves at His feet in repentance.

If "sin" cannot make us "fall", then we have to erase 1Cor10:12-13. And James1:14-16. And Heb4:11. And Heb12:15. And so much of the rest of Scripture...

So if somebody continually bears false witness against his brother and is not convicted and does not throw themselves at His fee in repentance, where does that leave them?

This is the theme of Scripture, so eloquently stated in Jude: "KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God".

That pretty much says it all. The theme of Scripture is not God's grace in providing the atoning sacrifice of Christ to cover their sins. The theme of Scripture is not that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

No...according to "Responsible Grace" theology, the theme of Scripture is not God and His efforts, but MAN and HIS efforts.

That is precisely why "Responsible Grace" theology isn't about the grace of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it's all about man's efforts.

 

[frumanchu]

That is the truth of Scripture --- no one with unconfessed/unrepented sin, is saved. 1Jn1 is clear:
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Once again Jesus' words in Luke13 apply: "Unless you repent, you will perish!"

Let that be a lesson to you all! Be sure you confess and repent of every last sin....even the ones you weren't aware of...because if you get hit by a bus and missed on, you're toast!

(such a graceless theology is toxic to the life of a disciple of Jesus Christ, keeping them paralyzed in fear rather than encouraged to faith)

We see that all our future sins are NOT forgiven in the past; all our sins are forgiven when we repent and believe --- if we cease to be "believing" and "repentant", we cease to be forgiven. Both positions are not only possible, but fully warned-against.

"Responsible Grace" Theology introduces....

God, The Indian Forgiver

 

[drstevej]

We see that all our future sins are NOT forgiven in the past; all our sins are forgiven when we repent and believe --- if we cease to be "believing" and "repentant", we cease to be forgiven. Both positions are not only possible, but fully warned-against.

Add the sacraments and you're half way across the Tiber.

 

[nobdysfool]

Responsible Grace says "regeneration is resistible". It also says that "regeneration is not God's decision". Two questions immediately arise:

1. If regeneration is not God's decision, whose is it?

2. Can one who is regenerated resist that regeneration?

Let's look at this a little more closely. Question 1, if regeneration is not God's decision, whose is it?. The only possible answer is that regeneration is the sinner's decision. If that is so, how is that accomplished? How can a sinner decide to regenerate himself? Since regeneration is the giving of new life to the dead-in-sins spirit of a man, how does the man give himself life? Can a man do that?

However, if God is the one who regenerates (and I believe that any reasonable person would agree that this is the only possible way regeneration is accomplished), then it is truly God's decision, and God's action, which requires no action on the part of the sinner. Just as Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus had nothing to do with Jesus giving him life in his dead body. Lazarus didn't decide to raise himself. Lazarus didn't "prepare" himself to be raised. He was totally passive. God, by His Spirit, at Jesus' command, brought Lazarus back to life, and Lazarus obeyed Jesus' command to "come forth". So it is with the regeneration of the sinner. God, by His Spirit, regenerates the sinner's dead-in-sins spirit (heart) which brings him to spiritual life, and the ability to hear and respond to the Gospel of Christ with understanding. Regeneration re-orders the sinner's desires, so that he desires spiritual things, the good things, and therefore chooses to believe and receive Christ. Regeneration does not make him perfect, sinless, or remove his so-called "sin nature", it makes him willing, and desirous of Christ, and His forgiveness and indwelling. Not by coercion as is falsely claimed by Responsible Grace in their desire to kill Calvinism at any and all costs, God, by His Spirit in regeneration, re-orders the desires of the sinner to desire Christ rather than sin. That desire for Christ and union with God is a function of the spirit made alive to spiritual things, which is why that desire is not present in the unregenerate, because their spirit is dead in sins and dead to the things of God.

