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

[brightlights]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?"

 

[Ben johnson]

Argument from silence. Calvinism does not say that faith does not lead to eternal life.

I perceive it's the other way around: Calvinism asserts that "sovereign election and monergistic regeneration (eternal life) leads to faith".

The question is, upon what sits faith? And this verse does not answer, "upon man's autonomous will."

This is the biggest "thorn" that prevents Calvinists from accepting "free will" --- where does saving-faith come FROM?

The Calvinist thinks "Depraved man cannot believe in Christ, for his heart is corrupt and deceitful above all things".

When confronted with Luke8:13, the Calvinist then says: "Depraved man CAN believe in Christ, but not savingly, evidenced by their eventual falling-away".

This denies what Jesus said; BOTH groups (those who fell, Lk8:13, and those who persevered Lk8:15), began in faith. It was perseverance ("holding fast") that made the difference. This then reflects Heb3, "We are of Christ's house IF we hold fast our confidence and (hold fast) the boast of our hope firm until the end."

Chapter3 continues: "Do not harden YOUR heart; take care, lest any one of you be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

Chapter 3 then discusses the Israelites, how they fell because of disobedience and unbelief. This leads to chapter 4, where in verse 11 it warns: "Let US therefore be DILIGENT to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating their example of disobedience (and unbelief)."

Here is established, iron-clad, that OUR diligence and OUR perseverance continues us in salvation. (Identical to 2Pet1:5-10, and 1Tim4:16!)

The Calvinist complains: "But those in Luke 8:13 fell because they were BAD SOIL! And those in 8:15 STAYED, because they were GOOD soil!" This denies what Jesus was saying --- that those WHO fell were "bad soil" (because they fell), and the others were "good soil" because they HELD FAST and PERSEVERED.

That the label ("bad/good") is the consequence of their action, rather than the determiner, is completely established in Heb6:7-8 --- ONE soil is tilled, and IF it produces good fruit THEN it is blessed; but IF it produces bad fruit, THEN it is cursed and burned.

Only by denying that Heb6:7-8 is connected to Lk8:13-14 (and then by ignoring the Heb6 passage!) can the "predestinary view" of Lk8 survive.

Saving faith --- comes from men's HEARTS, in Rom10:10. And in Heb11:6, God receives those who come to Him BY faith; this does not fit "gifted/consequential faith", it only fits "CAUSAL faith".

There is still no avoiding Eph2:5-8 --- saving faith, which made us alive, happened WHEN WE WERE DEAD in our sins.

Clearly --- "saving-faith", precedes made-alive, precedes regeneration. Fully established, not contradictable.

I recall someone bringing up pelagianism already. It is absurd to say that a command make implications about the nature of the one who recieves it.

It's more absurd to think that God stands around commanding men to do what He knows they CAN NEVER do.

God calls all to repentance. But depending on their will, they either will or will not come, and you should have no objection to that statement.

Show me where God is causal to any man's will. Take Matt22:2-14 for instance; the KING, represents God --- where does the king decide who comes, and who declines?

But then the question remains, "why do people will the way they do?" The biblical answer being predestination. But we'll get to that.

No, it's not; not anywhere. Cite the verse you think supports that, and I'll show the refutation.

For instance --- Eph1:4-5, in context with 2Thess2:13, shows that "chosen from the beginning" was "through OUR FAITH". Chosen through faith --- thus "faith" precedes "chosen" --- can you argue with that?

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So the objection goes, how can he ordain their destruction? Not quite so simple though.

Yes, it is.

If God didn't want the wicked to die and that were all there was to it, God would step in and prevent the wicked from dying. God takes no pleasure in the deaths of those who had never heard Christ, but he won't save those who would willingly choose him if they heard? He won't come down out of a cloud and preach the gospel to them himself? He wants them to live, right, and if he did, many probably would?

