How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Rick Otto]

RickOtto: God chooses us, we do not choose Him at all of ourselves in the least

Ben: Hi, Rick. What verse says that?

RickOtto: Belief is a gift, Ben, & not of ourselves. These verses reveal that:
Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Php 1:29 - For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
RickOtto:It places the man as having the faith, and establishes the seeker's belief & reward, but it doesn't at all establish man as the origin of faith.
Ben: Perhaps; but "faith originates in men's hearts" in Rom10:9-10; faith is what brings men into God's reception in Heb11:6. Faith is the cause of saving our souls in 1Pet1:9. Saving-faith comes from conviction on studying Scripture in 2Tim3:15. Have we established that "saving-faith originates in men's hearts"?
RickOtto:Not at all Ben. Those verses locate where faith resides & its action, but they don't explain how faith got there in men's hearts.God not being partial is about His not choosing to save anyone based on their own merits.
The "certain ones" He chose were not chosen in partiality, their not even having been born to do or be anything to be partial about, but in mercy.


Ben:Wait wait wait --- "merits" is not in the text. It is a "thesis/antithesis"; it says:

"God is not partial...

BUT

welcomes those who fear Him and seek righteousness."

Clearly the "welcoming by God", is in response to their "seeking righteousness and revering Him".

Reformed Theology proposes the reverse order; "we seek righteousness and rever God because He has welcomed (sovereignly elected) us".

RickOtto:Ben, God responding doesn't reverse anything. He elects, we seek, He responds. Partiality is about merit.
Ben:See the conflict?
RickOtto:Yeah, but do you see the resolution?
Ben:Can you hear me now??? (I'm so sorry; could not resist the orneryness. Have I shown my understanding now?)
RickOtto:OK, I give, I just thought "sufficiently demonstrated" sounded a bit pompous.
Ben:No, he's clearly warning against "destroying/ruining one who IS saved". This is a warning for us not to cause anyone to fall from salvation.

What else?
RickOtto:That he's clearly meaning disqualified in the eyes of his preaching audience.
Ben:It's the same argument as in Matt23:13; WERE they entering, or not? WERE they stopped/shut-off from Heaven, or not? RT must change one of those positions into "not really"....
RickOtto:No Ben, you've read into it:
13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
It is a figure of speech to say they can actualy shut up heaven, only God can literaly do that. He means they hinder the Gospel, that is all.
Ben:Please tell me --- is such belief "sovereignly predestined", or does Paul's attitude affect the salvation of his listeners?
RickOtto:God willing, it does.
Ben:It does --- which? "show sovereign predestination", or "affects salvation"?
RickOtto: Affect attitudes.
Ben:God willing? "This is the will of God, that all who see Jesus and believe may be saved." Jn6:40
RickOtto:
I defer to John Gill:

That everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him;
who so sees him as to believe in him; for this is not to be understood of a corporeal sight of Christ, or of a mere speculative knowledge of him, or historical faith in him; for it is not so to see him, as merely to believe what he is, the Son of God, the Messiah and Saviour of the world, or what he says, but to trust in him for righteousness, life, and happiness. Men are by nature blind, their eyes are shut to all that is spiritually good; it is the Spirit of God that opens blind eyes, and illuminates the understanding: and in his light men see not only themselves, their sin, and want of righteousness, and their lost state and condition, but Christ, and a beauty, glory, and excellency in him, ability and willingness to save, a suitableness in him for them, and a fulness of all grace; they see righteousness, peace, pardon, cleansing, wisdom, strength, grace, life, and salvation, and go out of themselves to him for all: and such a sight, though it may be but glimmering, is saving, and is self-abasing, soul rejoicing, surprising, and transforming; is attended with certainty, reality, and evidence, and is a foretaste of glory; for it is the will of God, and not man, of a gracious Father, of an unchangeable and eternal being, whose will cannot be resisted, and made void, that such may have everlasting life;

quote]

 

[nobdysfool]

How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

It's not in the Bible. Can't find Calvinism in the Bible. Its a mute point.

In your opinion. Perhaps you can't conceive that someone could see things in the Bible that you are blind to. And your attitude that those who do not agree with you must not be saved, is getting very old. If you cannot add anything of substance, and germaine to the discussion, it would be wiser of you to remain quiet. Posting links to other articles is not helpful, because they are even more biased than you.

Does the Holy Spirit lead you to be annoying? Or to insult people? Does He lead you to look down your nose at those who believe differently than you? Does He lead you to infer that they are not saved, and to preach to them as though they were lost?

 

[Easystreet]

2) What about the divine attribute of love, which so essentially reflects the nature of God (1 John 4:8)? Would a God who ordained the existence of immortal beings without making any provision for them to escape eternal torment be a cruel being? What kind of God would call on mankind to "believe and be saved" when He knows they cannot? Suppose you are out on a cruise in your luxurious yacht. You receive a distress signal, and come upon the site of a shipwreck with 30 or 40 people still thrashing about in the water. It turns out they are thugs—pirates out to loot vessels just like yours—whose ship went down. These people have no merit which would motivate you to save them, but you are moved with love for them nevertheless—you can’t bear to watch them drown. So you instruct one of your servants to get a lifesaver ready, and—at random—pick out three or four, and haul them aboard. Then, disregarding the rest, you head for shore. Is this mercy and love? Admittedly, the parallel is not perfect, but it illustrates a truth: If God elects individuals to salvation, and could have elected as many as He wanted (none of whom was deserving) why would He only elect some?

Credits coming

 

[heymikey80]

=sigh= triple cross-posted. cross-posting response:

Suppose you are out on a cruise in your luxurious yacht. You receive a distress signal, and come upon the site of a shipwreck with 30 or 40 people still thrashing about in the water. It turns out they are murderers -- and they murdered your only son. These people have no merit which would motivate you to save them -- you can readily bear to watch them drown. But you are moved for the plight of some of them, though you don't say why. You instruct one of your servants to get a lifesaver ready, and — without saying why [for random is a lie] — you pick out three or four, and haul them aboard. Then, disregarding the rest, you head for shore.

Later, onshore, you explain that you had made plans to adopt some of them long ago, and you truly loved them and would not see them die.

Is this mercy and love? Sure. Your rescue is a clear testimony to it.

All admit God could have chosen as few as He wanted. Why would He elect any?

 

[Rick Otto]

"Would a God who ordained the existence of immortal beings without making any provision for them to escape eternal torment be a cruel being?"
Rom9:15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
"What kind of God would call on mankind to "believe and be saved" when He knows they cannot?"
The same God who gave them a law He knew they couldn't fulfill.
"...why would He only elect some?"
Because His mercy wasn't the only thing He wanted to show.
"...not simply that the believer is eternally secure, but that the true believer will never fall away."
Same thing. Falling from grace or faith for the believer = loss of rewards in heaven, not loss of salvation.

 

[Ben johnson]

RickOtto: God chooses us, we do not choose Him at all of ourselves in the least

Ben: Hi, Rick. What verse says that?

RickOtto: Belief is a gift, Ben, & not of ourselves. These verses reveal that:
Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Hi again, Rick.

No, they don't ("reveal that belief is gifted, and not of ourselves"). Eph2:8-9 has one subject. What is the subject?

