How, then, is the Calvinist refuted? (2)

[Ben johnson]

there is ONLY ONE general, bodily resurrection which occurs in the last day, the Second coming of Christ.
The "first resurrection" refered to in Rev 20 is the spiritual resurrection all believers experience in baptism. Rom 6 again. That is the first resurrection, whereby we enter into Christ's Kingdom by faith and will be saved through faith. That faith prevents believers from being condemned in that last judgment or the physical one. If you are IN Christ, then the second death, eternal separation has no power over you.
Those with Christ are reigning with Him right now. This is the Kingdom, it has come. It came on Jesus' first day of ministery. Repent, for the Kingdom is at hand.

Hi, "RG"! (I love how "RG" also coincidentally implies "Responsible Grace". )

There are two bodily resurrections; first, for the righteous --- "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded, who had not worshipped the beast nor had received the mark, and they came to life and reigned with Him for a thousand years; the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection."

The passage only speaks of "Tribulation saints"; but the idea that all deceased believers are in that "First Resurrection", is strongly implied by verse 6: "Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the First Resurrection, against these the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years."

You better believe He has authority over death.

Some groups like JW's, confuse "firstborn" in Col1:15, thinking it means "born-first". But it's "rank, pre-eminence". Just as Esau was born first, and Jacob became the "firstborn" (so too Ephraim and Manessah), Jesus is "supreme over all creation". Thus in 17, He has pre-eminence also over death.

All authority was given to Him. He conquered death by death. Trampling down death by His own death and resurrection. Death is no more. The condemnation of Adam is no longer in effect. It actually never was since God promised the Messiah at the Garden exist.

Yes!

Christ is Lord OVER ALL. Is He not the Sovereign Lord? Did God not place all things IN Him, and did He not reconcile all things to Himself, Col 1:15-20.

Notice that verse 19 says "having made peace through the blood of His Cross". No one belongs to the Cross, but by belief in Jesus.

Thus this aligns with "reconcillation to all being the PROVISION, and belief receiving the FULFILLMENT". Perfect harmony with what Paul said in Col1:21-23, that we are reconciled IF we continue steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus.

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes, they are, but then just how do all those unbelievers rise from the dead. You stated that LIFE is only granted by or through faith? If you change your mind, just how do they get raised, and why are they different than beleivers. If unbelievers have some other way to be raised, why did Christ need to raise believers differently?

Unbelievers are raised to judgment. They have not been granted "eternal life" --- see Rom2:6-8, and how Peter says in 1:1:5 that "eternal life is reserved in Heaven for us".

You cannot be raised and not have immortality, eternal existance. Immortality was already awarded mankind in Gen 3:15, it just was not finally and completely fulfilled until the last day when Death is the last enemy.
Rom 2:6-8 is not clear, but vs 11 makes it quite clear that there is no partiality with God. All of mankind will be immortal, they are because Christ arose from the grace and conquered death.He rstored our mortal natures to immortality.

They can if they're then cast into the lake. All I'm doing, is quoting Rev20; John plainly asserts two resurrections, the second to judgment; and anyone found not written in the Book of Life, is cast into the fire.

You are evading it. You have not yet made any direct statement how the unbeliever can be raised from the dead. You say and agree that they are being raised, but nothing about the cause or how.

Rev20:5,6,10

then you now agree with me. That is precisely why the unbelievers can arise from the dead. God had mercy upon all of mankind, he saved all mankind from death. He gave to all men justification unto life. How plain can it be, Ben. Yet you strolled all around it, and maybe still do.

There are those who are "raised", but who do not have "reconcilliation".

Vs 18-19 is a restatement of 17, so how can it be recinding it?

Both "condemnation", and "justification" came conditionally; for men to BE condemned, they must SIN. Verse 12 asserts that "all do sin". Thus, all meet the condition for condemnation.

...likewise, justification came to ALL, exactly in the same way/measure that condemnation came. But it is ALSO conditional, verse 17 asserts those who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and who RECEIVE the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ.

