How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Ben johnson]

hi ben , from 2 years reading your stuff I have to say in all honesty you don't understand it fine , remember , you think hyper-calvinism is RT ! but that is in the past and i debate very little with Arminians these days. I leave it in God's Sovereign hands.

Hi, Cygnus. I'm thinking that you'll likely hafta change your "non-debate" position soon. When my text "hits the market", Calvinism will end.

As I was finishing up the text tonight, I was scanning over it. One problem I've faced, as I've been debating the subject on the Internet since about 1999, is that many points I thought I HAD in the text, were only debated here. It was brought to my spirit that two passages were lacking; one was from Proverbs16 (and in seeing it, I discovered a third) :

Proverbs16:4 "The Lord has made everything for its (His) own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Proverbs 16:9 "The mind of a man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps".

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else, and desperately sick (wicked); who can understand it?"

Merely by reading the context of those verses, the "predestinary view" is ruined.


I really think the book will make some serious waves in the world; I pray that they are not "waves of division", but that the text will only bring glory and honor to the Lord we serve.


BTW, the text is now...

...essentially...

...finished.


Knowing myself, I'm sure there will be temptation to do some more "polish". I pray that if there is anything I've left out, God will bring it to my mind. But as it stands, virtually every verse used in support of "Predestination/Reformed-Theology", is listed, and addressed.

As I gave one of the "smoking guns" above, there are many verses which cannot ever accommodate "sovereign election".

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi, Cygnus. I'm thinking that you'll likely hafta change your "non-debate" position soon. When my text "hits the market", Calvinism will end.

blah blah blah ...........

........................

 

[Rick Otto]

Admission Calvin was right on soteriology.

 

[Ben johnson]

...It lacks only one thing.


Admission Calvin was right on soteriology.

Heh heh heh!

@ Cygnus...

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi, Cygnus. I'm thinking that you'll likely hafta change your "non-debate" position soon. When my text "hits the market", Calvinism will end.

Wow! No pride in his family!

You can't be serious! I haven't had such a good laugh in quite a while!

You have an active imagination, that's for sure. A bit unrealistic, but active....

 

[Ben johnson]

Wow! No pride in his family!

It's not pride, my friend, it's confidence. What I wrote has no power nor merit; the force comes fully and only from the Scripture it quotes. It's either right, or wrong. But because of the length and comprehensiveness, you'll be hard-pressed to "prove it wrong".

You can't be serious! I haven't had such a good laugh in quite a while!

You have an active imagination, that's for sure. A bit unrealistic, but active....

I'm pleased to bring a smile to your day. Now, please see what you can do with what I said in post #231.

Can "imperishable wreath", be understood as anything but "eternal life"?

Can "fail the test (be unapproved/disqualified)", ever mean "remain saved"?

Can Paul's words be understood as "mere hypothetical, effective means for guiding us"?

Is that a "smoking gun", or not?

 

[heymikey80]

...and I've proven that God elects no one. He shows no partiality, but whoever fears Him and does right, He welcomes. Without faith it is impossible to please God; but whoever COMES to God must believe He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Acts10:34-35, Heb11:6)

We both agree He's a rewarder of those who seek Him. Apparently we disagree whether the seeking came from His Spirit.

One of the "smoking-guns" cited in the text (which is very long and comprehensive, fully addressing Romans9), is the passage of 1Cor9:24-27. Paul says "run so as to win". In saying "they race for a perishable wreath, but you for an imperishable", there is no way he means anything but "eternal life".

As always, when everything's soteriology, something's wrong with theology.

Paul is talking about his evangelistic ministry to others. He didn't suddenly change the subject at the end of the chapter:

To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
​

Another point: if "only one receives the prize" of salvation, then I'm out. I suspect you won't be in the running, either. "Dang, sure is hot down here."

Then Paul writes the "clincher": "But I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest after I have preached to others, I myself be disqualified".

Disqualified. "Adokimos", unapproved. Rejected as a coin is rejected if it no longer bears the image impressed upon it.

Connect this directly to 2Cor13:5: "Examine yourselves, test yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Do you not realize that Christ is in you, unless you FAIL the test?"

