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

[Ben johnson]

No it certainly doesn't hurt my case.

I don't argue that they were in willful unbelief.

Yes you do, but you don't know you do.

You see "man's will as COMPLETELY determined --- EITHER by depraved sinful-seeking unpredestined --- OR by God's sovereign regeneration (CAUSING irresistible will TO turn to God)."

What you see as "free will", is not; a will that cannot choose, is not "free".

My point is that all are in willful unbelief. In this case even the Jewish cities were in willful unbelief - and if anyone should have believed - it should have been them.

Jesus rebuked Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, for refusing to believe; He did not speak as if they had no choice.

Tell me --- why would their punishment be greater than Tyre/Sidon/Sodom, if they could choose nothing else?

Only one answer makes sense:
because they WILLINGLY REFUSED to believe what they SAW.

Saving-faith is not gifted by God; it's man's free choice. And that's the only understanding that fits Jesus' words to Thomas:
"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe." Jn20:29

My point is simply that the only way anyone can get out of willful unbelief is through the miraculous revelation of the son - as is clearly stated in vs. 25-27 of this chapter in Matthew.

No it doesn't --- it was hidden from "wise" and revealed to "babes". Now read Matt18: "Unless you HUMBLE YOURSELVES and BECOME as CHILDREN, you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven."

So much for "God decides who will be babes-in-Christ, and who will not."

Matt11:28-30 says "COME to me, ALL who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light."

You want it to say: "Come to Me, all weary/heavy-laden that God has SOVEREIGNLY CHOSEN, and I will give THOSE FEW rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me (because I've decided that you-few I'm talking to, WILL) for I am gentle and humble in heart (well, to you-few) --- and you shall find rest for your souls."

Two things, Behe--- "rest", reminds me of Heb4:11: "(Do not harden YOUR hearts.) Be diligent TO enter God's rest, lest any ONE of you FALL, by imitating their disobedience and unbelief."

As I just said to Mike, you may deny one or two points; but not the whole.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, your "disagreement" is an exact wording of what you claimed to disagree with.

salvation is not of ourselves.
the means of salvation, grace & faith are not of ourselves.
We experience them ourselves, but grace, faith, and salvation don't originate in ourselves

What is your understanding of 1Pet1:9?

"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH, the salvation of your souls."

 

[heymikey80]

No, it doesn't --- it refers to the entier phrase: "By grace through faith have you been saved".
Hence, NAS' footnote, "THAT SALVATION".

At some point you ought to look at what's being said instead of a translation.

This contention is already refuted. Salvation is feminine. Same argument you proffer against faith. Paul is qualifying the whole operation of salvation, which is clearly -- from this verse -- by grace. through faith. That not of yourselves.

The subject isn't one word; it's the entire phrase.

Oh. Two words, "you're saved", without qualification? So I'm not saved by grace, through faith?

Which is it? It's either the form of salvation Paul points out -- through faith, by grace, that not of yourselves -- or it's some other salvation.

Then you'll have to scratch out verses like "Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls".

1Pet1:9.

Ben does love changing the subject when his point is weak. Of course faith has the same outcome in both views -- the salvation of souls. "DUH!"

There's nothing but shreds left of this argument. Ben's changing the subject because of it.

 

[heymikey80]

Calvinists assert that "You don't believe (in ME) because you're not My sheep". But it says "You don't believe (that I'm the Messiah) because you haven't believed in Me."

Your refutation does not stand.

Now Ben proposes to misquote Scripture. Cite the Scripture that states exactly that, Ben. In so many words.

One who believes in God, believes in Jesus (John14:1, 8:42); one who believes in Jesus, believes He's the Messiah

The concept of "shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture", means only "become My sheep".

You've jumped to entirely different settings with an entirely different group of people to explain what Jesus is saying to this group of unbelievers in John 10. They won't get that, Ben.

And you maintained my point. Jesus is making no distinction between "believe Me" and "believe what I say."

When Jesus is explaining those who did not believe Him, He points out they don't believe Him because they're not His sheep. There is only one "believe" here.

And your point is lost. Jesus doesn't split "believe". There's only one "believe", and you're throwing out Jesus' argument. There's no reason to jump to "believe Him" in your interpretation. Yet you can't get away from it: that's exactly what Jesus jumped to.

