How I became a Calvinist

[Ben johnson]

get ready for grammatical gymnastics ........... you will be amazed how some Christians can treat God's Word in order to defend their Dogma.....

Too true! Like re-defining "all" to mean "only SOME", re-defining "fall" to mean "not-REALLY-fall", re-defining "brethren, any among you" to mean "unsaved LURKERS amongst you TRUE-brethern", etcetera etcetera...

Ben's comeback: "He was talking to his disciples..."

Hmmm; does it or does it not say "I chose you to BE disciples"? Is Ben somehow reading it wrong?

...But with many more colors, sizes, et cetera, et cetera...

Ridicule is the sincerest form of flattery; it means there is no valid refutation.

Ben. How would you explain this:

AC 13:46-48 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:

" `I have made you a light for the Gentiles,

that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' " When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

How is it that you clearly recognize "Jews unappointed themSELVES", but then insist that the Gentiles were "monergistically/unilaterally appointed by GOD"? Robertson expounds upon this passage; and states "there is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolute decree of salvation (predestinated-election)." The Jews rejected Jesus; the Gentiles "ranged themselves on God's side (he does not say why)".

"Tetagmenoi" is better translated "positioned" or "placed" --- it brings to mind a military regiment positioned in ranks. Contextually, it is perfectly acceptible to understand vs48 as: "As many as were inclined to eternal life, believed."

See Rm13:1, which DOES say "positioned-by-GOD"; or "ordained by God" if you wish. There are too many passages written by Luke that oppose "predestination".

How do you approach John 6:70?

"Have not I chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" John 6:70

This is the Greek word "eklego" same as in John 15:16. It's the verb form of "eklektos" which is translated "elect." So we could have:

"Have not I elected you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

So Judas was one of the elect, yet he was doomed to destruction.

This is a passage Calvinists can NOT deal with. Contextually, Judas was chosen EQUALLY with the other 11 (ruining the idea that "only the sovereignly-chosen will BE elect and ALL of them WILL"); and conversely as Judas FELL, Jesus asserts that the other 11 could ALSO leave.

Surely if you want to avoid this, you would have to do what Ben does.

What does Ben do?

 

[Ben johnson]

God chose Abraham, he had no choice.

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Rm4:3 I perceive that Abraham was chosen because of faith. Do you perceive that Abraham was faithful because of chosenness? To me, belief CAUSES salvation, unbelief CAUSES condemnation (Jn3:18, 1Jn5:10). Nowhere do I see the idea of "belief CONSEQUENTIAL to being-chosen".

And also, regeneration is AFTER belief, in Titus3:5-6, and connecting that passage to Acts10:45 ("poured" is "poured"!), Paul plainly says (11:17) "AFTER BELIEF!"

God chose Israel, he/they had no choice.

They had choice in Rm9:31-32, and in Heb3:18-19. They were voluntarily "disobedient/unbelieving". Indeed, WE are warned not to fall by imitating their unbelief and disobedience in Heb4:11...

Christ chose his 12 apostles.

Excellent. You recognize that all 12 were chosen by Him. Yet ONE of 'em fell away...

Will you also recognize that in Jn6:67-70, Jesus was plainly worrying that the other eleven could ALSO fall just as JUDAS did? Do you not see the true danger to disciples in verses like Acts20:30?

How do you accommodate Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Kings, Jonah, Psalms, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, 1 John, into a free will religion?

I read verses from all that clearly indicate "free will"; usually "predestination" is refuted simply by reading the context of the verse cited in support of it. Ezk36:26-27 supposedly asserts "monergistic-regeneration" --- but the mirror passage 11:18-21 says "they turn FIRST, and THEN He gives them new hearts; but those who WILL not turn but PREFER abominations He will judge harshly." 2Cor4:3-4 supposedly demonstrates "utter depravity" (thus necessitating monergistic-regeneration) --- but 3:16 very clearly establishes "free will sequence".

I can show you verses from all of those texts you cite that clearly say "God gives EVERY person a chance TO believe". But I'm still waiting explanations for passages like all of Galatians --- they were "running well and obeying the truth" (5:7), they were "begun in the Spirit" (3:1) and "KNOWN BY God" (4:9); but in returning to weak/worthless things (4:9), in subjecting themselves to a yoke of slavery (5:1), pursuing LAW (works) rather than grace (see Rm9:31-32), they are "fallen from grace and severed from Christ". Gal5:4. I see no way of denying "fell from true salvation". Do you?