To quote you, "argument from silence". I perceive that Romans2:14-16 clearly says that "when those who have not the Law (never heard of Jesus), but nevertheless show the Law written in their hearts (they believe in Him as much as they understand), their conscience will alternately accuse and defend them at the Final Judgment".

So it is established that God has more than one single agenda, and he will suspend his desire that all believe for some reasons.

His agenda is clearly spelled out, in Jn6:40. "All WHO see, and BELIEVE, may be saved". Look at how this connects with what Jesus told Thomas:

"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe." Jn20:29

First, Thomas believed BECAUSE he saw --- not because "God said so". Second, unseen belief is praised over seen belief --- complete nonsense if BOTH beliefs are God-DECIDED.

So --- established, is "All who see and believe, may be saved;
all who have NOT seen and YET believe, have better faith than those who see and believe."

Furthering the point, is what Jesus said to Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin: "Had THEY seen what YOU have, THEY would have BELIEVED; I tell you it will go better for THEM at the judgment, than for YOU." (Matt11:21-24) There's only one point that makes sense here --- Jesus is condemning their willful unbelief.

And that completely disallows "predestined-belief".

Is his goal of election on that list? If election is true, yes. If not true, then no.

"Election", means "salvation". All WHO believe, are elect.

So verses like this, or like II Peter 3:9, all must be interpreted in light of what the Bible says about election - they cannot provide imput on election itself because everyone agrees that they do not indicate God's greatest motivation in the universe - everyone except universalists, that is.

Your interpretation of 2Pet3:9, is: "God does not decree-to-condemnation, any of the FEW-decreed-to-salvation".

Why would Peter write that? You refuse the clear meaning:

"God does not decree ANYONE to perish, but patiently makes-room for ALL to repent."

The rest of 2Pet is equally clear --- 2:5-10 ("DILIGENCE is required of us, that the gates of Heaven BE provided"!); 2:20-22, 3:14, and 3:17.

Romans 11 is about the national cutting off of Israel.

Come now --- what does that mean? It's saying, "They were cut off for UNBELIEF; if they RETURN, they will be grafted in AGAIN."

What understanding allows "cut/off and re-connected, but not INDIVIDUALLY"? Are we to understand that he's speaking generationally, as in: "If you believe, but your KIDS don't, then THEY are cut off --- but if THEY (or THEIR kids) return to belief (but not "return", it REALLY means "come to belief in the FIRST place), they will be grafted in AGAIN (but not "again", it's "grafted in, in the FIRST place")?

You have two choices:
1. He's speaking "generationally", not "individually".
2. He's speaking of Israel, the INDIVIDUAL Israelites who were cut off for unbelief, and who can be grafted in again if they INDIVIDUALLY return to belief.

The third choice, is to ignore what I just said, and pretend "this has been refuted". It has not.

Being that Christ crucified became a stumbling block for those who had believed in Judaism, it is clear that Jews who fell away from Israel when Christ came never had Christ to begin with.

Bologna. With respect, balogna. They were "cut off for unbelief --- do not be arrogant, for YOU can be cut off, TOO." They were cut off because they chose works, rather than faith.

You're denying the clearly stated concept of "cut-off", and "grafted-in-AGAIN". Choose which point you endorse --- 1 (generations), 2 (cut-off/restored), or 3 (ignore it and pretend it's refuted).

Perseverence of the saints states that those who believe will not ultimatly be fallen away at the end.

That's right --- but Scripture never asserts that. Nowhere, nohow.

James 5 doesn't actually contradict this, except in what you are inferring from it.

James speaks of a man who FELL from salvatoin. And may be "returned" (grafted in again!).

Calvinism does not deny that God uses means, and Matthew 23 does not imply that the scribes and pharisees were not shutting up heaven in accordance with the foreordained plan of God. Once again, you are reading your philosophy into the silence.

Jesus plainly stated, "WERE ENTERING" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "predestined-elect". Do you disagree?

Yet, they were "stopped/shut-off" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "never-elect". Do you disagree?

Unresolveable conflict, "EP".

Yes it does.