I maintain that the rest is purely your attempt to overwhelm what I clearly said with the volume of your words. Jesus conjoined them: "I told you, and you don't believe." Jesus said them that abstractly, and Jesus connected the two.

And I will demonstrate the same in a clear example: for I told you, and you don't believe. You haven't even looked at the argument. You don't believe ME.

You've admitted that one fact communicated in a sentence doesn't reject another. Yet you reject the point that the conjunction of phrases in Jesus' response demands that they don't believe Him in a much more profound sense than "you don't accept what I said as true." By reducing the sentence to your meaning, Jesus' assertion is reduced.

Your attempt at gerrymandering Jesus' sentences is silly. That was my complaint, and it continues to be my complaint. Try to split it all you want. The volume of your response, the splitting into bits that are inconsistent with one another -- those are debate tactics. By neglecting the full meaning of what Jesus said, such a tactic does not accept what Jesus said.

 

[nobdysfool]

At some point you ought to look at what's being said instead of a translation.

This contention is already refuted. Salvation is feminine. Same argument you proffer against faith. Paul is qualifying the whole operation of salvation, which is clearly -- from this verse -- by grace. through faith. That not of yourselves.

Oh. Two words, "you're saved", without qualification? So I'm not saved by grace, through faith?

Which is it? It's either the form of salvation Paul points out -- through faith, by grace, that not of yourselves -- or it's some other salvation.

Ben does love changing the subject when his point is weak. Of course faith has the same outcome in both views -- the salvation of souls. "DUH!"

There's nothing but shreds left of this argument. Ben's changing the subject because of it.

Ben just can't handle the idea that he didn't have anything to do with his salvation, that God apprehended him, and it was by God's Grace, through the faith that He provided, that Ben was saved.

My own experience was apparently much more clear in this fact. I was not looking for Christ, I was not interested. I know that clearly, and I knew it then. He apprehended me, and confronted me with Jesus. To see the crucifixion is a life-altering experience, when God shows it to you by his Grace. I didn't choose to be regenerated, He regenerated me and I believed. In that order.

 

[Ben johnson]

At some point you ought to look at what's being said instead of a translation.

This contention is already refuted. Salvation is feminine.

The word "salvation" is not in the passage.

Same argument you proffer against faith. Paul is qualifying the whole operation of salvation, which is clearly -- from this verse -- by grace. through faith. That not of yourselves.

The "whole", is the "gift" --- which is received by faith. The gift conditioning on faith, changes nothing of the gift.

Oh. Two words, "you're saved", without qualification? So I'm not saved by grace, through faith?

"That salvation", reflected by "by grace through faith have you been saved".

That is "made-alive".

...and that is "WHEN we were dead in sins".
Grace availed to us WHEN we were dead in sins.
Faith happened WHEN we were dead in sins.
By grace, through faith were we made alive.

"Faith", precedes "made-alive".

Which is it? It's either the form of salvation Paul points out -- through faith, by grace, that not of yourselves -- or it's some other salvation.

See above.

Ben does love changing the subject when his point is weak. Of course faith has the same outcome in both views -- the salvation of souls. "DUH!"

Faith is causal towards our salvation, or it is consequential.

You say "consequential", I say "causal". Which view reflects Scripture?

There's nothing but shreds left of this argument. Ben's changing the subject because of it.

The argument stands.

"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls."

Causal-faith.

Case closed.

 

[Ben johnson]

Now Ben proposes to misquote Scripture. Cite the Scripture that states exactly that, Ben. In so many words.

Jews: "If You're the Messiah, tell us plainly."
Jesus: "I told you..."

Jesus told them --- WHAT?

You've jumped to entirely different settings with an entirely different group of people to explain what Jesus is saying to this group of unbelievers in John 10.

Jesus is speaking to Pharisees in verse 9; He's speaking to Jews in verse 25-28. Do you contend they were different people?

In verse 9, "If ANYONE enters through Me, he will be saved" --- do you contend that doesn't mean "anyone-UNSAVED"?

They won't get that, Ben.

I don't get your position, either...

And you maintained my point. Jesus is making no distinction between "believe Me" and "believe what I say."

Let's see how you answer the question above --- "Jesus told them, WHAT?"

When Jesus is explaining those who did not believe Him, He points out they don't believe Him because they're not His sheep. There is only one "believe" here.

Jews: "If You're the Messiah, tell us plainly."
Jesus: "I told you..."

Jesus told them, WHAT?