In light of this, question 2 is easlily answered. Since regeneration is accomplished by God without the sinner's help or input, the sinner cannot resist regeneration by God. When the newly born Christian sins, he is not resisting regeneration, as Responsible Grace falsely claims, he is embarking on the journey that all Christians must make, where, as the Lord Jesus learned obedience by the things He suffered while Incarnate, so too must the Christian learn obedience by the things which we suffer, in learning to overcome sin, learning to draw close to God, and in learning to grow in sanctification.

Reasponsible Grace is clearly not teaching correctly as can be seen by the examination of these two points, which undercut Responsible Grace's teaching with Truth, and clear logic, drawn from Basic, Core Christian doctrine.

 

[expos4ever]

"Righteousness" is never "imputed" before repentance and turning-towards-God. And that's all by faith.

Hello Ben: Please read post 363 and see what you think of my understanding of how righteousness can be said to be "imputed to us".

 

[expos4ever]

I believe I've explained my position on this adequately enough in the past. I've stated again and again that the ability to even be "able to do" is a gift from God. Not a decision we make from within by our own strength. If we make it by our own strength - it is a work. You own words confirm it as such - "rather than charged for men to do." So here we are again - you are saying faith isn't a work - but if it comes from within a man's own heart whether it be individually on his own or even with some help from God - it is still works.

Two points. I believe that the standard reformed reading of texts like Eph 2:9 is incorrect. This text, and other like it, are seen as denying salvation by "good works". That would be a very odd thing for Paul to write, since in Romans 2:6-7, he rather clearly affirms the idea that eternal life is granted according to "persisting in doing good":

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

And Paul repeats this same claim twice more in the same passage. And also in texts like 2 Cor 5:10.

However, the contradiction is a false one. As I believe has been shown, Ehp 2:9 entails a denial of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses - the Torah. A contextual analysis shows that this reading makes a lot more sense than a reading where Paul denies salvation by good works. Same thing re a statement denying "salvation by works" in Romans 3 - Paul is actually denying the notion that "doing Torah" is salvific.

So I see no evidence that Paul ever denies the very thing he affirms in Romans 2, that is, salvation by "good works". And to anticipate an objection, these are not the "good works" of the morally self-righteous, they are the good works produced by the action of the Holy Spirit. So in this sense, I think I agree with the spirit of what you say when you give God the "credit" for acting in the life of the believer.

However, since I suggest that Paul never denied the role of "good works" in ultimate justification - in fact he affirms it - I think the argument needs to be re-worked to one where we grant Paul's assertion that we are justified by our good works, but properly qualify this by saying that the "good works" are effectively creditable to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

Second point: Even apart from the above, it seems like a stretch of the boundary of the concept "work" to suggest that a mere freewill act of acceptance constitutes a "work".

 

[Rightglory]

Ben Johnson,

Cygnus, the problem is worse than that --- it's not "almost", it's "no one at all".
The "fatal flaw" includes not recognizing that we DO sin --- therefore, regeneration is resistible. If regeneration was sovereignly-decided, and/or righteousness imputed, and/or repentance unilaterally gifted/granted/bestowed by God, then we would be sinless.
This exposes the reality of all the warnings --- including Heb3, 2Pet1, James1&5, 1Jn2, 2Jn1, Jude, several of Paul's letters, and most of Scripture. We are charged with "faith" and "abiding in Christ".

On this point I can also agree with you. One would wonder that IF God actually unilaterally regenerated man it should be 100%. On the other hand I have had other protestants explain that God ordained man to sin, that man was created mortal. In all three instances, God is the problem of sin in the world. Man is but an agent of God's intention to sin and to condone sin. Hardly what the Scriptures teach. It makes Christ's atonement totally immaterial as it really has no effect since God Himself condones sin, in some cases actually performing sin in man.
The other error is to think that a relationship, such as man with God is finite in this world. Regeneration is simply man being energized by the Holy Spirit to establish a relationship and then work with that believer in maintaining that relationship. Man can fall as easily and for the same reason Adam did in the Garden. God was not holding him to the relationship, Adam was free to choose and since Christ redeemed mankind from the bondage to that fallenness, the Holy Spirit can renew that relationship with man which happens to be called RE -generation of a relationship.

