How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Van]

Jesus said be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. Do you believe someone can be perfect? If not, is this a command by Jesus that no one can meet?

Yes, I believe a born again person can fulfill that command. Not by any action on our part but by being "in Christ" we are complete. So the command is fulfilled by trusting in the perfection of Christ.

Do you believe Jesus gives commands that He does not expect us to strive to follow? If we love Jesus we will keep His commands. To say that one does not count cause I find the yoke heavy is not a wise path.

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, I believe a born again person can fulfill that command. Not by any action on our part but by being "in Christ" we are complete. So the command is fulfilled by trusting in the perfection of Christ.

So when the Apostle tells us to "be perfect" he really means "be in Christ?"

Once again you align yourself with the heretic Pelagius. He, too, thought that man can be sinless in this life.

Do you believe Jesus gives commands that He does not expect us to strive to follow?

Of course not. We're not talking about the ability of the believer to strive to obey God. The issue at hand, that you brought up is that if God commands it we can do it.

If we love Jesus we will keep His commands.

And if we don't keep even one of His commands we...hate Him? Tell me, have you ever met, or even heard of, a single person, other than Christ, who never broke one of God's commandments?

 

[Van]

Reformationist, more namecalling I see, and no content.

So when the Apostle tells us to "be perfect" he really means "be in Christ?"

What verse or passage are you referring to? Colossians 1:28 reflects my position.

Returning to topic, Jesus said seek ye first the kingdom of God and that implies the unregenerate can do it. No command of Christ has been shown that we are unable to seek to perform. Total Depravity is a false doctrine.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of compulsion. God's predestination doesn't void the contingency of secondary means. Okay, so these people didn't want to. Why didn't they want to? So these people sought man's glory rather than God's? Why would they do that? These people didn't believe Moses? Why is that? Obviously we have to contrast these people with those who did want to and those who sought God's glory and those who did believe Moses. Why did they do all the right things when the others did all the wrong things? Were they smarter? More humble? More holy? More submissive? More easily led? Dumber? What's the causative agent that brings them into line with God's law when others so clearly reject it?

Define "compulsion", Don. Suppose I was a surgeon; suppose I have the ability to "engineeringly-lobotomize" someone, such that, say, a Calvinist goes under surgery, and I "install" Responsible Grace in his brain. He has not chosen it; he did not want it. He rejected it with all that he was. But, for whatever reason, I had ACCESS to him in surgery; he's no longer a Calvinist, but believes in Responsible Grace. He now WANTS to believe, WILLINGLY.

Did he choose it of his own free will, Don? Yet this is your view of God; God surgically ALTERS his heart, now he WILLS to follow God after his essential "lobotomy" --- and you call it "free will"?

How?

what does learn mean?

"Manthano" means "learn". BlueletterBible

Acts 17:30 is not a universal call to salvation. It is a universal call to repentance. I didn't miss this. All people are the creation of God and owe Him unfailing fealty and worship. God is completely holy and, as such, demands perfect obedience from all His creation. I'm not sure what you think that proves but, yes, the call to repentance is universal.

If you accept that "the call to repentance is universal" (per Acts17), then why can't you accept that "the call to salvation is universal" (per 1Tim2:1-4)? Surely, "kings and all in authority" exceeds the scope of "the few elect"?

Why would God desire repentance of those He does not intend to be saved? How can one be repentant apart from salvation?

Uhhh...no Ben. Verse 44 says nothing about coming to Christ being "sanctioned" by God. Verse 44 is explicit. Natural man is incapable of coming to Christ in faith unless the Father draws him. I have no idea where you got this "sanctioned" idea from.

Context. John6:44 is in RESPONSE to John6:42.
Jews: "Who does Jesus think He is?!?!"
Jesus: "No one can come to Me, UNLESS the Father draws him."

Rather than "predestination", this merely reflects John8:42, "I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me."

I'm sorry. I don't understand the manner in which you use "parallel."

It means, they are all simultaneous.

They aren't "given to Jesus and THEN believe" (which is what Calvinism needs, that would be "sequential"); instead, they are believers WHEN they are given to Jesus. Parallel. At-the-same-time. Given, THROUGH (and because of) belief.

"You believe in God, believe also in Me". "If God were your Father, you would love Me". "If you believed Moses, then you would believe Me."

Belief-in-God = belief-in-Jesus. "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me."

Again, I don't see your point.

Calvinism requires us to be "given to Jesus SO THAT we can believe". But I submit the theme is, "given to Jesus THROUGH our belief in God". This removes the case of Lydia (Acts16:14) from the "predestinary argument"; because it plainly says, "she was a worshipper of God, AND God opened her heart". THROUGH her belief in God her heart was opened to Jesus-the-Messiah. Clear as mud? Calvinism would have it, "God opened hear heart so that she COULD believe in God and Jesus.[/b]"

The very fact that she is said to be a worshipper of God, and I can only interpret this to mean a true worshipper of God, shows that God had already given her faith. Look at Abraham. Was he some devout follower of God prior to God coming to him to establish with him a covenant?

Then we agree. Yet this is a verse that is used in the Predestined-Election argument, that "her heart was opened TO belief in God AND Jesus".

Ben, you are more than welcome to continue thinking that faith is some meritorious trait of fallen man...

Meritorious? Never said that, never thought that. It is surrender of self, recognition of NON-merit. It is complete humility, receiving ALL OF HIM, and all of His grace.

...through which he secures for himself the blessings of everlasting life but the inherently sinful nature of man is such that faith in God is not only foreign to him but dispicable. Unregenerate man doesn't yearn to serve God. He sees God as the enemy and His law as foolishness and it is this very proclivity to rebellion that binds him in his unbelief and stirs him to rebellion against the Most High. Unless God liberates him from the darkness in which he exists man will gladly and willingly continue on in blindness, not only NOT submitting to the Lord but being altogether ignorant of his depravity and need for God's quickening work.

But you can't support this with Scripture. I submit again, that if this vew was right, Paul would never have said, "THROUGH the foolishness ...he believes". Because, pre-regeneration would have ended the foolishness BEFORE he COULD believe. Do you deny this?

You disappoint me. As much attention as you try to pay to proper exegesis you miss the entire point of that passage.

The point of the passage, is that "the foolishness of God is STRONGER than the wisdom of man; when it overpowers his foolishness, which is to say when he is CONVICTED, he believes. THROUGH the foolish-to-perishing-message. Look at verse 23; "to the Jews a stumbling block" --- WHY? "Because they pursued it by WORKS and not by faith! They stumbled over the stumbling stone..." Rom9:32

100% "pursue works rather than faith", 0% "God instilled salvation in some".

I disagree with your "exegesis" that says, "God changed them so that the message was no longer foolish". It is good exegesis to me to recognize, "the foolishness (to the perishing) of God is wiser than men --- and THROUGH God's foolishness He saves THOSE WHO BELIEVE (and RECOGNIZE it's not foolishness)."

Uhhh...great. Thanks for summarizing what I just said. How about telling me WHY they do not believe when others clearly do?

Why are those in Jesus' audience (Jn5:39-47), unwilling to come to Jesus THAT they may be saved? In refusing to recognize man's sentience, you require some external CAUSE --- thus "predestination MUST be the cause"; but sentience accepts one's ability to BELIEVE (love God), or to DISBELIEVE (love sin). And I know of no way to convince you that "drawn-to-salvation-man, CAN believe in what he (formerly) saw as foolish".

Ben, I fail to see what you think any of this has to do with a refutation of Calvinism. Calvinists and other reformed Christians do not state that man doesn't resist the grace and instruction of God. Clearly we do. What's your point in pointing this out? Are you assuming that because man is so naturally disinclined to obey the Law of God that God is unable to accomplish His will if man so chooses to reject Him?