"Fail-the-test", "adokimos", disqualified/unapproved.

Here is Paul admonishing us to "run the race so as to win the IMPERISHABLE WREATH", and also warning us to "examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith, to see if Christ is in us". And BOTH warnings carry the consequence of being found "disqualified".

There is no way to change "disqualified", into "still saved".
There is no way to assert "disqualified is not a real possibility".

Connected with a verse in another letter instead of the verses immediately preceding, I see. If I use the word "fail" do I have to mean "fail to be saved" every time?

2 Cor 3 is assurance in Calvinism. Paul is speaking to a gathering, a congregation, an ekklesia -- he's proposing self-examination, warning them that the Christ isn't in those who aren't saved.

That is one of three "smoking guns" I've cited in the text. And every verse that's been posted in defense of Calvinism/Reformed-Theology, has been listed and addressed; Rom9:11-21, Rom8:28-29, Eph1:1-4, etcetera. All of them.

Another book with an agenda. Whatever. Ben, I have plenty of books that have attempted this. Someone else has already BTDT. We have 500 years of history, and generally the mistakes are easy to spot because they've been committed so often.

Pity the polemicist. Or better yet: don't.

 

[cygnusx1]

Another book with an agenda. Whatever. Ben, I have plenty of books that have attempted this. Someone else has already BTDT. We have 500 years of history, and generally the mistakes are easy to spot because they've been committed so often.

Pity the polemicist. Or better yet: don't.

Yes Mikey I also have about 6 books that attempt to overturn Reformed Soteriology , they are all trash , and show a lack of both understanding and some of them even lack decency! but I think we better be prepaired for the book ben is bringing out ......... it could send the stock markets into chaos !

Pelegius and Erasmus said "it" so did Arminius and Wesley and each were soon followed by an explosion in Reformed Theology ! Such is the wisdom of God!

 

[nobdysfool]

It's not pride, my friend, it's confidence. What I wrote has no power nor merit; the force comes fully and only from the Scripture it quotes. It's either right, or wrong. But because of the length and comprehensiveness, you'll be hard-pressed to "prove it wrong".

Such is the method when one is trying to hide the paucity of his premise. If you can't dazzle with facts, baffle with ....well, you get the idea.

If the book is written in the style of your posting here, it will certainly baffle, and it will baffle even those who would agree with you. You haven't demonstrated anything approaching a readable or comprehensible style, certainly nothing that is a compelling read.

I'm pleased to bring a smile to your day. Now, please see what you can do with what I said in post #231.

Can "imperishable wreath", be understood as anything but "eternal life"?

Can "fail the test (be unapproved/disqualified)", ever mean "remain saved"?

Can Paul's words be understood as "mere hypothetical, effective means for guiding us"?

Is that a "smoking gun", or not?

Ah, your phrase of the month? Sorry Ben, not going there. You're on a fool's mission, and I haven't got the time to debate someone who won't listen.

I'd rather sit back and wait for the peer review which will pan your book, and watch it go down in flames.

You see, I have confidence too.

 

[Easystreet]

John 3:16 Don't forget the verses below.


Altar Call http://www.good-music.org/good-music/moores-chapel/midi-hymns/just-as-i-am.mp3

 

[Rick Otto]

inspired by The Ultimate Anti-Calvin publication The Remonstrance?
It's on my short list of anti-favorites!

 

[Ben johnson]

We both agree He's a rewarder of those who seek Him. Apparently we disagree whether the seeking came from His Spirit.

Hi, Mike! Good to "see" you again.

We both agree "the seeking came from the Spirit"; we disagree on degree. Does the Spirit fully cause the seeking, or does the Spirit draw the person to where he can decide to seek or not? (In other words, who is it that chooses our "seeking" --- God, or us?) The context of, "He rewards those who seek", asserts that "he who comes to God must believe God is" --- this places the man as initiating the faith (believing in the existence of God, and God receiving he WHO comes).

Doesn't it?

It also places God as receiving man's faith --- fully reflecting Acts10:34-35. "God is not partial --- but he who does right and fears God is welcome".