And your point is lost. Jesus doesn't split "believe". There's only one "believe", and you're throwing out Jesus' argument. There's no reason to jump to "believe Him" in your interpretation. Yet you can't get away from it: that's exactly what Jesus jumped to.

Jesus was answering them.
Jews: "If You're the Messiah, tell us plainly."
Jesus: "I told you..."
What did Jesus "tell them"?

I maintain that the rest is purely your attempt to overwhelm what I clearly said with the volume of your words. Jesus conjoined them: "I told you, and you don't believe." Jesus said them that abstractly, and Jesus connected the two.

You are compelled to change the clear words of verse 9, into: "If anyone-FEW-PREDESTINED enters through Me (but those sovereignly predestined cannot RESIST, so it doesn't really mean "if"), he will be saved (only those God chose); and will go in and out and find pasture (they were My sheep BEFORE, but they were UNSAVED sheep)."

And I will demonstrate the same in a clear example: for I told you, and you don't believe. You haven't even looked at the argument. You don't believe ME.

You've admitted that one fact communicated in a sentence doesn't reject another. Yet you reject the point that the conjunction of phrases in Jesus' response demands that they don't believe Him in a much more profound sense than "you don't accept what I said as true." By reducing the sentence to your meaning, Jesus' assertion is reduced.

"If you believed Me, then you would believe I'm the Messiah". It's the same as in John5:46-47, "If you believed Moses' words, then you would believe Mine."

Your attempt at gerrymandering Jesus' sentences is silly. That was my complaint, and it continues to be my complaint. Try to split it all you want. The volume of your response, the splitting into bits that are inconsistent with one another -- those are debate tactics. By neglecting the full meaning of what Jesus said, such a tactic does not accept what Jesus said.

Jews: "If You're the Messiah, tell us plainly."
Jesus: "I told you..."

WHAT had Jesus told them, in his answer to their complaint?

 

[AndOne]

Yes you do, but you don't know you do.

You see "man's will as COMPLETELY determined --- EITHER by depraved sinful-seeking unpredestined --- OR by God's sovereign regeneration (CAUSING irresistible will TO turn to God)."

What you see as "free will", is not; a will that cannot choose, is not "free".
Jesus rebuked Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, for refusing to believe; He did not speak as if they had no choice.

Its not that a person cannot choose - it is that they will not choose. They will not choose until God makes them able. Again Matthew 11:27 proves this point.

Tell me --- why would their punishment be greater than Tyre/Sidon/Sodom, if they could choose nothing else?

Only one answer makes sense:
because they WILLINGLY REFUSED to believe what they SAW.

Exactly - they willingly refused to believe what they saw. Again - as Matthew 11:27 points out - they cannot accept it until God makes them able.

Saving-faith is not gifted by God; it's man's free choice. And that's the only understanding that fits Jesus' words to Thomas:
"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe." Jn20:29
No it doesn't --- it was hidden from "wise" and revealed to "babes". Now read Matt18: "Unless you HUMBLE YOURSELVES and BECOME as CHILDREN, you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven."

So much for "God decides who will be babes-in-Christ, and who will not."

Again - in light of Matthew 11:27 none of this happens until God enables the heart to be able to do so.

Matt11:28-30 says "COME to me, ALL who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light."

You want it to say: "Come to Me, all weary/heavy-laden that God has SOVEREIGNLY CHOSEN, and I will give THOSE FEW rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me (because I've decided that you-few I'm talking to, WILL) for I am gentle and humble in heart (well, to you-few) --- and you shall find rest for your souls."

No - it doesn't have to say this in Matthew 11:28-30. That point is made clear in Matt 11:27. I'm not trying to change anything in those verses. Matt 11:27 already makes my case for me.

As I just said to Mike, you may deny one or two points; but not the whole.

Well since you deny the point being made in Matt 11:27 I would say this sentence more aptly applies to you.

 

[Rick Otto]

What is your understanding of 1Pet1:9?

"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH, the salvation of your souls."

Same thing.
No matter if "YOUR" is modifying faith, it is not OF ourselves.
My faith is not OF me, it is OF grace, which is also not OF me, and they result in the outcome of MY salvation, which is also not OF myself.

A predestined choice is still a choice.
A predestined will is still a will.

 

[heymikey80]

Calvinists assert that "You don't believe (in ME) because you're not My sheep". But it says "You don't believe (that I'm the Messiah) because you haven't believed in Me."