Because it's addressed to the SAVED. Saying, "if you REFUSE God's discipline, then you are illegitimate children and not sons". This is absolutely opposed to Calvinism...

Have you ever considered that one of the reasons that God commands obedience from those who are so disinclined to obey is to show them the depravity of their will and the weakness of their flesh?

Show them? To what end? If they never have hope of redemption, then why waste time berating them? Do you really think Jesus' words of Jn5:39-47 are addressed to those He did not consider POSSIBLE to redeem? It reads of REBUKE (towards redemption) to me...

You don't ever truly answer this question. You just try to sidestep it. I understand that those who avoid the light do so because they love the darkness. Those who come to the light do so because they love God. My question goes beyond that. Why do some hate the light and some love it?

Sentience, volition; one is convicted, another recognizes God but PREFERS sin (Jn8:44). Because you cannot accept sentience, you demand "external imposition".

So if the depravity of all people is overcome in enough measure to believe why do some choose to believe while others, who are equally free to believe, choose to reject the light? Clearly the difference in the result is not due to some still being in bondage to their sinful nature nor is it due to the grace itself. That grace, according to you, frees everyone. Now, where does the difference lie?

The answer is as varied as the person. Yet you cannot deny that the same volition to RECEIVE salvation, continues throughout their lives, that they may later REJECT it. I believe the Galatians is a great example, of those who WERE saved ("running well", "begun in the Spirit", "KNOWN by God", "obeying the truth") --- but who became UNsaved ("fallen from grace and severed from Christ"). This reflects perfectly on what I've been saying about "volition", but not-at-all on what you've been saying about "instilled-regeneration". I mean no disrespect --- but you cannot paint them as "never-saved", nor can you cast them as "remained-saved". The same choice that entered them into Jesus, gave them liberty to "return to weak and worthless works over grace, to become fallen from grace and severed from Christ".

 

[Ben johnson]

So when the Apostle tells us to "be perfect" he really means "be in Christ?"

As Paul writes in Gal2:20 and 2Cor5:21, salvation means "we no longer live but Christ lives in (and through) us --- and, through Jesus, we are the righteousness of God.

So we are not "perfect in Him" --- He is perfect in us.

What verse or passage are you referring to? Colossians 1:28 reflects my position.

Returning to topic, Jesus said seek ye first the kingdom of God and that implies the unregenerate can do it. No command of Christ has been shown that we are unable to seek to perform. Total Depravity is a false doctrine.

Good verse. "...that we may present every man PERFECT in Christ".

The unregenerate absolutely CAN seek Christ --- it is belief that receives the Holy Spirit, and thus receives His regeneration.

But as for "total depravity" --- there is no "goodness" in us, and it is not "goodness" that causes us to seek Him; it is conviction of our badness, IE sin. Conviction, which is interchangeable with "belief".

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist, more namecalling I see, and no content.

It's not "name calling" if it's the truth Van. You have repeatedly aligned yourself with Pelagius. I'm not the one who condemned his views, and those of his views you align yourself with, as heresy.

What verse or passage are you referring to?

Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

My apologies. Those were the words of Christ. You have repeatedly contended that if we are commanded to do something that we can do it.

Colossians 1:28 reflects my position.

What is your position Van? I'm still trying to figure it out.

Returning to topic, Jesus said seek ye first the kingdom of God and that implies the unregenerate can do it.

As I said, we are commanded to love the Lord with all our mind and soul and strength. Can we do that? We are commanded to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Can we do that?

No command of Christ has been shown that we are unable to seek to perform.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Total Depravity is a false doctrine.

Do you even know what the reformed doctrine of total depravity is?

 

[Reformationist]

Define "compulsion", Don.

My apologies Ben. I realize I made a mistake. I said, "Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of compulsion." To which you replied, "Define "compulsion", Don." That is a reasonable question because the truth of regeneration is that God does compel us. What I should have said, and meant to say was, "Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of coersion." As for "coersion," in the case of the will, it is the irresistable influence of an outward agent upon the will such that it is forced to act contrary to what it desires.

Suppose I was a surgeon; suppose I have the ability to "engineeringly-lobotomize" someone, such that, say, a Calvinist goes under surgery, and I "install" Responsible Grace in his brain. He has not chosen it; he did not want it. He rejected it with all that he was. But, for whatever reason, I had ACCESS to him in surgery; he's no longer a Calvinist, but believes in Responsible Grace. He now WANTS to believe, WILLINGLY.

Okay.

Did he choose it of his own free will, Don?

Of course not Ben. I don't believe in the unbiblical notion of man's autonomous choice being the decisive factor in whether God accomplishes His purpose.

Yet this is your view of God; God surgically ALTERS his heart, now he WILLS to follow God after his essential "lobotomy" --- and you call it "free will"?

No I don't. I call it liberation. There are some glaring defects in your analogy. First, you seemed to have disregarded the fact that this liberation benefits the previously stony heart in such a way as to confer upon it the blessing of everlasting life. Secondly, you have circumvented the most important aspect of the procedure, i.e., God's righteous and merciful design in regeneration. God's motives for doing what He freely and sovereignly does is always righteous.

"Manthano" means "learn". BlueletterBible

You know, I've always found it strange that you are willing to cite Strong's when you think it supports you and disregard it when it flatly contradicts you.

If you accept that "the call to repentance is universal" (per Acts17), then why can't you accept that "the call to salvation is universal" (per 1Tim2:1-4)? Surely, "kings and all in authority" exceeds the scope of "the few elect"?

Repentance is what we owe God for our sins. Salvation is what believers get purely as a free gift of God's grace. He does not owe it.

Why would God desire repentance of those He does not intend to be saved?

Because God is the God of both the righteous and the wicked and, as such, deserves our repentance, among other things.

How can one be repentant apart from salvation?

One can't, which is why we should be so greatful for the gift of God's grace of repentance. He commands of us repentance and gives us the grace to do as He commands. Truly He is a merciful God.

Context. John6:44 is in RESPONSE to John6:42.
Jews: "Who does Jesus think He is?!?!"
Jesus: "No one can come to Me, UNLESS the Father draws him."

Okay. Where is the "sanctioned" part? Are you just using "sanctioned" in a way that I don't understand?

Rather than "predestination", this merely reflects John8:42, "I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me."

Ummm...Ben, John 6:44 doesn't reflect predestination. It reflects regeneration. It's referring to the effectual inward call of God liberating us from the bondage of our fallen nature.

It means, they are all simultaneous.

They aren't "given to Jesus and THEN believe" (which is what Calvinism needs, that would be "sequential"); instead, they are believers WHEN they are given to Jesus. Parallel. At-the-same-time. Given, THROUGH (and because of) belief.

Wait. You say they're simultaneous but then say that belief is, at least from a linear perspective, preeminent. I agree that these events are simultaneous in that there is no definable variance in their being given. However, on a linear perspective, you've got it backwards. The unregenerate man has a heart of stone, a heart that is incapable of faith, a heart that is in bondage to sin. That heart must be changed to a heart of flesh, pliable, vital, living, liberated from the dominion of a fallen, sinful nature that has enslaved it before it can move in faith to God. This monergistic work of liberation is regeneration. Regeneration must proceed faith because an unregenerate heart, by definition, is incapable of faith.

Calvinism requires us to be "given to Jesus SO THAT we can believe". But I submit the theme is, "given to Jesus THROUGH our belief in God". This removes the case of Lydia (Acts16:14) from the "predestinary argument"; because it plainly says, "she was a worshipper of God, AND God opened her heart". THROUGH her belief in God her heart was opened to Jesus-the-Messiah. Clear as mud? Calvinism would have it, "God opened hear heart so that she COULD believe in God and Jesus."

Ben, that is not a salvitic passage so your point is, once again, moot.

