How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Ben johnson]

Reverting true to form, the long, convoluted posts Ben uses to wear down his opponents.

The length was determined by Rick's post; I simply responded to each point. Each response is valid, or not; this is why we're here, to discuss theology. I say something, another responds to what I say; I respond to what they say, and so on. We use Bible verses to support our perception.

And he wonders why I won't participate in such folly....

No, he doesn't wonder that; he wonders why NBF doesn't respond to the post, instead of criticing the style, and threatening:
"Any further attempts to draw me in will be reported as harrassment.

Capice?"

and The overriding theme of Ben's posts are an absolute antipathy to Predestination and Election.

No, Ben's posts explore Scripture. It is a question of "exegesis" or "eisegesis"; iow, which view (Calvinism or Responsible-Grace) more closely fits what they wrote?

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.

In Ben's world is Heb11:6, and Acts10:34-35, and Rom3:26, Deut30:15-20, and many more verses which cast God as "receiving man's faith" (passive) while man is charged with coming to faith (active) in Matt7:24-27, Rom10:9-10, Mark1:15, 1Pet1:9, and persisting in faith in 1Tim4:16, 2Pet1:5-10, 1Jn2:26-28, etcetera.

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.

The "errors in Ben's view" can be exposed by Scriptural verses, or not. You are under no obligation to "answer" or to "be dragged into long-convoluted-arguments".

Please do not respond if you feel that way; I value you as a Christian brother far higher than making you mad.

Publish your book, and let us know where we may obtain a copy if any of us so desire.

Why would I do that? You'll hear about it soon enough when people begin to read it and look up the Scriptures themselves.

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....

It pleases me if I can make people smile. But what I've written is either Scriptural, or not. Rick posted here many of the same responses that Calvinists have been making; and to each point Rick made, I responded, with Scripture. Rick did the same thing as you, (for example) saying things like "men cannot really stop/shut-off those who are entering Heaven" in Matt23:13.

In the final analysis, it is simply a question of which view is more Scriptural.

"Those who are entering, you stop --- you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men"

...or...

"Those who are entering, you do not really stop; it's only a figure of speech, so you do not really shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men."

Which did Jesus really mean to say?

 

[Rightglory]

frumanchu,

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.

Of course then one must also assume that Christianity began in the 16th century and Christianity is equal to Calvinism.
Yet when one checks history there is naught a single reference to any of the five points of Calvinism. Not any such explanations ever existed, not to say that it has not even coalesced after 400 years of trying to develop a cohesive view.

Ben and I differ on some other points, but his very well developed view of faith and recieved faith is as Orthodox as one can get. You will find this same understanding, if not the language in Church Fathers all through the centuries on this issue.
But then based on your statement, everyone outside of Calvinism in a non-thinking Christian.
What stands out is that Ben's view of faith, does not align with yours. Using the principle of Sola Scriptura, neither one of you has any more strength than any other person using the same method. It is one man's opinion against another.

I find it quite ironic that Calvin and Calvinism is based solely on Augustinian theology. As much as protestants dislike the RCC and its theology St Augustine is often referred to as the Father of Roman Catholicism. Yet, even the RCC did not accept the predestination theology of Augustine.

 

[drstevej]

frumanchu,

[/font]

Of course then one must also assume that Christianity began in the 16th century and Christianity is equal to Calvinism.

Calvin simply articulated what was placed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit. He did not claim that his views originated in the 16th Century but rather were a return to biblical teaching.

 

[Rightglory]

drstevej,

Calvin simply articulated what was placed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit. He did not claim that his views originated in the 16th Century but rather were a return to biblical teaching.

An assertion which you have not shown to be so. All he did was articulated HIS view of scripture, which every other protestant has done since, including a host of other so-called Calvinists. And they are arriving as wholly different views, psuedo-calvinists.
Consequently, they originated in the 16th century and probably only existed in their purest form in the 16th century.
So, the Holy Spirit waited until the 16th century and Calvin to originate the True Gospel?

 

[Ben johnson]

Calvin simply articulated what was placed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit. He did not claim that his views originated in the 16th Century but rather were a return to biblical teaching.

An assertion which you have not shown to be so. All he did was articulated HIS view of scripture, which every other protestant has done since, including a host of other so-called Calvinists. And they are arriving as wholly different views, psuedo-calvinists.
Consequently, they originated in the 16th century and probably only existed in their purest form in the 16th century.
So, the Holy Spirit waited until the 16th century and Calvin to originate the True Gospel?

Pretty much how I was going to respond, and well said.

My "too long post" to Rick, responded to each and every point he made (and his points are consistent with Calvinistic interpretation); rather than blame me for "long posts", Calvinists (in addition to Rick) could pick a few of my responses and show me how I'm conflicting Scripture.

Anyone "game"?

@ Rick

 

[frumanchu]

rather than blame me for "long posts", Calvinists (in addition to Rick) could pick a few of my responses and show me how I'm conflicting Scripture.

Anyone "game"?

Ben, I've posted one [post=35184070]here[/post]. Please do not act as though we are not answering you, Ben, when we undeniably are.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ben, I told you... saying it was figurative, not literal, is not the same as saying "He didn't mean what He said!!!
You have mischaracterized my "he didn't realy say that" by claiming "that" means what HE said instead of what YOU say.

"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.

Exctly. You're "Flotsam", & I'm "Jetsam". Ever since Adam's transgression. That's why we need mercy. We lack any redeeming characteristic.

"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.".

Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
"That" refers to "by grace are ye saved through faith" - none of "that" is "of yourselves".
You didn't address;
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;

"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". 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?

No, Ben it isn't. The "call" is simply the ministration of delivering the Gospel. The "few" chosen are the elect who were given "ears to hear" (understanding).

"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"?

It fits itself, just fine. Consequences, personal responsibility, is not eliminated by predestination.
Warnings & exhortations as well, are not therefore, rendered meaningless.

"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"?
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

He didn't forget, he considered it understood.
2Tim3:15 only show wisdom as able to lead, but wisdom without saving grace only leads to vain imagination, not to Jesus.

"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. Refusals & accepts are predestined. Regenarates accept Him, unregenerates reject &/or redefine Him.

