How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Rick Otto]

If God "gives the gift of repentance to only those-few-whom-He-predestines", then both sin and salvation are fully HIS choice,

Yes

the Final Judgment is but a "kangaroo kourt" in the sense that we will not be judged for our choices but rather for His sovereign prior choice.

No

So how can "gifted repentance" really be the theme of Scripture,

It ain't the theme... it is in harmony with the themes.


I found this for ya, Ben...
Arminians insist that in II Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at large, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us."
And this...
Probably the most plausible defense for Arminianism is found in the universalistic passages in Scripture. Three of the most quoted are: II Peter 3:9, "Not wishing [or, KJV, not willing] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"; I Tim. 2:4, [God our Savior] "who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth"; and I Tim. 2:5,6, "...Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."
In regard to these verses we must keep in mind that, as we have said earlier, God is the absolute sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth, and we are never to think of Him as wishing or striving to do what He knows He will not do. For Him to do otherwise would be for Him to act foolishly. Since Scripture tells us that some men are going to be lost, II Peter 3:9 cannot mean that God is earnestly wishing or striving to save all individual men. For if it were His will that every individual of mankind should be saved, then not one soul could be lost. "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19).
These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father delights in the punishment that he sometimes must inflict upon his son. The word "will" is used in different senses in Scripture as in our everyday conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of "desire" or "purpose." A righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or sentenced to prison, yet he wills (pronounces sentence) that the guilty person shall be punished. In the same sense and for sufficient reasons a man may will to have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does not desire it.
From:
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/trf/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/trf/part_5.html

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father delights in the punishment that he sometimes must inflict upon his son. The word "will" is used in different senses in Scripture as in our everyday conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of "desire" or "purpose." A righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or sentenced to prison, yet he wills (pronounces sentence) that the guilty person shall be punished. In the same sense and for sufficient reasons a man may will to have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does not desire it.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Rick. This is always the root of the problem...do "will" and "desire" mean the same thing? In every day life, sometimes. In theology, never.

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes

Hi, Rick. How can God want anyone to sin? He is perfect, and He cannot tolerate sin; that's why there was a veil in the Temple, that's why Jesus' blood was necessary, that's why the veil tore. As James says, "God tempts no one." (1:12)

No

Why "no"? You just asserted that "both sin and salvation are fully His choice"; so He cannot judge us on what He Himself decreed.

It ain't the theme... it is in harmony with the themes.

In Rom2, "Do you count on God's patience and kindness and forebearance, not knowing the kindness of God leads you to REPENTANCE? But you, by your hard and unrepentant heart, are making God MAD."

In Acts17:30, "God commands all men everywhere to repent."

in Mark1:15, "The kingdom of God is at hand --- repent and believe the Gospel."

In Ezk18:24, after speaking of a "righteous man who turns and does wickedness, he will die" --- and a "wicked man who turns to righteousness, his wicked deeds will not be remembered" --- he then writes: "I (Lord God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

It seems easy to establish that "God wants all men to repent", doesn't it?

I found this for ya, Ben...
Arminians insist that in II Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception.

We need to read the Greek. It's a rare occurrance of "boulema", which means "decree".

"God does not DECREE (boulemai) ANY to perish, but patiently MAKES-ROOM (choreo) for ALL to repent." You didn't know that it said "God doesn't decree perishing", did you?

But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at large, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us."

makes no sense; "God doesn't decree to perish any predestined-for-salvation (no duh!), but patiently waits/makes-room for all (few-whom-He-has-elected) to repent."

God doesn't decree-perish, whom He has decreed-not-perish? Why bother to write something like that? God patiently waits for those to repent, to whom He has GIFTED repentance??? How does that make sense?

And this...
Probably the most plausible defense for Arminianism is found in the universalistic passages in Scripture. Three of the most quoted are: II Peter 3:9, "Not wishing [or, KJV, not willing] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"; I Tim. 2:4, [God our Savior] "who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth"; and I Tim. 2:5,6, "...Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."
In regard to these verses we must keep in mind that, as we have said earlier, God is the absolute sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth, and we are never to think of Him as wishing or striving to do what He knows He will not do. For Him to do otherwise would be for Him to act foolishly. Since Scripture tells us that some men are going to be lost, II Peter 3:9 cannot mean that God is earnestly wishing or striving to save all individual men.

Why not? It's far more plausible to think "God allows free choice", than to cling to the strange understanding I just quoted above in green.

For if it were His will that every individual of mankind should be saved, then not one soul could be lost. "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19).

Yes Rom9:19 uses "boulema" --- but it's an antagonistic response that someone MIGHT make, who objects to "Also Gentiles". I don't think it helps your position...