Your refutation does not stand.

Now Ben proposes to misquote Scripture. Cite the Scripture that states exactly that, Ben. In so many words.

Jews: "If You're the Messiah, tell us plainly."
Jesus: "I told you..."

Jesus told them --- WHAT?

No answer to my request. So on to the reality of what's said.

"I told you and you do not believe." It's what Jesus told them. The recall in 10:38 is "you do not believe me".

 

[heymikey80]

The word "salvation" is not in the passage.

You're admittedly basing your whole argument on the lack of the word you want to interpolate there!

Face it, this argument doesn't hold even a drop of water.

The "whole", is the "gift" --- which is received by faith. The gift conditioning on faith, changes nothing of the gift.

Why would anyone state such a meaning-squelching tautology on precious parchment? "Gifts aren't from the receiver."

"The horse is now chasing desperately after the cart."

This doesn't make sense because it communicates nothing. Grace clearly doesn't allow "of yourselves". "you are saved" is passive tense; it doesn't communicate "of yourselves." There's only one phrase that risks communicating "of yourselves" "you are saved by faith".

The rest is simply spinning off to try to find another verse to buttress your argument. But the argument has collapsed a good number of different ways.

• Paul wouldn't have wasted parchment stating a tautology.
• Paul doesn't even refer to "salvation" in the text -- which is the primary concept for your interpretation throughout this sentence.
• "salvation" is referred to in the feminine gender in Greek.
• "this (not of yourselves)" actually refers to the whole prior phrase, not two words you pontifically select out of the phrase.

And faith can't be causal anyway. God is the cause of salvation.

Causal-faith.

Case closed.

The case was never open to a causal faith. No human's faith can drag the Spirit into him. John 3:5-8. We're born by the Spirit. Not vice versa.

The subject continues to slide out from under the points shredding it. If the subject changes much more it'll be a totally different point Ben's arguing.

 

[cygnusx1]

You're admittedly basing your whole argument on the lack of the word you want to interpolate there!

Face it, this argument doesn't hold even a drop of water.

Why would anyone state such a meaning-squelching tautology on precious parchment? "Gifts aren't from the receiver."

"The horse is now chasing desperately after the cart."

This doesn't make sense because it communicates nothing. Grace clearly doesn't allow "of yourselves". "you are saved" is passive tense; it doesn't communicate "of yourselves." There's only one phrase that risks communicating "of yourselves" "you are saved by faith".

The rest is simply spinning off to try to find another verse to buttress your argument. But the argument has collapsed a good number of different ways.

• Paul wouldn't have wasted parchment stating a tautology.
• Paul doesn't even refer to "salvation" in the text -- which is the primary concept for your interpretation throughout this sentence.
• "salvation" is referred to in the feminine gender in Greek.
• "this (not of yourselves)" actually refers to the whole prior phrase, not two words you pontifically select out of the phrase.

And faith can't be causal anyway. God is the cause of salvation.

The case was never open to a causal faith. No human's faith can drag the Spirit into him. John 3:5-8. We're born by the Spirit. Not vice versa.

The subject continues to slide out from under the points shredding it. If the subject changes much more it'll be a totally different point Ben's arguing.

great post Mikey !!!!

 

[Ben johnson]

Its not that a person cannot choose - it is that they will not choose. They will not choose until God makes them able. Again Matthew 11:27 proves this point.

No it doesn't. "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Does this establish "the Son wills to reveal the Father to only a FEW"? No.

Matt11:25: "You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to babes." And we read 18:3-4, which admonishes people to humble themselves as babes. Did Jesus forget to mention "but it's really GOD who SOVEREIGNLY humbles you"?

The point stands, from verse 21-24 --- if the PAST cities (Tyre, Sidon, Sodom) had seen what the CURRENT cities (Capernaum Betshadia & Chorazin) had seen, THEY would have BELIEVED; the current ones will be judged more harshly than the others.

Judged more harshly? Why, Behe? Because God chose BOTH to unbelief? Tell me how that makes sense to you?

1. God sovereignly decrees Tyre/Sidon/Sodom to unbelief
2. God sovereignly decrees Capernaum/Bethsaida/Chorazin to unbelief
3. C/B/C are judged MORE HARSHLY than T/S/S
4. ...because THEY would have BELIEVED, but YOU WON'T
5. ...but YOUR unbelief is SOVEREIGNLY PREDESTINED.