You cannot pit scripture against scripture, and you cannot say that it is impossible to interpret one verse without another from another book. The ephesians did not have thesselonians, and paul expected them to understand.

Paul was "OSNAS"; Eph4 speaks of "us falling".

But what does 2 Thesselonians mean? You omitted a vital part of the verse. The verse does not say that we were chosen through faith, but rather, that we were chosen for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and faith in the truth.

It's both, "EP". You cannot deny "chosen through faith". Can you?

Besides --- look at the man in Heb10:29, who WAS (once) sanctified. What happened to him? (Hint --- Heb10:26!)

Since it makes much more sense to say we were saved through sanctification as opposed to saying we were chosen through sanctification, were we chosen by faith or saved through faith? Attaching sanctification and faith to salvation and not chosen works better all around. Faith preceeds Salvation.

I didn't attach it --- Paul did.

That's simply a wrong translation. One anti-calvinists keep throwing around, but still a translation that takes liberties with the Greek and which bible translators have more or less rejected.

I can link you to a discussion of Acts13:48 where Greek scholars disagree. But verse 46, forbids the idea of "sovereign-election" --- because the Jews unelected THEMSELVES.

Then you have set scripture against scripture, for John 6 teaches that it is the fact that the father has not drawn each and every man that explains why there were some among his number who did not believe.

You're speaking of verse 44 --- it does NOT say "not every man is drawn". Jesus is saying, "Those who come to Me --- they do not come unless drawn by God". He's asserting His AUTHORITY; they were saying (verse 42), "We saw this kid grow up! Who does He think He IS?!"

Another point --- "belief", precedes "given" --- John17:6 is clear on that. "Father, those Thou hast given Me out of the world --- Thine they WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me."

Identical to John8:42 --- "If God were your Father, then you would love ME."

Judas was not in the audience of that passage. He left in chapter 13. These verses were adressed only to the 11, who were called and predestined differently than Judas.

Deny that Jesus said "I chose ALL TWELVE", and that "I chose you (to be the 12 Disciples), and that your fruit remain".

Deny that Jesus was contradicting Peter ("No, we won't leave; we know You're the Messiah.") --- by saying, "ONE of you IS leaving!"

That's what Jesus said, "EP". Clear and plain.

"I will have compassion on whom I will have comassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy."

First, that is an ALSO-GENTILES passage; second, Rom11:32 says "God has mercy on ALL."

Which is a very calvinistic perspective, but does not imply where the faith comes from. Once again, argument from silence.

Rom10:10, and Heb11:6, plainly tells us "were saving-faith comes from". So does 2Tim3:15. Contrast 2Tim3:15 (faith comes from studying Scripture), with Jn5:39-47, "you study but REFUSE to believe!"

Once again, God uses means. The fact that means prevent the salvation of some is perfectly Calvinistic

Read the Eph4 passage again; it's not an "empty warning".

"EP", I thank you for participating, and I value you and your opinions; and hope you see that every point of Calvinism, has been refuted. Sometimes I number the choices --- so that we can conclude a discussion. As in this post, regarding Rom11:21-23, you have three choices --- 1)generationally (Calvinistic), 2)individually (Responsible), 3)ignore (not intellectually honest).

Please tell which you chose, or if you've come up with a #4.

 

[CCWoody]

I've rewritten nothing of Scripture; indeed, I risk running afoul of the "maximum verse quotation limit" asserted by the NASV publishers.

You change the translation whenever it suits you. You also simply make up whatever you want in a verse whenever you want to. Here is another example of Ben Johnson simply rewriting Scripture....

Eph2:5-8, "WHEN we were dead in sins, we were made alive ...THROUGH FAITH". ~ Ben Johnson FALSE Bible!!!!

My Bible says....

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

We were made alive when we were Spiritually dead. And the dead don't do living things. This is why they need a resurrection FROM the dead, which the Bible calls "born again." In fact, this verse which you had to rewrite because it doesn't even say what you need it to say claims that WE (those of us who are or will be saved) were made alive TOGETHER with Christ and raised up TOGETHER with Christ and already made to sit in the heavenlies IN Christ.