.........................................................................that <subject> is not of yourselves,
......................................................................./
&#8220;For by grace you have been saved through faith {-- it <subject> is the gift of God&#8230;
.......................................................................\
.........................................................................<subject is> not as a result of works lest anyone boast&#8230;

&#8220;Through Faith&#8221; in the Greek is &#8220;Dia Pistis&#8221;, which is a prepositional phrase --- just as &#8220;by grace&#8221; is, and neither can be elevated to any kind of &#8220;subject&#8221;. What is the subject of this sentence? Is it God&#8217;s-free-gift-of-salvation, or is it &#8220;faith&#8221;? The subject is clearly the entire opening phrase, which NAS footnotes as, &#8220;that salvation&#8221;, so that the five modifiers all point to the one subject, &#8220;SALVATION&#8221;. It is nonsensical to contend that the word &#8220;THAT&#8221;, is &#8220;FAITH&#8221;. If FAITH is a unilateral bequeath from God, then that SAVING FAITH becomes merely MORE GRACE. And Paul would have meant, &#8220;For by grace through grace have you been saved!&#8221; That&#8217;s not what he said, and not what he meant; he meant what he said. The translators of the NASV footnote the word &#8220;THAT&#8221;, with &#8220;that salvation&#8221;, rather than &#8220;faith&#8221;.

THAT SALVATION:
1. By grace
2. Through faith
3. Is not of yourselves
4. Is the gift of God
5. Is not as a result of works

So we see that this passage is not asserting "monergistically-gifted-faith".

Php 1:29 - For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Again, "given", is not sovereignly decreed; it may be "given", but we can choose to "receive" what was given (or reject it). "Charisomai" means "give graciously, bestow"; it harmonizes with Eph1:6, where Jesus is freely bestowed upon us.

Thus, "it is given for us to believe, and suffer, for all who WILL accept His sacrifice by grace on the Cross."

RickOtto:It places the man as having the faith, and establishes the seeker's belief & reward, but it doesn't at all establish man as the origin of faith.

Rom10:9-10, does (place man as originating his faith). And Rom6:17. And very much does 1Pet1:9, also: "Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls".

RickOtto:Not at all Ben. Those verses locate where faith resides & its action, but they don't explain how faith got there in men's hearts.

Yet, Heb11:6 states that "men who come to God, must come BY faith, first by believing that God exists". Second, it places God as RECEIVING those who seek Him by faith. It does not fit "God BESTOWS saving faith ON us".

God not being partial is about His not choosing to save anyone based on their own merits.

I'm afraid not, my friend; it's a "thesis/antithesis". The idea of "God-not-partial", opposes "God receiving those who seek righteousness and revere Him".

Therefore "partiality", is contextually defined as "God SELECTING certain people".

Do you accept the dynamic? "God is not partial (He does not select certain ones), but WHOEVER does right and fears Him, He welcomes."

The concept of "welcoming", places God as passive in the decision to be saved; and (just as Jesus said in Matt7:24-27), man is active in his decision to be saved.

Reformed Theology reverses that, thinking "God is active and man is passive. Heb11:6 also casts God as "passive" in regard to our saving-faith, and us as "active".

Make sense?

The "certain ones" He chose were not chosen in partiality, their not even having been born to do or be anything to be partial about, but in mercy.

Two things; second, God "choosing certain ones and rejecting the others", is the definition of "partiality". But first, per Rom11:32, "God has mercy on all".

RickOtto:Ben, God responding doesn't reverse anything. He elects, we seek, He responds. Partiality is about merit.

No, "partiality" is the opposite of "God welcomes those who fear Him and do right".

If someone says "it's not DAY, but NIGHT", then "day" is set in opposition to "night". It's the same idea --- not "partial", but "welcoming those who come to Him". So the only meaning of "partial", would be God choosing them. The passage says nothing of "merit".

RickOtto:Yeah, but do you see the resolution?

With respect, the "resolution" you offer, denies the "thesis/antithesis construct". You're changing "not partial but welcoming those who fear and seek", into "God does not recognize merit but gifts faith to a few, and therefore they do right and revere Him".

RT completely changes Paul's words.

RickOtto:That he's clearly meaning disqualified in the eyes of his preaching audience.

How do you separate "disqualified", from "imperishable wreath"?

RickOtto:No Ben, you've read into it:
13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
It is a figure of speech to say they can actually shut up heaven, only God can literaly do that. He means they hinder the Gospel, that is all.

"Hinder the Gospel"? What does that mean?

If the Gospel is "hindered", but it changes nothing of who enters or not, how then is it actually "hindered"?

Jesus said, "You STOP them from entering". You say, "They're not actually stopped".

Jesus said, "You shut off Heaven from men". You say "Jesus doesn't mean what he said, it's a figure of speech; only God can shut off Heaven from men."

Please tell me why you aren't completely changing what Jesus said.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrite; you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men (you don't really shut it off, only GOD can do that); for you do not enter in youselves, and those who ARE entering you stop (not really, you only hinder them, but that doesn't affect their entering at all, so it's not REALLY hindering them)."

With respect, how can we have a view that imposes "NOT REALLY" on what Jesus said?

Benlease tell me --- is such belief "sovereignly predestined", or does Paul's attitude affect the salvation of his listeners?
RickOtto:God willing, it does.
Ben:It does --- which? "show sovereign predestination", or "affects salvation"?
RickOtto: Affect attitudes.

God's will (desire) is that ALL be saved. Thus, we can affect someone's salvation. And that conflicts "sovereign predestination" (which says that salvation is only affected by God's sovereign election).

Ben:God willing? "This is the will of God, that all who see Jesus and believe may be saved." Jn6:40
RickOtto:
I defer to John Gill:

That everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him;
who so sees him as to believe in him; for this is not to be understood of a corporeal sight of Christ, or of a mere speculative knowledge of him, or historical faith in him; for it is not so to see him, as merely to believe what he is, the Son of God, the Messiah and Saviour of the world, or what he says, but to trust in him for righteousness, life, and happiness.

Agreed.

Men are by nature blind, their eyes are shut to all that is spiritually good; it is the Spirit of God that opens blind eyes, and illuminates the understanding:

Right --- for "only those few whom God has chosen". No Scripture supports this, Rick. Contrast 2Cor4:3-4, which says "men's eyes are veiled so that they cannot believe in Jesus" --- with 2Cor3:16, which says "when a man turns to the Lord, the veil is removed".

Which comes first, "turning to the Lord", or "blinding-veil-removed"?

and in his light men see not only themselves, their sin, and want of righteousness, and their lost state and condition, but Christ, and a beauty, glory, and excellency in him, ability and willingness to save, a suitableness in him for them, and a fulness of all grace; they see righteousness, peace, pardon, cleansing, wisdom, strength, grace, life, and salvation, and go out of themselves to him for all: and such a sight, though it may be but glimmering, is saving, and is self-abasing, soul rejoicing, surprising, and transforming; is attended with certainty, reality, and evidence, and is a foretaste of glory;

This is why you consider it "irresistible". But it rejects passages like Rom11:21-23, where people can cease to believe and be cut off, or return to belief and be grafted in again. Indeed, context says "it is arrogant to think you can NOT be cut off for unbelief".