It's clear that "REIGN-WITH-CHRIST", equates to "are justified".

So though all meet the condition for "condemnation", not all meet the condition for "justification". This is why I cited John1:12 --- the condition, is "believe and receive Jesus"...

It is speaking of believers. But it would be impossible without life for anyone to beleive. you are still under the condemnation of Adam,. permanent death, dust to dust.
Just a note here. If you want only the believes being raised here because of Christ, then you have the Calvinist viewpoint that Christ did indeed elect and predestined only some to beleive, ONLY THOSE THAT HE RAISED FROM THE DEAD. This is precisely what they believe. Only those Christ saved are the elect and will be in union with him.

I think you and I agree that the CALL to salvation to EVERYONE, by Jesus (Jn12:32), is sufficient to overcome depravity inasmuch as each CAN believe.

...but unless one DOES believe, he has not life. "He who HAS the Son, has the LIFE; he who does not have the Son has not the life." 1Jn5:12

Alas, I'm outta time --- but wanted to quote this excellent statment:

All it confirms is that those that believe and live In Christ and show love have been born of God.
There is no order here at all.

There is not the order that Calvinism needs.

Well said.

 

[CCWoody]

CCWoody,

You have never established that point, Scripture has never taught that faith follows regeneration. It is explicitedly just the reverse.
But, that is not the point I was making in the post to Ben when I also included your view.
You also ONLY believe that Christ died for some, that only some were saved from death. Thus theologically, you still have all men still under the condemnation of Adam. If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not risen. Your view has explicitedly stated that most of mankind is left under Adam. Christ only redeemed the so-called elect, those predestinated. That view theologically precludes that Christ never even arose from the dead.
Furthermore. if left under Adam, then there is no need to call them reprobates, or even unbelievers, and hell does not exist in your view. If under Adam they are already condemned, to death permanently, dust to dust. They essentially no longer exist, as human beings, they have been annihilated.
But like Ben, you will also say that the dead do indeed arise at the last day. But you have no answer as to how. Your internal theology is not consistant, let alone consistant with Scripture.

All it confirms is that those that believe and live In Christ and show love have been born of God.
There is no order here at all.

And your religion teaches that man is saved by believing in the Easter Bunny.

Shesh, talk about just making up stuff as you go along.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben,

There are two bodily resurrections; first, for the righteous --- "I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded, who had not worshipped the beast nor had received the mark, and they came to life and reigned with Him for a thousand years; the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection."
The passage only speaks of "Tribulation saints"; but the idea that all deceased believers are in that "First Resurrection", is strongly implied by verse 6: "Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the First Resurrection, against these the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years."

You can call them tribulation saints. They are the saints that have died since the beginning of time. The Kingdom that Christ is reigning over is now and forevermore. There is no end to that Kingdom. We, Christians have been in many tribulations. The first decades were quite bloody and it is those very Christians that John is addressing. Do not give up hope. Christ is not abandoning you, just because you are being persecuted and killed. You shall reign with Him and they are, NOW!.

Some groups like JW's, confuse "firstborn" in Col1:15, thinking it means "born-first". But it's "rank, pre-eminence". Just as Esau was born first, and Jacob became the "firstborn" (so too Ephraim and Manessah), Jesus is "supreme over all creation". Thus in 17, He has pre-eminence also over death.

Ben, you have it clearly understood, you just don't beleive it. Absolutely Christ has authority over death. He conquered death. He is the LIFE of the World. He is the Savior of the World. He is Supreme over His Creation having overcome the power of Satan, death, and now reigns Supreme and we shall reign with Him. That is why the universe recieved LIFE. Adam plunged the universe into death and corruption. Christ restored that created order back to LIFE and back completely under His Control. He did indeed reconcile the World to Himself. Done deal.

Notice that verse 19 says "having made peace through the blood of His Cross". No one belongs to the Cross, but by belief in Jesus.