Then we agree. Yet this is a verse that is used in the Predestined-Election argument, that "her heart was opened TO belief in God AND Jesus".

Calvinists don't turn this passage into "opened her heart to belief unto salvation." That would be inane. The passage itself already says that she is a worshipper of God. Clearly she already believed. As I said, this passage isn't salvitic.

Meritorious? Never said that, never thought that. It is surrender of self, recognition of NON-merit. It is complete humility, receiving ALL OF HIM, and all of His grace.

You like to cloak this in pious words Ben but the truth is you do profess that we merit His grace because you establish the dispensation of this grace upon our act of surrender.

Why are those in Jesus' audience (Jn5:39-47), unwilling to come to Jesus THAT they may be saved?

Because unregenerate man thinks he can be justified before God by some merit he believes is in himself.

Show them? To what end? If they never have hope of redemption, then why waste time berating them?

I never said that they never had a hope of redemption. Only the Lord knows whom He has chosen. As to what end, He frustrates the proud and vain in their self-glorying. For His chosen He humbles them and shows them their need for redemption, which He provides.

Sentience, volition; one is convicted, another recognizes God but PREFERS sin (Jn8:44). Because you cannot accept sentience, you demand "external imposition".

Ben, this sounds like a bunch of existential crappola and is beneath your intellect.

The answer is as varied as the person.

See, now why didn't you just say this to start with? Now I know that you believe that God's ability to accomplish His desire to save people is determined and regulated by the person, not the eternal plan of a sovereign God. I guess, in actuality, that makes man sovereign.

Yet you cannot deny that the same volition to RECEIVE salvation, continues throughout their lives, that they may later REJECT it.

Are you speaking of the faculty of volitional choice or the propensity to choose to abandon God fully and finally?

I believe the Galatians is a great example, of those who WERE saved ("running well", "begun in the Spirit", "KNOWN by God", "obeying the truth") --- but who became UNsaved ("fallen from grace and severed from Christ"). This reflects perfectly on what I've been saying about "volition", but not-at-all on what you've been saying about "instilled-regeneration". I mean no disrespect --- but you cannot paint them as "never-saved", nor can you cast them as "remained-saved". The same choice that entered them into Jesus, gave them liberty to "return to weak and worthless works over grace, to become fallen from grace and severed from Christ".

All this is is another example of you imposed a necessary inference upon Scripture that Scripture does not support.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

But as for "total depravity" --- there is no "goodness" in us, and it is not "goodness" that causes us to seek Him; it is conviction of our badness, IE sin. Conviction, which is interchangeable with "belief".

Why is the Holy Spirit capable of convicting some of their badness but impotent in doing the same for those who reject Ben? I've yet to hear you offer any logical, God centered explanation for this variance. All we're left with is, "The answer is as varied as the person." That is not only unbiblical it is irrational.

God bless

 

[Ben johnson]

My apologies Ben. I realize I made a mistake. I said, "Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of compulsion." To which you replied, "Define "compulsion", Don." That is a reasonable question because the truth of regeneration is that God does compel us. What I should have said, and meant to say was, "Ben, you keep citing these types of things as if predestination is some doctrine of coersion." As for "coersion," in the case of the will, it is the irresistable influence of an outward agent upon the will such that it is forced to act contrary to what it desires.

"Coercion" implying "hostile force"? Actually, coercion is defined by Webster's as "force or compell". The essence of God, is love; love does not demand its own way. (1Cor13:5, "zeteo") If God "sculpts the will", even if the will only follows Divinely-Instilled-Regeneration, then the will is not free.

Of course not Ben. I don't believe in the unbiblical notion of man's autonomous choice being the decisive factor in whether God accomplishes His purpose.

I understand that...

No I don't. I call it liberation. There are some glaring defects in your analogy. First, you seemed to have disregarded the fact that this liberation benefits the previously stony heart in such a way as to confer upon it the blessing of everlasting life. Secondly, you have circumvented the most important aspect of the procedure, i.e., God's righteous and merciful design in regeneration. God's motives for doing what He freely and sovereignly does is always righteous.

"Stony heart". Which God "removes and replaces with a flesh heart" (and then He will be their God and they will be His people). Ezk36:26-27. Yet, as I have exposed, the mirror passage of Ezk11:18-21, asserts "they turn FROM abominations, and (then!) God changes their stone-hearts for flesh-hearts --- and they're His people and He's their God --- BUT --- those who REMAIN in abominations, God will bring their conduct down upon their HEADS!

Per Calvinism, God changes their hearts (from stone), and they BELIEVE; and forsake abominations.

But Scripture paints it another way, doesn't it? They turn FROM abominations and THEN He changes their hearts; but not EVERYONE turned, and those who KEPT abominations are in TROUBLE. Can you deny any of this?

You know, I've always found it strange that you are willing to cite Strong's when you think it supports you and disregard it when it flatly contradicts you.

Show me the contradiction.

Repentance is what we owe God for our sins. Salvation is what believers get purely as a free gift of God's grace. He does not owe it.

The question was, "Why do (how can) you understand Acts17:30 or 1Tim2:1-4, to be EXCLUSIVE rather than meaning 'He desires salvation for EVERYONE'?"

Because God is the God of both the righteous and the wicked and, as such, deserves our repentance, among other things.

Think about what you're proposing, Don:
1. Only God's unilateral regeneration can change (regenerate) their hearts.
2. Only regenerate hearts can repent.
3. All regenerate hearts will repent.
4. Repentance demonstrates "the elect".
5. Reprobate hearts (unregenerated, unelect) will not repent.
6. Reprobate hearts CAN not repent.
7. Thus, God has decided (by election) who CAN repent.
8. God declares that ALL MEN EVERYWHERE should repent!

Does that really make sense to you, Don?

Okay. Where is the "sanctioned" part? Are you just using "sanctioned" in a way that I don't understand?

They're questioning His authority. So --- remove "sanctioned", and understand Jesus to be saying, "If they come to Me, God AUTHORIZED it".

"Authority" -- "authorized" -- "validated" -- "sanctioned" -- etcetera...

There is no denying that verse 44, is in RESPONSE to verse 42...

Wait. You say they're simultaneous but then say that belief is, at least from a linear perspective, preeminent.

It simply asserts, "believing in God IS believing in Jesus". Thus --- because Jesus is now the Messiah (a new concept in their time), true-believers of God, are given to Jesus (THROUGH their belief).

Today --- believing in God, IS believing in Jesus...

I agree that these events are simultaneous in that there is no definable variance in their being given. However, on a linear perspective, you've got it backwards. The unregenerate man has a heart of stone, a heart that is incapable of faith, a heart that is in bondage to sin. That heart must be changed to a heart of flesh, pliable, vital, living, liberated from the dominion of a fallen, sinful nature that has enslaved it before it can move in faith to God. This monergistic work of liberation is regeneration. Regeneration must proceed faith because an unregenerate heart, by definition, is incapable of faith.

This is the foundation that separates us. You cannot conceive of a heart that is called to salvation, and then can CHOOSE to believe (receiving regeneration) or rejecting. The very idea causes you to choke with thoughts of "PELAGIANISM". But --- it is not GOODNESS (of ourselves) to believe; Jesus said (Jn6:29), our believing is God's work. To be clear --- we RECEIVE His work, He does not work our belief UNILATERALLY.

We've discussed Ezk36&11; plainly the "stone-heart" is changed, AFTER they turn from abominations and TO God --- but those who WILL not forsake abominations are in trouble. The passage reflects "their choice", not "God's election".

RE "regeneration" --- in Titus3:5-6, it says "the Holy Spirit is poured through Our Savior Jesus" --- I submit, it's poured through BELIEF in Jesus. This fits perfectly with what happened to Cornelius & friends --- Acts10:45 speaks of the SAME "ekcheo-poured" as does Titus3:6. OK?