As we abide, and He in us, His righteousness is ours; if we turn away, sin is possible --- and His righteousness will no longer be ours.

We are as righteous as we sin less. It is imparted to us because we live IN Christ and the Holy Spirit lives in us. I John 2:29 which is why we should practice righteousness. As well as I Tim 6:11.

 

[cygnusx1]

Quote:
​

Scripture showing the wider picture ;

" And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." Deuteronomy 28:63
​

He does not delight in their destruction, but is glad to give them what they choose.

Ben says God will not delight in destroying sinners but God's word says He will , who shall we believe ?


If God doesn't delight in the death of any sinner then He cannot seriously threaten to take delight in the death of any sinner , but He does ;


" And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." Deuteronomy 28:63

 

[cygnusx1]

Two points. I believe that the standard reformed reading of texts like Eph 2:9 is incorrect. This text, and other like it, are seen as denying salvation by "good works". That would be a very odd thing for Paul to write, since in Romans 2:6-7, he rather clearly affirms the idea that eternal life is granted according to "persisting in doing good":

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

And Paul repeats this same claim twice more in the same passage. And also in texts like 2 Cor 5:10.

However, the contradiction is a false one. As I believe has been shown, Ehp 2:9 entails a denial of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses - the Torah. A contextual analysis shows that this reading makes a lot more sense than a reading where Paul denies salvation by good works. Same thing re a statement denying "salvation by works" in Romans 3 - Paul is actually denying the notion that "doing Torah" is salvific.

So I see no evidence that Paul ever denies the very thing he affirms in Romans 2, that is, salvation by "good works". And to anticipate an objection, these are not the "good works" of the morally self-righteous, they are the good works produced by the action of the Holy Spirit. So in this sense, I think I agree with the spirit of what you say when you give God the "credit" for acting in the life of the believer.

However, since I suggest that Paul never denied the role of "good works" in ultimate justification - in fact he affirms it - I think the argument needs to be re-worked to one where we grant Paul's assertion that we are justified by our good works, but properly qualify this by saying that the "good works" are effectively creditable to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

Second point: Even apart from the above, it seems like a stretch of the boundary of the concept "work" to suggest that a mere freewill act of acceptance constitutes a "work".

there is a third option , Paul is speaking descriptively NOT conditionally , and no good works ever saved anyone except for the good works of God's Son !

Luke 17:10

That's the way it is with you. When you have done everything you were ordered to do, say, 'We are worthless servants. We have done only what we ought to have done.'"

Conversion means turning from self-righteousness


We turn from our own RIGHTEOUSNESS. Before conversion, man seeks to cover himself with his own fig-leaves, and to make himself acceptable with God, by his own duties. He is apt to trust in himself, and set up his own righteousness, and to reckon his pennies for gold, and not to submit to the righteousness of God. But conversion changes his mind; now he counts his own righteousness as filthy rags. He casts it off, as a man would the verminous tatters of a nasty beggar. Now he is brought to poverty of spirit, complains of and condemns himself; and all his inventory is, ‘I am poor, and miserable, and wretched, and blind, and naked!’ [Rev 3:17]. He sees a world of iniquity in his holy things, and calls his once-idolized righteousness but filth and loss; and would not for a thousand worlds be found in it!
Now he begins to set a high price upon Christ’s righteousness. He sees the need of Christ in every duty, to justify his person and sanctify his performances; he cannot live without Him; he cannot pray without Him. Christ must go with him, or else he cannot come into the presence of God; he leans upon Christ, and so bows himself in the house of his God. He sets himself down for a lost undone man without Him; his life is hid in Christ, as the root of a tree spreads in the earth for stability and nourishment. Before, the gospel of Christ was a stale and tasteless thing; but now—how sweet is Christ! Augustine could not relish his once-admired Cicero, because he could not find in his writings the name of Christ. How emphatically he cries, ‘O most sweet, most loving, most kind, most dear, most precious, most desired, most lovely, most fair!’ all in a breath, when he speaks of and to Christ. In a word, the voice of the convert is, with the martyr, ‘None but Christ!’
Joseph Alleine, Alarm to the Unconverted, 1671