Quite contrary. God made peace with mankind through the blood of Christ on the Cross. All the sins of the world were propitiated. If not, then it can never be, "whosoever" believeth, but which ones can believe. Christ gave life to all of mankind, SO THAT EACH CAN MAKE THE FREE CHOICE. Upon making that choice, they seek repentance which is ONLY possible by His atonement. Also to remain IN Christ, confession must be made to forgive the sins, the constant sinning we do each day. We can ONLY remain IN Christ by removing the sins that separate us. Thus God can reveal to us, that He does indeed desire that all men come to know Him. If He did not propitiate thesins of theworld, Christ would of necessity be selective, particular, partial to those whose particular sins He propitiated. But,. thanks be to God, He showed mercy to all of mankind. After all, all bear His Image. None would be destroyed by death. NONE, John 6:39.

Thus this aligns with "reconcillation to all being the PROVISION, and belief receiving the FULFILLMENT". Perfect harmony with what Paul said in Col1:21-23, that we are reconciled IF we continue steadfast and not be moved away from Jesus.

It is effective ONLY to those who seek repentance, seek confession of their sins. It is only possible because He first reconciled mankind through the body of flesh, life, immortality. vs22.

 

[Rightglory]

Ben,

Unbelievers are raised to judgment. They have not been granted "eternal life" --- see Rom2:6-8, and how Peter says in 1:1:5 that "eternal life is reserved in Heaven for us".

Ben, you are not even addressing the question. How can they even be raised. It does not even matter for what purpose, the fact they are being raised. How can you account for it.
By the way, all the dead are raised, that is beleivers and unbelievers, all for one thing, judgment. But the reality is that believers will not be condemned. But we all will be judged whether we should be or not be condemned.
The text of Rom 2:6-8 is eternal life to whom all is in the context which is all dead. All will be judged according to our works. Those to eternal life (with Christ) which is the most important, the purpose of Christ coming, but also those others who also have eternal life, but to separation from God. We are not speaking here of some human beings, and all the others piles of dust. They have all been rasied, and if raised then human beings, body and soul, eternal, immortal existance.
I Pet 1:5. Read vs 3, the context is speaking to Christians, but we know from all the other multitude of texts indicating that Christ's resurrection was effective for every single human being.
The inheritance it is speaking about is the salvation of our souls. That union we made upon faith, repentance, baptism, continued faithfulness throughout our life is awaiting inperishable, to be given, finalized, revealed in that last day. We are kept by the power of God, but through our faith. If we lose faith, obviously, we are no longer being kept and we will be counted among those condemned.

They can if they're then cast into the lake. All I'm doing, is quoting Rev20; John plainly asserts two resurrections, the second to judgment; and anyone found not written in the Book of Life, is cast into the fire.

Yes, you have pointed that out, but they are not the same. One is spiritual happens to each beleiver upon being "born again". See Rom 6. The other is the physical one by which all are being judged. But those of the first are not condemned, because they long ago, passed from death to life, (spritually) upon baptism. They are here clearly being judged, but not condemned. The fact that you have the Book open and those beleivers are found in it, and those others, the unbeleivers are cast into hell. (We won't get into hell here, but it is eternal. It is a physical existance, enough said on that topic)

My statement: You are evading it. You have not yet made any direct statement how the unbeliever can be raised from the dead. You say and agree that they are being raised, but nothing about the cause or how.
Your response:
Rev20:5,6,10

Verse 5 does not even address unbelievers.It is addressing the faithful, who have already experienced the first resurrection, baptism. The others do not address it either. They simply confirm that there is a resurrection of every living soul. we have all died, will die.
You have yet to explain just how they can be raised, not that they are. You are strolling around the answer.

There are those who are "raised", but who do not have "reconcilliation".

Rom 5:18-19 may use the word, "justification" to life, but justification, redemption, reconcile, made righteous, made acceptable all mean the very same thing. Christ justified mankind unto life. Man has absolutely nothing to do with this act of Christ. When we accept this Great Gift, we simply need to believe, and that justifies US to God. Different justification. Same meaning though. But the initiator is different.