"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..

Ok, obviously those who seek men's glory, like claiming freedom of will & taking credit for choosing to believe Gospel truth. Do you think Jesus didn't know the answers to those "how" questions?

"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?.

It doesn't, they don't. We must have two different criteria for "partial":
Main Entry: 1par·tial
2 : inclined to favor one party more than the other : [SIZE=-1]BIASED[/SIZE]
His impartiality is only in regard to His choosing whom to save - none merit salvation, so He impartialy chooses a remnant, electing them to salvation from the totaly unmeriting masses. He is entirely partial to the the ones He impartialy chose to save. You have to stretch or discard the context of the 'God is not partial' verse, to force it to apply universaly to everything He does.

"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.

Of course you are right. You have contextualy defined the partiality into a situation where all (2) are treated equaly. God does not treat all equaly. He treated Esau & Pharoah differently than Jacob & Rahab.

"Partial" is value neutral word in itself, it is not a sin to be partial.
So is bias. It is not a sin or character flaw to be biased toward goodness & truth. The value depends upon what the bias, the partiality, is aimed at.

"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".
"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?.

Sure, easily.
The action isn't in the physical. It is in the spirit. God has to actively choose who He will motivate to seek Him, because none do "of ourselves".

"The question is, is the man active because of God's decision, or is God's welcome because of the man's action?

The answer is BOTH.

The verses we've just read (Acts10:34-35, Heb11:6, Rom3:16, and many more) assert the second.
No, Heb11:6 places the believer as "actively seeking". No, it makes God "receiver of he-who-seeks", not "INITIATOR of one's seeking". What does "longsuffering" mean to you?"

It means "patient".

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?

Yeah,& just like God the Potter destroys the vessels He made fitted for destruction. They don't escape destruction just because they were made for it.
I never deny personal responsibility because predestination doesn't eliminate it.

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".

They fell out of favor by unbelief.
11: Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
You meant does warn us.
Like I said, predestination does not eliminate volition, it only predestines it. All warnings & exhortations are just like preaching. To the unregenerated it is foolishness. But once God sovereignly intervenes & interferes with their fallen condition, it is the power unto salvation. Why? Because now, they have been given "ears to hear" - meaning "understanding', yea, even revelation.

 

[livingword26]

Matt 25:41
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
KJV


Heb 2:3
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
KJV


Deut 30:19
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
KJV


Matt 23:37
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
KJV


John 1:6-13
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
KJV


John 1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
KJV


John 3:18-21
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
KJV


John 6:51
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
KJV


John 12:32
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
KJV


Acts 7:51
51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
KJV


Rom 10:11-13
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved .
KJV


Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
KJV


Titus 2:11
11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men ,
KJV


1 Tim 2:5-6
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
KJV

 

[frumanchu]

frumanchu,

Of course then one must also assume that Christianity began in the 16th century and Christianity is equal to Calvinism.
Yet when one checks history there is naught a single reference to any of the five points of Calvinism. Not any such explanations ever existed, not to say that it has not even coalesced after 400 years of trying to develop a cohesive view.

The "five points of Calvinism" were forumlated in direct response to five points of disagreement voiced by the Remonstrants. You will not find them systematized in that manner prior to Dordt because there wasn't the immediate need to do so. Just as with the councils and synods of the past, the particulars of the faith were not created or invented but rather formally recognized and systematized.

Ben and I differ on some other points, but his very well developed view of faith and recieved faith is as Orthodox as one can get. You will find this same understanding, if not the language in Church Fathers all through the centuries on this issue.

Very well developed view of faith? Ben readily embraces some of the most absurd doctrines I've ever heard, and he mangles the Word of God to manufacture support for them. His arguments are bereft of basic logical consistency, as has been explicitly and thoroughly demonstrated many times over.

But then based on your statement, everyone outside of Calvinism in a non-thinking Christian.

Actually, the statement you quoted and attributed to me wasn't even my statement, friend.

What stands out is that Ben's view of faith, does not align with yours. Using the principle of Sola Scriptura, neither one of you has any more strength than any other person using the same method. It is one man's opinion against another.

And your opinion is that the Scriptures support the truth claims of the Orthodox Church.

What stands out is that Ben's view of faith is demonstratably NOT that of Scripture at several points.

I find it quite ironic that Calvin and Calvinism is based solely on Augustinian theology.

False. While Luther's work was influenced a great deal by Augustine, that was hardly the "sole basis" of Reformed theology.

As much as protestants dislike the RCC and its theology St Augustine is often referred to as the Father of Roman Catholicism.

As I had to explain in another forum just yesterday, it is a gross error to argue that Reformed Protestants reject the first 1600 years of church history. It's simply not true.

Yet, even the RCC did not accept the predestination theology of Augustine.

Revisionism aside, if you spent a little time exploring the history of Protestantism you'd know that the primary doctrines which Luther and Calvin traced back through Augustine were those of man's total depravity and need for prevenient grace in order to believe or do anything good.

 

[Rick Otto]

Livingword must've forgot these:
Gen6:5: And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 8:21: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Job15:14: What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Psalm 14: 1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2: The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3: They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
1Kings8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

Psalms51:5: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm94:11: The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Psalm 130:3: If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
Proverbs 20:9: Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

Ecclesiastes 7:20: For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Ecclesiastes 8:11: Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
Isaiah53:6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah64:6: But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Jeremiah10:14: Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

Jeremiah17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Matt7:11: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Matt15:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mark10:18: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
John6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John15:5: I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

John15:16: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Acts16:14: And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Romans1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans3:9: What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12: They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13: Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15: Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16: Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17: And the way of peace have they not known:
18: There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans7:18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19: For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20: Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21: I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22: For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24: O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans8:7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

1Corinthians2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Corinthians2:3: Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

2Corinthians3:5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Ephesians2:1: And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4: But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5: Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6: And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Colossians2:13: And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
James3:2: For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

 

[heymikey80]

drstevej,


An assertion which you have not shown to be so. All he did was articulated HIS view of scripture, which every other protestant has done since, including a host of other so-called Calvinists. And they are arriving as wholly different views, psuedo-calvinists.
Consequently, they originated in the 16th century and probably only existed in their purest form in the 16th century.
So, the Holy Spirit waited until the 16th century and Calvin to originate the True Gospel?