I see no way of denying the sincere and undeniable warning in Heb3:12-14, not to be "deceived by sin to hard-heartedness that falls away from the living God". Nor to deny the contextual conditional, "We are partners in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." (3:14) Nor can we deny the contextual "let us FEAR ...lest anyone FALL; therefore do not IMITATE the Israelites' unbelief and disobedience, and FALL --- not enter His (eternal) rest!" (4:1,11)

How can anyone deny that?

 

[Desolate Owl]

What does Ben do?

Interpret Scripture correctly?

I haven't read that many of your posts. I just saw a Calvinist having a go at you for not reading "choose" the way they wanted in John 15:16 when Calvinists cannot read "choose" in that way in John 6:70. I hope you didn't see my comment as being negative as it wasn't intended as such.

 

[cygnusx1]

Too true! Like re-defining "all" to mean "only SOME", re-defining "fall" to mean "not-REALLY-fall", re-defining "brethren, any among you" to mean "unsaved LURKERS amongst you TRUE-brethern", etcetera etcetera...

ben , it is always a good thing to just look at words like 'all' and 'world' to see just how many different ways those words are used ........ when you discover that they hardly ever are meant as every single human in Scripture it then becomes legitamate to reconsider them in the light of context ........ which is something both Universalists and Arminians fail to do!

 

[Ben johnson]

Interpret Scripture correctly?

Thank ya', sir!

ben , it is always a good thing to just look at words like 'all' and 'world' to see just how many different ways those words are used ........

The problem is when interpretation inputs meaning where it wasn't meant; iow, "proving the point by presumption of the conclusion".

Case in point, Romans5:18. No one denies that "condemantion came to ALL MEN", but Calvinists assert that the second "all-men" doesn't carry the same meaning as the FIRST. It is proposed that: "condemnation CAME to all-men-everyone", but justification CAME to "all-men-SOME". I see no way to deny that "justification came in exactly the same quantity and scope as came condemnation".

Especially when it says "SO-THEN-condemnation, EVEN-SO-justification". That's an exact equality. One which is repeated in the next verse, "SO-THEN-many, EVEN-SO-many".

Condemnation CAME to everyone; and there is a condition that one must sin to BE condemned. Verse 5:12 says "all men sinned so all are condemned".

Justification CAME to everyone; and there is a condition that one must RECEIVE the abundance of grace and RECEIVE the gift of righteousness to be justified; so says verse 17.

it then becomes legitimate to reconsider them in the light of context ........

I agree. Context of Rom5:12-21 plainly shows "universal availability of justification; to those who believe/receive it." The only reason to presume that the second "pas-anthropos" doesn't really mean "everyone", is the prior presumption of "limited atonement"...

 

[cygnusx1]

Thank ya', sir!

The problem is when interpretation inputs meaning where it wasn't meant; iow, "proving the point by presumption of the conclusion".

Case in point, Romans5:18. No one denies that "condemantion came to ALL MEN", but Calvinists assert that the second "all-men" doesn't carry the same meaning as the FIRST. It is proposed that: "condemnation CAME to all-men-everyone", but justification CAME to "all-men-SOME". I see no way to deny that "justification came in exactly the same quantity and scope as came condemnation".

Especially when it says "SO-THEN-condemnation, EVEN-SO-justification". That's an exact equality. One which is repeated in the next verse, "SO-THEN-many, EVEN-SO-many".

Condemnation CAME to everyone; and there is a condition that one must sin to BE condemned. Verse 5:12 says "all men sinned so all are condemned".

Justification CAME to everyone; and there is a condition that one must RECEIVE the abundance of grace and RECEIVE the gift of righteousness to be justified; so says verse 17.
I agree. Context of Rom5:12-21 plainly shows "universal availability of justification; to those who believe/receive it." The only reason to presume that the second "pas-anthropos" doesn't really mean "everyone", is the prior presumption of "limited atonement"...

ben , I sincerely believe you are wrong , and I know that you are far far away from any changing (why do I still post ? For others to check these things against the scriptures and to hopefully make up their own mind from what is said)

here is a post that will hopefully show others where you have erred....... obviously it will not show you so don't be alarmed ... I am well beyond any hope of change.