Both "condemnation", and "justification" came conditionally; for men to BE condemned, they must SIN. Verse 12 asserts that "all do sin". Thus, all meet the condition for condemnation.

Ah, even more differences. Not what salvation is even about. We are speaking about the condemnation that we have through Adam. It has absolutely nothing to do with our personal sins. That is why the condemnation of Adam is so unjust and unmerciful. We, as human beings were condemned to death, annihilation, permanent separation of body and soul, dust to dust, Gen 3:19. It is that CONDEMNATION THAT CHRIST OVERCAME. It is death, physical death that He redeemed mankind from. It is the fall. We needed to be restored to the position we had before the fall, to be able to freely join with God to fulfil our created purpose. That is why hell and heaven don't even exist, IF Christ would have never been in the equation.
It is why the equation is there in the first place. As in Adam we all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
There is absolutely not a single condition upon that salvation. This is what the Calvinist get all twisted about with the verse in Rom 9 when it is speaking of "who am I that I can tell God what to do. He is the potter and I'm the clay" phrase. Paul is speaking about who will be saved and thus the answer comes in Rom 11:32. The comparison is even given in that one verse. Why Paul asks, Because God in in Mercy consigned all men to disobedience (death) so that He might have mercy upon all of mankind.
He did it through the Incarnation. God condemned mankind, that is, death was inherited through our human nature, we became mortal. Christ assumed that fallen human nature, so that by consubstantiality with the common essence of man, our human nature, Christ would restore life to that human nature by his resurrection. That fallen nature He assumed rose from the dead, thus so will mankind. Death by Adam, Life by Christ. Quite logical, quite simple in understanding, and quite merciful of God. Now man, by His choice either saves himself or condemns himself by the choice of who he will serve. Just as Adam had that same choice. He had a commandment to obey, so do we.
It was this death the precluded man from ever fulfilling the purpose of his existance, but more importantly, the universe would be permanently in death. Man would cease to exist, living only a short time then end in dust.
The rest of that portion of your reply does not address the question, thus not relevant. You are looking past the fall and the Work of Christ on the Cross and ONLY looking at man recieving that Gift, rather than the Gift itself.

I think you and I agree that the CALL to salvation to EVERYONE, by Jesus (Jn12:32), is sufficient to overcome depravity inasmuch as each CAN believe.

yes, we do agree, but your theology does not fit your understanding. You do not believe that Christ gave life to mankind, saved mankind from the fall, thus He can sincerely call all men to repentance. Any He did not redeem, would be left in Adam and not that they could not believe, but it would have no meaning since they simply die and cease to exist. That is the meaning of death and the condemnation by Adam.
That is why all are raised in the last day, because Christ redeemed, gave life, saved all of mankind from death, the condemnation of Adam. And yes, so then we all stand in judgement for what WE did, not Adam.

...but unless one DOES believe, he has not life. "He who HAS the Son, has the LIFE; he who does not have the Son has not the life." 1Jn5:12

The whole context is spiritual life. That is why it didn't apply to your other explanation. It actually does not here either. We are ONLY speaking of the fall and Christ';s redemptive work. We are not addressing man's response to that work.
I know you ran out of time, but study carefully what Scripture says regarding the fall and Christ's work to overcome the fall. The important thing here, is that man is not even in the equation at all. This is about the Gift being made, not the offer nor the response to that offer.

 

[Rightglory]

CCWoody,

And your religion teaches that man is saved by believing in the Easter Bunny.

Shesh, talk about just making up stuff as you go along.

A common answer for those who only have a personal interpretation. You have no answer for it.

But just to enlighten you, the volumes that explain this is mountainous. It is the historical Christian faith since the Apostles. History, the witness of the work of the Holy Spirit confirms what I have been explaining. No man has been able to change its meaning in 2000 years.
Can you say that of your personal belief? Can you even make that statement of Calvin? You cannot even arrive at a consensus view within Calvinism. Constantly changing with half generations, even less. While the Gospel has not changed for 2000 years. It was meant to be universal and the Holy Spirit has preserved it just so it is universal to all man for all time.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rightglory
All it confirms is that those that believe and live In Christ and show love have been born of God.
There is no order here at all.