This is the severity of warnings like "do not FALL and fail to enter God's rest (Heaven), by imitating their disobedience and unbelief". Heb4:11 How can we fit that warning into "sovereign predestination"?

for it is the will of God...

"Will", "thelema"; "desire".

and not man, of a gracious Father, of an unchangeable and eternal being, whose will cannot be resisted, and made void, that such may have everlasting life;

Man's will is not at issue? It is in Jesus' words in Jn5:39-47. It is the reason that three towns (Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin) will be "judged more harshly than Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom". They're judged more harshly, because of willful unbelief.

Willing belief is why Jesus praised "unseen belief" higher than "seen belief", when He responded to Thomas, Jn20:29.

...and let's also not forget that Jesus told Thomas, "You believe because you see".

...not, "because God has chosen you"...

 

[Ben johnson]

Great Questions, Paul thought so too:

Rom9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Ya' lost me; is it God's choice when someone perishes?

"Fault" is not found with God because when He creates evil, it is not out of evil motive. When men sin, we do so out of evil intent, not necessarily malice, but evil selfishness.

Where does it say in Scripture "God creates evil"? God's essence, is good; He cannot do evil. He cannot tempt, He cannot cause sin...

 

[cygnusx1]

Arminianism




Question:



Is Arminianism a damnable heresy?


Answer:



Having been condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619, Arminianism is indeed a heresy, a serious departure from the historic faith of the Christian church. "Arminius, a theological professor at the University of Leyden, departed from the Reformed faith in his teaching concerning five important points. He taught conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace. These views were rejected by the Synod ..." (from the introduction to the Canons of Dort in the Psalter Hymnal, 1959 ed.).

The Bible teaches that God elected his people in Christ before time began. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world ..." (Eph. 1:4). This election was out of God's mere free grace and love, with nothing in the creature as a condition or cause inducing him to do this. "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ... So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:11, 16).

The Bible teaches that Christ did his atoning work on behalf of his elect people, and no others. "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15). "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17:9).

The Bible teaches total depravity, that is, that man, in every part of his nature (intellect, emotions and will) is hopelessly ruined by the fall. Fallen man is dead in trespasses and sins and cannot give himself spiritual birth. Regeneration is entirely the working of our gracious, sovereign God. "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign and all-powerful. "... the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will ... and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:32, 35). "The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power ..." (Ps. 110:2-3). "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19). "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (Rev. 19:6). If God's will cannot be resisted, then his grace cannot be resisted either; his grace is irresistible.

The Bible teaches that Christ's true sheep have eternal life and shall never perish. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:27-29).

Since the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is only one gospel, not two. Anyone who preaches any other gospel is preaching a false gospel and is accursed. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9).

http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=104

 

[cygnusx1]

cont.........

Jesus Christ is the true and faithful witness (Rev. 3:14). Since he has chosen that his gospel be preached by fallible men (Ac. 9:15; Eph. 4:11), it is evident that there is no perfect preacher among the sons of men, born by ordinary generation. A true preacher might make an honest mistake, but he will not intentionally deceive or distort the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is the unerring discerner of men's hearts who will infallibly judge the motivations of all his ministers at the final day. "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:15).

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "damnable" as "worthy of condemnation" or "subject to divine condemnation." Surely all false doctrine, including Arminianism, is both worthy of condemnation and will ultimately be subject to divine condemnation at the final judgment. Since the Arminian doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace are contrary to Scripture, they are false and worthy of condemnation: therefore damnable.

Is Arminianism a heresy? Yes. Are Arminian preachers heretics? In a sense, yes, though most have not been condemned as such by a church council having the authority to make such a determination.

Can an Arminian preacher be a "damnable heretic" who preaches a false gospel of man's free will instead of the true gospel of God's sovereign grace? Yes, surely.

Is it possible for an Arminian preacher to preach the false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace, while still (inconsistently) calling upon his hearers to trust in Jesus Christ alone, to the saving of their souls? I believe so.

Is it possible to believe the false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace, while still (inconsistently) trusting in Jesus Christ alone for one's salvation. Perhaps, but ultimately this is up to God to judge.

Is Arminianism a damnable heresy? Yes. The false doctrines of conditional election, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace originate in the pit of hell with the father of lies (John 8:44). They are contrary to Scripture and worthy of condemnation. This is a serious matter. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet. 2:1).

Are pastors who teach Arminianism damnable heretics who are not Christians and who will certainly go to hell? Ultimately, this is up to God to decide, and he surely will decide—on a case-by-case basis. The only ones who go to heaven are those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation. It would seem to be very difficult, if not impossible, to be trusting in Jesus Christ alone if you hold to conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace. Those who hold to these false doctrines consistently must believe that their salvation depends, in part, on their own merit, and persons who are depending on their own merit instead of the merit of Christ are on their way to perdition.

If you hold, for example, that God elected you because he foresaw that you would have faith, then why do you have faith, while someone else does not? Don't you really believe that your faith is meritorious, that you merited salvation by your faith, while your neighbor did not have faith, and thus did not merit salvation? If you hold this consistently you are not trusting on the merit of Christ alone but upon your own merit, and you are lost. The biblical Christian believes that salvation is all of grace; otherwise all men are lost. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). (SP)

http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=104

 

[Ben johnson]

Having been condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619, Arminianism is indeed a heresy, a serious departure from the historic faith of the Christian church.

Hi, Cygnus.

Question: when did "Calvinism", begin? Augustine was the first person to propose a predestinary OSAS view.

Question: Are we to submit to a 17th century group of men, and not regard higher, Scriptural dictate?

"Arminius, a theological professor at the University of Leyden, departed from the Reformed faith in his teaching concerning five important points. He taught conditional election on the ground of foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace. These views were rejected by the Synod ..." (from the introduction to the Canons of Dort in the Psalter Hymnal, 1959 ed.).

And Arminius was not correct on all points; we are "totally depraved". But even Calvinists recognize that "totally depraved men CAN BELIEVE, though it is not TRUE belief (they say) exposed by the fact of those who later FALL".

1. Men are totally depraved, cannot will to believe or follow God in any measure
2. Men can believe, but it's just a "professing belief, it's not a SAVING belief"

(per Calvinism)

Jesus said:
"They received the word with JOY and BELIEVED; but under persecution/affliction/temptation, fell away. They are rocky.

The others heard the word with an honest and good heart, held it fast, and bore fruit with perseverance." (Lk8:13-15)

The only stated difference between the two, is "perseverance".

"Pay close attention to yourself, and to your teaching; persevere in these things; as you do you will save yourselves and those who hear you." 1Tim4:16

The Calvinist says "God preserves you; perseverance demonstrates sovereign election".
Scripture says "we are responsible for perseverance; the difference between 'good soil' and 'bad soil', is how we persevere under persecution, under affliction, under temptation.

The Bible teaches that God elected his people in Christ before time began. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world ..." (Eph. 1:4).

No, it doesn't; that verse is explained by 2Thess2:13, where "chosen before time" is subordinate to "THROUGH FAITH". We were "chosen before time, that we should be holy and blameless --- according to the kind intention of His will."