Acts11:17 says "the Spirit was poured, AFTER belief.

Titus 3:5 says "washing and renewal of regeneration is THROUGH the poured Spirit".

Thus the sequence denies you; regeneration is by belief.

Show me anywhere in Scripture, that "regeneration precedes belief".

Ben, that is not a salvitic passage so your point is, once again, moot.

This is not "my point"; this is "my rebuttal to a Calvinst point that asserted "Lydia was heart-changed TO believe".

Calvinists don't turn this passage into "opened her heart to belief unto salvation." That would be inane. The passage itself already says that she is a worshipper of God. Clearly she already believed. As I said, this passage isn't salvitic.

You and I are in agreement; but on this board, just a week or two ago, it was asserted that "God opened her heart, TO believe". This taken to be the same as, "God removed their stone-hearts and installed flesh-hearts so that they COULD believe in Him".

You like to cloak this in pious words Ben but the truth is you do profess that we merit His grace because you establish the dispensation of this grace upon our act of surrender.

I don't understand how you see "surrender" as "merit". We lay down our wills, our "worth", our own "righteousness" (which is as filthy rags before Him); we stand before Him, completely humbled. That is as opposite from "merit", as you can get.

Love asks to be returned; the paradigm of salvation, is to stand before Him, completely exposed --- having nothing, deserving nothing, meritting nothing; no worth, no value, completely lost --- and crying, "I know You LOVE me, Lord; I receive Your love, I do NOT deserve it, but I LOVE YOU! Take me, I am Yours."

And there is nothing of Pelagianism in that.

Ben, this sounds like a bunch of existential crappola and is beneath your intellect.

Then explain to me why Paul said (1Cor1:21), "THROUGH the foolishness (to the perishing) of the message, God is pleased to save those who BELIEVE"? Can you deny that "if they were regenerated FIRST, salvation would not be THROUGH foolishness? Don't say, "foolish-to-OTHERS", it reads "foolish to THEM but they believe THROUGH foolishness" (it is belief that changes it from seeming foolish, to being power).

See, now why didn't you just say this to start with? Now I know that you believe that God's ability to accomplish His desire to save people is determined and regulated by the person, not the eternal plan of a sovereign God. I guess, in actuality, that makes man sovereign.

You cannot see this as "operating within God's sovereignty", because you see it as "overthrowing His will". But where does He DECREE salvation (or conversely, decree condemnation)? It is perfectly within God's sovereignty, to ALLOW mankind to believe, or not.

Are you speaking of the faculty of volitional choice or the propensity to choose to abandon God fully and finally?

We choose to receive Him; and we can later choose to reject Him. How else can we understand passages like Heb3:12-14, and 4:11?

All this is is another example of you imposed a necessary inference upon Scripture that Scripture does not support.

Not so fast! Please tell me HOW it is "imposed inference not-supported"? Were they NEVER-SAVED? Were they NEVER-FALLEN? Were there TWO GROUPS (one always-fallen and one always-saved)?

How do you accommodate the Galatians?

 

[Van]

I say no scripture has been provided that indicates we cannot strive to keep the commands of Christ and two verses were offered in Rebuttal. One, Jesus said to be perfect, and we who cannot not sin are unable, while in the tent of flesh to be perfect. But, as I pointed out, if we seek salvation in Christ, and follow Christ, then we are perfect or complete in Him as taught by Colossians 1:28. Therefore that verse fails to demonstrate your premise.

Now lets turn to Romans 8:7. Here is the NASB version: "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;"

The idea of the mind set on the flesh indicates unregenerate folks can set their minds upon the flesh or upon spiritual things. Now a mind set on the flesh does not strive to follow the law of God, nor is it, a mind set on the flesh, even able to do so.

Paul's point is that indwelt believers can set their minds not on the flesh but on the indwelt Spirit of God, verse 9.

What Calvinist do is take this point of an emancipated walk with God due to the indwelt Spirit, and attempt to twist it in support of Total Depravity.

Bottom line, while the unregenerate cannot set their minds on the indwelt Spirit of God, they can set their minds on spiritual things. While they cannot avoid sinning, they can strive to establish a relationship with God either through works or faith. Nothing they do through works (verse 8) will please God.

This passage teaches the exact opposite of what Calvinists assert, it teaches that the unregenerate can attempt to please God, can set their minds on spiritual things, but doing the works of the Law is of no avail.

 

[Ben johnson]

This passage teaches the exact opposite of what Calvinists assert, it teaches that the unregenerate can attempt to please God, can set their minds on spiritual things, but doing the works of the Law is of no avail.

I agree. But it also teaches the converse --- the regenerate CAN set their minds on fleshly things, AND die. Rom8:12 says, "WE are under obligation, not to walk after flesh..."

Rom6:11ff issues the same opportunity; to "be slaves to sin", or "slaves to righteousness". He admonishes the SAVED, to "consider yourselves dead to sin but alove to God in Jesus. THEREFORE let not sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts; do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God..."

As Rom1:17 says, "the righteousness of God is revealed from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith."

The same volition with which fallen man CAN believe --- continues to allow saved man to DISbelieve.

 

[Van]

Ben, I do not think saved folks can disbelieve in Jesus. They can certainly drift away from the gospel message and present false doctrine, or sit under the teaching of a false teacher.

I agree with you, Romans 8:7 does suggest that born again believers in Christ can set their minds on fleshly things. When I near the beach and see a young and shapely girl in scanty cloths, genetics takes over. So if I truely am a child of God, we can set our minds on fleshly things, like comfort, security, food and lust. But Paul tells us to set our minds on more excellent stuff.

Where I disagree is the add-on "and die." Since being indwelt is a pledge to predestined inheritance of eternal life, I do not think a born again believer can "die."

Romans 6:11 does not seem to apply but Romans 6:12 clearly admonishes believers to strive to rest our minds on spiritual vice fleshly things. If we are dead to sin, sin does not have power over us, we can choose to set our minds on spiritual things. This is truth.

The same volition with which fallen man CAN believe --- continues to allow saved man to DISbelieve.

Here is where we part company. Before we are saved, we can believe on day and disbelieve the next till the cows come home. Believing does not result in salvation. God saves us by grace through faith. So believing is our introduction to grace, Romans 5:2. But the grace, to have mercy upon us, is God's and it does not depend on our believing because it does not depend upon the man that wills, Romans 9:16, but upon God who accepts our faith as heart-felt and sets us apart, by the work of the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ and indwells us with the Spirit of Christ. This baptism changes us fundamentally, we are a new creature, the old has passed away, our faith is born of incorruptible seed and is protected by God such that we will inherit eternal life. In summary, when we are saved our faith is protected so that we will always love Jesus and always desire to please Him. We will endure to the end, we will overcome the lusts of the flesh, the attractions of this world, the bad company, the false doctrines. and on that day, Lord Jesus will say, welcome home my faithful servant.

 

[Dottie]

No. What you did was deliberately answer me with your opinion on what the Lord had to say on the matter, thereby attaching your perspective on it. Look at what you said, "I didn't make the point. Jesus did!" As I said, this was unnecessary. First off, I asked you if that was the point you were making, not whether it was biblically sound. Secondly, just because you believe that's what the Lord had to say about it doesn't make it so.


I didn't mean to talk over your head Dottie. My apologies. IF MAN HAS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE TO EITHER OBEY OR DISOBY, Why DO YOU BELIEVE some choose to obey and others choose to disobey? Is that clearer? Also, you make a glaringly inaccurate statement. You say that I contend that man does not "have this choice available to them, inasmuch as they act according to the dictates of a sinful nature, which said nature would cause them to do involuntarily only that which is against or contrary to God's law." That is not even close to what I believe. I believe that man's nature is such that he sins and sins willingly. I have never claimed that unregenerate man sins involuntarily. You confuse necessity with compulsion. Unregenerate man sins of necessity because it is his nature to sin, and only sin. It is the same concept with God. God is good of necessity. I do not mean either that God has no will or that it is not free or that He is good because of some external compulsion to be good. I mean that God is good because He acts according to His nature which is only good. Likewise, unregenerate man sins because it is his nature to sin and he acts accordingly with great willingness.