Those who do this have been that.
I'm seein' order.

 

[nobdysfool]

The Greek grammar shows order incontrovertably.

Those who are believing, have been born of God. Belief is the action of one who has been born of God. One who has not been born of God does not believe. Faith is the act of the born-again heart.

 

[Rick Otto]

I used to drive an incontrovertable with the top down.
I had an uncle who became a controvert to the faith.
Sorry, NBF. Didn't mean to be pickin' on ya.
I'm in a rare mood. My 17yr old son is finaly current with his schoolwork & his afro is at an employable length!
He earned a field trip tomorrow. I feel like I'm finaly "In The Zone".

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Those who do this have been that.
I'm seein' order.

So all men believed and love God before they are "born again"?
Or all that believe, love God, serve Him, follow Him, are obedient, have been born again?
There is nothing here to give you the order you so much need. Belief, faith, repentance, even baptism all comes before "being born". Baptism is actually the regeneration that is "being reborn". There is nothing in scripture that can refute this. You may refute it with your personal interpretation, as many hundreds have done, but can you actually show that it is historical Christianity as taught by the Apostles, believed, practiced and recorded the same all through history to the present time? That is authentic, it is the authentic witness of the power of the Holy Spirit in preserving that Gospel. Can you do that?

 

[Oye11]

The Greek grammar shows order incontrovertably.

Those who are believing, have been born of God. Belief is the action of one who has been born of God. One who has not been born of God does not believe. Faith is the act of the born-again heart.

You can crack open your Greek grammar with fervor but still often find yourself lost as ever if you skip over the all important understanding of historical context and literary devices in a document. You are reading an ancient letter, not just a sentence... Order of salvation isn`t the teaching purpose of this 1 John 5-1 text, but discerning true Christians from the false in response to one of the many varieties of Gnostic heresies going around during the day.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? ....(2-22) So Chapter 5 verse 1 is one of many verses in the book that tell us what a true Christian is like. The true believer does believe "Jesus is the Christ," doctrinal fidelty.... Some may very well have been separating the Christ Spirit from the man Jesus in their belief, a common error of the time and in this case the issue would be correct Christology.

The author used sharp comparsion and contrast formulas often. Yet some jet right past the historical setting and context for writing the letter and pluck out a verse to use in their systematic theology puzzle...

Want to take the following verse as an absolute?

No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (3-9)

Would be rather odd for those here claiming to sin all day every day and say the opposite, that we cannot help but sin. Yet the author did make his point in denouncing the Antinomian aspects of the false teachings he was opposing. 1 John 5-1 in no way overturns the many verses that teach that a faith response precedes new life, all of which are written in the very context of the process of coming to life. This was in no way the aim of the author of 1 John in the prooftext that was cited. The issue was exposing false theologies in a Church culture threatened by Gnostics.

 

[Rick Otto]

Rightglory;Otto,
So all men believed and love God before they are "born again"?

No!

Or all that believe, love God, serve Him, follow Him, are obedient, have been born again?

Yes! Exactly! You have used "have been" just like the verse did. Just like "Wheels that are spinning have been spun."

There is nothing here to give you the order you so much need.

Why not? What else could I possibly need? Its a complete formula: Subjects have been Verb.

Belief, faith, repentance, even baptism all comes before "being born".

Cart B4 Horse

Baptism is actually the regeneration that is "being reborn".

No it isn't.

There is nothing in scripture that can refute this.

Yes there is.

You may refute it with your personal interpretation, as many hundreds have done, but can you actually show that it is historical Christianity as taught by the Apostles, believed, practiced and recorded the same all through history to the present time?

I don't have to.

That is authentic, it is the authentic witness of the power of the Holy Spirit in preserving that Gospel.

That is simply your opinion.

Can you do that?

I can read & understand scripture.
I recommend it.