That "kind intention of His will", is clearly spelled out in places like Jn6:40, that "ALL who see Jesus and believe, may be saved".

Eph1:6 says "that kind intention of His will, was bestowed upon us in the BELOVED".

JESUS was predestined before time (stated clearly in 1Pet1:20), and we are chosen through OUR faith.

"Receiving as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

This election was out of God's mere free grace and love, with nothing in the creature as a condition or cause inducing him to do this. "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ... So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:11, 16).

How can God's Final Judgment, be a charade, mere pageantry? If all stand before God and are judged (condemned) for unbelief, how can it all have been decided long before by God's sovereign choice?

With respect, how can the Final Judgement, be a kangaroo court?

The Bible teaches that Christ did his atoning work on behalf of his elect people, and no others. "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15). "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17:9).

And "those Thou hast given Me out of the world, THINE THEY WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me." (Jn17:6)

Thine they were. The believed/belonged to God. They were "given", through faith. Just as 2Thess2:13 says, "chosen from the beginning ...THROUGH FAITH".

Perfect harmony.

The Bible teaches total depravity, that is, that man, in every part of his nature (intellect, emotions and will) is hopelessly ruined by the fall. Fallen man is dead in trespasses and sins and cannot give himself spiritual birth.

And yet "fallen unregenerated man", can believe. We cannot deny Paul's words in Eph2:2-8, "WHILE we were dead in sins, God made us alive, by grace THROUGH FAITH."

Regeneration is entirely the working of our gracious, sovereign God.

And regeneration is by the POURED Spirit, who was poured after belief.

Belief receives the Spirit, and then receives His regeneration. Gone is the sequence of "monergistic-regeneration and THEN faith".

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1).

And he says, "by grace, through faith".

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).

The begottenness is not of flesh's will, nor of man's will, it's all of God; but receiving that begottenness, is our will.

"For as many as received Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." Jn1:12

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign and all-powerful. "... the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will ... and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:32, 35).

And God sovereignly has "bestowed His will (of all-who-believe-saved) on us in the Beloved (Jesus)", God "commands all men everywhere to repent", God "desires all men (even all authority) to be saved", and God "has mercy on all". (Eph1:6; Acts17:30; 1Tim2:1-4; Rom11:32.)

"The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power ..." (Ps. 110:2-3). "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19).

Nowhere does God decree that anyone be saved (or that anyone perish). "God does not decree (boulemai) any to perish, but patiently waits (makes room, choreo) for all to come to repentance." 2Pet3:9

"Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" (Rev. 19:6). If God's will cannot be resisted, then his grace cannot be resisted either; his grace is irresistible.

God WILLS (desires) that ALL men be saved.

...are they?

In Heb12, our "adopted son-ship", certainly can be resisted, can't it? What do verses 7-9, and 25 say? What about Acts7:51 --- can the Holy Spirit be resisted?

Yes.

The Bible teaches that Christ's true sheep have eternal life and shall never perish. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

But "if ANYONE ('tis') enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture (shall become My sheep)". Jn10:9

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:27-29).

"Pluck", is "harpazo" --- seize/remove forcibly. Your understanding must include Rom11: "They were broken off for unbelief, you stand by faith; if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold the severity and kindness of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you kindness --- if you CONTINUE in His kindness else you will also be CUT OFF; and if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again..."

Since the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false.

I have just countered everything you said --- not I, but Scripture. With sincere respect, and kind consideration for you my brother, exactly which views are "manifestly false"?

They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is only one gospel, not two. Anyone who preaches any other gospel is preaching a false gospel and is accursed. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9).

While you are in Galatians, please reflect on those who were KNOWN by God (4:9), they were "begun in the Spirit" (3:3), they were "running well and obeying the truth" (5:7); but they "turned back to weak worthless things" (4:9), they "became again subject to a yoke of slavery" (Law, 5:1), they were "fallen from grace and severed from Christ" (5:4).

Every point made by Calvinism, is answered by Responsible Grace. I have seen no such credible answers to Responsible Grace by Reformed Theology.

I mean you no offense, Cygnus; with all my heart I mean you no injury nor hindrence in your walk with God. Ever fiber of my being desires for you to grow in Christ, in His maturity and strength and fellowship. How can continuing discussing as I have come to understand Scripture, damage, rather than build you? Truth doesn't need you; and it doesn't need me. If both of us are pursuing Truth and Jesus with all that we are, can there be anything bad result? I don't see how.

See if you can respond to what I said, point by point, as I have responded to you.

 

[frumanchu]

Ben, you have repeatedly now made the claim that if someone does not answer to your arguments it necessarily means they concede their correctness.

I submit that such a claim is at direct odds with the Word of God.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself." - Proverbs 26:4


If not answering somebody's argument necessarily means that their argument is therefore correct, then that means the above Scripture, in admonishing us not to answer the fool according to his folly, recognizes the fool's argument as correct.

Since I doubt you yourself are "foolish" enough to believe Scripture would support such a notion, I would ask that you dispense with the ridiculous argument that just because one of us chooses not to answer one of the plethora of "points" you keep shoving at us that it does not mean we therefore concede it to be true. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of the points you continue to flood these threads with HAVE already been answered, and thus the claim you make is utterly without merit.

So, can we agree that making such an argument is no longer productive in these conversations, or will you continue to make such claims even though the Word of God itself proves them fallacious?

 

[frumanchu]

Every point made by Calvinism, is answered by Responsible Grace. I have seen no such credible answers to Responsible Grace by Reformed Theology.

You've seen them. You simply won't accept them. In fact, you persistently act as though the answers have never even been given, let alone be acceptable to you. You have demonstrated an unteachable spirit and a complete unwillingness to even find common ground with Calvinists.

You still twist Acts 10 into a proof text for your false teachings, but it is simply and easily proven that anything approaching a consistent application of the logic and faux-hermeneutics you use force us to embrace absurdity and contradiction.

 

[cygnusx1]

Amen Fru!! anyone would think every statement of ben's hasn't already been answered many times . He thinks to engage me in wrangling over words with lamentably long posts , he thinks wrong , I have neither the time nor the nievity . Bless you Fru. "He opened not his mouth"

 

[Rick Otto]

Otto: God chooses us, we do not choose Him at all of ourselves in the least

Ben: Hi, Rick. What verse says that?

RickOtto: Belief is a gift, Ben, & not of ourselves. These verses reveal that:
Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

No, they don't ("reveal that belief is gifted, and not of ourselves"). Eph2:8-9 has one subject. What is the subject?
So we see that this passage is not asserting "monergistically-gifted-faith".
Sure it is Ben. BOTH Grace & faith are gifts.
Both are in the subject, & both are defined as gifts of God in the predicate.


Php 1:29 - For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Again, "given", is not sovereignly decreed; it may be "given", but we can choose to "receive" what was given (or reject it). "
Thus, "it is given for us to believe, and suffer, for all who WILL accept His sacrifice by grace on the Cross."
No Ben, we can't choose rebirth anymore than we can choose wether or not to be born at all. The gift of life can't be rejected or accepted previous to the granting of it. Acceptance of His "sacrifice by grace on the cross" is belief. Acceptance=belief. Belief is a gift as scripture grammaticaly articultes.