As you can see I wasn't trying to have it both ways. I was merely trying to understand your way. To do so, I would have to start my questioning with the assumption that your premise that man can choose either for or against God is true. Did that help?

No, I answered you with what Jesus had to say. I attached no opinion of my own, despite your obvious effort to bait me into doing that.

Lets look at what was said here.

You asked: "So why are some ashamed and some are not? "

I answered: "According to what Jesus said, some "did the truth" and had nothing to be "ashamed" of, while others did deeds of evil, and knew that "coming to the light" would expose their deeds as being evil. So what is your point?"

You asked: "So your point is simply that some were not ashamed of being exposed because they kept the commandments so when the light came they embraced the light while others, who didn't keep the commandments, were ashamed of being exposed by the light?"

I answered: "I didn't make the point. Jesus did! So do you propose that you or I, or anyone else can be more athoritive, or expound more fully upon what the Lord has said?"

So how is it that you arrived at the conclusion that I answered with any opinion of my own on what the Lord had to say, or that I attached my perpective to it? I answered you the first time with what Jesus had to say about it. Then you proceeded to make it seem as though I had made the point, and not Jesus. You know, "Bait and Switch" is one of the con man's oldest tricks, and it seems that you have almost mastered the art. (But not quite.) But be that as it may, I forgive you, as Jesus said I should. And from here forward, "I turn the other cheek".

So you believe that "that man's nature is such that he sins and sins willingly." May I ask what scripture you are thinking of that leads you to this conclusion? Scriptures teach that sin originates in, and comes from the heart of man. I can't think of any that teach that it is the nature of man that causes him to sin. But I can recall a couple of passages that show that it is sin which is the cause of his sinful nature. The Saviour taught in Matt. 15-18-19 "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and THEY DEFILE THE MAN. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" A man's heart, which is biblically treated as being the seat of his consciousness, and his nature are two entirely different things. So get away from me with your "sinful nature" theory. It is not biblical. Man's nature does not cause him to sin, but sin causes his sinful nature.

You " have never claimed that unregenerate man sins involuntarily" ? Of course you have, but just in a different set of words. You maintain that because of man's sinful nature, as you have termed it, that he is unable to keep from sinning. If he is unable to keep from sinning, then he has no other option available to him other than to sin. And so, if he has no other option, then he is not sinning voluntarily but of necessity, due to the fact that this is the only thing that he can do.

As to the question of, " IF MAN HAS THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE TO EITHER OBEY OR DISOBY, Why DO YOU BELIEVE some choose to obey and others choose to disobey?" "Ability to choose" is beside the point, for we all have that ability. You acknowledged previously, that God has written his law upon the heart of every man, and that is correct, for the apostle writes in Romans 4:15 that where there is no law there is no transgression of law; and again in Romans 5:13, that sin is not charged where there is no law. The fact that God's law is ever there, in the consciousness of man is what gives him the ability to choose whether or not he will obey it or disobey it. And so, some choose to obey God's law because they want to obey it while others choose to disobey because they don't want to obey it. And this decision is made within the heart (the consciousness of man), and is most certainly influenced by external sources such as, but not implicitly by, being taught or not being taught from childhood in the ways of righteousness.

Gen. 18:17-19 "And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."

Deut. 4: 8-9 "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;"

Deut. 11: 18-19 "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up."

May God bless you.

 

[Reformationist]

"Coercion" implying "hostile force"?

Not necessarily hostile, no. As I said, coersion, in the case of the will, is an irresistable influence of an outward agent upon the will such that it is forced to act contrary to what it desires.

Actually, coercion is defined by Webster's as "force or compell".

Okay. I'm not sure why you're telling me that. I was quite clear in how I applied the word and my definition is not inconsistant with a dictionary definition.

The essence of God, is love; love does not demand its own way.

God does not demand His own way?

If God "sculpts the will", even if the will only follows Divinely-Instilled-Regeneration, then the will is not free.

Again I ask, when did I say the will was free in the sense that you seem to keep wanting to imply? All I said was, the will chooses according to its own strongest desire. This is self-determination which is personal volition at its utmost. All I'm seeking to enlighten you to is that the Arminian view of the reformed doctrine of regeneration is inaccurate. The reformed view of regeneration takes into account the inherent enslavement of unregenerate man's will to sin. Such is the strength of sin in the will and heart of unregenerate man that his choices, because they are always made in accordance with his strongest inclinations and desires, which are sinful inclinations and desires, are themselves sinful. Man's liberty to choose without the pervasive and determinative influence of sin was lost in the Fall. Man remains a volitional creature and, as such, continues to make choices after the Fall. The difference is that now his will is corrupt and all choices are spawned from that corrupt core and are sinful. If you think this means that man's will is not free then I would readily agree. True freedom of choice requires that man be equally able to choose without such determinative influence. Until and unless man's enslaved will is liberated by an outside agent he will seek no freedom nor are the actions of his will free from dominating influence.

But Scripture paints it another way, doesn't it? They turn FROM abominations and THEN He changes their hearts; but not EVERYONE turned, and those who KEPT abominations are in TROUBLE. Can you deny any of this?

Of course I deny it. Not only is it contrary to the whole of Scripture with regard to the natural proclivities of unregenerate man, it is completely nonsensical. If they can turn from their abominations what in the world would they need to have a change of heart for? It seems their heart is already in the right place if they know to turn from their abominations.

Show me the contradiction.

Use Blueletterbible to look up kosmos and see if it jibes with your view of the universality of the atonement. In particular, note 8b.

The question was, "Why do (how can) you understand Acts17:30 or 1Tim2:1-4, to be EXCLUSIVE rather than meaning 'He desires salvation for EVERYONE'?"

It's quite simple Ben. If I acknowledge that Scripture is explicit on God's ability to achieve whatsoever He desires, and I do, then it quickly becomes impossible for me to achieve any measure of reconciliation between the idea that God "accomplishes all that He desires and nothing will thwart Him" and your view that "He desires salvation for everyone." The only way I could reconcile the two is if I were a universalist and, to be honest, I think the Arminian case is more probable than theirs.

1. Only God's unilateral regeneration can change (regenerate) their hearts.

So long as you mean "unilateral" in a way synonymous to monergistic.

2. Only regenerate hearts can repent.

Yes, but not because God imposes some judicial restriction against allowing unregenerate people to repent. This, like number 6, depends on the desires of the heart. The regenerate heart desires to repent so it does. The unregenerate heart never desires to repent so it never does.

3. All regenerate hearts will repent.

Yes.

4. Repentance demonstrates "the elect".

This one is a bit sketchy because it depends on to whom you are saying it is demonstrated. We, as finite beings, may interpret an action of a person as true repentance but, as we are finite, our ability to confirm this is inadequate. Only God knows whether a person's outward display of repentance is genuine.

5. Reprobate hearts (unregenerated, unelect) will not repent.

No.

6. Reprobate hearts CAN not repent.

They can not because they lack any and all desire to repent. They lack the moral ability, not the natural ability.

7. Thus, God has decided (by election) who CAN repent.

Yes.

8. God declares that ALL MEN EVERYWHERE should repent!

Of course. Repentance is a gift of God's grace and, as such, He is not obligated to grant it to any, much less all. The fact that He grants the gift of repentance to some of those He commands to repent is a sign of His mercy, not unrighteousness. God is holy and, thus, demands that we be holy. Just because we are a fallen creation who naturally lack the moral ability to do as God commands doesn't mean that He doesn't have the authority to command it, nor does it shine negatively on God's holiness for demanding it.