How does that make sense? it doesn't --- but it DOES make sense to simply read what Jesus meant, "because YOU are more willfully unbelieving than THEM".

"Predestination" is completely ruined here, isn't it?

Exactly - they willingly refused to believe what they saw. Again - as Matthew 11:27 points out - they cannot accept it until God makes them able.

Jesus would not have condemned what God PREDESTINES. Verse 27 is another "I'm AUTHORIZED" verse, nothing more, nothing less.

If our "willingness-to-belief" is GOD'S choice, then those who WILL NOT believe will not be judged more harshly than OTHERS who did not believe --- especially when Jesus said "if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED".

Think about that, Behe --- had they seen Jesus' miracles, would God's SOVEREIGN WILL that they NOT believe, would it have CHANGED (so they BELIEVED?)

"They would have believed", removes any hint of "belief is sovereignly decreed".

Again - in light of Matthew 11:27 none of this happens until God enables the heart to be able to do so.

Show me how verse 27 hints at all, that "only a few-sovereign-chosen WILL believe".

No - it doesn't have to say this in Matthew 11:28-30. That point is made clear in Matt 11:27. I'm not trying to change anything in those verses. Matt 11:27 already makes my case for me.

I await with baited breath (and an extra bottle of Scope) for your explanation of how verse 27 asserts "limited atonement"....

Well since you deny the point being made in Matt 11:27 I would say this sentence more aptly applies to you.

You deny what I just said about "humble YOURSELVES as babes", and "THEY would have BELIEVED".

Is man's belief God's CHOICE, or NOT?

The only answer is "not". "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED; it will go better for THEM in the Judgment than for YOU."

 

[Ben johnson]

Same thing.
No matter if "YOUR" is modifying faith, it is not OF ourselves.
My faith is not OF me, it is OF grace, which is also not OF me, and they result in the outcome of MY salvation, which is also not OF myself.

I see.

"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH, the salvation of your souls. WELLLLL, not really YOUR faith, 'cause God GIFTS it to you, so I'm really sayin' 'receive FAITH and THEREFORE salvation'."

How does that make sense to you, Rick?

A predestined choice is still a choice.
A predestined will is still a will.

A predestined choice is no choice --- for he cannot choose ELSE.

Right?

 

[Ben johnson]

You're admittedly basing your whole argument on the lack of the word you want to interpolate there!

"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.

Face it, this argument doesn't hold even a drop of water.

It holds an ocean.

Why would anyone state such a meaning-squelching tautology on precious parchment? "Gifts aren't from the receiver."

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.

"The horse is now chasing desperately after the cart."

No, it's not.

This doesn't make sense because it communicates nothing.

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 clearly doesn't allow "of yourselves".

Grace is nothing of men; so says John1:13 --- the BEGOTTENNESS is of God, not of us.

"you are saved" is passive tense; it doesn't communicate "of yourselves."

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.

There's only one phrase that risks communicating "of yourselves" "you are saved by faith".

"Risks"? Not "establishes"?

The rest is simply spinning off to try to find another verse to buttress your argument. But the argument has collapsed a good number of different ways.

ONE argument between us has "collapsed"...

Paul wouldn't have wasted parchment stating a tautology.

Really? What do you call "THEY would have BELIEVED --- it will go better for THEM than for YOU"?

Paul doesn't even refer to "salvation" in the text -- which is the primary concept for your interpretation throughout this sentence.

Yes he does. "...have you been saved". That's referring to "having-been-saved"...

"salvation" is referred to in the feminine gender in Greek.
"this (not of yourselves)" actually refers to the whole prior phrase, not two words you pontifically select out of the phrase.

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.

And faith can't be causal anyway.

It is in Heb11:6, isn't it?

God is the cause of salvation.

God is the cause of the GIFT. We are causal in the RECEIVING.

The case was never open to a causal faith. No human's faith can drag the Spirit into him. John 3:5-8. We're born by the Spirit. Not vice versa.

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.

The subject continues to slide out from under the points shredding it.

With respect, the only thing "shredded" here, is RT...

If the subject changes much more it'll be a totally different point Ben's arguing.

"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?

 

[nobdysfool]

No it doesn't. "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Does this establish "the Son wills to reveal the Father to only a FEW"? No.

Neither does it establish that "the Son wills to reveal the Father to every man without exception", as you insist it means. So you have no traction on this one.