Here is a Greek study for you, Ben. Tell me the tense of the verbs in the relevant portion, if you can.

You don't understand my posts, given that you called Arminianism Fatalism.
You don't understand Calvinism.
You can't translate Greek.
You constantly rewrite the Bible to suit your needs.

You need to repent.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Easystreet]

1

 

[CCWoody]

Again, "being in the flesh", or "putting the flesh to death by the Holy Spirit", is a choice.

No, Ben. Read the verse, AGAIN. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Put on your thinking cap, now, and reason with me....

If you are currently in the flesh, can you please God? No! The Scripture teaches that if you are in the flesh you cannot please God. How, then, can you make a decision or change like repenting or believing that we all agree IS God pleasing? You can't. You are in the flesh. Moving away from the flesh is God pleasing, but you can't perform it because you can't please God while in the flesh.

You must first be rescued FROM your fleshy state.

My only experiment in time-travel (an application of an "Einstein-Rosen Bridge"), gave me a glimpse of Mount Saint Helen's, a month before it happened. Did I cause it to happen? No. I simply saw the future. So too God knows who will believe, and who won't, but each man makes the choice. For reference I give you the parable of Matt22:2-14, where the king (symbolic for GOD) chooses no one; each makes the choice himself.

Thank you for FINALLY agreeing with me, even if you called what you have just laid out fatalism when I illustrated it....


God knows the future, but isn't the first cause of that future. He may, for instance, already know that you will turn your back on him and burn in the Lake of Fire forever. And, there is absolutely NOTHING that you can do to change what God already knows will happen.

Fatalism - American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd Edition: The belief that events are determined by an impersonal fate and cannot be changed by human beings.​

Dualism (theology) - dictionary.com, Unabridged: the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil.​

Let's explore the implications of your theology.

1. As we have already both agreed, God is not the determiner of anyone's fate; he is merely a spectator to it. This makes God a helpless impotent being to the sin and suffering of man. This is Arminianism and is precisely the theology that you have espoused. I agree with you, therefore, that Arminianism is a form of fatalism. God knows you will perish forever and there is nothing you can do to change it.
2. Because God is not the first cause of human history, but merely an observer of it, there is another force or principle that created human history. God is a source and principle of good and there is another source and principle of evil. Thus, Arminianism and the theology that you have espoused is also a form of dualism.

Let me ask a question: since you agree with me that the future is fixed and unchangeable by either me or you, would you rather a loving Creator be the first cause and determiner of it or would you rather have an armchair quarterback Creator who must sit and watch your life end in a trainwreck?

Let me ask another question: Which Father is more loving?

• A father who simply watches and warns from his lawn chair as his child runs into the street only to be killed by a passing truck.
• A father who has no respect for a free choice for destruction and runs after his son to gather him up before he is crushed.

Wouldn't one father be loving and the other guilty of child neglect?

Should we judge God's love by any other standard?

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[CCWoody]

50. And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."


Whose faith? The one believing

This verse alone is sufficient to classify Calvinism as false.

Calvinism is basically calling Christ a liar if they don't accept this truth.

I accept this truth.
I deny your interpretation of it.

Who makes one man differ from another? Who makes man's mouth? Or, who makes the mute, the seeing, the deaf, the blind?

Is it not the Lord?

In your theology, man creates his own faith; he makes himself differ on from another. He is smarter, quicker, more spiritual. Therefore, his faith is "activated" (whatever that means) when another's remains dormant. Man is NOT saved by grace. Man is saved by HIS choice, his wisdom, spirituality, strength, etc.

Truly, there are only 2 religions.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Easystreet]

1

 

[Epiphoskei]

You are putting words into my mouth that I did not say. That is the fallacy of Calvinism, RT, and Tulipology. They can't handle the truth that the exercise of faith is not a work and it is a capacity of man by virtue of being created in the image of God.