These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father delights in the punishment that he sometimes must inflict upon his son.

If He doesn't "delight" in their condemnation, then how could He predestine it?

The word "will" is used in different senses in Scripture as in our everyday conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of "desire" or "purpose."

Absolutely correct --- please find me a single instance where salvation is by DECREED will.

Have you ever read Jn6:40? "This is God's WILL, that all who see Jesus and believe, may be saved." "Will" here, is "thelema" --- desire.

Please review 2Tim2:1-4; it doesn't work to think Paul meant "God desires all-ORDAINED to be saved" --- because "kings and ALL AUTHORITY" are included in "all men".

...and that undeniably exceeds the scope of "the saved"...

A righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or sentenced to prison, yet he wills (pronounces sentence) that the guilty person shall be punished.

But you just said that "God, the most righteous judge of all, WILLED them to do the CRIME for which they DO die." Are you beginning to see the conflict in that?

In the same sense and for sufficient reasons a man may will to have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does not desire it.

Does He desire many to perish, or not?

Hope I haven't come across in any way as "harsh"; I'm just gently urging you more towards "skeptical" of what you previously took for granted...

 

[cygnusx1]

but kings are saved ............... David , Solomon ..... etc

 

[Rick Otto]

& lost it in a time-out. I'll try again soon.

 

[Ben johnson]

I forgot to copy my reply...
& lost it in a time-out. I'll try again soon.

Hi, Rick.
That'll learn ya' to use a time-out when the game gets tough. How many time-outs do we get, anyway???

God doesn't decree-perish, whom He has decreed-not-perish?
God patiently waits for those to repent, to whom He has GIFTED repentance??? How does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense, Ben. It's just like when Pre-Trib-Rapture people think 2Thess2:3, where it says "falling-away", they think it means "catching-away/rapture". Making the verse say "Our gathering will not be before our gathering".

It's not-sense. Uhm, non sense. That should be a word....

but kings are saved ............... David , Solomon ..... etc

Hi, Cygnus. David repented, didn't he? God was gonna kill him, but he repented. (Wait --- that "blows" the "gifted-repentance" thing, doesn't it?)

...not all kings are saved; so "God desires all men (kings and all in authority) to be saved", clearly exceeds "those who are saved".

So God's DESIRE, includes those who are NOT saved. This ruins the idea of "God desires to be saved, those whom He has PREDESTINED FOR salvation".

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, you're grasping at straws. And all the while, you ignore unanswered questions in another thread. Talk about taking a time out!

 

[frumanchu]

We need to read the Greek. It's a rare occurrance of "boulema", which means "decree".

"God does not DECREE (boulemai) ANY to perish, but patiently MAKES-ROOM (choreo) for ALL to repent."

And once again you swing from 'one doesn't need to know New Testament Greek to understand the Bible' to 'we need to read the Greek and focus in on particulars.'

Unfortunately, your attempt to rewrite this verse as "MAKES-ROOM for ALL to repent" demonstrates once again that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. You seem to think you can just grab a Greek concordance, pick whichever connotation suits your doctrinal preconception, and present it as some sort of educated answer.

My last several posts now to you have been very straightforward, dealing strictly with the texts at hand and the arguments surrounding them. You clearly have no answer for them. I have an answer for every single one of your arguments, and I stand ready to present my answers at every turn. Whether you respond or not I will continue to point out the errors in your teachings.

Responsible Grace is dead. The book that killed it has already been published....it's the Bible.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, you're grasping at straws.

Hi, NBF. I don't think it's "grasping at straws". This is the understanding you have:

God doesn't decree-perish, whom He has decreed-not-perish?
God patiently waits for those to repent, to whom He has GIFTED repentance??? How does that make sense?

...doesn't that reflect your understanding? Please correct me if it isn't.

And all the while, you ignore unanswered questions in another thread. Talk about taking a time out!

Answered one, I think; please give me the three exact verses again, and I'll see if I can respond this weekend.

...can you believe it's the weekend again, already?

My last several posts now to you have been very straightforward, dealing strictly with the texts at hand and the arguments surrounding them. You clearly have no answer for them.

Hi, Fru. With respect, It's not that "I have no answer for them", I said "I will no longer respond to you." Because when I do, it always ends the same way. 100%.

I love you as a saved-brother, but there is no future in debating with you.

I have an answer for every single one of your arguments, and I stand ready to present my answers at every turn. Whether you respond or not I will continue to point out the errors in your teachings.

Your answers are the same as the others' answers here; when I respond to them, you can see how I would respond to you.

God bless you, and be well, my friend.

 

[drstevej]

Who will get post #666 ???