 

[Rightglory]

cygnusx1,

" And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." Deuteronomy 28:63

It is just amazing at how well some can proof text. the subject is not even the same. One is physcial to influence a spiritual renewal while the former the the permanent destruction or perishing of the soul for those who reject Christ. He does not desire it, but because man willfully denies Him and God fulfills His promise of judgement.
In Deuteronomy, God is severely rebuking the Isrealites. It is an exhortation to keep the Covenant. God not only promised destruction of them here, which was later carried out in two captivities as punishment, but also chastisement to reform, return to the Covenant. Then the final was a total dispersion of the Jews by the Romans in 70 AD for disobedience.
None of this has anything to do with the perishing of the soul permanently, eternally.
You really think that God is a tyrannt bent on exacting His pound of flesh upon human creatures?
He punishes in this life and chastises in this life, BECAUSE, He does not desire any to perish permanently, eternally.

 

[expos4ever]

If God doesn't delight in the death of any sinner then He cannot seriously threaten to take delight in the death of any sinner , but He does ;


" And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." Deuteronomy 28:63

I agree with rightglory here. The text you quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the eternal fates of individuals. By context, it is clearly about covenantal punishment for the nation of Israel. Here is the wider context, expressing a clear focus on Israel and threats of punishment for her. The issue of the eternal fate of people is nowhere in sight:

If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the LORD your God- 59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed. 62 You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the LORD your God. 63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess.
64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods—gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

This has nothing to do with eternal fates of people. At the risk of seeming to pile on, a similar mistake is made by many in respect to Romans 9. In texts which clearly deal with God's "choice" in respect to matters in the present world, people erroneously read in "pre-destination" (e.g. Esau and Jacob, Pharoah).

 

[expos4ever]

there is a third option , Paul is speaking descriptively NOT conditionally , and no good works ever saved anyone except for the good works of God's Son !

But the context is really quite clear. Based on what Paul goes on to say in verses 11 and following, the "works" he speaks of in verse 9 must be the works of the Law of Moses, not "good works".

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnusx1,

It is just amazing at how well some can proof text. the subject is not even the same. One is physcial to influence a spiritual renewal while the former the the permanent destruction or perishing of the soul for those who reject Christ. He does not desire it, but because man willfully denies Him and God fulfills His promise of judgement.
In Deuteronomy, God is severely rebuking the Isrealites. It is an exhortation to keep the Covenant. God not only promised destruction of them here, which was later carried out in two captivities as punishment, but also chastisement to reform, return to the Covenant. Then the final was a total dispersion of the Jews by the Romans in 70 AD for disobedience.
None of this has anything to do with the perishing of the soul permanently, eternally.
You really think that God is a tyrannt bent on exacting His pound of flesh upon human creatures?
He punishes in this life and chastises in this life, BECAUSE, He does not desire any to perish permanently, eternally.

your missing the point!

The issue is not about the circumstances of God's DELIGHTING to destroy sinners , but over the blatant proof texting of those who say "God wants everyone saved because he doesn't delight in the death of anyone" , such is clearly false .

There are thousands of persons who God himself ordered to be wiped off the face of this earth , again circumstances aren't being debated , just the presumption that God wills to save every person , which is clearly error.

Furthermore your argument doesn't work , it cannot work ............... unless you believe in second "chance" salvation after physical destruction !

 

[cygnusx1]

But the context is really quite clear. Based on what Paul goes on to say in verses 11 and following, the "works" he speaks of in verse 9 must be the works of the Law of Moses, not "good works".

God doesn't reject a covenant of Good works and replace it with another covenant of good works , instead He removes all grounds of boasting , good works of any kind cannot save , otherwise Grace is no longer Grace .