And, for the record, I understand your obsessive need to characterize Calvinism as teaching that Predestination and election are of only a "few", while leaving the vast majority of mankind in their sins, but that is NOT what Reformed theology teaches. You are employing the same kind of propaganda techniques that the media and politicians use when speaking of their opponents, or those they disapprove of. It is a falsehood, and those who teach god's Truth should not employ falsehood in any form. Now that you have been told, you must stop using such falsehoods. But I'll bet you won't.

Matt11:25: "You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to babes."

And we read 18:3-4, which admonishes people to humble themselves as babes. Did Jesus forget to mention "but it's really GOD who SOVEREIGNLY humbles you"?

Where has any Reformed person ever said that God sovereignly (meaning one-sided force) humbles men? You just keep dragging in straw man after straw man.

The point stands, from verse 21-24 --- if the PAST cities (Tyre, Sidon, Sodom) had seen what the CURRENT cities (Capernaum Betshadia & Chorazin) had seen, THEY would have BELIEVED; the current ones will be judged more harshly than the others.

Judged more harshly? Why, Behe? Because God chose BOTH to unbelief? Tell me how that makes sense to you?

"God chose both to unbelief"? You got it backwards, bucko. God chose not to reveal to Tyre and Sidon that which he knew would bring them to belief, as is His sovereign right. He DID reve\al it to Bethsaida and Chorazin, yet they did NOT believe. That would indicate that the depth of sin that the contemporary cities was even greater that the sins of Tyre and Sidon. God did not "cause" that by any direct action on His part, as you imply. Not everything is tied to predestination for the Reformed, Ben.

In your haste and zeal to overturn that which you clearly do not know or understand, you make numerous errors in comparison, and in trying to tie everything to predestination, as you clearly imagine Reformed Believers do, and it just ain't so. Your hatred of Predestination has clouded your reasoning abilities to such an extent that you make ridiculous statements which you refuse to be corrected on, and you wind yup defending lies and falsehoods about and against Reformed/Calvinist Believers that nbpone of them believe, teach or would endorse.

1. God sovereignly decrees Tyre/Sidon/Sodom to unbelief
2. God sovereignly decrees Capernaum/Bethsaida/Chorazin to unbelief
3. C/B/C are judged MORE HARSHLY than T/S/S
4. ...because THEY would have BELIEVED, but YOU WON'T
5. ...but YOUR unbelief is SOVEREIGNLY PREDESTINED.

What a load of horse-pucky! This is a false matrix from the word go.

How does that make sense? it doesn't --- but it DOES make sense to simply read what Jesus meant, "because YOU are more willfully unbelieving than THEM".

Depravity has that effect on people Ben, it tends to become worse over time....

"Predestination" is completely ruined here, isn't it?

Again you show your true agenda. You imagine that everything a Reformed/Calvinist Believer accepts as true is entangled with and proceeds from Predestination, as you imagine it is taught. You clearly have shown that you do not know what RT/Calvinism teaches. This is not even an arguable point, it is the absolute truth, ben, you are ignorant of Reformed Theology, you are ignorant of Calvinism, and the only other possibility is that you are willfully misrepresenting them, knowingly telling falsehoods, to promote an agenda and manuscript that you are so invested in, that you cannot and dare not change, or deviate from the course you have set, lest it all come to naught. You would sacrifice truth to avoid that.

Jesus would not have condemned what God PREDESTINES. Verse 27 is another "I'm AUTHORIZED" verse, nothing more, nothing less.

If our "willingness-to-belief" is GOD'S choice, then those who WILL NOT believe will not be judged more harshly than OTHERS who did not believe --- especially when Jesus said "if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED".

Think about that, Behe --- had they seen Jesus' miracles, would God's SOVEREIGN WILL that they NOT believe, would it have CHANGED (so they BELIEVED?)

"They would have believed", removes any hint of "belief is sovereignly decreed".
Show me how verse 27 hints at all, that "only a few-sovereign-chosen WILL believe".

No - it doesn't have to say this in Matthew 11:28-30. That point is made clear in Matt 11:27. I'm not trying to change anything in those verses. Matt 11:27 already makes my case for me.[/qoute]I await with baited breath (and an extra bottle of Scope) for your explanation of how verse 27 asserts "limited atonement"....
You deny what I just said about "humble YOURSELVES as babes", and "THEY would have BELIEVED".