Tell us why Augustine is now a 16th century theologian. Then tell us why Augustine led other councils to state things Calvinists embrace wholeheartedly.

Oh, they're not *ecumenical* councils. I believe we didn't say they were ecumenical councils -- we believe right doctrine is rarely the majority opinion. But you said they appeared in the 16th century.

They didn't.

They can be traced back to Paul's and John's writings, if not Peter's and Jesus'. And you're not a First Century Jewish believer, either. Playing with how you interpret, versus how we interpret, yeah, whatever. Your present intepretation isn't shared with Christians across all history, either. If you want to go with that myth, fine, but no one's going to take it seriously. Your church's view changes; it grows; it adjusts. So even the ancient view is not embraced by your present church doctrine.

 

[Rightglory]

heymikey80,

Tell us why Augustine is now a 16th century theologian. Then tell us why Augustine led other councils to state things Calvinists embrace wholeheartedly.
Oh, they're not *ecumenical* councils. I believe we didn't say they were ecumenical councils -- we believe right doctrine is rarely the majority opinion. But you said they appeared in the 16th century.
They didn't.

You apparently don't read well. I think you would have great difficulty in making any argument that Calvin is exactly like Augustine. I also stated that the Orthodox and even the RCC who considers Augustine the Father of Roman Catholicism, never accepted Augustine on the issue of Predestination. the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of depravity nor the understanding of Rome on Original Sin. That is why Rome has such difficulty with the assumption of Christ's Human nature and develop all kinds of doctrines to offset the obvious.
That you don't believe right doctirne is of majority opinion is a huge understatement. It has become so fragmented that it has become a personalized doctrine. Hardly the Gospel once Given. All Truth. Fortunately the Gospel does not depend on majority opinion but on the Truth once given and has remained the same since.
But predestination did arrive in the 16th century as acceptable and practiced beliefs by only Calvin.

They can be traced back to Paul's and John's writings, if not Peter's and Jesus'. And you're not a First Century Jewish believer, either. Playing with how you interpret, versus how we interpret, yeah, whatever. Your present intepretation isn't shared with Christians across all history, either. If you want to go with that myth, fine, but no one's going to take it seriously. Your church's view changes; it grows; it adjusts. So even the ancient view is not embraced by your present church doctrine.

You can prove neither of these assertions. You will find nothing even close to anything of the five points of Calvinism ever in the Orthodox Church or the Roman Church until much closer to the split. The present interpretation is shared by the Orthodox, the Orientals, since this was not any of the heretical teachings, the RCC and most protestants. It is only all the psuedo-calvinists views that adopted predestination. That you have does not make it wrong for you, but it has never been the Gospel once given.
I have not found any changes in doctrine from today then what the very early ancient Church in Orthodoxy. They have not changed one iota. I'll leave you to disprove that if you think you can.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, I told you... saying it was figurative, not literal, is not the same as saying "He didn't mean what He said!!!
You have mischaracterized my "he didn't really say that" by claiming "that" means what HE said instead of what YOU say.

Hi, Rick. I didn't mean to "mischaracterize"; since that's how you perceived me, then I'm sorry.

I'm not understanding how "painting it as FIGURATIVE", removes the stated absolute of "you shut off Heaven from men".

Exctly. You're "Flotsam", & I'm "Jetsam". Ever since Adam's transgression. That's why we need mercy. We lack any redeeming characteristic.

Rick Flotsam, meet George Jetsam. (could not resist that...) Faith-to-salvation, is receiving His redeeming act; it does not mean we have any redeeming characteristic.

Eph 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
"That" refers to "by grace are ye saved through faith" - none of "that" is "of yourselves".

Yes; it does not say "saving-faith is not of yourselves".

You didn't address;
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;

I think I did; oh well, here it is: "granted", charizomai, "bestow graciously". Fully harmonizes the idea of "you may receive His graciousness, or you may refuse it." Would you be willing to give me your opinion of Heb12:7-9, and 25? "It is for discipline that you endure; GOd deals with you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which we all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? ...See that you do not refuse Him who is speakiing. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on Earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from Him who warns from Heaven." Is there any way to avoid "shall we not BE subject to God, AND LIVE; do not refuse Him --- no escape for those who turn away from God"?

No, Ben it isn't. The "call" is simply the ministration of delivering the Gospel. The "few" chosen are the elect who were given "ears to hear" (understanding).

OK, please show me where in Scripture it asserts "God gives certain ordained ones ears".

It fits itself, just fine. Consequences, personal responsibility, is not eliminated by predestination.
Warnings & exhortations as well, are not therefore, rendered meaningless.

But the warning speaks of "becoming hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from God". It presents our partnership with Jesus as conditional on our "hold fast our assurance". How can we understand from that, "a truly saved person cannot fall from salvation because of hardened unbelief"?

2Tim3:15 only show wisdom as able to lead, but wisdom without saving grace only leads to vain imagination, not to Jesus.

On what basis do you understand that "God's saving grace is denied to most men"?

Sure it does. Refusals & acceptances are predestined. Regenerates accept Him, unregenerates reject &/or redefine Him.

Wait, Rick; please explain why Jesus would stand around rebuking towards repentance, those who were predestined NOT to repent. Why would He do that? Seems like a "pearls-before-swine" sorta thang.

Ok, obviously those who seek men's glory, like claiming freedom of will & taking credit for choosing to believe Gospel truth. Do you think Jesus didn't know the answers to those "how" questions?

Jesus was speaking of cause. His audience was unwilling to believe in Him, because they sought man's glory and did not seek God's. You perceive an underlying theme of "their seeking, was tied to God's predestination; those whom He forechose and regenerated, sought; those He did not, did not seek". So here we have Jesus stating the obvious, while secretly thinking "of course you don't believe in Me, you're not predestined". I don't see any of that concept in what He said; it reads to me as a real rebuke towards real belief.

He pulls out the "Moses-card", saying: "if you even followed Moses, then you would believe Me, for Moses spoke of Me. But against what you SAY, you don't even REALLY follow Moses."