Calvinism asserts "God is partial, He chooses certain ONES to salvation".
Scripture asserts "God is not partial, He receives those who seek Him, who do right, who fear (revere) God".

Have I sufficiently demonstrated the conflict between "Calvinism", and that passage?

As always, when everything's soteriology, something's wrong with theology.

What does that mean, Mike? When Paul says "immortal wreath", and "myself disqualified", how is he not speaking soteriologically?

Paul is talking about his evangelistic ministry to others. He didn't suddenly change the subject at the end of the chapter:
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

MIGHT win the weak? Does God sovereignly predestine, or is Paul really asserting "that I might win the weak"? (Conversely, in passages such as Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11, can a weak SAVED person, be "destroyed/ruined"?)

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

All of this so that people may come to believe in Jesus.

Please tell me --- is such belief "sovereignly predestined", or does Paul's attitude affect the salvation of his listeners? Which, Mike?

Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.

Another point: if "only one receives the prize" of salvation, then I'm out. I suspect you won't be in the running, either. "Dang, sure is hot down here."

Each person runs his own race; it is not a race against other Humans, but a race against his own life, against sin and temptation. You have yet to prove that "immortal wreath" has nothing to do with "eternal life".

Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Disqualified from what, Mike? You have three choices:
1. Disqualified from rewards/crowns, but not from eternal life
2. Disqualified, if possible, but it's not; hyperbole, "effective means"
3. Disqualified from salvation

If you choose #1, then you must support the premise that "immortal wreath", is not "eternal life".

If you choose #2, then you must explain why "run so as to win immortal-wreath", is only "hyperbole"; and why 2Cor13:5 does not directly connect to Rom9:27.

Will you consider #3?

Connected with a verse in another letter instead of the verses immediately preceding, I see.

No, you don't see; you're proposing that "race to win the immortal wreath", is not saying "eternal life". You're proposing that Paul does not consider his own position "disqualifiable from that immortal wreath". You're proposing that "disqualified" in one passage is different from "disqualfied" in the other; and that Paul is speaking to never-saved people.

On what basis are all those proposals of yours, credible? WHY isn't "immortal wreath", the same as "eternal life"? WHY isn't Paul "worrying about his OWN disqualificability"? WHY would he be admonishing the never saved to "see if they are in Christ, and if Christ is in them"?

If I use the word "fail" do I have to mean "fail to be saved" every time?

Yes, unless you can prove that "fail" does not oppose "win-immortal-wreath/eternal-life", and that "fail" does not oppose "in Christ"?

Can you?

2 Cor 3 is assurance in Calvinism. Paul is speaking to a gathering, a congregation, an ekklesia -- he's proposing self-examination, warning them that the Christ isn't in those who aren't saved.

See if you can deny movement in 1:9:27. Specifically, "BECOME disqualified". And then deny that "disqualified by not-being-in-Christ" infers movement in 2:13:5. If there is no movement, then why use a word that brought to their minds "examination of coins, to see if they still bore the image that had been impressed upon them."

Do you really propose that "SOME of the coins never HAD an image on them in the FIRST place"?

Another book with an agenda. Whatever. Ben, I have plenty of books that have attempted this.

Yes, an agenda, Mike; an agenda to "earnestly contend for the faith". Unless you answer the questions asked here, then you are not "contending for the position you have embraced".

That passage is only one of the "smoking guns". Another is Matt23:13; Jesus said "those who ARE entering, are STOPPED (shut off from the kingdom of Heaven)". Per Calvinism, only those who are sovereignly predestined can BE "entering". And none of them can BE shut off. Again, three choices:
1. Not really entering
2. Not really shut off (they'll enter at a time God has predestined)
3. They were entering, and were stopped

I give you these options, to try to "pin you down to defending your position". It's my contention that the position isn't defendable. If you do not "pick a number", then you have refused to defend, and "Responsible Grace" wins by default. If you pick #1 or #2, defend why it is valid.

Rather than "belligerent arguing", by writing this text (and posting here) I am "exhorting with sound doctrine and refuting those who contradict". Titus1:9

Someone else has already BTDT.