One needs to carefully distinguish between REWARD and FREE GIFT , all reward is works related , Salvation is NEVER our "reward" , it is the exact opposite of reward , it is sheer Grace , that is , God's ACTIVE good favour towards us saves us.

Those who teach we are saved by "evangelical good works" are guilty of Neo-Nomianism , an old heresy.

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree with rightglory here. The text you quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the eternal fates of individuals. By context, it is clearly about covenantal punishment for the nation of Israel. Here is the wider context, expressing a clear focus on Israel and threats of punishment for her. The issue of the eternal fate of people is nowhere in sight:

I am puzzled that you would take a simple rebuttal and read into it far more than I have said , did I state that the text

" And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you." Deuteronomy 28:63

is dealing with the "eternal fates of individuals" ?

If so , please be kind enough to quote me !!

What I did say and it seems to have gone over your head {and RG } is that simply quoting a text to prove God has no delight in the death of a sinner but rather that he would turn and repent is "proof texting" and is not the full picture given in scripture . You see saying God does not delight in the death of any sinner is a lie , the death of a sinner , whether it be in Ezekiel or Deuteronomy is just that , the death of a sinner , and to say God does not delight in the death of any sinner , when scripture affirms God can delight in the death of sinners is the ONLY point I have thus far made !

In other words your objection and (RG's) is an objection against what ?

what are you objecting to , it cannot be an objection against anything I have thus far said , because i haven't said anything other than there is a wider view. I have so far not explained how or why these texts seem to be at odds , have I ?

so your objections are against a supposed , as yet untold statement.

btw , explain just how God destroying men , with delight , is NOT detrimental to those men being saved ?

are you saying that , when God destroys men it is a merciful act , so that He can save them ? If so how ?

Are you saying that their destruction opens up another opportunity to be saved at the Judgement seat ?

If not , then explain how God's taking DELIGHT to destroy sinners is a sign God wishes to save them !

I am all ears!

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Expos4ever:
Hello Ben: Please read post 363 and see what you think of my understanding of how righteousness can be said to be "imputed to us".
Quoted by Post363:

Paul means what he says in Romans 2 - the criteria or basis for ultimate salvation on the great day of judgement is indeed the "good works" that are manifest in the life of the believer.​

Technically true; we are judged and awarded eternity because of "good works". Also stated in Rev20:12-13.

But in Rev20:15, those who are thrown into the Lake of Fire, are not thrown in because of "deeds", but because of their names being absent from the "Book of Life".

Quote:
But the person who has placed their faith in Jesus can be assured that the outcome of that judgment will be favorable - that we will be deemed to be "righteous" on that last day - precisely and only because we are given the Spirit, and the Spirit will ensure that the necessary good works are indeed performed.​

This is what Scripture says. What we do, is because of what we are --- and what we are is because of Christ-in-us.

Quote:
So it is correct to say that the Christian is imputed with status of righteouness in this specifically anticipatory sense.​

The incorrect understanding of "imputed righteousness", places the "imputing" (by God), before "repenting" (by men). That because of misunderstanding of verses like this:

"...if perhaps God would grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." 2Tim2:25

"It has been granted to you for Christ's sake not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake..." Philip1:29

By perceiving "grant" to mean "conspicuously CHOOSE", it denies man's volition in the event. "Grant" in both verses conveys "provision", and actually repenting/believing/suffering would be a man's choice.

"Imputed-righteousness" does not happen BEFORE repentance. We are righteous because of Him-in-us, and He is in us because of faith.

Repentance is commanded of all men (Acts17:30, Mark1:15). Whole groups are rebuked TOWARDS repentance in Matt23:13, 11:21-24, Jn5:39-47. Jesus warned "unless you repent, you will perish" (Lk13:3,5). Not a word of those makes sense under a "instilled-repentance" paradigm.