Does that really make sense to you, Don?

When viewed through the lens that God is God, not man is God, it makes perfect sense Ben.

They're questioning His authority. So --- remove "sanctioned", and understand Jesus to be saying, "If they come to Me, God AUTHORIZED it".

"Authority" -- "authorized" -- "validated" -- "sanctioned" -- etcetera...

Uhh...where in the world did you get that interpretation? The verse is rather explicit: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Now, it seems to me that the only two words you could be replacing are either the word "can" or the word "draws." The word "can," dunamai, means "to be able." The word "draws," helkuo, as we have discussed MANY times, means "to draw by inward power, lead, impel." Now, if you are not drawing this "authorized/sanctioned" idea from one of those two words, which is it? Also, let's take a look at an almost identical verse in the same passage:

John 6:65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Clearly, if not verse 44, this verse says plainly that no one is able to come to the Father unless the Father makes him able. Natural man is incapable of coming to Christ. He must FIRST be liberated by God's monergistic work of regeneration.

There is no denying that verse 44, is in RESPONSE to verse 42...

I'm not denying it. What I'm denying is the unbiblical idea that verse 44 speaks of a lack of permission, which you seem to be purporting, rather than a lack of ability.

Show me anywhere in Scripture, that "regeneration precedes belief".

You've been shown, numerous times. We belabor what should be obvious. As I've stated numerous times in the past, when one, such as yourself, has such an inflated view of man's state after the Fall he is bound to align himself with unorthodox views which deny the bondage of man's unregenerate will. I guess God's not really the Author of our faith. He's merely the co-Author.

This is not "my point"; this is "my rebuttal to a Calvinst point that asserted "Lydia was heart-changed TO believe".

Did I make that claim? If not, why are you bringing it up to me?

You and I are in agreement; but on this board, just a week or two ago, it was asserted that "God opened her heart, TO believe". This taken to be the same as, "God removed their stone-hearts and installed flesh-hearts so that they COULD believe in Him".

If this passage had salvation in mind that may have been the case. It doesn't. God did open her heart to believe. It's just that He wasn't opening her heart to believe unto salvation. He opened her heart to the words of the Apostle.

I don't understand how you see "surrender" as "merit". We lay down our wills, our "worth", our own "righteousness" (which is as filthy rags before Him); we stand before Him, completely humbled. That is as opposite from "merit", as you can get.

It's not the opposite because you claim it is the causal agent in meriting His grace. If you claimed that we lay down our wills because He gives us grace that would be different. That would be acknowledging that the casual agent in our submittance is His grace. You don't do that. You reverse the order. You make laying down your will a prerequisite to His grace. It matters not if you think your act of laying down your will makes you worthy of His grace. You could vehemently deny that it does. It changes nothing. You still maintain that the definable difference between the person who does receive His grace and the person who doesn't is whether or not they surrendered their will and, in doing so, boast and claim the merit of the establishment and dispensation of His grace for yourself.

Love asks to be returned; the paradigm of salvation, is to stand before Him, completely exposed --- having nothing, deserving nothing, meritting nothing; no worth, no value, completely lost --- and crying, "I know You LOVE me, Lord; I receive Your love, I do NOT deserve it, but I LOVE YOU! Take me, I am Yours."

And there is nothing of Pelagianism in that.

I know, I know...God's a gentleman. I've heard all that before and it was as ridiculous then as it is now.

You cannot see this as "operating within God's sovereignty", because you see it as "overthrowing His will". But where does He DECREE salvation (or conversely, decree condemnation)? It is perfectly within God's sovereignty, to ALLOW mankind to believe, or not.

Ben, this makes a mockery of God. You claim that He desires something that He doesn't will. Is God torn about whether or not He wants to accomplish His desires? Gracious Ben, is not God united in His nature and able and willing to accomplish all His desires? Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that an omnipotent, holy Being desires that all His creation be saved from His wrath yet not do everything in His power to ensure that it comes to pass? If so, then God had better be prepared for eternal suffering because of the pain and anguish He will feel from the rejection of those He desired to save.

We choose to receive Him; and we can later choose to reject Him.

So we get Him because we choose to get Him and we keep Him because we choose to keep Him? Real God centered theology you've got there Ben.

Not so fast! Please tell me HOW it is "imposed inference not-supported"? Were they NEVER-SAVED? Were they NEVER-FALLEN? Were there TWO GROUPS (one always-fallen and one always-saved)?

Ben, your knowledge and perception of the eternal disposition of living people is finite, why would you think you could determine the salvitic disposition of these people? The truth is, your view doesn't allow for any possibility other than that they absolutely were saved so they must have lost their salvation. You start with the premise that they are saved to prove that they are saved. Here's a neat little ditty, or jingle if you prefer:

"If they have it, they'll never lose it. If they lose it, they never had it."

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

So get away from me with your "sinful nature" theory.

I've got a better idea... I'll just get away from you altogether.

See ya...buh bye...

 

[Dottie]

I've got a better idea... I'll just get away from you altogether.

See ya...buh bye...

hmmm, well, I just can't imagine why you would have an attitude like that. But oh well . . . . Bye

 

[Ben johnson]

Okay. I'm not sure why you're telling me that. I was quite clear in how I applied the word and my definition is not inconsistant with a dictionary definition.

Because in the past, my colleagues here (of "Reformed" bent), have gotten quite angry when I describe Reformed Theology with words like "compelled" or "coerced"...

God does not demand His own way?

In terms of salvation, I simply don't find "salvation" (or conversely "condemnation"), decreed.

Again I ask, when did I say the will was free in the sense that you seem to keep wanting to imply? All I said was, the will chooses according to its own strongest desire. This is self-determination which is personal volition at its utmost. All I'm seeking to enlighten you to is that the Arminian view of the reformed doctrine of regeneration is inaccurate. The reformed view of regeneration takes into account the inherent enslavement of unregenerate man's will to sin. Such is the strength of sin in the will and heart of unregenerate man that his choices, because they are always made in accordance with his strongest inclinations and desires, which are sinful inclinations and desires, are themselves sinful. Man's liberty to choose without the pervasive and determinative influence of sin was lost in the Fall. Man remains a volitional creature and, as such, continues to make choices after the Fall. The difference is that now his will is corrupt and all choices are spawned from that corrupt core and are sinful. If you think this means that man's will is not free then I would readily agree. True freedom of choice requires that man be equally able to choose without such determinative influence. Until and unless man's enslaved will is liberated by an outside agent he will seek no freedom nor are the actions of his will free from dominating influence.

"Inherent enslavement". I think you can understand why I read Rom6:16-17, as "obedient from the HEART, submitted to God, became slaves to righteousness" --- iow, "the heart is convicted and chooses enslavement to God".

"Present youreselves". "Consider yourselves dead to sin". "You are slaves of WHOM YOU OBEY." Every word convinces me of "choice", and not "instillation".

Of course I deny it. Not only is it contrary to the whole of Scripture with regard to the natural proclivities of unregenerate man, it is completely nonsensical. If they can turn from their abominations what in the world would they need to have a change of heart for? It seems their heart is already in the right place if they know to turn from their abominations.

Then how do you explain 11:18, "They will remove abominations & detestables, ...AND I will change their hearts..."

And how do you explain (if their hearts had been "unilaterally changed"), verse 21? "But those who GO AFTER abominations..."

Use Blueletterbible to look up kosmos and see if it jibes with your view of the universality of the atonement. In particular, note 8b.

But the context of 1Jn2:2, says "propitiation not just for OURS" --- ours who? Ours-JEWISH? Or ours-SAVED? Because the idea of "salvation to Jews AND Gentiles" is well-known (Gal3:28), because he says "but also WHOLE WORLD", how could he NOT mean "not just us-SAVED but also to the ENTIRE WORLD" (meaning, "IF they ALSO believe")?