Contradiction in terms. So it's not a work (i.e., somthing we do) but it's somthing that we exercise (i.e., do) by means of a capacity (i.e., ability to do)?

Faith is a work. of God.

 

[Bob L]

Contradiction in terms. So it's not a work (i.e., somthing we do) but it's somthing that we exercise (i.e., do) by means of a capacity (i.e., ability to do)?

Faith is a work. of God.

What are we to say then, is salvation of faith or works? Without God, man can do nothing towards his salvation. God must first wipe away man's sins through the sacrifice of His Son. So it depends entirely on God. But it does not stop there. Step 2 is man must accept this gift, through faith (which is both the cogent understanding of God's gift as well as the subsequent acts of repentance that back up this understanding.) The Bible repeatedly denies that salvation is of works, lest any man boast, because the works part only comes after man puts his faith in God IN STEP 2. God must first do step 1. Calvinism is wrong because it asserts that there is only step 1. If man doesn't continue on to perform step 2 than he will surely be lost. That is why so many calvinists are unsure of their place in heaven.

 

[Epiphoskei]

What are we to say then, is salvation of faith or works?

Faith. And the Bible treats faith as if it were not a work. But the problem which I bring up time and again is that it only says that faith is not a work, it does not say that intrinsic faith would not be a work. If someone objects that your doctrines make faith a work of men, you cannot respond by saying that the Bible says that faith is not a work. We all agree on that, but that is not a defense of your position, it is the very heart of our objection. Everything a man creates is his work. If man creates his own belief, then faith is a work.

Without God, man can do nothing towards his salvation.

Including believe.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Too much to aswer every point, so we'll start here.

Jesus plainly stated, "WERE ENTERING" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "predestined-elect". Do you disagree?

Yet, they were "stopped/shut-off" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "never-elect". Do you disagree?

Unresolveable conflict, "EP".

People who were entering but were stopped are neither necesarally elect or unelect. God uses means.

"EP", I thank you for participating, and I value you and your opinions; and hope you see that every point of Calvinism, has been refuted. Sometimes I number the choices --- so that we can conclude a discussion. As in this post, regarding Rom11:21-23, you have three choices --- 1)generationally (Calvinistic), 2)individually (Responsible), 3)ignore (not intellectually honest).

The problem is you haven't refuted, you've asserted what verses should be taken to infer.

The fourth choice is that they had never believed. Faith was not required to be part of national Israel. The way paul writes, one can be a Jew according to the flesh but not a believer. They were broken off and cast away for disbelief, but they were were in the tree by virtue of birth, not by belief. Observe verse 7. "What israel was seeking"- justification by the flesh - "they did not obtain." They were never justified by Christ at all, and they were broken off because they did not believe, not because they lost belief. They always seeked Justification by the flesh, not justification by faith. And now anyone who believes can be grafted back ino the tree, but they were never there because of faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

You change the translation whenever it suits you. You also simply make up whatever you want in a verse whenever you want to. Here is another example of Ben Johnson simply rewriting Scripture....

Eph2:5-8, "WHEN we were dead in sins, we were made alive ...THROUGH FAITH". ~ Ben Johnson FALSE Bible!!!!

My Bible says....

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

We were made alive when we were Spiritually dead. And the dead don't do living things. This is why they need a resurrection FROM the dead, which the Bible calls "born again." In fact, this verse which you had to rewrite because it doesn't even say what you need it to say claims that WE (those of us who are or will be saved) were made alive TOGETHER with Christ and raised up TOGETHER with Christ and already made to sit in the heavenlies IN Christ.

Sorry, Woody --- the concept of "made alive", was "when we were dead"; but it was "by grace, through faith".

We cannot separate verse 8 ("by grace through faith have you been saved"), from verse 5 ("by grace have you been saved").

...and "made alive", equates to "saved".

Clearly, dead men can believe savingly.

 

[frumanchu]

Clearly, dead men can believe savingly.