I can't imagine why Jesus never said anything in there about "sovereign election", if He thought that way. Why spend the time rebuking them, when He knew God had never enabled them to receive His rebuke?

It doesn't, they don't. We must have two different criteria for "partial":
Main Entry: 1par·tial
2 : inclined to favor one party more than the other : BIASED
His impartiality is only in regard to His choosing whom to save - none merit salvation, so He impartialy chooses a remnant, electing them to salvation from the totaly unmeriting masses. He is entirely partial to the the ones He impartialy chose to save. You have to stretch or discard the context of the 'God is not partial' verse, to force it to apply universaly to everything He does.

The context denies this; "not partial", opposes "He receives who seeks and fears Him". By definition, "He receives seekers", places Him as accepting those who have faith --- the motion here is "man towards God"; the opposite would be Him coming to man and choosing, making the motion "God-towards-man".

That is the difference between our views; "God towards man" (sovereign predestination, man has no choice or resistance), or "man towards God" (provision of salvation by grace, conditioned on voluntary faith that receives it).

That is the point on which we're arguing.

Of course you are right. You have contextualy defined the partiality into a situation where all (2) are treated equaly. God does not treat all equaly. He treated Esau & Pharoah differently than Jacob & Rahab.

"Partial" is value neutral word in itself, it is not a sin to be partial.
So is bias. It is not a sin or character flaw to be biased toward goodness & truth. The value depends upon what the bias, the partiality, is aimed at.

However, "biased", and "just", are at odds.

Do you deny that?

The action isn't in the physical. It is in the spirit. God has to actively choose who He will motivate to seek Him, because none do "of ourselves".

Then why hold a "Final Judgment"? What's being Judged? God's sovereign decision? Per Calvinism, God would select certain ones for belief (and salvation), then (even if by negligence) select the rest for CONDEMNATION, then hold a kangaroo-court condemning unbelievers for NOT believing.

...even though it all was His choice...

That makes no sense to me; what am I missing?

The answer is BOTH.

No, it can't be; saving-faith is either "man-towards-God", or "God-towards-man".

"With the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness; and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Rm10:10 Which direction is in this verse?

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

What does "longsuffering" mean to you?"

It means "patient".

Help me understand how "patient" works under "sovereign predestination".

God is patient --- towards His sovereignty? I mean, He elects them and they believe when HE decrees, where is the "patience"?

...on the other hand, if faith is "man-towards-God", then Him being patient makes sense, doesn't it?

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, ...but is patient toward you, not decreeing (boulemai) any to perish, but making-room-for (choreo) all to repent."

Scripture says "God's patience is for man's repentance".
Reformed Theology says "man's repentance is God-ordained".

"DDo you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubborn and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each man according to his deeds. To those who by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation..." Rom2:4-8 In light of what we just read in Romans, what is the purpose of God's patience, and which way is "saving-faith" directed?

God-towards-man, or man-towards-God?

God's patience is MEANT to lead us to repentance. Do you still believe in "sovereignly-ordained belief and repentance"?

Yeah,& just like God the Potter destroys the vessels He made fitted for destruction. They don't escape destruction just because they were made for it.
I never deny personal responsibility because predestination doesn't eliminate it.

God MAKES people for Hell???

"God is just, and justifier of he who believes". Rom3:26

Seems to me either God is just, or God makes people for Hell. Can't be both, and certainly can't be the second.

They fell out of favor by unbelief.
11: Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
You meant does warn us.

No, I wrote it correctly. But I used a poor literary device, "double-negative". Reworded, Heb4:11 warns us not to imitate their unbelief and disobedience, and so miss Heaven. How could it not?

Like I said, predestination does not eliminate volition, it only predestines it.

Exactly; so under RT, there is no responsibility, it is a variant of "fatalism".

All warnings & exhortations are just like preaching. To the unregenerated it is foolishness. But once God sovereignly intervenes & interferes with their fallen condition, it is the power unto salvation.

OK, think about those very words; and look at 1Cor1:21. The context speaks of His Gospel, which is wisdom to God but foolishness to man. Verse 21 says: "For since the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who BELIEVE."

So --- because of Human folly, the Gospel seems foolish; but to those who, THROUGH that foolishness believe, God is pleased to save them.

RT would have it say "God changes the message (by sovereign regeneration) from 'foolish' to 'power', so they believe".

But Scripture says that belief is what changes it from "folly", to "power".

Do you disagree?

Why? Because now, they have been given "ears to hear" - meaning "understanding', yea, even revelation.

Where is the verse about "giving them ears"?

Livingword must've forgot these:
Gen6:5: And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Many of these verses feature prominently in my text. About the Genesis 6:5, verse, consider: "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the Earth, and that every intent of his heart was only evil continually. ....but Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time (generations)." Genesis 6:5-9

Did Noah find favor because he was righteous, or was he righteous because he found favor?

If you answer "righteous because God favored Him", then you just contradicted the idea of "God is not partial, but welcomes he who fears Him and does right".

...if you answer "favored because he was righteous", then you have embraced Responsible Grace and forsaken Reformed Theology.

Do you understand now what I've been saying?

 

[Ben johnson]

Jeremiah17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

"BLessed is the man who trusts in the Lord; for he will be like a tree planed by the water.... the heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick (wicked), who can understand it? 'I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind; even to GIVE to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds'.[/color]

That "deceitful, wicked heart", can turn to the Lord; for the Lord searches that heart and receives the man who trusts in the Lord.

Most of your other citations are also in my text.

John6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jn12:32 says "Jesus draws all men" (same Greek word "helkuo"), and all God gives to Jesus are those who first belonged to God. Jn17:6 is clear on that.

John15:5: I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

And every branch that does NOT abide is cut off and burned. Verse 6.

John15:16: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

"I chose you" --- who? "I chose you twelve to be DISCIPLES". Connect this with John6:70, and Judas was one of the twelve "God chose and PREDESTINED to go out and bear fruit"!!!

Acts16:14: And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Lydia was a worshipper of God, AND God gave her to Jesus. This embodies Jn17:6, "Thine they were, AND Thou gavest them to Me."

They are given to Jesus through faith, not before.