 

[Rick Otto]

I meant to be #666, but I guess I ain't quick enough... whoa! Wait a minute! We got a few more to go...
My log-in timed out(again) but I copied my reply so I wouldn't lose it...

Hi, Rick. How can God want anyone to sin?

1Kings22:22

He is perfect, and He cannot tolerate sin;

Ok, I need help findin' this one... remember in the OT, some guy who was a heathen kings right-hand-man was converted to belief, and had to return to his job, where he would be required to bow or genuflect, or something like that, to a false god? He asked for allowance to do that so he wouldn't get killed.
Also:
Ps 139:8 - If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

that's why there was a veil in the Temple, that's why Jesus' blood was necessary, that's why the veil tore. As James says, "God tempts no one." (1:12)

I don't think it was so much because He couldn't tolerate sin as because He wanted to glorify His Father.
To do all that out of intolerance is reactionary. God is not reactive, He is pro-active.

Why "no"? You just asserted that "both sin and salvation are fully His choice"; so He cannot judge us on what He Himself decreed.

Says who?

In Rom2, "Do you count on God's patience and kindness and forebearance, not knowing the kindness of God leads you to REPENTANCE? But you, by your hard and unrepentant heart, are making God MAD."

What's your point?

In Acts17:30, "God commands all men everywhere to repent."

So what?

in Mark1:15, "The kingdom of God is at hand --- repent and believe the Gospel."

Get to the point please, I don't have a lot of time...

In Ezk18:24, after speaking of a "righteous man who turns and does wickedness, he will die" --- and a "wicked man who turns to righteousness, his wicked deeds will not be remembered" --- he then writes: "I (Lord God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

You mean just like the human judge in the example I gave, where he doesn't want anyone to suffer, but he can't just let murderers & rapists have their way?

It seems easy to establish that "God wants all men to repent", doesn't it?

Not seems, it is easy. Nobody disagrees with that, you're wasting precious time re-iterating.

We need to read the Greek. It's a rare occurrance of "boulema", which means "decree".

No we don't because that isn't our point of contention at issue. You are headed off the rails.

"God does not DECREE (boulemai) ANY to perish, but patiently MAKES-ROOM (choreo) for ALL to repent." You didn't know that it said "God doesn't decree perishing", did you? makes no sense; "God doesn't decree to perish any predestined-for-salvation (no duh!), but patiently waits/makes-room for all (few-whom-He-has-elected) to repent."

Makes perfect sense, unless you're perishing.
You conveniently ignore the first part of that verse which contextualy limits who He is talking to & about:
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us-the people He is longsuffering toward)should perish, but that all (of us)should come to repentance.
He patiently waits for the moment He has predestined us to be ready for His gift of repentance

God doesn't decree-perish, whom He has decreed-not-perish? Why bother to write something like that?

Because we are typicaly idiots and need redundancy & repetition to 'get it'.

God patiently waits for those to repent, to whom He has GIFTED repentance??? How does that make sense?

You shuffle tenses.
The gifting is planned, but it happens in time, we're not born repenting. C'mon that was lame! I seriously on't have the time for that.

Yes Rom9:19 uses "boulema" --- but it's an antagonistic response that someone MIGHT make, who objects to "Also Gentiles". I don't think it helps your position...

Desperate speculation:
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
THe antagonism has nothing to do with the persons identity, it is questioning, exactly like you, how God can judge (find fault) if fault was decreed.

If He doesn't "delight" in their condemnation, then how could He predestine it?

Again, you shuffle verse content. He delights in his plan coming together, He does not delight in the fact that people suffer. Delight is not desirable as the only mode of existence - that would be boring, even if it were possible. Totaly unrealistic.

Absolutely correct --- please find me a single instance where salvation is by DECREED will.

Every instance is decreed, that's my point. To single one out would be silly.

Have you ever read Jn6:40? "

Spare me that indignity, please. I have read The Bible cover-to-cover 7 times, not counting word studies, etc., etc., etc.

This is God's WILL, that all who see Jesus and believe, may be saved." "Will" here, is "thelema" --- desire.

And all who believe are all who He personaly decreed would do so, in time.

Please review 2Tim2:1-4; it doesn't work to think Paul meant "God desires all-ORDAINED to be saved" --- because "kings and ALL AUTHORITY" are included in "all men".

1Tim, not 2Tim, and its "pray for" not "are to be saved"
1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Does He desire many to perish, or not?

No, but He knows it is necessary.

Hope I haven't come across in any way as "harsh"; I'm just gently urging you more towards "skeptical" of what you previously took for granted...

[/quote]
Not harsh, just dense & confused, like I often get myself.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

If He doesn't "delight" in their condemnation, then how could He predestine it?

I saw this and I just had to respond...