And there you have it, once again. "Dead" doesn't really mean dead according to Ben, because anyone knows that DEAD MEN DON'T DO ANYTHING. Ben would have you believe Lazarus had a choice not to be resurrected when Jesus commanded his dead corpse to come forth, because the term "dead" doesn't apply to the sacred, immortal "free will of man."

BTW...feel free to quote me...Ben just puts me on ignore because it gives him an excuse to avoid answering questions that expose the gaping flaws in his errant theology.

 

[Ben johnson]

No, Ben. Read the verse, AGAIN. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Put on your thinking cap, now, and reason with me....

If you are currently in the flesh, can you please God? No! The Scripture teaches that if you are in the flesh you cannot please God. How, then, can you make a decision or change like repenting or believing that we all agree IS God pleasing? You can't. You are in the flesh. Moving away from the flesh is God pleasing, but you can't perform it because you can't please God while in the flesh.

You must first be rescued FROM your fleshy state.

We don't have to reason-it-out --- Paul clearly says it. We can walk either in the flesh (if we do, we must die); or, we can put to death the flesh, by the Spirit.

Full choice.

God knows the future, but isn't the first cause of that future. He may, for instance, already know that you will turn your back on him and burn in the Lake of Fire forever. And, there is absolutely NOTHING that you can do to change what God already knows will happen.

This is illogical; I can do EVERYTHING to change the future --- because I have full control over "today". Don't you remember a line from my favorite story, "A Christmas Carol"? "If man's deeds lead to certain ends, might not those ends be changed, if the deeds are changed?"

So it's "non-sequitur" to say "we CANNOT change what WILL be". Take Judas for instance --- the prophecy reflected future events; yet Judas had full control, and made his own choice. This is why Jesus admonished the remaining Disciples --- "Don't be so sure you won't leave; one of you already is."

Fatalism - American Heritage Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd Edition: The belief that events are determined by an impersonal fate and cannot be changed by human beings.

Here is the difference between us. You perceive that man's will is BEYOND his control, either way. Unregenerate man cannot will to seek God, and sovereignly-regenerated man can only will (irresistibly) to follow God through Christ.

And I perceive that man has full choice, from beginning to end. Look only at Rom1:17-20 --- the Greek states "from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith"; the next verses speak of how they were INFORMED of God but REFUSED Him. You would do well to look up verses about "refusing God" --- you'll find Heb12:25 for instance.

And if you look up "blameless", you'll find it fully our choice in 2Pet3:14, Col1:23, Jude1:20-24, and Philip2:14-15. Why would "blamelessness" be our choice, if we were "sovereignly predestined"???

Dualism (theology) - dictionary.com, Unabridged: the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil.

Does not apply to either of us.

Let's explore the implications of your theology.
As we have already both agreed, God is not the determiner of anyone's fate; he is merely a spectator to it. This makes God a helpless impotent being to the sin and suffering of man.

Hardly. Sending Jesus to die, is power; and one who believes THROUGH the foolishness of the message, God is pleased to save --- the message then ceases being "foolish" and becomes "power". 1Cor1:18-21 is clear. Calvinists cannot explain the idea of "believing THROUGH the foolishness".

This is Arminianism and is precisely the theology that you have espoused. I agree with you, therefore, that Arminianism is a form of fatalism.

Calvinism is the fatalism --- man is mere "flotsam and jetsam" before God's sovereign predestinary will.

God knows you will perish forever and there is nothing you can do to change it.

I certainly can; I can believe. Acts16:31

Because God is not the first cause of human history, but merely an observer of it, there is another force or principle that created human history.

Adam chose to fall. That's the only "other force/principle".

God is a source and principle of good and there is another source and principle of evil. Thus, Arminianism and the theology that you have espoused is also a form of dualism.

Is not --- I've explained things clearly.

Let me ask a question: since you agree with me that the future is fixed and unchangeable by either me or you...

I don't agree; the future is fully at our will.