Is man's belief God's CHOICE, or NOT?

The only answer is "not". "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED; it will go better for THEM in the Judgment than for YOU."

The rest of this is the standard boilerplate Ben-isms. I won't even waste my time trying to yet again refute what has clearly been refuted before.

 

[Ben johnson]

Neither does it establish that "the Son wills to reveal the Father to every man without exception", as you insist it means. So you have no traction on this one.

Other verses do; but what is established, is that "this verse does not assert exclusive revelation".

And, for the record, I understand your obsessive need to characterize Calvinism as teaching that Predestination and election are of only a "few", while leaving the vast majority of mankind in their sins, but that is NOT what Reformed theology teaches.

It has to be; the vast majority of mankind do not follow Jesus.

You are employing the same kind of propaganda techniques that the media and politicians use when speaking of their opponents, or those they disapprove of. It is a falsehood, and those who teach god's Truth should not employ falsehood in any form. Now that you have been told, you must stop using such falsehoods. But I'll bet you won't.

Uhmm, hmmmm.

Where has any Reformed person ever said that God sovereignly (meaning one-sided force) humbles men? You just keep dragging in straw man after straw man.

The passage was thought to endorse "Reformed THeology" --- by saying "I (Jesus) only reveal it to a FEW". But He plainly says "He reveals it to BABES", and I simply showed that "men CHOOSE to humble THEMSELVES as babes".

That's "refutation", Nobdsfool.

"God chose both to unbelief"? You got it backwards, bucko. God chose not to reveal to Tyre and Sidon that which he knew would bring them to belief, as is His sovereign right.

Nonsense. Jesus wasn't born in their TIMES. HAD He been, they would have BELIEVED.

There is no way that "I predestined them to unbelief", is part of Jesus' thoughts.

He DID reveal it to Bethsaida and Chorazin, yet they did NOT believe. That would indicate that the depth of sin that the contemporary cities was even greater that the sins of Tyre and Sidon.

Wait-wait-wait --- Jesus is condemning UNBELIEF. Do you really assert that those current cities, had GREATER sin than SODOM???

Do you not see the collapse of your doctrine?

God did not "cause" that by any direct action on His part, as you imply. Not everything is tied to predestination for the Reformed, Ben.

Actually, nothing is "tied to predestination", at all; except JESUS was predestined (1Pet1:20-21), that "all WHO see Him AND BELIEVE, be saved".

In your haste and zeal to overturn that which you clearly do not know or understand, you make numerous errors in comparison, and in trying to tie everything to predestination, as you clearly imagine Reformed Believers do, and it just ain't so. Your hatred of Predestination has clouded your reasoning abilities to such an extent that you make ridiculous statements which you refuse to be corrected on, and you wind yup defending lies and falsehoods about and against Reformed/Calvinist Believers that none of them believe, teach or would endorse.

I think my points are sound; and again, in this post...

What a load of horse-pucky! This is a false matrix from the word go.

Why?

Depravity has that effect on people Ben, it tends to become worse over time....

Sounds like you're calling me "depraved".

Again you show your true agenda. You imagine that everything a Reformed/Calvinist Believer accepts as true is entangled with and proceeds from Predestination, as you imagine it is taught. You clearly have shown that you do not know what RT/Calvinism teaches. This is not even an arguable point, it is the absolute truth, ben, you are ignorant of Reformed Theology, you are ignorant of Calvinism, and the only other possibility is that you are willfully misrepresenting them, knowingly telling falsehoods, to promote an agenda and manuscript that you are so invested in, that you cannot and dare not change, or deviate from the course you have set, lest it all come to naught. You would sacrifice truth to avoid that.

Show me in this post how "truth has been sacrificed".

No - it doesn't have to say this in Matthew 11:28-30. That point is made clear in Matt 11:27.

And we can just throw out 21-24?

I'm not trying to change anything in those verses. Matt 11:27 already makes my case for me.

No, it doesn't; it does not establish (nor even hint) at "God is revealed to only a FEW", and the context ruins the "sovereign-predestination" thing...

The rest of this is the standard boilerplate Ben-isms. I won't even waste my time trying to yet again refute what has clearly been refuted before.

With respect, this seems like a "dodge".

"I don't hafta refute what you've said, it's already been refuted dozens of times before."

And all newcomers here will think, "If he could, he would."