Not really; I've read many of those books; I've never seen John17:6 used in conjunction with John6:44. Nor have I seen John17:15 used in conjuction with Rev3:10. I haven't seen a text that lists each verse used by the proponent of a certain view, and systematically examines each verse in context, in Greek, and in conjunction with other Scriptures.

We have 500 years of history, and generally the mistakes are easy to spot because they've been committed so often.

A general statement, "sweeping away the discussion with a wave of the hand". Tell us the mistakes; choose a number from the two lists above, or fail to choose and concede the discussion.

Pity the polemicist. Or better yet: don't.

In the presence of two arguers, pity the one who claims "victory" but refuses to discuss the Scriptures. Forgive me if that sounded at all harsh; these discussions must end, we must "pin each other to the wall" (metaphorically) and force the issue as to what Scripture really says.

One last "list" --- I mentioned Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11. Please choose one of three understandings:
1. They were not REALLY ones "for whom Christ died" (meaning, "not ever really saved")
2. They can not REALLY be "destroyed/ruined" (meaning, they remain saved)
3. It's a true worry about us "destroying/ruining the faith of one who IS saved".

Choose a number, Mike; door number 1, number 2, or number 3; or choose no door at all and concede the discussion.

There is no "door number 4"...

 

[Ben johnson]

Such is the method when one is trying to hide the paucity of his premise. If you can't dazzle with facts, baffle with ....well, you get the idea.

Ahhh, but I can "dazzle with facts". An entire text replete with Scriptural citations, cross-referencing, contextual presentation, and specific forced consideration. "Forced consideration", meaning "listing the possible meanings, and eliminating all but one".

Ah, your phrase of the month? Sorry Ben, not going there. You're on a fool's mission, and I haven't got the time to debate someone who won't listen.

With respect, that sounds like "I am not here to learn, but only to teach". Those exact words were said to me just a week ago by the Jehovah's Witnesses on my step. I am "on a fool's mission", if not inspired by God; but if inspired, those who refuse to listen are in fact refusing God. These are the same words asserted by Gamaliel, in Acts5:39.

I'd rather sit back and wait for the peer review which will pan your book, and watch it go down in flames.

As a Calvinist, you have no choice --- ignore me, and either I'm inspired by God, and you are refusing Him; or I'm not inspired by God, and you are allowing promotion of a false gospel.

Please answer the three sets of questions above. Number 1, number 2, number 3, or not answer and concede the discussion.

I look forward to all of your responses.

 

[Easystreet]

I Tim. 1:16. But that is why God had mercy on me, so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.

By way of illustration:

God picked one and did not pick the other.

God knows that the one He picked is absolutely going to be saved because He is making it happen.

Now God places both in a world and they are hell bound sinners but one is picked to miss hell and make heaven.

For a verse to teach "longsuffering" toward a picked one is contradictory.

One of the many reasons that Calvinism is false is that on their premise that some are selected and all others rejected means that of those that are selected and not rejected God is showing patience in waiting for them to come to Christ or God is tolerating them until He zaps them into salvation. But this too is contradictory as well. If a person is pre-selected then when they actually believe means nothing because it is going to happen by decree in that they are made to believe regardless.

The question is this - Why does a God who, according to Calvinism, picks a person in all of eternity past have to show longsuffering toward?

There is no need of an example of longsuffering to bring one to salvation at all if that person is picked and can not be lost regardless.

Now longsuffering makes perfect sense and agrees with the Holiness and Character of God when understood correctly in light of the truth. (1) Saving faith is not a special gift from God in order for one to believe. No proof of it in the Bible anywhere - Calvinist have to force and twist language to make their point. (2) Election is clearly taught that it is on the basis of God knowing what men do with Christ and not on the basis of what He forced them to do. (3) God can not violated his desire which is His will "that all be saved" not by force but willingly, showing to be longsuffering. Willingness and Longsuffering are correct displays of God’s love toward a sinful hell bound man of which that hell bound man can believe in God’s work and agree with God and be saved. The man’s faith saves him not God’s faith. God does not have to prove anything because He is the author of it, but man must trust in God of his own after hearing the Gospel. If a man will have faith in God it will be after he hears the Gospel and that is on the basis of his free will.