Romans1:18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

And "the righteousness of God is revealed from beginning faith to ending faith --- for the righeous shall live by faith." Rom1:17



Doesn't matter which verse we discuss; context ruins Calvinism.

 

[cygnusx1]

WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION IS EXPLAINED AS IT RELATES IN GENERAL TO ALL MEN.

Thus much being premised with relation to the Scripture terms commonly made use of in this controversy, we shall now proceed to take a nearer view of this high and mysterious article, and-

I.-We, with the Scriptures, assert that there is a predestination of some particular persons to life for the praise of the glory of Divine grace, and a predestination of other particular persons to death, which death of punishment they shall inevitably undergo, and that justly, on account of their sins -
(1) There is a predestination of some particular persons to life, so "Many are called, but few chosen" (Matt. xx. 15), i.e., the Gospel revelation comes, indiscriminately, to great multitudes, but few, comparatively speaking, are spiritually and eternally the better for it, and these few, to whom it is the savour of life unto life, are therefore savingly benefited by it, because they are the chosen or elect of God. To the same effect are the following passages, among many others "For the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened " (Matt. xxiv. 22). "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed" (Acts xiii. 48). "Whom He did predestinate, them He also called" (Rom. viii. 30), and ver. 33, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" "According as He hath chosen us in Him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy . . . Having predestinated us to the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Eph. i. 4, 5). "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us, in Christ, before the world began" (2 Tim. i. 9).

(2) This election of certain individuals unto eternal life was for the praise of the glory of Divine grace. This is expressly asserted, in so many words, by the apostle (Eph. i. 5, 6). Grace, or mere favour, was the impulsive cause of all: it was the main spring, which set all the inferior wheels in motion. It was an act of grace in God to choose any, when He might have passed by all. It was an act of sovereign grace to choose this man rather than that, when both were equally undone in themselves, and alike obnoxious to His displeasure. In a word, since election is not of works, and does not proceed on the least regard had to any worthiness in its objects, it must be of free, unbiassed grace, but election is not of works (Rom. xi. 5, 6), therefore it is solely of grace.

(3) There is, on the other hand, a predestination of some particular persons to death. " If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost" (2 Cor. iv. 3). "Who stumble at the word being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Pet. ii. 8). "These as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed" (2 Pet. ii. 12). "There are certain men, crept in unawares, who were before, of old, ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 4). "Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (Rev. xvii. 8). But of this we shall treat professedly, and more at large, in the fifth chapter.

(4) This future death they shall inevitably undergo, for, as God will certainly save all whom He wills should be saved, so He will as surely condemn all whom He wills shall be condemned; for He is the Judge of the whole earth, whose decree shall stand, and from whose sentence there is no appeal. "Hath He said, and shall He not make it good? hath He spoken, and shall it not come to pass?" And His decree is this: that these (i.e., the non-elect, who are left under the guilt of final impenitence, unbelief and sin)" shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous (i.e., those who, in consequence of their election in Christ and union to Him, are justly reputed and really constituted such) shall enter into life eternal" (Matt. xxv. 46).

(5) The reprobate shall undergo this punishment justly and on account of their sins. Sin is the meritorious and immediate cause of any man's damnation. God condemns and punishes the non-elect, not merely as men, but as sinners, and had it pleased the great Governor of the universe to have entirely prevented sin from having any entrance into the world, it would seem as if He could not, consistently with His known attributes, have condemned any man at all. But, as all sin is properly meritorious of eternal death, and all men are sinners, they who are condemned are condemned most justly, and those who are saved are saved in a way of sovereign mercy through the vicarious obedience and death of Christ for them.
Now this twofold predestination, of some to life and of others to death (if it may be called twofold, both being constituent parts of the same decree), cannot be denied without likewise denying (1) most express and frequent declarations of Scripture, and (2) the very existence of God, for, since God is a Being perfectly simple, free from all accident and composition, and yet a will to save some and punish others is very often predicated of Him in Scripture, and an immovable decree to do this, in consequence of His will, is likewise ascribed to Him, and a perfect foreknowledge of the sure and certain accomplishment of what He has thus willed and decreed is also attributed to Him, it follows that whoever denies this will, decree and foreknowledge of God, does implicitly and virtually deny God Himself, since His will, decree and foreknowledge are no other than God Himself willing and decreeing and foreknowing.


II.-We assert that God did from eternity decree to make man in His own image, and also decreed to suffer him to fall from that image in which he should be created, and thereby to forfeit the happiness with which he was invested, which decree and the consequences of it were not limited to Adam only, but included and extended to all his natural posterity.
Something of this was hinted already in the preceding chapter, and we shall now proceed to the proof of it.

(1) That God did make man in His own image is evident from Scripture (Gen. i. 27)

(2) That He decreed from eternity so to make man is as evident, since for God to do anything without having decreed it, or fixed a previous plan in His own mind, would be a manifest imputation on His wisdom, and if He decreed that now, or at any time, which He did not always decree, He could not be unchangeable.

(3) That man actually did fall from the Divine image and his original happiness is the undoubted voice of Scripture (Gen. iii.), and