 

[frumanchu]

You are compelled to change the clear words of verse 9, into: "If anyone-FEW-PREDESTINED enters through Me (but those sovereignly predestined cannot RESIST, so it doesn't really mean "if"), he will be saved (only those God chose); and will go in and out and find pasture (they were My sheep BEFORE, but they were UNSAVED sheep)."

*SIGH* Here we go again...

A conditional statement does not in and of itself make any statement as to who meets the condition or why. There is no need to change the words of verse 9 because they are simple conditional statement...a statement that remains true whether your soteriology is correct or ours. If one believes in Christ they will be saved. Do you deny that Reformed Christians affirm the fact that all who believe will be saved?

 

[frumanchu]

No it doesn't. "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Does this establish "the Son wills to reveal the Father to only a FEW"? No.

It renders it absolutely absurd if the Son reveals Him to all. It becomes a meaningless statement.

'Nobody knows the Father...except everyone."

"Predestination" is completely ruined here, isn't it?

No. Contrary to your prior claims, Paul (and the rest of the Apostles, and Jesus Himself) believed and taught predestination.

You still fail to understand that their sin is their sin. It does not cease to be their sin just because it is ordained of God. He did not work evil in their hearts to compel or tempt them to sin. Their sin was purely born of their own evil hearts, but it was never outside the control or sovereignty of God. That God allowed it for His own sovereign purpose does not in any way excuse them from responsibility for it. Just ask Joseph's brothers.

Jesus would not have condemned what God PREDESTINES. Verse 27 is another "I'm AUTHORIZED" verse, nothing more, nothing less.

If our "willingness-to-belief" is GOD'S choice, then those who WILL NOT believe will not be judged more harshly than OTHERS who did not believe --- especially when Jesus said "if THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have BELIEVED".

False. You believe it to be so because you still do not understand how God's sovereignty works in conjunction with man's responsibility. You operate from the fundamental premise that if God can prevent man from sinning of his own will, then He is somehow responsible for that sin if He doesn't prevent it. That premise is not logically consistent, and moreover is not Scriptural.

Think about that, Behe --- had they seen Jesus' miracles, would God's SOVEREIGN WILL that they NOT believe, would it have CHANGED (so they BELIEVED?)

"They would have believed", removes any hint of "belief is sovereignly decreed".

No. Quite the opposite. It firmly establishes that God knows with perfect certainty what would bring men to repentence and faith, yet chooses to bring such repentence about only according to His purpose.

I await with baited breath (and an extra bottle of Scope) for your explanation of how verse 27 asserts "limited atonement"....

But you won't receive it. It doesn't matter if it's me or someone else. You're far too invested in your current doctrines to even entertain the notion that we might actually have a sound, reasonable explanation for any of this. Meanwhile the list of questions that you cannot answer increases. You still haven't answered the clear and obvious paradox you have created with your statements on regeneration.

 

[frumanchu]

I see.

"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH, the salvation of your souls. WELLLLL, not really YOUR faith, 'cause God GIFTS it to you, so I'm really sayin' 'receive FAITH and THEREFORE salvation'."

How does that make sense to you, Rick?

No...nor need it because THAT'S NOT WHAT CALVINISTS BELIEVE.

Awhile back you tried to tell me that my objection over using the word "instilled" instead of "inspired" when describing the Reformed view of God bringing about faith in men was just splitting hairs. The fact is that there is a critical difference between the two and that difference is HUGE when it comes to this argument, Ben.

I will say this again: the Reformed view is that man's faith is indeed just that: man's faith. It is the response of his will to the desire for God in his heart. God's gift is in placing a desire for Him in man's heart when in his previously unregenerate and sinful state there was none. The faith that follows is genuinely the individual's faith...one inspired by God but truly generated by the man. To say that is instilled would be to say God places the faith itself into man, such that man is altogether passive with respect to faith itself. The Reformed view is that man is passive with respect to regeneration, NOT to the response of saving faith.

PLEASE at least make an attempt to understand this distinction, Ben. Otherwise you are simply repeatedly knocking down a strawman and only erecting yet another roadblock to constructive discussion of these doctrines.

A predestined choice is no choice --- for he cannot choose ELSE. Right?

Wrong. This mistaken epistemological understanding is precisely what spawned the errant views of Open Theism. God's ordination of a choice does not remove responsibility from those who made the choice. Again, just ask Joseph's brothers.