 

[Rightglory]

nobdysfool,

Those who are believing, have been born of God. Belief is the action of one who has been born of God. One who has not been born of God does not believe. Faith is the act of the born-again heart.

That is correct, those that are believing. It is proof of faith that you believe. Any believer at any stage along the journey can say that. It does not show that born again comes before faith, or initial belief.
If we stop believing we are no longer IN Christ. If we become unfaithful we are not longer In Christ. One who is born of God can reject, can turn away from God at any time. Being Born again is not a guarantee of faithfulness. It is simply man entering into a spiritual union with Christ by which he can be healed in both body and soul. By so entering He can recieve all the benefits of that union with God but also forfeits them if he leaves that Kingdom. Continued believe and continued faith is of a born again heart. It is the growth, hopefully of the born again heart. Born Again does not generate faith nor belief, it makes it grow, mature.
There is no text that will put born again in front of faith. If so, all men have been born again. Since all men have faith, all have the ability, the capacity to respond to God's call to repentance. God poured out the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, prophecied in Joel, of which Peter spoke in Acts at Pentacost. It is because Christ redeemed mankind, that God can call all men to repentance and He does this through the work of the Holy Spirit upon all men. All men will give an active response to that call. There is no passive answer or no answer.
I don't believe the Greeks got it wrong. They spoke in Greek, taught the Gospel in Greek, wrote the Bible in Greek. The Church was entirely Greek for the first 400 years before the fall of Rome and Latin was reintroduced in the west. Russian was added in the 8th century. Greek is still spoken, read, understood by quite a large number of Christians today. They all disagree with your Greek interpretation.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

My statement: There is nothing in scripture that can refute this.
Your response:
Yes there is.

Ok, there is. Your interpretation. There are hundreds of them, and they all come armed with scriptural backing. Every single false teaching and teacher has done this and they have all been refuted by the authentic Gospel, the Rule of faith, that which has always been believed. Using your method, the Mormons have as much authenticity as your interpretation. That is the problem protestants have with differing opinions. That's all they are, opinions. All you are attempting to do is refute someone elses intellect over your own. You are simply getting better at it as time goes on.

I don't have to.

I know you don't have to. No one does. They can and many thousands now, have developed their own kind of faith and stick with it. No one can refute their own understanding. How can one. But Christ gave ONE Gospel. He gave it once. Then He promised the Holy Spirit to lead men to that Truth. He did not promise to give you more Truth or different Truth, but lead you to that ONE Truth, which He is preserving within the Body of Christ.

That is authentic, it is the authentic witness of the power of the Holy Spirit in preserving that Gospel.
Your response:That is simply your opinion.
.

That is a fact, of which I do believe. How can you account that human beings have not changed that Gospel for two thousand years, yet, human beings since the reformation have been able to change that Gospel by the hundreds of views, of differing faiths. I think you are missing some pertinent facts contained right in those Scriptures, recorded just for you, which the Holy Spirit is leading you to that Truth that was ONCE Given, but you much more prefer your own version of it as yet.
You have a much higher regard for and faith in your own ego and intellect than faith in the Holy Spirit to work in men and preserve that Gospel within the Body of Christ.

I can read & understand scripture.
I recommend it.

yes, so can an atheist, so did Joseph Smith, and hundreds of others who can read and understand scripture just like you. They all have the same regard for themselves like you do.

 

[Rick Otto]

Regard for self is a necessity.
More than necessary is vanity.

You have a much higher regard for and faith in your own ego and intellect than faith in the Holy Spirit to work in men and preserve that Gospel within the Body of Christ.

Is that just your humble opinion?

I'm within The Body of Christ. I'm one of those men the Holy Spirit works in to prerserve that Gospel that my God given ego grasped by using my God-given intellect under Holy Spirit influence.
You seem to be under the delusion that error wasn't present from the very start. That seems naive.
You also seem to disbelieve that any saint could not recognize the authority in truth itself, for himself. That seems cynical.