According to Acts 4:27-28, the crucifixion of Jesus was predestined.

27"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Tell me, did God the Father "delight" in the death of Jesus? Then how did He predestine it?

 

[cygnusx1]

...can you believe it's the weekend again, already?
Hi, Fru. With respect, It's not that "I have no answer for them", I said "I will no longer respond to you." Because when I do, it always ends the same way. 100%.

Yes !!!

I too noticed that , whenever Fru debates with you it does always end the same way.......... Fru Biblically and Logically wipes the floor with your theories ben.

100%

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi, NBF. I don't think it's "grasping at straws". This is the understanding you have: ...doesn't that reflect your understanding? Please correct me if it isn't.

No, Ben, it isn't. We've told you before that 2 Peter 3:9 is speaking to the Elect of the Elect who had not as yet manifested their election through salvation, assuring them that Christ would not return until those as yet unsaved people were brought into the fold. Your confusion stems from not understanding that Election was accomplished before the world began, but each of the Elect comes to salvation at their appointed time. Therefore, those whom God has Elected will most assuredly be saved, and Christ shall lose none of them. Salvation has eternal as well as temporal components, and you cannot confuse them without doing violence to sound doctrine.

Answered one, I think; please give me the three exact verses again, and I'll see if I can respond this weekend.

Just go to the Romans 2 and predestination thread, and read the last 2 or 3 pages.

...can you believe it's the weekend again, already?

Time flies when you're having fun! Has the rain let up there yet?

Hi, Fru. With respect, It's not that "I have no answer for them", I said "I will no longer respond to you." Because when I do, it always ends the same way. 100%.

I love you as a saved-brother, but there is no future in debating with you.
Your answers are the same as the others' answers here; when I respond to them, you can see how I would respond to you.

God bless you, and be well, my friend.

LOL! In other words, you can't overcome his clear words, so you choose not to respond rather than say 3 little words: " Fru, you're right", and "I was wrong" (well that was 6 words, 2 sets of 3.) Either set would do....

 

[drstevej]

o, Ben, it isn't. We've told you before that 2 Peter 3:9 is speaking to the Elect of the Elect who had not as yet manifested their election through salvation, assuring them that Christ would not return until those as yet unsaved people were brought into the fold. Your confusion stems from not understanding that Election was accomplished before the world began, but each of the Elect comes to salvation at their appointed time. Therefore, those whom God has Elected will most assuredly be saved, and Christ shall lose none of them. Salvation has eternal as well as temporal components, and you cannot confuse them without doing violence to sound doctrine.

Of course. Ben, you were predestined to be an Arminian in order that Calvinism can be shown to be entirely biblical. Your persistence is because God has other lurkers he wants to read Fru and other's posts.

Sola Deo Gloria (That Calvinistic Latin)

 

[nobdysfool]

Of course. Ben, you were predestined to be an Arminian in order that Calvinism can be shown to be entirely biblical. Your persistence is because God has other lurkers he wants to read Fru and other's posts.

Sola Deo Gloria (That Calvinistic Latin)

LOL! Interesting perspective! How ya doin' Steve?

 

[drstevej]

LOL! Interesting perspective! How ya doin' Steve?

Doing great.
The New CF has done wonders for my REP count!

 

[drstevej]

Woah, that was a nice REP bump!

 

[Rick Otto]

I have to give him credit for execising my patience and communication skills.
I keep trying to be even more concise, and I'm starting to get some kind of a feel for the entire Arminian Menu of totaly delicious nutrition-free offerings.
I guess I can't quit because he is relentlessly polite even when he's repeating his contentions long after most Arminies either walk away or explode. We all should admire that persistance, if not its point.

 

[frumanchu]

Hi, Fru. With respect, It's not that "I have no answer for them", I said "I will no longer respond to you." Because when I do, it always ends the same way. 100%.

Ben, I tried sincerely to find common ground with you. I gave a lot of time and effort to that endeavor. And you're right...it ended the same way as always: with you blatantly distorting the truth and finding every way possible to disagree with me. For you to now imply that it's somehow my fault our conversations always end poorly is unbelievable.

I love you as a saved-brother, but there is no future in debating with you.

You're right so long as you continue to employ the same methods. I had hoped to perhaps urge you on to better things but you don't seem willing.

Your answers are the same as the others' answers here; when I respond to them, you can see how I would respond to you.

If that's the case then why did you go on claiming nobody from the Reformed side would answer your points when I clearly and directly did?

I think you simply aren't willing to face the intense scrutiny I bring to bear on your teachings, Ben. You weren't able to flood me into frustration so you chose to run. It was a war of attrition and you lost.

Regardless of whether you want to defend yourself or not, I will continue to point out the errors in your teachings.