''This is wrong. The Holy Ghost did not by the apostle write "all men". He wrote pantas anthropous. Now the question is what does that original Greek phrase mean, not what the English translation of it can be construed to mean. In particular, what does pantas mean?
CHS has assumed that it means "all" in the sense of "all without exception". As such he betrays a lack of linguistic understanding, which, sadly, was the sorry lot of most evangelicals in the Victorian era, when the old principles of Reformation exegesis had become eclipsed by etymological studies that eventually vitiated the reliability of concordances, dictionaries, Word Studies, and lexicons. Much of the lexicographical work of the Victorian era and of the early 20th Century has been shown to be seriously faulty, riddled with the error of an overriding philosophy known amongst linguistic scholars as "etymologism". This very error in fact bolstered the Baptist view of immersionism, and gave it an air of validity the Word of God never gave it. CHS evidently fell for that, and fell for a whole plethora of similar errors. The old Reformed exegesis put heavy emphasis on proper semantic study, and the usage of the analogia fidei, or the analogy of the faith, whereby difficult or obscure scriptures were to be interpreted in the light of their contexts, and in the light of the general scope and tenor of Scripture as a whole. As the Westminster Confession states: Ch. 2 Para. IX: "The infallible rule of interpretation of any Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." Again, more recently the rising science of linguistics has rolled back the darkness in this respect, and we see how the old Reformers had it right, after all. With regard to pantas in this text, linguistic studies bearing on New Testament Greek indicate that this word, like most words in most languages, does not have one fixed meaning. It has a spectrum of meanings, known in linguistic science as a "semantic range". Within the semantic range of pantas the lexicographers supply us with a whole set of different meanings, or "elements." Which element of meaning is active in any given usage of a word is determined by its context. So first, what is the semantic range of pantas?

For the set pas, (Nominative singular masculine of which pantas is the Accusative masculine plural) we find the following meaning elements listed in Louw & Nida (Semantic Domain GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON: United Bible Societies 1st edit. 1988)

pas a. all
b. any
c. total
d. whole
e. every kind of

Now a) above will unparcel to reveal: A1: All without exception, and ...
A2 All without distinction

And e) above will unparcel to reveal: E1 some of all sorts, and
E2 all manner of

Now which of these meanings did the Holy Ghost intend us to take as being the correct one to fit 1 Tim. 2:4? What do we do? Shall we say, Oh, I like this one, I’ll make it this one? Or, I feel led to A1, I’m certain that’s what God intended, I feel the witness within me? The Arminians insist on A1. So did CHS, surprise! surprise! On what grounds? CHS gives us none. In this sermon he can only hold, and rather bombastically at that, to bald insistence on it, "the Holy ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men’."

But now, what about the context? And what about the whole analogia fidei, by which we are to be guided when interpreting any difficult text such as this? Well first, the whole scope and tenor of Scripture shout that the CHS and Arminian interpretation A1 will put the text in contradiction to the Divine decrees. Knowing this, the Arminians do their utmost to extract as much anti-Calvinist mileage out of this text as they possibly can. (Strange, that CHS and the Arminians are fellow-travelers along the same road, in the same direction here!) But CHS, and it seems, his "backers" at the Banner of Truth, are not as canny as the Arminians, they want A1 as well, and the contradiction it throws up against the Divine Decrees, and the Divine Nature as revealed elsewhere in Scripture! And this massive contradiction must, so it seems, in Spurgeon’s words, "be swallowed at once by an effort of faith". (I can still hear Karl Barth’s ghost laughing and droning out: "Leap of faith, leap of faith .. indeed, ..they’ve gone as far as that!").

But manifestly, meaning elements e), and E1, and E2 will fit beautifully, and eliminate any contradiction with the rest of Scripture. That is, that God "will have all manner of men to be saved". In an age like the 1st Cent. AD, long before the rise of egalitarian democracies, when society was heavily stratified socially, and racial prejudices inflamed, it would have been vitally important to draw attention to the fact that God’s salvation was not only for one racial group, (the Jews, for instance, and much of the New Testament addresses precisely that question) or for one class of Society. Not only peasants, and slaves, but even middle class professionals and even rulers were to be addressed with the Gospel ("every creature", was emphasized, Mark 16:15). It was important to emphasize that "some of all sorts" of people were to be saved, by the Divine decree. And in historical practice, that is precisely how it has worked out, not all men without exception, but some of all sorts.