Quote:
Rick Otto: It places the man as having the faith, and establishes the seeker's belief & reward, but it doesn't at all establish man as the origin of faith.
Rom10:9-10, does (place man as originating his faith). And Rom6:17. And very much does 1Pet1:9, also: "Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls".

Quote:
RickOtto:Not at all Ben. Those verses locate where faith resides & its action, but they don't explain how faith got there in men's hearts.
Yet, Heb11:6 states that "men who come to God, must come BY faith, first by believing that God exists". Second, it places God as RECEIVING those who seek Him by faith. It does not fit "God BESTOWS saving faith ON us".

Sure it does, Ben. Hebrews 11:6 does not say that believing God exists comes from within the fallen, sin natured man whose thoughts are only evil continuously, as Genesis pointed out. Just because God RECEIVES someone doesn't necessarily mean they came to Him of their own doing. They have to seek Hin BY FAITH,... His faith. I got a friend who dedicated his entire website to this:
http://www.hisfaith.org/

Quote:
God not being partial is about His not choosing to save anyone based on their own merits.
I'm afraid not, my friend; it's a "thesis/antithesis". The idea of "God-not-partial", opposes "God receiving those who seek righteousness and revere Him".

Therefore "partiality", is contextually defined as "God SELECTING certain people".


No it isn't Ben. It is contextualy defined as selecting certain people based on their merits, as opposed to being based on His sovereign will alone.
Do you accept the dynamic? "God is not partial (He does not select certain ones), but WHOEVER does right and fears Him, He welcomes."

You have Him being partial to whoever does X & Y in the same breath you say He isn't partial. What to do? That dynamic is called "contradiction".

The concept of "welcoming", places God as passive in the decision to be saved; and (just as Jesus said in Matt7:24-27), man is active in his decision to be saved.

NO it doesn't Ben. It only places Him in the role of "Active Welcome". Nothin' passive about it.
Of course man is active in ANY decision he himself makes, but that activity doesn't render him the sole cause, inspiration & motivation, it just makes him active.

Reformed Theology reverses that, thinking "God is active and man is passive. Heb11:6 also casts God as "passive" in regard to our saving-faith, and us as "active".

Make sense?
Not at all, Ben. And RT does no such thing. It casts man as ACTIVELY RESISTANT, not passive. Heb11-6 casts God as actively welcoming, not passive salvificaly. NOwhere is God passive toward His elect, or anyone else for that matter. Longsuffering yes, passive no.

Quote:
The "certain ones" He chose were not chosen in partiality, their not even having been born to do or be anything to be partial about, but in mercy.
Two things; second, God "choosing certain ones and rejecting the others", is the definition of "partiality". But first, per Rom11:32, "God has mercy on all".
Not all unbelievers Ben, all (spiritual) Isrealites (which excludes Esau & others). Context! =)


RickOtto:Ben, God responding doesn't reverse anything. He elects, we seek, He responds. Partiality is about merit.
No, "partiality" is the opposite of "God welcomes those who fear Him and do right".
Uh-uh, Ben. That is a perfect example of partiality toward fearers & right do-ers.
If someone says "it's not DAY, but NIGHT", then "day" is set in opposition to "night". It's the same idea --- not "partial", but "welcoming those who come to Him". So the only meaning of "partial", would be God choosing them. The passage says nothing of "merit".
To mention partiality is to mention merit. Partiality is ALL ABOUT MERIT:
Main Entry: 1par·tial
1 : of or relating to a part rather than the whole : not general or total <a partial solution>
2 : inclined to favor one party more than the other : [SIZE=-1]BIASED[/SIZE]
RickOtto:Yeah, but do you see the resolution?
With respect, the "resolution" you offer, denies the "thesis/antithesis construct". You're changing "not partial but welcoming those who fear and seek", into "God does not recognize merit but gifts faith to a few, and therefore they do right and revere Him".
Exactly! You have articulated the mercy of grace in election! Bravo! You're construct merits its denial. By God's grace, I am partial to the truth of RT, therefore I actively accept & recieve(have faith & believe) it not by the merit of my own will, but by the mercy of God's will - grace.

RickOtto:That he's clearly meaning disqualified in the eyes of his preaching audience.
How do you separate "disqualified", from "imperishable wreath"?

Quote:
RickOtto:No Ben, you've read into it:
13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
It is a figure of speech to say they can actually shut up heaven, only God can literaly do that. He means they hinder the Gospel, that is all.
"Hinder the Gospel"? What does that mean?
It means prevent people from hearing &/or understanding it.
.If the Gospel is "hindered", but it changes nothing of who enters or not, how then is it actually "hindered"?
By predestination. By God's predeterminate council.
Jesus said, "You STOP them from entering". You say, "They're not actually stopped".
Not "actualy stopped" in the sense that they are stopping God's will, His predetermined plan.

Jesus said, "You shut off Heaven from men". You say "Jesus doesn't mean what he said, it's a figure of speech; only God can shut off Heaven from men."

To say something is a figure of speech is not to say He didn't mean what He said. It is saying you misunderstood what He said.

Please tell me why you aren't completely changing what Jesus said.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrite; you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men (you don't really shut it off, only GOD can do that); for you do not enter in youselves, and those who ARE entering you stop (not really, you only hinder them, but that doesn't affect their entering at all, so it's not REALLY hindering them)."

With respect, how can we have a view that imposes "NOT REALLY" on what Jesus said?
By oversimplifying the "NOT REALLY" until it means what you want, not what I meant. NOT REALY shutting off Heaven in the salvific sense you want to ascribe, but realy shutting off the heaven of Gospel knowlege he was realy talking about.
NOT REALY hindering them in their eternal destiny as only God has that power of jurisdiction, but realy hindering them in their acquiring the Gospel message, which He was talking about.

Ben: Please tell me --- is such belief "sovereignly predestined", or does Paul's attitude affect the salvation of his listeners?
RickOtto:God willing, it does.
Ben:It does --- which? "show sovereign predestination", or "affects salvation"?
RickOtto: Affect attitudes.
God's will (desire) is that ALL be saved. Thus, we can affect someone's salvation. And that conflicts "sovereign predestination" (which says that salvation is only affected by God's sovereign election).
All here, does not mean "each & every", it is a contradistinction to the prevaling notion that salvation was only for the Jews. WE can't change God one iota. His gifts are without repentance.


Ben:God willing? "This is the will of God, that all who see Jesus and believe may be saved." Jn6:40
RickOtto:
I defer to John Gill:

That everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him;
who so sees him as to believe in him; for this is not to be understood of a corporeal sight of Christ, or of a mere speculative knowledge of him, or historical faith in him; for it is not so to see him, as merely to believe what he is, the Son of God, the Messiah and Saviour of the world, or what he says, but to trust in him for righteousness, life, and happiness.
Agreed.

Men are by nature blind, their eyes are shut to all that is spiritually good; it is the Spirit of God that opens blind eyes, and illuminates the understanding:
Right --- for "only those few whom God has chosen". No Scripture supports this, Rick. Contrast 2Cor4:3-4, which says "men's eyes are veiled so that they cannot believe in Jesus" --- with 2Cor3:16, which says "when a man turns to the Lord, the veil is removed".