(4) That he fell in consequence of the Divine decree[1] we prove thus: God was either willing that Adam should fall, or unwilling, or indifferent about it. If God was unwilling that Adam should transgress, how came it to pass that he did? Is man stronger and is Satan wiser than He that made them? Surely no. Again, could not God, had it so pleased Him, have hindered the tempter's access to paradise? or have created man, as He did the elect angels, with a will invariably determined to good only and incapable of being biassed to evil? or, at least, have made the grace and strength, with which He endued Adam, actually effectual to the resisting of all solicitations to sin? None but atheists would answer these questions in the negative. Surely, if God had not willed the fall, He could, and no doubt would, have prevented it; but He did not prevent it: ergo He willed it. And if He willed it, He certainly decreed it, for the decree of God is nothing else but the seal and ratification of His Will. He does nothing but what He decreed, and He decreed nothing which He did not will, and both will and decree are absolutely eternal, though the execution of both be in time. The only way to evade the force of this reasoning is to say that "God was indifferent and unconcerned whether man stood or fell." But in what a shameful, unworthy light does this represent the Deity! Is it possible for us to imagine that God could be an idle, careless spectator of one of the most important events that ever came to pass? Are not "the very hairs of our head all numbered"? or does "a sparrow fall to the ground without our heaveuly Father"? If, then, things the most trivial and worthless are subject to the appointment of His decree and the control of His providence, how much more is man, the masterpiece of this lower creation? and above all that man Adam, who when recent from his Maker's hands was the living image of God Himself, and very little inferior to angels! and on whose perseverance was suspended the welfare not of himself only, but likewise that of the whole world. But, so far was God from being indifferent in this matter, that there is nothing whatever about which He is so, for He worketh all things, without exception," after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. i. 11), consequently, if He positively wills whatever is done, He cannot be indifferent with regard to anything. On the whole, if God was not unwilling that Adam should fall, He must have been willing that he should, since between God's willing and nilling there is no medium. And is it not highly rational as well as Scriptural, nay, is it not absolutely necessary to suppose that the fall was not contrary to the will and determination of God? since, if it was, His will (which the apostle represents as being irresistible, Rom. ix. 19) was apparently frustrated and His determination rendered of worse than none effect. And how dishonourable to, how inconsistent with, and how notoriously subversive of the dignity of God such a blasphemous supposition would be, and how irreconcileable with every one of His allowed attributes is very easy to observe.

(5) That man by his fall forfeited the happiness with which he was invested is evident as well from Scripture as from experience (Gen. iii. 7-24; Rom. V. 12; Gal. iii. 10). He first
sinned (and the essence of sin lies in disobedience to the command of God) and then immediately became miserable, misery being through the Divine appointment, the natural and inseparable concomitant of sin. (6) That the fall and its sad consequences did not terminate solely in Adam, but affected his whole posterity, is the doctrine of the sacred oracles (Psalm li. 5; Rom. v.12-19; 1 Cor. xv. 22; Eph. ii. 3). Besides, not only spiritual and eternal, but likewise temporal death is the wages of sin (Rom. vi. 23; James i. 15), and yet we see that millions of infants, who never in their own persons either did or could commit sin, die continually. It follows that either God must be unjust in punishing the innocent, or that these infants are some way or the other guilty creatures; if they are not so in themselves (I mean actually so by their own commission of sin), they must be so in some other person, and who that person is let Scripture say (Rom. v.12, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 22). And, I ask, how can these be with equity sharers in Adam's punishment unless they are chargeable with his sin? and how can they be fairly chargeable with his sin unless he was their federal head and representative, and acted in their name, and sustained their persons, when he fell?

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/absolute_predestination2.html

 

[cygnusx1]

III.-We assert that as all men universally are not elected to salvation, so neither are all men universally ordained to condemnation. This follows from what has been proved already; however, I shall subjoin some further demonstration of these two positions.

(1) All men universally are not elected to salvation, and, first, this may be evinced a posteriri; it is undeniable from Scripture that God will not in the last day save every individual of mankind! (Dan. xii. 2; Matt. xxv. 46; John v. 29). Therefore, say we, God never designed to save every individual, since, if He had, every individual would and must be saved, for "His counsel shall stand, and He will do all His pleasure." (See what we have already advanced on this head in the first chapter under the second article, Position 8). Secondly, this may be evinced also from God's foreknowledge. The Deity from all eternity, and consequently at the very time He gives life and being to a reprobate, certainly foreknew, and knows, in consequence of His own decree, that such a one would fall short of salvation. Now, if God foreknew this, He must have predetermined it, because His own will is the foundation of His decrees, and His decrees are the foundation of His prescience; He therefore foreknowing futurities, because by His predestination He hath rendered their futurition certain and inevitable. Neither is it possible, in the very nature of the thing, that they should be elected to salvation, or ever obtain it, whom God foreknew should perish, for then the Divine act of preterition would be changeable, wavering and precarious, the Divine foreknowledge would be deceived, and the Divine will impeded. All which are utterly impossible. Lastly, that all men are not chosen to life, nor created to that end is evident in that there are some who were hated of God before they were born (Rom. ix. 11-13), are "fitted for destruction" (ver. 22), and "made for the day of evil" (Prov. xvi. 1).
But

(2) all men universally are not ordained to condemnation. There are some who are chosen (Matt. xx. 16). An election, or elect number, who obtain grace and salvation, while "the rest are blinded" (Rom. xi. 7), a little flock, to whom it is the Father's good pleasure to give the kingdom (Luke xii. 32). A people whom the Lord hath reserved (Jer. 1. 20) and formed for Himself (Isa. xliii. 21). A peculiarly favoured race, to whom "it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," while to others "it is not given" (Matt. xiii. 11), a "remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom. xi. 5), whom "God hath not appointed to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ" (1 Thes. v.9). In a word, who are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Peter ii. 9), and whose names for that very end "are in the book of life" (Phil. iv. 3) and written in heaven (Luke x. 20; Heb. xii. 23). Luther[2] observes that in Rom. ix., x. and xi. the apostle particularly insists on the doctrine of predestination, "Because," says he, "all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment, whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life and who should disbelieve it, who should he delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned."


IV.-We assert that the number of the elect, and also of the reprobate, is so fixed and determinate that neither can be augmented or diminished. It is written of God that "He telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names" (Psalm cxlvii. 4). Now, it is as incompatible with the infinite wisdom and knowledge of the all-comprehending God to be ignorant of the names and number of the rational creatures He has made as that He should be ignorant of the stars and the other inanimate products of His almighty power, and if He knows all men in general, taken in the lump, He may well be said, in a more near and special sense, to know them that are His by election (2 Tim. ii. 19). And if He knows who are His, He must, consequently, know who are not His, i.e., whom and how many He hath left in the corrupt mass to be justly punished for their sins. Grant this (and who can help granting a truth so self-evident?), and it follows that the number, as well of the elect as of the reprobate, is fixed and certain, otherwise God would be said to know that which is not true, and His knowledge must be false and delusive, and so no knowledge at all, since that which is, in itself, at best, but precarious, can never be the foundation of sure and infallible knowledge. But that God does indeed precisely know, to a man, who are, and are not the objects of His electing favour is evident from such Scriptures as these "Thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name" (Exod. xxxiii. 17). "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee" (Jer i. 5). "Your names are written in heaven" (Luke x. 20). "The very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Luke xii. 7). "I know whom I have chosen" (John xiii. 18). "I know My sheep, and am known of Mine" (John x. 14). "The Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. ii. 19). And if the number of these is thus assuredly settled and exactly known, it follows that we are right in asserting-

V.-That the decrees of election and reprobation are immutable and irreversible. Were not this the case-

(1) God's decree would be precarious, frustrable and uncertain, and, by consequence, no decree at all.