 

[heymikey80]

"Whole argument"? All of "Responsible Grace"? Hardly. I've demonstrated passage after passage that only supports "RG" --- but each one which cannot be refuted, is disregarded.
It holds an ocean.
The receiver must accept the gift, and he can freely choose NOT to.

If faith originates in MAN, then that faith changes nothing of the gift --- the gift remains all of God.
No, it's not.
And God DECREEING faith to a FEW, and not to MOST, and then CONDEMNING those who HAVE NOT faith --- does make sense to you? Grace is nothing of men; so says John1:13 --- the BEGOTTENNESS is of God, not of us. The BEGOTTENNESS is of God, but the RECEIVING of it is "by receiving Jesus, by believing on His name". John1:12.

And not only is the RECEIVING/BELIEVING man's choice, it continues to be his choice. In Heb12:7-9, it's clearly shown that "if WE refuse to submit to God's discipline, then WE are no longer children but illegitimate".

Point by point, RT is gone, Rick. "Risks"? Not "establishes"?
ONE argument between us has "collapsed"... Really? What do you call "THEY would have BELIEVED --- it will go better for THEM than for YOU"?
Yes he does. "...have you been saved". That's referring to "having-been-saved"...
Exactly! "By grace, through faith, have you been saved" --- that is the subject.

THAT (by-grace-through-faith-saved) is not of yourselves; it does not deny that FAITH is of ourselves, the "grace-through-faith-saved" means "God's grace, received through our faith, are we saved, NOT of ourselves, it's God's gift crafted from atop a Cross."

Back to John1:12-13 --- "begottenness" (God's gift of grace) is not of ourselves, but those WHO RECEIVE Jesus WHO BELIEVE gain the right to BECOME begotten.
It is in Heb11:6, isn't it? God is the cause of the GIFT. We are causal in the RECEIVING.
That passage also defeats you; one chooses to be "born from above", not God.

Remember, Jesus rebuked Nick for being a teacher and not KNOWING the basics.
With respect, the only thing "shredded" here, is RT... "Causal-faith", is established. Rebukes for REFUSING to believe, are documented. Causal-HOLDING-FAST, is equally established.

We are of Christ's house IF we hold fast.

We live, IF we hold fast.

Do you begin to see the contradictions in Reformed Theology?

And thank you for confusing me with Rick. That's probably the greatest flattery I'll get from this dsicussion.

Every argument between us has collapsed into this lack of recognition. Reformed Theology is more consistent than yours is. This was the latest. And so it continues.

I intended the "whole argument" to be about Eph 2 & John 10, that whole argument described here, but it's apparent you want to project it much more widely. I see that "whole argument" doesn't have a basis. Every time the basis for that "whole argument" is requested and delivered it collapses. Yet the "whole argument" survives. Could it be that the "whole argument" is not based on these Scripture passages, but on a thesis ... one not in Scripture per se but proposed?

If not, simply produce the thesis as to where it divides Reformed Theology from Scripture. Or admit that the "whole argument" is not based on Scripture, but simply a proposal of some other theology.

As for "Responsible Grace", I've no qualms about a responsible grace being described in Scripture. Sovereign Grace is a responsible grace. It's not Free Grace.

It simply doesn't put our reliance in our failing response, but in a God Who infallibly works in us.

Plus, still no answer to what I really said.

 

[CCWoody]

CCWoody,

[/font]
A common answer for those who only have a personal interpretation. You have no answer for it.

Nope!!!

You accused me of denying the resurrection of Christ, IMO a damnable heresy. If you want to have a grown up discussion, then fine, but to accuse someone who is suppose to be regarded as a brother in Christ of a fatal error is not brotherly.

It is nothing less than an implicit accusation that I am not even a Christian at all. Oh, well, I've learned to expect such treatment from others.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

I'm within The Body of Christ. I'm one of those men the Holy Spirit works in to prerserve that Gospel that my God given ego grasped by using my God-given intellect under Holy Spirit influence.
You seem to be under the delusion that error wasn't present from the very start. That seems naive.
You also seem to disbelieve that any saint could not recognize the authority in truth itself, for himself. That seems cynical.