Now, it remains to examine the immediate context to the verse concerned. Notice how the phrase "all men" is coupled not only to the phrase "to be saved", but also to the clause: "to come unto the knowledge of the truth". In fact, in the Greek the coupling is closer than in the English. So it is God’s will that "all men" come "unto the knowledge of the truth" as well as that they be saved. Manifestly, they cannot be saved, without first coming unto the knowledge of the truth. (Rom. 10:14). And equally manifest is the fact that down through all the Old Testament period, and through the New Testament period, it has not been the will of God that "all men without exception" should come "unto the knowledge of the truth", but it has manifestly and indubitably been His will that "all manner of men", or "all kinds of men" should so come, and be saved. Some indeed, as Saint John says, "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9 and cf. Rev. 11:9). Not all without exception.

Let the reader judge, what about all the billions of human beings absolutely excluded from the knowledge of the Gospel, and therefore salvation, for millennia? The millions of pre-Columbian America, the vast billions of China, and the East, and the manifold tribes of Africa ... all precluded from viewing the Gospel dispensation for most of the history of the world. Which interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:3-4 fits with reality, that of Mr. CHS, or the one of the grand phalanx of the old Reformed exegetes, like Calvin in his sermons and commentaries on this text, the very one we have advanced above?

http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=312

 

[Ben johnson]

ben , I sincerely believe you are wrong , and I know that you are far far away from any changing (why do I still post ? For others to check these things against the scriptures and to hopefully make up their own mind from what is said)

But each position you have posted in support of Calvinism, has been refuted. "Monergistic-giving-TO-believe" in Jn6:44&65 is shown (by Jn17:6) to reflect "given-THROUGH-belief", rather than "given-so-that-they-CAN-believe". The idea of "regeneration-preceding-belief" has been refuted, by Titus3:5-6 alone, and by that passage also in conjunction with Acts10:45 & 11:17. It's been shown that Jesus rebuked people for refusing TO believe and repent. And verse after verse admonishes us to "abide in Christ and in salvation".

The lengthy passage you cited ignores a rather important point --- both words "ALL", are connected with:

SO THEN (all) / EVEN SO (all)

I see no basis for differing in understanding between the two "all" words. Condemnation CAME to all men, justification CAME to all men. So then, even so. Identical, indistinguishable; there is no reason to continue thinking "limited atonement".

ben , I sincerely believe you are wrong , and I know that you are far far away from any changing (why do I still post ? For others to check these things against the scriptures and to hopefully make up their own mind from what is said)

But I have great hope for you, Cygnus. I'm sure that everyone will check out THIS post against Scripture; how can it be refuted?

Can you refute any point?

 

[cygnusx1]

But each position you have posted in support of Calvinism, has been refuted. "Monergistic-giving-TO-believe" in Jn6:44&65 is shown (by Jn17:6) to reflect "given-THROUGH-belief", rather than "given-so-that-they-CAN-believe". The idea of "regeneration-preceding-belief" has been refuted, by Titus3:5-6 alone, and by that passage also in conjunction with Acts10:45 & 11:17. It's been shown that Jesus rebuked people for refusing TO believe and repent. And verse after verse admonishes us to "abide in Christ and in salvation".

The lengthy passage you cited ignores a rather important point --- both words "ALL", are connected with:

SO THEN (all) / EVEN SO (all)

I see no basis for differing in understanding between the two "all" words. Condemnation CAME to all men, justification CAME to all men. So then, even so. Identical, indistinguishable; there is no reason to continue thinking "limited atonement".
But I have great hope for you, Cygnus. I'm sure that everyone will check out THIS post against Scripture; how can it be refuted?

Can you refute any point?

I don't recall you EVER refuting one single thing ben ........... which makes me realise all the more we are on 'different planets' .. when you read scripture you see man then God ......... when I read scripture I see God then man ....

same goes for all the other subjects !!

 

[Ben johnson]

I don't recall you EVER refuting one single thing ben ........... which makes me realise all the more we are on 'different planets' ..

But each position you have posted in support of Calvinism, has been refuted. "Monergistic-giving-TO-believe" in Jn6:44&65 is shown (by Jn17:6) to reflect "given-THROUGH-belief", rather than "given-so-that-they-CAN-believe". The idea of "regeneration-preceding-belief" has been refuted, by Titus3:5-6 alone, and by that passage also in conjunction with Acts10:45 & 11:17. It's been shown that Jesus rebuked people for refusing TO believe and repent. And verse after verse admonishes us to "abide in Christ and in salvation".

See if you can refute the refutations.

when you read scripture you see man then God ......... when I read scripture I see God then man ....