(2) His foreknowledge would be wavering, indeterminate, and liable to disappointment, whereas it always has its accomplishment, and necessarily infers the certain futurity of the thing or things foreknown: "I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and, from ancient times, the things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. xlvi. 9, 10).

(3) Neither would His Word be true, which declares that, with regard to the elect, "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. xi. 29); that "whom He predestinated, them He also glorified" (Rom. viii. 30); that whom He loveth, He loveth to the end (John xiii. 1), with numberless passages to the same purpose. Nor would His word be true with regard to the non-elect if it was possible for them to be saved, for it is there declared that they are fitted for destruction, etc. (Rom. ix. 22); foreordained unto condemnation (Jude 4), and delivered over to a reprobate mind in order to their damnation (Rom. i. 28; 2 Thess. ii. 12).

(4) If, between the elect and reprobate, there was not a great gulph fixed, so that neither can be otherwise than they are, then the will of God (which is the alone cause why some are chosen and others are not) would be rendered inefficacious and of no effect.

(5) Nor could the justice of God stand if He was to condemn the elect, for whose sins He hath received ample satisfaction at the hand of Christ, or if He was to save the reprobate, who are not interested in Christ as the elect are.

(6) The power of God (whereby the elect are preserved from falling into a state of condemnation, and the wicked held down and shut up in a state of death) would be eluded, not to say utterly abolished.
(7) Nor would God be unchangeable if they, who were once the people of His love, could commence the objects of His hatred, or if the vessels of His wrath could he saved with the vessels of grace. Hence that of St. Augustine.[3] "Brethen," says he, "let us not imagine that God puts down any man in His book and then erases him, for if Pilate could say, 'What I have written, I have written,' how can it be thought that tbe great God would write a person's name in the book of life and then blot it out again?" And may we not, with equal reason, ask, on the other hand, "How can it be thought that any of the reprobate sbould be written in that book of life, which contains the names of the elect only, or that any should be inscribed there who were not written among the living from eternity?" I shall conclude this chapter with that observation of Luther.[4] "This," says he, "is the very thing that razes the doctrine of free-will from its foundations, to wit, that God's eternal love of some men and hatred of others is immutable and cannot be reversed." Both one and the other will have its full accomplishment.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/absolute_predestination2.html

 

[Ben johnson]

Oops --- that should have been, "Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit, He takes away; ...if anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch ...and burned." John15:1, 6

I'm thinking the concept of "IN ME", can only mean "saved". So this would convey movement, from "saved" to "fallen".


@ Cygnus...

 

[heymikey80]

Rightglory then:

An assertion which you have not shown to be so. All he did was articulated HIS view of scripture, which every other protestant has done since, including a host of other so-called Calvinists. And they are arriving as wholly different views, psuedo-calvinists.
Consequently, they originated in the 16th century and probably only existed in their purest form in the 16th century.
So, the Holy Spirit waited until the 16th century and Calvin to originate the True Gospel?

Rightglory now:

You apparently don't read well. I think you would have great difficulty in making any argument that Calvin is exactly like Augustine.

I think you've discovered the difficulty with the assertion that Calvin's views of Scripture originated in the 16th century. You've changed your argument to exactitude. Well, find any person who holds exactly the Orthodox doctrine of today in antiquity. Then we'll talk.

I also stated that the Orthodox and even the RCC who considers Augustine the Father of Roman Catholicism, never accepted Augustine on the issue of Predestination. the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of depravity nor the understanding of Rome on Original Sin. That is why Rome has such difficulty with the assumption of Christ's Human nature and develop all kinds of doctrines to offset the obvious.

Rome held to divine predestination, Trent even points out how it differs with the Reformers on the point -- assuming predestination and election is hidden in God's will.

That you don't believe right doctirne is of majority opinion is a huge understatement. It has become so fragmented that it has become a personalized doctrine. Hardly the Gospel once Given. All Truth. Fortunately the Gospel does not depend on majority opinion but on the Truth once given and has remained the same since.

The number of idiomatic assumptions you're making here is staggering. Denominational fragmentation does not conclude in personal isolation. It is indeed a recognition that John Locke's view of religious assembly is faulty -- but who'd put John Locke as a Protestant Reformer?

It's another assumption of yours that Protestants in general hold to individualized doctrine. Gee, there's another gap in your knowledge about Protestants.

But predestination did arrive in the 16th century as acceptable and practiced beliefs by only Calvin.

Another gap in your knowledge. Augustinian monasteries developed everywhere in the west. Trent assumes predestination. It has to. Scripture teaches about it.

You can prove neither of these assertions. You will find nothing even close to anything of the five points of Calvinism ever in the Orthodox Church or the Roman Church until much closer to the split.

"much closer to the split" -- declare it. Pick a cutoff date.

The present interpretation is shared by the Orthodox, the Orientals, since this was not any of the heretical teachings, the RCC and most protestants. It is only all the psuedo-calvinists views that adopted predestination. That you have does not make it wrong for you, but it has never been the Gospel once given.

So tell me about Eastern Orthodoxy's response to Pelagius -- what's the nature of the western situation with Pelagius as Orthodoxy sees it?

I have not found any changes in doctrine from today then what the very early ancient Church in Orthodoxy. They have not changed one iota. I'll leave you to disprove that if you think you can.

"not changed one iota" Was it you or someone else who acceded that councils have made errors? Tell me how they make errors in a doctrine that has not changed on iota. Did they mis-copy the doctrine -- and then misapply it to throw out perfectly legitimate believers? Did they misunderstand the doctrine -- and thus the ancient church -- and you -- really has nothing to stand on to make such an assertion? Unless the assertion can be tested, found to be true or false, then it's pointless to argue. So tell me: on what basis can this "not changed one iota" be tested?