Perhaps the issue is because of incorrect understanding of "believe" --- one WHO believes, necessarily turns from sin and receives Jesus and the Spirit --- that is the nature of "saving-belief". There is no such belief that delays repentance and continues in sin. "Predestinary theory" perceives that belief consequents from God's sovereign decision and monergistic regeneration --- and what God sovereignly decrees, cannot be "thwarted/resisted/denied".

So much of Scripture warns US, against "thwarting". Thus "righteousness" is not "monergistically imputed", nor is belief God's choice for men...

 

[nobdysfool]

Two points. I believe that the standard reformed reading of texts like Eph 2:9 is incorrect. This text, and other like it, are seen as denying salvation by "good works". That would be a very odd thing for Paul to write, since in Romans 2:6-7, he rather clearly affirms the idea that eternal life is granted according to "persisting in doing good":

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

And Paul repeats this same claim twice more in the same passage. And also in texts like 2 Cor 5:10.

However, the contradiction is a false one. As I believe has been shown, Ehp 2:9 entails a denial of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses - the Torah. A contextual analysis shows that this reading makes a lot more sense than a reading where Paul denies salvation by good works. Same thing re a statement denying "salvation by works" in Romans 3 - Paul is actually denying the notion that "doing Torah" is salvific.

So I see no evidence that Paul ever denies the very thing he affirms in Romans 2, that is, salvation by "good works". And to anticipate an objection, these are not the "good works" of the morally self-righteous, they are the good works produced by the action of the Holy Spirit. So in this sense, I think I agree with the spirit of what you say when you give God the "credit" for acting in the life of the believer.

However, since I suggest that Paul never denied the role of "good works" in ultimate justification - in fact he affirms it - I think the argument needs to be re-worked to one where we grant Paul's assertion that we are justified by our good works, but properly qualify this by saying that the "good works" are effectively creditable to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

Second point: Even apart from the above, it seems like a stretch of the boundary of the concept "work" to suggest that a mere freewill act of acceptance constitutes a "work".

You appear to be making Paul contradict himself. Good works, the kind that are acceptable to God, are the result of Salvation, not its basis. Those in Romans 2, who persist in doing good, etc., are acceptable to God, not on the basis of those deeds, but rather, those deeds show the condition of their heart before Him. Likewise for those doing evil.

Justification is with regard to sin, not good works. I think Cygnus has rightly pointed out that you seem to be advocating a form of Neo-Nomianism. I hope not.

 

[Ben johnson]

Rom2 is another passage opposing "imputed righteousness, before repentance". Paul wrote:
"Do you think lightly of the riches of God's patience and kindness and forbearance, not knowing that the kindness of God leads to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God..."

Clearly "repentance" is man's choice, not God's. Contextually, those WHO SEEK righteousness, receive eternal life --- those who seek wickedness receive wrath.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by Expos4ever:
Hello Ben: Please read post 363 and see what you think of my understanding of how righteousness can be said to be "imputed to us".
Quoted by Post363:

Paul means what he says in Romans 2 - the criteria or basis for ultimate salvation on the great day of judgement is indeed the "good works" that are manifest in the life of the believer.​

Technically true; we are judged and awarded eternity because of "good works". Also stated in Rev20:12-13.

But in Rev20:15, those who are thrown into the Lake of Fire, are not thrown in because of "deeds", but because of their names being absent from the "Book of Life".

Quote:
But the person who has placed their faith in Jesus can be assured that the outcome of that judgment will be favorable - that we will be deemed to be "righteous" on that last day - precisely and only because we are given the Spirit, and the Spirit will ensure that the necessary good works are indeed performed.​

This is what Scripture says. What we do, is because of what we are --- and what we are is because of Christ-in-us.

Quote:
So it is correct to say that the Christian is imputed with status of righteouness in this specifically anticipatory sense.​

The incorrect understanding of "imputed righteousness", places the "imputing" (by God), before "repenting" (by men).