How can "holos-kosmos" not mean "everyone"? He doesn't write just "kosmos", he writes "holos-kosmos".

When viewed through the lens that God is God, not man is God, it makes perfect sense Ben.

Ben sees that Don recognizes that "God KNOWS they CAN'T repent, but God DECLARES that they SHOULD repent" --- Ben sees that Don accepts that without conflict; Ben knows no way to convince Don of the absurdity of the case. :shrug:

Uhh...where in the world did you get that interpretation?

Two questions:
1. What are the Jews doing in vs42? (Hint: "Questioning His authority")
2. Is verse 44, Jesus' ANSWER to vs42? (Hint: "Yes.")

Clearly, if not verse 44, this verse says plainly that no one is able to come to the Father unless the Father makes him able. Natural man is incapable of coming to Christ. He must FIRST be liberated by God's monergistic work of regeneration.

Can't be. Jn17:6 says "Thine they WERE" --- this can only mean, "through BELIEF". It then says, "...and Thou gavest them to Me." This can only mean, "THROUGH BELIEF".

This denies that regeneration ENABLES him to come to Christ (belief) --- because, the GIVING, is THROUGH their belief.

You require it (for Calvinism) to say, "giving CAUSES belief", but instead it says, "given THROUGH their belief". Do you see the conflict? Can you deny Jn17:6?

I'm not denying it. What I'm denying is the unbiblical idea that verse 44 speaks of a lack of permission, which you seem to be purporting, rather than a lack of ability.

No --- nothing about "permission". Simply, the Jews said: "He's just a KID! He has no authority to say, 'I'm sent from Heaven'."
Jesus said, "If they come to Me, God ENDORSED it".

You've been shown, numerous times. We belabor what should be obvious. As I've stated numerous times in the past, when one, such as yourself, has such an inflated view of man's state after the Fall he is bound to align himself with unorthodox views which deny the bondage of man's unregenerate will. I guess God's not really the Author of our faith. He's merely the co-Author.

That's right! He's NOT the "author of our faith"!

Heb13:2 says, "He is the ARCHEGOS-ROLE-MODEL, and TELEIOTES-LEADER-BY-EXAMPLE (prince)". It simply doesn't say what you want it to, namely that "God MACHINATES our faith"...

It's not the opposite because you claim it is the causal agent in meriting His grace. If you claimed that we lay down our wills because He gives us grace that would be different. That would be acknowledging that the casual agent in our submittance is His grace. You don't do that. You reverse the order. You make laying down your will a prerequisite to His grace. It matters not if you think your act of laying down your will makes you worthy of His grace. You could vehemently deny that it does. It changes nothing. You still maintain that the definable difference between the person who does receive His grace and the person who doesn't is whether or not they surrendered their will and, in doing so, boast and claim the merit of the establishment and dispensation of His grace for yourself.

It occurs to me that would present an inescapable conflict; one who MIGHT boast of "his ability to surrender", is not surrendered. For true surrender, recognizes his own worthlessness and boastlessness.

Salvation is conviction that "righteousness and redemption is all of Christ and none of us". One who boasts in himSELF, has not the conviction and submission that ARE salvation.

Ben, this makes a mockery of God. You claim that He desires something that He doesn't will. Is God torn about whether or not He wants to accomplish His desires? Gracious Ben, is not God united in His nature and able and willing to accomplish all His desires? Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that an omnipotent, holy Being desires that all His creation be saved from His wrath yet not do everything in His power to ensure that it comes to pass? If so, then God had better be prepared for eternal suffering because of the pain and anguish He will feel from the rejection of those He desired to save.

There is a difference between God's "will-DESIRE", and God's "will-DECREE". God DECREED that Jesus would be crucified; but He did not cause any one of them to do it, against their wills.

So we get Him because we choose to get Him and we keep Him because we choose to keep Him? Real God centered theology you've got there Ben.

I find John15:4 to say, "Abide in Me, and I (will abide) in you". This fits with verse 6, "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a ...dried branch ...and is thrown into the fire and burned". It also fits with verse 2: "Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit, He takes away". In this, I cannot deny He speaks of those "in-Him-SAVED", who "do not abide" and are "cast away".

Ben, your knowledge and perception of the eternal disposition of living people is finite, why would you think you could determine the salvitic disposition of these people? The truth is, your view doesn't allow for any possibility other than that they absolutely were saved so they must have lost their salvation. You start with the premise that they are saved to prove that they are saved. Here's a neat little ditty, or jingle if you prefer:

"If they have it, they'll never lose it. If they lose it, they never had it."

But it denies your paradigm; it says what it says, Don.

1. Begun in the Spirit.
2. Obeying the truth.
3. Running well.
4. Knew God, rather were known BY God.

How could that descriptive refer to "never-saved"?
How?

 

[Reformationist]

Because in the past, my colleagues here (of "Reformed" bent), have gotten quite angry when I describe Reformed Theology with words like "compelled" or "coerced"...

As I said, coercion isn't applicable in reformed theology but compulsion, when properly applied, is a beacon of hope for us:

2 Cor 5:14
For the love of Christ compels us

In terms of salvation, I simply don't find "salvation" (or conversely "condemnation"), decreed.

Then what ensures that it comes to pass exactly as the Lord desires?

"Inherent enslavement". I think you can understand why I read Rom6:16-17, as "obedient from the HEART, submitted to God, became slaves to righteousness" --- iow, "the heart is convicted and chooses enslavement to God".

"Present youreselves". "Consider yourselves dead to sin". "You are slaves of WHOM YOU OBEY." Every word convinces me of "choice", and not "instillation".

I do not deny a choice Ben. What I deny is a choice made prior to liberty being restored. Look at the verses you cite coupled with the very next verse:

Romans 6:16-18
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Notice something very peculiar Ben? In the midst of you crediting the creation with your "responsible grace" theory, Paul clearly states not only whom we should credit for obeying from the heart but the reason we obey from the heart. He says "GOD be thanked." If we apply your position we have no reason to fully credit God with our obedience. I'm sure that even in your theology you acknowledge that the grace of God is helpful in our pursuit of righteousness. Unfortunately, if you are correct, the most we could say is, "Thanks be to God for helping us choose to obey from the heart of our own free will." Not to mention, verse 18 explicitly states that being freed from sin is necessary for us to choose to be slaves to righteousness. I'll tell you Ben, if Romans 6:18 doesn't show you that we must be freed from the dominion of sin before we are capable of obeying God and that, once freed, we will obey God, then nothing and no one on the MB will ever convince you.

Then how do you explain 11:18, "They will remove abominations & detestables, ...AND I will change their hearts..."

All this does is solidify my position. That passage says, "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." If they are naturally capable of walking in the statutes of God and keeping the ordinances of God, as you regularly contend, why does He tell Ezekiel in his vision that He will take out their stony heart (hard heart) and give them a heart of flesh (pliable heart) and cause them to walk in His statutes and keep His ordinances?

And how do you explain (if their hearts had been "unilaterally changed"), verse 21? "But those who GO AFTER abominations..."

Come on Ben. Look at the very text of verse 21, "But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations..." God is clearly distinguishing between those whom He causes to walk in His statutes and those He recompenses. This does nothing more than show that those who "walketh after the heart of their detestable things" are not those whom the Lord gives a heart of flesh.

But the context of 1Jn2:2, says "propitiation not just for OURS" --- ours who? Ours-JEWISH? Or ours-SAVED? Because the idea of "salvation to Jews AND Gentiles" is well-known (Gal3:28), because he says "but also WHOLE WORLD", how could he NOT mean "not just us-SAVED but also to the ENTIRE WORLD" (meaning, "IF they ALSO believe")?