I see God --- becoming man in the person of Christ; God-from-God, always separate, always one. True God, and God's Son; begotten not created. Coming to die on a Cross that "all who WILL believe may be saved".

Salvation availed to all; and saved are they who believe and receive Him.

Those who believe, receive, and walk in Him for a lifetime. Simplicity of Scripture.

 

[cygnusx1]

See if you can refute the refutations.
I see God --- becoming man in the person of Christ; God-from-God, always separate, always one. True God, and God's Son; begotten not created. Coming to die on a Cross that "all who WILL believe may be saved".

Salvation availed to all; and saved are they who believe and receive Him.

Those who believe, receive, and walk in Him for a lifetime. Simplicity of Scripture.

ben , salvation is not even preached to all ...... so according to Romans 10 how can they believe without a messenger ? They cannot , so bang goes your arguement!

 

[Ben johnson]

ben , salvation is not even preached to all ...... so according to Romans 10 how can they believe without a messenger ? They cannot , so bang goes your arguement!

It has long been a part of my understanding that if believing is conditioned upon hearing, then believing is by will and not predestination. If we believe by predestination, then we have no part in the decision TO believe. But if belief is a CHOICE, then hearing the Gospel must be causal rather than simply the means through which they are predestined.

That none of the indigenous peoples of the world professed Christ BEFORE the advent of missionaries screams loudly of "willful belief" rather than "predestination". Did God's predestining-will conveniently change once missionaries began travelling to the Americas, to Africa, to Australia? How can anyone believe that? The Gospel is preached that men MAY believe and be saved. Not "so that God can save the predestined"...

 

[cygnusx1]

It has long been a part of my understanding that if believing is conditioned upon hearing, then believing is by will and not predestination. If we believe by predestination, then we have no part in the decision TO believe. But if belief is a CHOICE, then hearing the Gospel must be causal rather than simply the means through which they are predestined.

That none of the indigenous peoples of the world professed Christ BEFORE the advent of missionaries screams loudly of "willful belief" rather than "predestination". Did God's predestining-will conveniently change once missionaries began travelling to the Americas, to Africa, to Australia? How can anyone believe that? The Gospel is preached that men MAY believe and be saved. Not "so that God can save the predestined"...

did the men who wrote the scriptures have a choice about what to write ?

would it have mattered if they had written things differently , perhaps not ever mentioning some things ..............

Or was their writing God's writing ?

 

[Ben johnson]

They wrote things as they understood them. Clearly some of the Gospels and letters were written with previous writings laid open before them as reference. There are differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; but not contradictory, some just include more narrative than others.

The writers were inspired of God in what they wrote; they wrote what they saw, what they heard, and what their spirits were led to write.

There are many verses that "predestined-electionists" cannot fit to predestination doctrine....

 

[LukeBritt]

Because God uses human instrumentality to reach people with the Gospel is not a rejection of predestination. It just means that they were predestined to be saved at the time that they were saved.

 

[cygnusx1]

They wrote things as they understood them. Clearly some of the Gospels and letters were written with previous writings laid open before them as reference. There are differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; but not contradictory, some just include more narrative than others.

The writers were inspired of God in what they wrote; they wrote what they saw, what they heard, and what their spirits were led to write.

There are many verses that "predestined-electionists" cannot fit to predestination doctrine....

......... and so if God can inspire the writers of scripture so tha whatever they write is THE WORD OF GOD and not merely the word of men , without interfering with their freedom (not making them robots) why would it be any problem whatsoever for God to have full control and Predestination over every act of man ?

 

[Ben johnson]

Because God uses human instrumentality to reach people with the Gospel is not a rejection of predestination. It just means that they were predestined to be saved at the time that they were saved.

The fact remains that essentially no one received/confessed Jesus before missionaries. Scripture aside (because I believe Scripture clearly refutes Predestination), you are left with two possibilities:

1. God conveniently did not elect people before technology allowed missionaries
2. Hearing CAUSES belief (against belief being "predestined")

That's some kind of faith-in-predestination which endorses the idea of God not-electing-them PRIOR to the Gospel being taught. Pragmatically --- why would the proportion of "elect/non-elect" be any different BEFORE missionaries, than AFTER? Isn't God sovereign enough to elect people regardless of whether they can be taught Jesus' Gospel?

......... and so if God can inspire the writers of scripture so that whatever they write is THE WORD OF GOD and not merely the word of men , without interfering with their freedom (not making them robots) why would it be any problem whatsoever for God to have full control and Predestination over every act of man ?