This is why Peter warns us to "be diligent, not to be like the man who was ONCE saved but now has FALLEN; we are to check our fruits, that the gates of Heaven BE provided."

That's alotta control, Woody. 2Pet1:5-10

would you rather...

What I would rather, is irrelevant; truth doesn't need me.

a loving Creator be the first cause and determiner of it or would you rather have an armchair quarterback Creator who must sit and watch your life end in a trainwreck?

There is a middle ground, where God ACTS --- in that He CALLS each person TO salvation. A call that is sufficient to overcome depravity, inasmuch as he CAN believe.

Let me ask another question: Which Father is more loving?

Which Father is reflected in Scripture?

A father who simply watches and warns from his lawn chair as his child runs into the street only to be killed by a passing truck.
A father who has no respect for a free choice for destruction and runs after his son to gather him up before he is crushed.
Wouldn't one father be loving and the other guilty of child neglect?

Look at the dynamic in Heb12; we can SUBMIT to the Father of Spirits AND LIVE, or we can refuse His discipline and not be His children. How clearer could it be?

Should we judge God's love by any other standard?

Judge Him by the words of Scripture He inspired.

 

[Ben johnson]

Too much to aswer every point, so we'll start here.

Sorry --- I tend to answer every point; and it's often still charged that "Ben ignores things he doesn't like".

People who were entering but were stopped are neither necesarally elect or unelect. God uses means.

Wait wait wait --- please tell me "yes" or "no" --- can someone who God does NOT elect, ever be CONSIDERED "entering Heaven"?

The problem is you haven't refuted, you've asserted what verses should be taken to infer.

The fourth choice is that they had never believed. Faith was not required to be part of national Israel.

Doesn't the idea of "cut-off", mean they had to once BE there, so that they could THEN be "cut off"? One cannot be cut off from a place he's never BEEN, can he?

The way paul writes, one can be a Jew according to the flesh but not a believer.

Two things wrong with that; second, if they do not CONTINUE in unbelief, they will be RESTORED.

First, WE can be cut off if WE cease to believe it is arrogant for us to think we can NOT be.

They were broken off and cast away for disbelief, but they were were in the tree by virtue of birth, not by belief. Observe verse 7. "What israel was seeking"- justification by the flesh - "they did not obtain."

Why? Because they "sought by works, rather than by grace".

How do you 'splain the contextual warning that's then given to US? "Therefore be dilgent TO enter God's rest, lest you FALL by imitating their unbelief and disobedience". Heb4:11!

They were never justified by Christ at all,

On what do you decide, "never"? What of the man in 2Pet1:9, and the man in Heb10:29? Can you contend that EITHER was not "justified/sanctified/SAVED"?

and they were broken off because they did not believe, not because they lost belief.

Contextually flawed; they were BROKEN OFF --- thus, they were ATTACHED by belief, until they CEASED. Then clearly stated is the warning that WE (saved-believers!) can be ALSO broken off for unbelief! Sorry, my friend, your argument doesn't hold.

They always sought Justification by the flesh, not justification by faith. And now anyone who believes can be grafted back ino the tree, but they were never there because of faith.

That's not what Paul wrote; as I've shown.

But again, thank you for the discussion thus far; if we never come to agreement on all things (and no two will, this side of Christ), then I pray that we respect each other, increase in fellowship and mature in Christ.

I expect both of us to continue this fellowship, when we're with Jesus in person.

 

[Ben johnson]

Without God, man can do nothing towards his salvation.

Including believe.

Technically, man CANNOT believe, without God.

...yet, the call to every man, is sufficient to enable man TO believe. Jesus said, "I will call ALL MEN to Myself". Jn12:32

In addition, God's characteristics have been clearly seen through what He has made --- so God has been made known to them.

The problem with Calvinism, is that saving-belief is considered impossible without prior regeneration.

...and Scripture asserts that regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit.

The Spirit is received by faith.

Case closed.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Sorry --- I tend to answer every point; and it's often still charged that "Ben ignores things he doesn't like".