Arius and Nestorius claimed to be preserving the truth, but were preaching a false gospel.
These men were also in the Body of Christ. But they thought that their new theory was stronger than the Gospel once given. They did not pass muster on the Rule of faith. That which has been believed from the beginning. The Gospel is preserved not by any single individual but by the Body as a whole. It is Christ, as Head of that Body that preserves it within the Body, not by single individuals who are easily deceived, easily led astray with their own lofty egos and intellect. Those that are recognized as Saints from other Church Fathers, were those who remained within the Rule of faith. Their interpretation, their refining understanding was what the Church, the Body accepted over time.
If you can show that your theory has always been believed, then you have the teaching of the Original faith, not a hybrid, not developmental kind as the Popes with the Mageriterium are well known.
Being led to the Truth is not the Holy Spirit giving you a whole new Truth. That Truth was once given and now, in time, the Holy Spirit leads all men to repentance, and then once in the Body to that fulness of the faith.

 

[heymikey80]

nobdysfool,
That is correct, those that are believing. It is proof of faith that you believe. Any believer at any stage along the journey can say that. It does not show that born again comes before faith, ///

Given your appreciation for Greek, what does the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:1 say about the highlighted text?

 

[Rightglory]

CCWoody,

You accused me of denying the resurrection of Christ, IMO a damnable heresy. If you want to have a grown up discussion, then fine, but to accuse someone who is suppose to be regarded as a brother in Christ of a fatal error is not brotherly.
It is nothing less than an implicit accusation that I am not even a Christian at all. Oh, well, I've learned to expect such treatment from others.

This is a theological discussion. Not a personal one. This is the problem with most protestants, the theology they are discussing is a personal one so they take it personally.
No doubt you believe in a resurrection, but what kind. Is it the same undestanding of the Apostles as they taught the early Church as was eventually recorded, some of it, in what became the Canon of the Bible, particularly the NT.
If you believe that Christ died for and saved all mankind through His resurrection, then you have the understanding of that ONCE Given Gospel. If you believe that Christ only saved some from the fall, that He was not able to save mankind, then Christ failed in His Mission.
It means that He did not really assume our fallen natures to raise them to life. He was not Incarnate.
It means that we are all still under the condemnation of Adam, death. We will cease to exist upon our biological death, as God stated to Adam in Gen 3:19.
Read carefully I Cor 15:14-19, but the whole chapter is better. The key to the whole plan of salvation is the resurrection of Christ. That He is the first born of the dead, that is all dead, not exceptions. He did conquer death, did He not? Or do you believe He was only a partial winner over death, thus actually a complete failure. He was not able to overcome the power of Satan.
What do you believe, Woody, your doctrine or the Gospel once given?
You can believe anything you wish. There are dozens of choices and more arriving every day. But if you are going to claim it as Gospel, you will need to give a lot more evidence than simply your personal opinion and not have any historical validity. Afterall, do you believe that God is not a liar? Did He promise to preserve His Gospel to the end of Time and do so within His Body?
What does the Bible say?
Follow the theology, Woody.
Just, remember, all protestants call themselves Christians, even those that outright deny the Trinity, outright deny the Resurrection. Some even dismiss hell all together. So, where are you on the spectrum? Jehovah Witnesses call themselves Christians. So, what makes you different from them?

It it helps you at all, you are in the same boat as Ben.
He also believes in a resurrection, He also believes that all the dead shall be raised in the last day, but he has absolutely no logical, reasonable, theological argument that can account for that phenonomon. He has that problem because He also, theologically, does not beleive that Christ actually gave life to all men through the Incarnation and His resurrection. Because He arose, all mankind will arise from the dead. That is the Gospel Truth, has been from the beginning.
You can work around it, you can deny it, you can develop some other theological premise and answer for it, but it does NOT make it Apostolic or the Gospel from the beginning. It is just another gospel, another form of Christianity of which there are hundreds.
So, where do you stand Woody?