It's not a question of whether "it's a problem if God could have control and predestination over every man's acts". You and I agree that Scripture is inspired by God (2Tim3:16). But how is that inspiration accomplished?

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes and beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life ...we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life... what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also..." 1Jn1:1-3

That is the means of their inspiration. They saw Jesus, they learned from Him; they wrote what He taught them. In what I quoted from you just above, it seems to be presenting some kind of "sovereign OVER-RIDE of their personalities" --- so that they wrote what God intended. (It does suggest "robots".) But the reality is that they experienced the true Christ, and learned His Gospel from Him. And then wrote what they KNEW.

 

[LukeBritt]

I believe that hearing causes belief. Romans 10.

 

[cygnusx1]

The fact remains that essentially no one received/confessed Jesus before missionaries. Scripture aside (because I believe Scripture clearly refutes Predestination), you are left with two possibilities:

1. God conveniently did not elect people before technology allowed missionaries
2. Hearing CAUSES belief (against belief being "predestined")

That's some kind of faith-in-predestination which endorses the idea of God not-electing-them PRIOR to the Gospel being taught. Pragmatically --- why would the proportion of "elect/non-elect" be any different BEFORE missionaries, than AFTER? Isn't God sovereign enough to elect people regardless of whether they can be taught Jesus' Gospel?
It's not a question of whether "it's a problem if God could have control and predestination over every man's acts". You and I agree that Scripture is inspired by God (2Tim3:16). But how is that inspiration accomplished?

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes and beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life ...we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life... what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also..." 1Jn1:1-3

That is the means of their inspiration. They saw Jesus, they learned from Him; they wrote what He taught them. In what I quoted from you just above, it seems to be presenting some kind of "sovereign OVER-RIDE of their personalities" --- so that they wrote what God intended. (It does suggest "robots".) But the reality is that they experienced the true Christ, and learned His Gospel from Him. And then wrote what they KNEW.

ben , how can I put this ................... you really need to do some more work on Divine Inspiration of The Scriptures ........ the writers were prophetic , they penned the very words of God ....... no errors , no misunderstandings , no memory problems .....

Go to the Old Testament and consider carefully the level of accuracy demanded for a Prophet of God . Then consider the Scriptures clearly state that God put HIS WORD into the mouths of the prophets..... they were not merely remembering what they might say .... they were under the control of God.

 

[Ben johnson]

I believe that hearing causes belief. Romans 10.

Yes --- I perceive that too. But think about what that means --- if hearing causes belief, then belief cannot be consequential to predestination. Belief must be causal to salvation.

If God predestines people to salvation --- that is to say, if God regenerates someone BEFORE he believes --- then belief is not tied to hearing, it is only the consequence of God's decision to "elect" and "regenerate" them.

A monergistically/unilaterally-regenerated person cannot do anything but believe; "faith" becomes "irresistible". It would not matter if he later hears the Gospel or not; his belief is still predestined.

If regeneration is subordinate to BELIEF, then it can be "tied to hearing" --- for hearing the Gospel can cause conviction, and conviction is belief.

"How can they believe in what they have not heard? And how can they hear without a preacher?" Rm10:14 Therefore belief is the consequence of a convicted heart, not a monergistically-regenerated-with-or-without-hearing-heart.

"When they heard, they were pierced to the heart (smitten in conscience) and asked, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' Peter answered, 'Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and all who are far off, as many as God shall call to Himself.' And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation!' So then those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day three thousand souls. " Acts2:37-42

This passage does not assert "as many (FEW ELECT) He shall call" --- it asserts, "they were convicted and believed/repented". The "receive the Spirit" is the same as "poured" in Acts10:45, it is the same as "poured" in Titus3:6; it is through the received Spirit that repentance comes. After belief. Peter did not proclaim "REPENT, all you whom God has predestinedly-elected (of course you WILL repent, I'm exhorting you to follow God's sovereign-predestination which you cannot AVOID following)".

Peter truly charged them TO repent and to BE saved...

 

[Ben johnson]

"As many as He shall call to Himself", harmonizes perfectly with "He shall call ALL to salvation" (Jn12:32). It harmonizes perfectly with "He commands ALL to repent" (Acts17:30).

It was not "who-few-elect" who were saved in that Acts2 passage; it was "who received" that became saved. The promise is "to as many as He shall call" --- everyone-called; and "whoever receives Jesus and His Gospel becomes saved"...