Which comes first, "turning to the Lord", or "blinding-veil-removed"?
All scripture supports it. It doesn't realy matter if one comes first because either one will result in the other. Men don't turn of themselves, & don't unveil themselves in this respect. Those "few" or many - however you want to characterize them - are elected by God, not themselves.

Quote:
and in his light men see not only themselves, their sin, and want of righteousness, and their lost state and condition, but Christ, and a beauty, glory, and excellency in him, ability and willingness to save, a suitableness in him for them, and a fulness of all grace; they see righteousness, peace, pardon, cleansing, wisdom, strength, grace, life, and salvation, and go out of themselves to him for all: and such a sight, though it may be but glimmering, is saving, and is self-abasing, soul rejoicing, surprising, and transforming; is attended with certainty, reality, and evidence, and is a foretaste of glory;
This is why you consider it "irresistible". But it rejects passages like Rom11:21-23, where people can cease to believe and be cut off, or return to belief and be grafted in again. Indeed, context says "it is arrogant to think you can NOT be cut off for unbelief".

I wouldn't consider "grafting in" to be salvificaly conclusive until that branch bears fruit.
This is the severity of warnings like "do not FALL and fail to enter God's rest (Heaven), by imitating their disobedience and unbelief". Heb4:11 How can we fit that warning into "sovereign predestination"?
Predestination does not forego personal responsibility or the need to think or preach. It does not destroy or eliminate choice or responsibility. It is not a license for apathy or reckless, wanton disregard. Warnings and exhortations are as predestined to benefit us as they are predestined to to offend Pharoah & other children of wrath.

for it is the will of God...
"Will", "thelema"; "desire".
Quote:
and not man, of a gracious Father, of an unchangeable and eternal being, whose will cannot be resisted, and made void, that such may have everlasting life;
Man's will is not at issue? It is in Jesus' words in Jn5:39-47. It is the reason that three towns (Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin) will be "judged more harshly than Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom". They're judged more harshly, because of willful unbelief.

Man's will is not an issue in regards to God's mercy.
God is not partial to man's will in deciding upon whom to have mercy. Man's will is fallen, none are righteous.
Willful unbelief IS worse than ignorant unbelief.
.Willing belief is why Jesus praised "unseen belief" higher than "seen belief", when He responded to Thomas, Jn20:29.
His response was esteeming belief that wasn't dependant upon sense experience, that's all.

...and let's also not forget that Jesus told Thomas, "You believe because you see".

...not, "because God has chosen you"...
Ben, He wasn't talking about Tom's believing salvificaly in Him, He was referring specificaly & ONLY to Tom's belief in the fact of His resurrection.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

Just a note:

What I find ironic is that one is calling another view a heresy, based on the same method they use to derive their own beliefs. In this case an Arminian can just as well declare Calvinism a heresy. All you are really saying is that they are different. So what. You can find as many different views of Calvinism on this forum as there are points of Calvinism.
Cygnus you made the following quote:

Since the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is only one gospel, not two. Anyone who preaches any other gospel is preaching a false gospel and is accursed. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9).

Since you quoted Paul, who lived two thousand years ago and explained these verses, and everything he wrote a very long time ago, can you actually confirm that what you stated was believed by St Ignatius? How about St Maximos the Confessor? How about St Basil?
I'm not sure you could even use St Augustine to show that Calvin was simply acknowledging him, rather than a new and better development of his ideas. Ideas that were never accepted by the Church. A Gospel that has been consistant for 2000 years. No one has made a five pointism from it, no one split it up by saying I only believe in one point.
So I ask, there is ONLY ONE Gospel, but do you have it? Why would it be called Calvinism when it started 2000 years ago and Calvin lived 1500 years later?

 

[b4uris]

Having been condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) in 1618-1619, Arminianism is indeed a heresy, a serious departure from the historic faith of the Christian church.

Funny how the theological innovators get to decide what isn't orthodoxy.

 

[Ben johnson]

Sure it is Ben. BOTH Grace & faith are gifts.
Both are in the subject, & both are defined as gifts of God in the predicate.

Hi again, Rick. Listen, do you dislike the "quote function"? Not meaning to complain, your posts are sometimes difficult to read. If you don't like it, fine; if I can assist you in any way, I would be pleased to.

"Saving-faith", is not "gifted to us by God". Rom3:26 says "God justifies he who believes", not "he believes whom God justified". Volition is why there is a Final Judgment; each man chooses to believe and follow Jeus, or chooses sin. The word "responsible" means "receiving the outcome that one causes"; if we do not cause our becoming saved, or cause our condemnation, then we are but "flotsam and jetsam" in God's fatalistic (and unjust) paradigm.

We've discussed how "by faith" is not the subject of Eph2:8-9, but merely one of five modifiers. As I wrote in my text, "The gift he writes of is not faith, but salvation as a whole, which is received through faith, which implies our freedom. As A.T. Robertson noted, "'Grace' is God's part, 'faith' ours. And that [it] (kai touto) is neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis [faith] (feminine) or to charis [grace] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part."

No Ben, we can't choose rebirth anymore than we can choose wether or not to be born at all.

When Jesus taught Nicodemus about "rebirth", He rebuked Nick, because Nick was a teacher and did not understand these things. If "rebirth" is not by "chosen belief", then there is no substance to all of the rebukes Jesus issued; especially the one in Matt11:21-24, and John5:39-47. Rebuking the crows for "unbelief" does not fit a paradigm of "sovereignly, monergistically, gifted-belief".

The gift of life can't be rejected or accepted previous to the granting of it.

Look back at Matt22:14: "Many are called, but few are chosen". Isn't it true that to everyone who was called, the gift was granted?

Acceptance of His "sacrifice by grace on the cross" is belief. Acceptance=belief. Belief is a gift as scripture grammaticaly articultes.

Belief is not a gift, but sternly charged to us. Look at how Heb3:10-12 states it: Do not harden your hearts... Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, that falls away from the living God. Encourage one another, ...lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. We have become partners ("metochos", Heb3:1, Heb6:4) in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

In that passage, is "hardened by deceitful sin" not a real possibility? And is such a "hardened heart", not "fallen away from the living God"? Does this not provide the bad consequence of the true conditional, "IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end"?

How do you make that passage fit "predestination"? Before you answer: "Let us therefore be diligent to enter God's rest, lest anyone fall by imitating the Israelites' example of disobedience (and unbelief)." Heb4:11 Verse 4:11 connects directly to 3:12-14. How can it ever accommodate "gifted faith" and "sovereign predestination"?

RickOtto:Not at all Ben. Those verses locate where faith resides & its action, but they don't explain how faith got there in men's hearts.

Did the writer of Heb11:6, forget to list God as the "source"? Here is a verse that clearly explains where "saving-faith" comes from:
"From childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to saving-faith through Jesus". 2Tim3:15

Here is a case of "studying the Scriptures, and by wisdom (conviction) coming to saving-faith". Look now at John5:39-40: "You search the Scriptures thinking in them you have eternal life; but they speak of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life." This is a case of "studying the Scriptures but refusing to savingly-believe."

Does "predestined/gifted belief" fit these two passages? No. Not one bit.