Which is the fastest way to mass confusion. Specificity of discussion is good thing.

Wait wait wait --- please tell me "yes" or "no" --- can someone who God does NOT elect, ever be CONSIDERED "entering Heaven"?

In the process only to stop later, perhaps. But no one can actually enter, not "be entering," but "has entered," without election, no. And neither does the text say that the Pharisees were sucessfully keeping out the elect. God uses means, and for this reason life carries on for us the same way both in a Calvinist or a Free-will perspective. This is why it is so vital to avoid arguments from silence, because the end result of both views looks quite similar. People believe and they are saved. People have their hearts softened by various mechanisms, or hardened by various mechanisms.

Doesn't the idea of "cut-off", mean they had to once BE there, so that they could THEN be "cut off"? One cannot be cut off from a place he's never BEEN, can he?

In context, Paul is referring to Jews who had never believed in Christ but found him to be a stumbling block and would not accept him as Messiah. Belief was not a requirement to be part of ethnic Israel, only right birth mattered for that. Of course they were once part of the tree, and they were broken off for unbelief, and they will be grafted in if they believe. But they were not in the tree to begin with because of belief, they were part of the tree because they were branches "by nature."

First, WE can be cut off if WE cease to believe it is arrogant for us to think we can NOT be.Why? Because they "sought by works, rather than by grace".

How do you 'splain the contextual warning that's then given to US? "Therefore be dilgent TO enter God's rest, lest you FALL by imitating their unbelief and disobedience". Heb4:11! On what do you decide, "never"? What of the man in 2Pet1:9, and the man in Heb10:29? Can you contend that EITHER was not "justified/sanctified/SAVED"? Contextually flawed; they were BROKEN OFF --- thus, they were ATTACHED by belief, until they CEASED. Then clearly stated is the warning that WE (saved-believers!) can be ALSO broken off for unbelief! Sorry, my friend, your argument doesn't hold. That's not what Paul wrote; as I've shown.

What is this constant attempt to make OSAS a calvinistic doctrine? It isn't. OSAS and perseverence are two very different things. Those warnings are indeed very serious warnings, and if a man does not persevere he will perish.

 

[Easystreet]

1

 

[Epiphoskei]

You are trying to define doing somthing as not really doing somthing. That doesn't work out.

 

[frumanchu]

Sorry --- I tend to answer every point; and it's often still charged that "Ben ignores things he doesn't like".

I'm living proof of the statement, Ben, and I documented some clear cases of points that you steadfastly refused to answer.

Doesn't the idea of "cut-off", mean they had to once BE there, so that they could THEN be "cut off"? One cannot be cut off from a place he's never BEEN, can he?

You are evading the point Epi made. It's a point I have already made [post=8975323]several[/post] [post=9918364]times[/post] [post=19006760]over[/post] but you ignore it and dismiss it in favor of begging the question. You provide no evidence that your assumptions about those being referred to are correct, you simply state them as inarguable fact and deflect scrutiny.

Ben's theology requires as a basic premise that EVERYONE addressed in Scripture...or even reading the Scripture...is presumed to be saved. This presumption, coupled with a persistent willful refusal of application of the causal principle of instrumental means to any imperative statement in Scripture, allows Ben to falsely claim that Scripture not only presents the notion of saved people losing their salvation but is actually FULL of examples of such.

The ability of justified men to lose their justification and have the cloak of Christ's righteousness ripped from their backs at any moment is the central theme of Ben's soteriology. You will be hard pressed to find Ben participate in ANY discussion of salvation on this forum without almost immediately seizing upon any notion of the perseverance of the saints and making it the main focus of the discussion.

Of course, many times over it has been shown that, were Ben to be subject to his own soteriology applied in a consistent manner, he would find cause for fear and anguish as he has no assurance of his ultimate salvation and actually spends most of his time unjustified.

Thanks be to God that He is more gracious and faithful than what Ben's soteriology makes Him out to be.