That is not true. Nowhere has anyone taught or said that God imputes righteousness to a person before they repent. this is a fabrication, and complete falsehood. It is sad that Responsible Grace isbeing defended by falsehoods and made-up fabrications.

That because of misunderstanding of verses like this:

"...if perhaps God would grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." 2Tim2:25

"It has been granted to you for Christ's sake not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake..." Philip1:29

By perceiving "grant" to mean "conspicuously CHOOSE", it denies man's volition in the event. "Grant" in both verses conveys "provision", and actually repenting/believing/suffering would be a man's choice.

Once again, trying to spin things to lead the reader to false conclusions.

"Imputed-righteousness" does not happen BEFORE repentance. We are righteous because of Him-in-us, and He is in us because of faith.

Repeat the falsehood, and then try to spin the terms. Responsible Grace does not understand Justification, imputation, or even the proper order of Salvation. So, falsehoods and straw men are invented and trotted out to make Responsible Grace appear to be something that it is not, and to paint its opponents as something they are not, by attributing positions and words to them that they have never said, nor do they teach. Responsible Grace is defended by falsehoods and is not biblical.

Repentance is commanded of all men (Acts17:30, Mark1:15). Whole groups are rebuked TOWARDS repentance in Matt23:13, 11:21-24, Jn5:39-47. Jesus warned "unless you repent, you will perish" (Lk13:3,5). Not a word of those makes sense under a "instilled-repentance" paradigm.

Now another falsehood, that of "instilled repentance" which no Calvinist has ever taught or said. This is how Responsible Grace is defended, by falsehoods and misrepresentation.

Perhaps the issue is because of incorrect understanding of "believe" --- one WHO believes, necessarily turns from sin and receives Jesus and the Spirit --- that is the nature of "saving-belief". There is no such belief that delays repentance and continues in sin. "Predestinary theory" perceives that belief consequents from God's sovereign decision and monergistic regeneration --- and what God sovereignly decrees, cannot be "thwarted/resisted/denied".

completely misrepresenting the Reformed view, to gain advantage by means of deceit and misrepresentation.

So much of Scripture warns US, against "thwarting". Thus "righteousness" is not "monergistically imputed", nor is belief God's choice for men...

Man cannot impute righteousness to himself. Only God can impute the righteousnbess of Christ to a man. By definition, that is monergistic. It is done, not on the basis of what a man does, but on the basis of Christ and what He did. Salvation is of the Lord. If Responsible Grace truly believed that, and understood it's meaning, there would not be all this misrepresentation, straw men, invented positions that no Reformed/Calvinist has ever held or taught, none of the falsehoods and outright deliberate disparagement and lies against the opponents of Responsible Grace. As has been detailed in previous posts, Responsible Grace is not the Truth, it is not biblical, and in reality it is being systematically defeated and refuted in these pages, as more and more of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] core beliefs are revealed.

 

[nobdysfool]

Rom2 is another passage opposing "imputed righteousness, before repentance". Paul wrote:
"Do you think lightly of the riches of God's patience and kindness and forbearance, not knowing that the kindness of God leads to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God..."

Clearly "repentance" is man's choice, not God's. Contextually, those WHO SEEK righteousness, receive eternal life --- those who seek wickedness receive wrath.

Rom 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

Once again we see scripture misquoted, leaving out words. Notice how God is completely cut out of the picture? He says it's all about what man does. And he tries to make it appear that Calvinists teach that repentance is God's choice, which is NOT true. No Calvinist has ever said that God repents for men, or decided for men to repent. This points to his ignorance of Reformed/Calvinist teaching, a situation which he refuses to correct, and refuses to admit that he does not have the requisite knowledge, and refuses to accept any correction or refutation of his errors in that regard. So he continues to misrepresent, misquote, and invent falsehoods to gain "advantage", but that advantage is not according to knowledge, nor is it according to truth. There is a clear tendency toward "the end justifies the means" at work here. Unfortunately, the first casualty of such thinking is Truth.