Sure it does, Ben. Hebrews 11:6 does not say that believing God exists comes from within the fallen, sin natured man whose thoughts are only evil continuously, as Genesis pointed out. Just because God RECEIVES someone doesn't necessarily mean they came to Him of their own doing. They have to seek Hin BY FAITH,... His faith. I got a friend who dedicated his entire website to this:

I look foward to hearing your thoughts on what I said about 2Tim3:15, and John5:39-40. In the John5 passage, Jesus explains why they would not believe: "How can you believe, when you seek men's glory rather than God's? Do not think I will accuse you before the Father; Moses, in whom you have set your hope, will accuse you. Moses wrote of Me --- if you do not believe Moses, how will you believe Me?" (Jn5:44-47)

Is there anything of "gifted faith" in what Jesus said? Tell me how there could be.

No it isn't Ben. It is contextualy defined as selecting certain people based on their merits, as opposed to being based on His sovereign will alone.

Please explain how you glean that from context. I see: "not partial, but welcoming God-fearing righteous men".

This sets "partiality" in opposition to "welcoming righteousness". Where do you find "not selecting merits, but sovereign will alone"? Besides, how can the unelected depraved soul, have ANY merits? How does that make sense?

You have Him being partial to whoever does X & Y in the same breath you say He isn't partial. What to do? That dynamic is called "contradiction".

Suppose a man has two sons; from birth, one is pampered and one is cast out. The castaway spends his life trying to serve his father, showing only kindness and service, desperately trying to win the love that his brother has. Is the father partial? Yes.

Now suppose another man has two sons, and treats both equally; yet one son is promiscuous, uses drugs, and steals. The other is conscientious and manages money well. The "good" son becomes president of the father's company; was the father "partial"? NO --- the position was given consequentially to the son's faithfulness and righteousness.

The context supports what I said; "not partial, but welcoming the righteous", defines "partial" as opposing "welcoming those who are righteous".

It is not partial to grant promotion to one who seeks goodness; it would be partial to grant it to one who pursues wickedness.

In other words, "GOD choosing would be partial; God RECEIVING man's choice is not".

NO it doesn't Ben. It only places Him in the role of "Active Welcome". Nothin' passive about it.

"He who COMES to God must believe God IS, and that God rewards those who SEEK Him." Where is the action, Rick? There is no action in God's position, and full action in the "righteous-seeker".

Can you deny that?

Of course man is active in ANY decision he himself makes, but that activity doesn't render him the sole cause, inspiration & motivation, it just makes him active.

The question is, is the man active because of God's decision, or is God's welcome because of the man's action? The verses we've just read (Acts10:34-35, Heb11:6, Rom3:16, and many more) assert the second.

Not at all, Ben. And RT does no such thing. It casts man as ACTIVELY RESISTANT, not passive.

No, Heb11:6 places the believer as "actively seeking".

Heb11-6 casts God as actively welcoming, not passive salvificaly.

No, it makes God "receiver of he-who-seeks", not "INITIATOR of one's seeking".

NOwhere is God passive toward His elect, or anyone else for that matter. Longsuffering yes, passive no.

What does "longsuffering" mean to you?

Look at Peter's words in 2:1:5-11; where is the "action"? The "diligence to make sure of our calling and election, AGAINST the man who was (once) purified but now lacks his purification, diligence so that the gates of Heaven BE (abundantly) provided", places 100% of action and responsibility-for-diligence on our shoulders --- doesn't it?

Not all unbelievers Ben, all (spiritual) Israelites (which excludes Esau & others). Context! =)

Please read Heb3:18-19, and Rom9:31-32, and tell me why the Israelites fell out of God's favor. And tell me why Heb4:11 does not "warn us not to imitate their unbelief and disobedience, and so miss Heaven".

 

[Ben johnson]

To mention partiality is to mention merit. Partiality is ALL ABOUT MERIT:
Main Entry: 1par·tial
1 : of or relating to a part rather than the whole : not general or total <a partial solution>
2 : inclined to favor one party more than the other : BIASED

Your own cited-definition defeats you. "Biased favoring one party over another", is partiality (and it's the view of "God electing SOME but not OTHERS"). Scripture says "God receives those who fear Him and seek righteousness" --- that is not partial.

Sovereign election is partial.
Allowing men to choose Him, is not.

RickOtto:No Ben, you've read into it:
13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
It is a figure of speech to say they can actually shut up heaven, only God can literaly do that. He means they hinder the Gospel, that is all.

How do you change "shut-up", into "not REALLY shut-up"? If sovereignly-predestined, how can anything be "hindered"? I'm confident that eventually you'll see the contradictions.

"Hinder the Gospel"? What does that mean?

It means prevent people from hearing &/or understanding it.

And "if faith comes from hearing, HOW can they believe what they have not heard" (Rom10:14, 17) --- how can anyone HINDER what God has sovereignly PREDESTINED?

They can't, Rick; you are embracing a contradiction.

By predestination. By God's predeterminate council.

I see; so now you're proposing that "You stop/shut-off-Heaven", is really conveying "that's what God WANTS"?

...then why did Jesus berate them for doing what God decreed? Beginning to see the contradiction?

Jesus said, "You STOP them from entering". You say, "They're not actually stopped".
Not "actualy stopped" in the sense that they are stopping God's will, His predetermined plan.

Do you admit that your position is imposing "NOT REALLY", onto what Jesus said?

To say something is a figure of speech is not to say He didn't mean what He said. It is saying you misunderstood what He said.

I misunderstood? To me, "stopped" means "stopped"; and "shut off" means "shut off". To you, "stopped" means "not really stopped", and "shut off" means "not really shut off". Which of us is misunderstanding Jesus? I mean no disrespect.

By oversimplifying the "NOT REALLY" until it means what you want, not what I meant. NOT REALLY shutting off Heaven in the salvific sense you want to ascribe, but really shutting off the heaven of Gospel knowlege he was really talking about.

You said, "It means prevent people from hearing &/or understanding it." If they cannot hear or understand it, they cannot be saved. If you deny this, then you deny Rom10:14-17. If they prevent people from being saved, then how are they not "really shutting off Heaven from men"?

NOT REALLY hindering them in their eternal destiny as only God has that power of jurisdiction...

Please show me in Scripture that "only God has that power".

... but realy hindering them in their acquiring the Gospel message, which He was talking about.

Please tell me how one can be saved, without acquiring the Gospel message.

All here, does not mean "each & every"...

Please review 2Tim2:1-4, and tell me how "God desires all men to be saved" (considering he distinguishes "all" by saying "kings and ALL in authority"), does not really mean "all"? Surely not all authorities are SAVED. And per Calvinism, any authority who is NOT saved is not sovereingly predestined. So how do you fit "God desires all authority to be saved"?

... it is a contradistinction to the prevailing notion that salvation was only for the Jews. WE can't change God one iota. His gifts are without repentance.

You're quoting Rom11:29, "the gifts and calling of God are without-repentance (irrevocable from God's perspective)". Please tell me how this fits Peter's admonition to "be all the more diligent to make certain of your calling and election, (that you not be like the formerly-purified man who has now FORGOTTEN his purity), diligent SO THAT the gates of Heaven BE provided to you". How does it fit, Rick?