I've noticed CygnusX1 posting quotes from a number of different people, with not much substantive response. (I generally consider "Well he didn't mean Y" when the author apparently meant X to be poor argument against X.)

My basic assertion is this: that doctrinal differences are quite obvious when you examine positions that later redefine the church's doctrine. That you haven't found any changes is merely testament to not looking for changes. In history people varied from the present Orthodox view their doctrine. Sorry, but that means people didn't hold views that were Orthodox at the time. They varied == they held different views.

What's variation, but difference?

This is reasonably clear by later treatments of popular Christians in history, if not the misappointment of bishops who are later found to be heretical (in some cases on grounds which the prior century would've lauded) and various other attempts to resolve inconsistencies. Bishops didn't spring from the church suddenly. They've been there quite awhile.

 

[Easystreet]

God's Love Refuted it before it existed.

 

[Rightglory]

Heymikey80,

think you've discovered the difficulty with the assertion that Calvin's views of Scripture originated in the 16th century. You've changed your argument to exactitude. Well, find any person who holds exactly the Orthodox doctrine of today in antiquity. Then we'll talk.

It is called Calvinism after all,and not Augustinianism. You have not shown that it ever had any root in the history of the Church, either Orthodox, Oriental, or RCC, inspite of what you think Trent was teaching. I believe in predestination as well. But Calvinism variety is alone Calvinism and arrived in the 16th century and has been permuted ever since.

Rome held to divine predestination, Trent even points out how it differs with the Reformers on the point -- assuming predestination and election is hidden in God's will.

If it differs it cannot be Calvinism. But then, Rome was fighting the Reformers, A Council that lasted some twenty years trying to stem the tide of the Reformation. Any slight leaning toward the protestant view might be made to offset the tide. But, in the end, RCC reputiated Calvinism and reaffirmed the doctrines of the RCC as they were before the Reformation.

The number of idiomatic assumptions you're making here is staggering. Denominational fragmentation does not conclude in personal isolation.

It was not at first. For the first several centuries denominations were quite few in number. But since the beginning of the twentieth and the absolute fragmentation of the latter half of the twentieth is a personal isolation of religious beliefs. Christianity for protestants cannot be universal. It is individual belief which is the exact opposite of Christianity which is a universal faith, One faith viewed as Trinitarian. It is also communal, collective. The big denominations are losing members by the millions every decade and the rise of very small churchs, (denominations) are ever rapidly increasing. That a lot of protestants realize this is the growth of the massive, so-called nondenominational mega-churches, but churches totally lacking in any uniform faith. It is much more a social gathering, a psychological uplift for the week.

It's another assumption of yours that Protestants in general hold to individualized doctrine. Gee, there's another gap in your knowledge about Protestants.

History and reality speak loudly just the opposite.

Another gap in your knowledge. Augustinian monasteries developed everywhere in the west. Trent assumes predestination. It has to. Scripture teaches about it.

Augustinian is not Calvinism. That should be quite obvious. And the Council of Trent did not adopt or even accede that predestination as understood by Calvin was a valid scriptural doctrine. It is in scripture but not in the least as Calvin or what is being described on this forum.

"much closer to the split" -- declare it. Pick a cutoff date

1517 or 1536. The latter would not have occured if the former did not.

So tell me about Eastern Orthodoxy's response to Pelagius -- what's the nature of the western situation with Pelagius as Orthodoxy sees it?

What part of Pelagious might you be referring too? If the heresy, then it is irrelevant. I do not know of any western denomination that adhers to anything of Pelagianism, the hersey he taught. RCC supposedly has a a semi-pelagious view, but I have not studied it relative to them. But what does this have to do with Predestination?

"not changed one iota" Was it you or someone else who acceded that councils have made errors?

so what? Councils in the early Church and in Orthodoxy is not the final authority. That is why they were found false. It is the rule of faith, the infallibility of the authority of the Holy Spirit working in and through the Ecclessia. Christ is Truth and always has been, not men, nor councils.

So tell me: on what basis can this "not changed one iota" be tested?

History. What the early Church believed is what is held by the Orthodox today. The Church, the Body of Christ with Christ as Head cannot err? Do you believe Christ can err?

I've noticed CygnusX1 posting quotes from a number of different people, with not much substantive response. (I generally consider "Well he didn't mean Y" when the author apparently meant X to be poor argument against X.)

What people say or write individually does not necessarily mean the Church held those views. What counts is what the faithful have always held. Those that became Church Fathers gain that notation because they were faithful to the rule of fatih, that which was believed from the beginning.
Making the same mistake you just made thinking the Councils have ultimate authority. They do not. They become Ecumenical only after they have been accepted by the faithful. That is why each succeeding Council affirms the last one.

My basic assertion is this: that doctrinal differences are quite obvious when you examine positions that later redefine the church's doctrine. That you haven't found any changes is merely testament to not looking for changes. In history people varied from the present Orthodox view their doctrine. Sorry, but that means people didn't hold views that were Orthodox at the time. They varied == they held different views.

People as individuals are not the Church. People differ today as well. But their particular belief is not the doctrine of the Church. You have been to long debated personal faith, personal interpretation as if that is the correct method. It never has been. Truth was given 2000 years ago. It has not changed, but why would it be called ALL Truth 2000 years ago.
So far, you have not given a current doctrine of the Othodox faith that differs from the Early Church. Can you find one?

This is reasonably clear by later treatments of popular Christians in history, if not the misappointment of bishops who are later found to be heretical (in some cases on grounds which the prior century would've lauded) and various other attempts to resolve inconsistencies. Bishops didn't spring from the church suddenly. They've been there quite awhile.

Again, bishops do not make the Church. Surely not one or a few even. Even a whole council of them. This is history living out Paul's very specific prophecy that heresy or false teaching will come. The most sinister will be those from within. He called them wolves from within. History has proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt. New, private, personal interpretations have all ended in heresy. Yet this is the hallmark of protestantism.
You still have two things to show, that predestination was ever a doctrine in the Church in any part of history. That any doctrine of the early Church is not believed today by Orthodox believers.