 

[cygnusx1]

As a Calvinist, you have no choice --- ignore me, and either I'm inspired by God, and you are refusing Him; or I'm not inspired by God, and you are allowing promotion of a false gospel.

Thats three errors in one sentence ben , a NEW record!!!


It seems ben has forgotten Calvinists believe God sends delusions upon men !!!


2 Thess 2:7-


7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[Easystreet]

Thats three errors in one sentence ben , a NEW record!!!


It seems ben has forgotten Calvinists believe God sends delusions upon men !!!


2 Thess 2:7-


7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The reason you miss-understand the verse. It is one of those "Chicken and Egg" things - what comes first the Chicken or the Egg?

 

[cygnusx1]

The reason you miss-understand the verse. It is one of those "Chicken and Egg" things - what comes first the Chicken or the Egg?

Oh yes , of course I must have misunderstand this verse , how knowledgeable and humble of you to say so , and I have not even said what my understanding of this verse is yet , that is some gift you have there ......


yes God had a reason to send the strong delusion on these men (they rejected the truth) see look I am not unaware of the context as you implied ! what da ya know


yet in truth that is not my point , and you are far too busy attempting to think or say what others are thinking to listen to what they actually say ...... why ?


1 Kings 22:23 Yahweh has put a lying spirit into the mouth of all these your prophets.


Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.





btw , the Chicken comes first !

 

[heymikey80]

Hi, Mike! Good to "see" you again.

We both agree "the seeking came from the Spirit"; we disagree on degree. Does the Spirit fully cause the seeking, or does the Spirit draw the person to where he can decide to seek or not? (In other words, who is it that chooses our "seeking" --- God, or us?) The context of, "He rewards those who seek", asserts that "he who comes to God must believe God is" --- this places the man as initiating the faith (believing in the existence of God, and God receiving he WHO comes).

Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't: "What's born of the flesh is flesh; what's born of the spirit is spirit. ... You must be born again." Jn 3:5

It also places God as receiving man's faith --- fully reflecting Acts10:34-35. "God is not partial --- but he who does right and fears God is welcome".

Which is flatly against the Scripture stating man receives what God delivers -- be it salvation through faith, or condemnation through his works.

Calvinism asserts "God is partial, He chooses certain ONES to salvation".
Scripture asserts "God is not partial, He receives those who seek Him, who do right, who fear (revere) God".

Another lie blind to the excluded middle. Find Calvin stating God's partial. Find an actual Calvinist stating what you quoted. Citation, please. Or retract.

As for God choosing certain people, that's kind of obvious: "for the sake of the chosen, whom he chose ... to lead astray, if possible, the chosen." Mk 13:20

So Scripture says both. And so Calvinism says both.

Have I sufficiently demonstrated the conflict between "Calvinism", and that passage?

Not in the slightest.

What does that mean, Mike? When Paul says "immortal wreath", and "myself disqualified", how is he not speaking soteriologically?

So God, being immortal, also can't extract Himself from being completely soteriological in your estimate? Angels, being immortal ...? Bore me with more contradictions.

MIGHT win the weak? Does God sovereignly predestine, or is Paul really asserting "that I might win the weak"? (Conversely, in passages such as Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11, can a weak SAVED person, be "destroyed/ruined"?)All of this so that people may come to believe in Jesus.

Still playing on that fiddle of soteriology I see. There's even a soteriological explanation of this, which if you had a really good argument for your cause here, you would know and would quit playing around.

But it's awfully obvious that Paul doesn't have insight into whether everyone in this church is saved.

Paul certainly has no illusions that his words are going to save every weak person; every Jew; every outlaw. He's actually been there. He's actually done that. So too for anyone who has actually attempted conversion of great masses of people -- Paul might win the weak; or he may not.

Were that not the case, again, there are clear reasons why grammatically your complaint doesn't prove diddly. Certainly you know that John 3:16 actually has the subjunctive "might not perish" right there. By this kind of assertion that means believers may actually perish anyway?! Oh, that's right, they can slip the grasp of Jesus (cf Jn 10) in your view. Well Greek doesn't see it that way. Look it up: subjunctive of intent (that is, Christ sacrifice intends to save); future subjunctive (that is, believers will be saved). Both of these perfectly reasonable Greek uses slip right out from under your argument.