All scripture supports it.

We're discussing Scripture here, verse after verse, which conflicts Reformed Theology. I've asked you several times in this post "please explain how these verses fit"; if you can't explain, then perhaps you'll begin questioning the doctrine of "sovereign predestination" that you have embraced.

It doesn't realy matter if one comes first because either one will result in the other.

It matters alot. Reformed Theology asserts "men cannot turn to God UNTIL their eyes are opened (sovereignly, monergistically)". But Scripture asserts "men turn to God first, and then the veil is removed". Sequence is everything in this discussion. Which comes first, "faith" or "regeneration"? If regeneration comes first, then Calvinism wins. But if faith comes first, Responsible Grace wins.

Men don't turn of themselves, & don't unveil themselves in this respect. Those "few" or many - however you want to characterize them - are elected by God, not themselves.

See if you can support what you just said, with a Scriptural verse.

I wouldn't consider "grafting in" to be salvificaly conclusive until that branch bears fruit.

Considering that "they were cast off because of unbelief", and "you stand by faith", and "YOU can be cast off if you do not continue in His kindness", then why isn't it fully given that "grafted-in-again, if they return to believe", doesn't reflect "salvation"?

Predestination does not forego personal responsibility or the need to think or preach.

Oh yes it does; under RT, there is no "personal responsibility". It's the last letter of "TULIP" --- GOD will preserve YOU". His responsibility, not ours.

...and that fully conflicts with 2Tim1:12-14, "God guards what we entrust, and we guard what God entrusts".

It does not destroy or eliminate choice or responsibility.

Yes, it does; the "I" in TULIP, is "irresistibility"; there can be no choice in what is irresistible.

It is not a license for apathy or reckless, wanton disregard.

I understand that; but if a man's heart MUST pursue righteousness because of God's sovereign choice[/b], then the man has no responsibility for pursuing righteousness; it was God's choice, not the man's.

Warnings and exhortations are as predestined to benefit us as they are predestined to to offend Pharoah & other children of wrath.

Sorry, didn't follow you here...

Man's will is not an issue in regards to God's mercy.

Tell me why not? And on what man does God NOT have mercy? (Rom11:32 says "God shut up all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all men")

God is not partial to man's will in deciding upon whom to have mercy. Man's will is fallen, none are righteous.

True; but if ALL are benefactors of His mercy, then only those who RECEIVE His graciousness will God receive. This is not "partiality", for God manifests no bias.

...sovereign predestination is bias.

Willful unbelief IS worse than ignorant unbelief.

Why? How is there such a things as "willful unbelief", if all belief is predestined?

Willing belief is why Jesus praised "unseen belief" higher than "seen belief", when He responded to Thomas, Jn20:29.
His response was esteeming belief that wasn't dependant upon sense experience, that's all.

But how can "because you see", accommodate "because God sovereignly decreed"? And why would Jesus praise "unseen" over "seen", if both were God's choice?

Ben, He wasn't talking about Tom's believing salvificaly in Him, He was referring specificaly & ONLY to Tom's belief in the fact of His resurrection

Wait --- please consider this: "If Christ not be raised from the dead, then ...your faith is in vain." 1Cor15:14 Do you accept that "refusing to believe in Christ's resurrection", cannot be a "saved belief"?

I appreciate your posts here, Rick; if you and I do not come to agreement on all things, but if both of us are driven deeper into Scripture and closer to God's heart, then we both win.

 

[nobdysfool]

Reverting true to form, the long, convoluted posts Ben uses to wear down his opponents. And he wonders why I won't participate in such folly....The overriding theme of Ben's posts are an absolute antipathy to Predestination and Election. And he stated clearly what he believes: man causes his own salvation, and man causes his own reprobation. God is passive in Ben's world.

Ben, there is no need to answer, because I am not being dragged into any long-convoluted arguments with you. What I have said here is plain for all to see. And to any thinking Christian, the errors in your view stand out in bold relief.

Publish your book, and let us know where we may obtain a copy if any of us so desire. And for your bold statement that the publishing of your book will cause the collapse of Calvinism, dream on...I haven't had such a good belly-laugh in a long time....

 

[frumanchu]

Your own cited-definition defeats you. "Biased favoring one party over another", is partiality (and it's the view of "God electing SOME but not OTHERS"). Scripture says "God receives those who fear Him and seek righteousness" --- that is not partial.

Sovereign election is partial.
Allowing men to choose Him, is not.

As stated several times before, when consistently applied your logic falls apart. You claim Acts 10:34-35 shows that God has no partiality in any way, yet at the same time affirm that He only saves those who believe (which is partiality towards them). This despite the plainly obvious meaning of Peter's words: that God has not limited the blessings of His covenant to the nation of Israel as in times past, but now has expanded the scope of His covenant to men of every nation.

Claiming that this passage refutes the doctrine of election is utterly absurd.

And "if faith comes from hearing, HOW can they believe what they have not heard" (Rom10:14, 17) --- how can anyone HINDER what God has sovereignly PREDESTINED?

They can't, Rick; you are embracing a contradiction.

FALSE. As has been explained before, God uses the preaching of the Gospel as the instrumental means of bringing men to faith. He calls men to go out and preach the Word, but such preaching has no effect without the work of the Spirit.

Contradiction is continuing to claim that God is sovereign yet thinking man can somehow thwart His will at every turn. The verse you cited presents you with much more of a problem since you must account for how the millions of people who never hear the Gospel could possibly be saved. Thus you advocate a salvation apart from faith in Christ.

Please show me in Scripture that "only God has that power". Please tell me how one can be saved, without acquiring the Gospel message.

How about YOU tell US, Ben. Please explain how people the world over who have never heard the Gospel message can ever be saved.

Please review 2Tim2:1-4, and tell me how "God desires all men to be saved" (considering he distinguishes "all" by saying "kings and ALL in authority"), does not really mean "all"? Surely not all authorities are SAVED. And per Calvinism, any authority who is NOT saved is not sovereingly predestined. So how do you fit "God desires all authority to be saved"?

The consistent theme of the New Testament is here echoed: God's redemptive plan is not limited in scope to any nation, tongue, tribe, class or vocation.

Simple. Consistent. Without contradiction.

Oh yes it does; under RT, there is no "personal responsibility". It's the last letter of "TULIP" --- GOD will preserve YOU". His responsibility, not ours.

...and that fully conflicts with 2Tim1:12-14, "God guards what we entrust, and we guard what God entrusts".

False. Calvinism does in fact uphold personal responsibility. It simply rejects the personal autonomy that yours requires.

Consider Joseph's brothers. As Joseph said, what they intended for evil, God intended for good. God's sovereignty over the situation is clearly set forth, yet are Joseph's brothers absolved of their responsibility for the evil they had done? No.

If you bothered to read what Calvinists actually teach, you'd know that Calvinism does in fact teach personal responsibility.

Wait --- please consider this: "If Christ not be raised from the dead, then ...your faith is in vain." 1Cor15:14 Do you accept that "refusing to believe in Christ's resurrection", cannot be a "saved belief"?

Proceeding with that premise, Ben, please tell us how salvation is possible for those who die having never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.