So there you have it. Any one of three different arguments, all quite relevant to your clincher verse, each of which rejects your assertion of a lock-tight soteriological argument here. Yet it only takes one.

Collect your case again. It's showing its shattered state.

Please tell me --- is such belief "sovereignly predestined", or does Paul's attitude affect the salvation of his listeners? Which, Mike?

False dichotomy.

Each person runs his own race; it is not a race against other Humans, but a race against his own life, against sin and temptation. You have yet to prove that "immortal wreath" has nothing to do with "eternal life".

"Don’t you realize that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize? So run to win!" 1 Cor 9:24

If you think your eternal life is won at the cost of others losing eternal life, then don't consider me in agreement.

Not only does my theology reject the loss of eternal, I myself revulse at the thought that you are taking eternal life from someone else. I say Paul would also feel sick to his stomach that you would interpret his words so poorly.

Disqualified from what, Mike? You have three choices:
1. Disqualified from rewards/crowns, but not from eternal life
2. Disqualified, if possible, but it's not; hyperbole, "effective means"
3. Disqualified from salvation

If you choose #1, then you must support the premise that "immortal wreath", is not "eternal life".

The premise #1 is supported directly by Paul -- he's not striving after his own salvation, he's striving to win others.

Will you consider #3?

mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

No, you don't see; you're proposing that "race to win the immortal wreath", is not saying "eternal life". You're proposing that Paul does not consider his own position "disqualifiable from that immortal wreath". You're proposing that "disqualified" in one passage is different from "disqualfied" in the other; and that Paul is speaking to never-saved people.

You don't have insight into what I see and what I don't. What I do see is that you've committed a serious interpretive error -- a word used incidentally in one letter here, means the same thing as a word used incidentally months later in another letter there, in different subjects.

As for your reaching around for some shred of argument to pin on what I'm proposing, of course I'm proposing that "failed" in one sense doesn't mean "failed" in another! Didn't Jesus "fail" in one sense, and yet succeed beyond anyone's wildest expectations in another?!

And didn't Paul speak all the time to people who were never saved? And didn't Paul speak directly that unbelievers were attending at Corinth in this very same letter? Jeepers: I'm assuming what Paul says is a fact. Sue me.

On what basis are all those proposals of yours, credible? WHY isn't "immortal wreath", the same as "eternal life"? WHY isn't Paul "worrying about his OWN disqualificability"? WHY would he be admonishing the never saved to "see if they are in Christ, and if Christ is in them"?

Because Paul explicitly states it is something else in the context! Why should I jump to the conclusion that Paul is writing about what he's not writing about?

No, it's not my job to prove it isn't something when Paul says it's something else! It's your job to demonstrate that it must be eternal life. Paul doesn't say it's eternal life -- else you'd be done. Paul says it's something else. Now demonstrate that it must be eternal life.

So far you've only demonstrated it's eternal. Which Paul says -- so not much argument. Yet there're plenty of things that are eternal, that are not Paul's eternal life! As Paul alluded to earlier in this same letter, these rewards are not salvific:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 1 Cor 3:10-14
​

 

[frumanchu]

With respect, that sounds like "I am not here to learn, but only to teach". Those exact words were said to me just a week ago by the Jehovah's Witnesses on my step.

Coming from someone who decided finding and accepting common ground was less important than not having to admit being incorrect on a minor point (which our last conversation displayed clearly), your words ring rather hollow, Ben. The irony of being compared to JW's by you is delicious though.

I am "on a fool's mission", if not inspired by God; but if inspired, those who refuse to listen are in fact refusing God. These are the same words asserted by Gamaliel, in Acts5:39.

I see. Ben's book is "inspired by God." Reject Ben's teachings = refuse God.

Sounds like Neale Donald Walsh has competition....

 

[frumanchu]

When my text "hits the market", Calvinism will end.

Oh, Ben...please DO let us know when it hits the market.