Ben, I expect this kind of thing from most of the people who oppose my position. I would think you could separate yourself from the masses who espouse this illogical and ridiculous theory. First off, John says, "And He Himself IS the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." "IS" Ben, "IS." Not "could be." Not "might be." Not "will be if you meet <insert condition of your preference>." It says "is." So, unless you just wish to destroy any credibility that you have, you must acknowledge that "world" does not always mean "all people without exception." Additionally, the grammer of the verse as well as the very meaning falls apart when you apply a condition to a statement that doesn't infer any such condition. The verse says that He IS the propitiation for sins. Now, you and I have had numerous conversations on this very verse. It seems that they were of little benefit to you, even on a grammatical level. You still want to isolate this verse from its context. If we wish to understand the verse properly we must look at it in context. So, this epistle is written to Christians to warn and instruct them about a kind of false teaching that denied Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. The teaching was that Christ had only appeared to be human, so that there was no real incarnation, and no divine Savior who was able to die for sinners. This letter seems to be addressed to a specific group of people with whom John has a close relationship, "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin" (2:1). So, when we read, "not for ours only but also for the whole world" what John is saying is, Christ is the propitiation not only for the immediate community to whom He writes, but is valid anywhere in the world.

How can "holos-kosmos" not mean "everyone"? He doesn't write just "kosmos", he writes "holos-kosmos".

Ben, is Christ the propitiation for the whole world (holos kosmos)? Scripture says He is. You take great issue with me limiting the meaning of holos kosmos but you have no problem submitting that in order to understand the true meaning of this passage we must change it to mean "not just us-SAVED but also to the ENTIRE WORLD (meaning, "IF they ALSO believe")?"

Let's look at another place this combination is used:

Rom 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world (holos kosmos).

Seriously, does Paul actually mean that the faith of these Christians is spoken of by every single person everywhere? Do the babies speak of these people's faith? I daresay there's a good possibility that there are tons of people who don't speak of their faith, and not just babies. Tell me Ben, are we going to apply a universal meaning to this combination of words universally or only when you think it supports your position? Okay. Maybe that one is a bit unfair. Let's try another. How about one in the same book:

1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and the whole world (holos kosmos) lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Is John actually saying that everyone everywhere, even those he distinguishes as "we that are of God," is held in subjection to the devil??!!

The verse you cite and the two I cite are the only three I could find who use the combination holos kosmos. Are there any more that you know of? If so, cite those and we can analyze those. If not, I'd say that it doesn't bode well for your position that two out of the three verses that use that combination are clearly not using in an universal manner so it's likely that the third, the one you cite, is also not using it in that manner.

Ben sees that Don recognizes that "God KNOWS they CAN'T repent, but God DECLARES that they SHOULD repent" --- Ben sees that Don accepts that without conflict; Ben knows no way to convince Don of the absurdity of the case. :shrug:

Why can't they repent Ben? Am I purporting that God withholds something from them that He owes them that enables them to repent? Am I claiming that God omnipotently forces them to not repent? The reason you have so much conflict with this idea is clear. You deny the state of fallen man. God commands them to repent because He is holy and demands holiness of us. What's He going to do Ben, say, "Well, I know you can't be holy so I'll just lower my standards and, well, go ahead and be sinful?" That's insane. As for those who don't repent, well, they can't repent simply because they lack all desire to repent.

Two questions:
1. What are the Jews doing in vs42? (Hint: "Questioning His authority")
2. Is verse 44, Jesus' ANSWER to vs42? (Hint: "Yes.")

Okay Ben. I'm over these two verses. You have it stuck in your head that you have them all figured out and you just keep repeating yourself, clearly not taking anything that anyone says to you into account.

That's right! He's NOT the "author of our faith"!

Heb13:2 says, "He is the ARCHEGOS-ROLE-MODEL, and TELEIOTES-LEADER-BY-EXAMPLE (prince)". It simply doesn't say what you want it to, namely that "God MACHINATES our faith"...[/quote]
Do you mean Hebrews 12:2:

Heb 12:2
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Let me show you something I find quite telling. Strong's lists the following definitions for archegos:

1) the chief leader, prince
a) of Christ
2) one that takes the lead in any thing and thus affords an example, a predecessor in a matter, pioneer
3) the author

You disregard the fact that the 3rd choice on the list is "the author" in favor of the one, "example," that you feel supports your position. Now, let's look at what Strong's has for teleiotes:

1) a perfector
2) one who has in his own person raised faith to its perfection and so set before us the highest example of faith

LOL! Here you skip past the first definition in favor of the one you think is more in line with your position.

There is a difference between God's "will-DESIRE", and God's "will-DECREE". God DECREED that Jesus would be crucified; but He did not cause any one of them to do it, against their wills.

Yes I know Ben. I, myself, have often acknowledged the various ways in which the will of God is regarded, i.e., His will of disposition, His perceptive will, and His decretive will. So, when you read 2 Peter 3:9, in what sense do you understand His will being referrenced?

God bless

 

[Ben johnson]

2 Cor 5:14
For the love of Christ compels us

Ha ha! A very good retort, Don!
"But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." 2Cor3:14-16 Oops --- this reflects "regeneration through belief", not "belief through regeneration".

It is BELIEF in Christ that REMOVES the veil that hardens their hearts.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may be recompensed for his deeds, according to what he has done --- either good or bad." 2Cor5:10 This reflects Romans 2:6-8, "God will render to each one 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 (opposite of 'eternal life')."

"THerefore knowing the fear of our Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consiences. 2Cor5:11

"For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls (constrains) us, having concluded this: that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who LIVE should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no man by the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old passes away, behold new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself..." 2Cor5:13-19

Rather than supporting what you said of "compelled-to-salvation", it reads to me of "compelled through our being 'IN CHRIST'."

And his speaking about "all died, that THEY WHO LIVE..." --- really leans more towards the "universalness of grace", doesn't it?

Then what ensures that it comes to pass exactly as the Lord desires?

The only thing I can see, is that "salvation is optional".

"If TIS-ANYONE enters through Me (the Door), he will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture (become My sheep)". Jn10:9

"This is the thelema-will of God, that WHOEVER beholds Jesus and believes in Him may have eternal life." Jn6:40

"And let O-THELOS-WHOSOEVER-WILL take of the water of life freely". Rev22:17

I do not deny a choice Ben. What I deny is a choice made prior to liberty being restored. Look at the verses you cite coupled with the very next verse:

I think, that you deny that you deny choice.

Notice something very peculiar Ben? In the midst of you crediting the creation with your "responsible grace" theory, Paul clearly states not only whom we should credit for obeying from the heart but the reason we obey from the heart. He says "GOD be thanked." If we apply your position we have no reason to fully credit God with our obedience. I'm sure that even in your theology you acknowledge that the grace of God is helpful in our pursuit of righteousness. Unfortunately, if you are correct, the most we could say is, "Thanks be to God for helping us choose to obey from the heart of our own free will." Not to mention, verse 18 explicitly states that being freed from sin is necessary for us to choose to be slaves to righteousness. I'll tell you Ben, if Romans 6:18 doesn't show you that we must be freed from the dominion of sin before we are capable of obeying God and that, once freed, we will obey God, then nothing and no one on the MB will ever convince you.

The point is, "from the heart". We just read 2Cor3:14-16, the "veil that hardens their hearts", is LIFTED whenever a man turns to the Lord. This fits perfectly with the idea in 1Cor1:18-21 ("when a perishing man believes THROUGH the foolishness of the Gospel, it BECOMES {through belief} power, and God is pleased to save him."). And it fits with: "God changes/regenerates their hearts BEFORE they believe", not at all.

All this does is solidify my position. That passage says, "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God." If they are naturally capable of walking in the statutes of God and keeping the ordinances of God, as you regularly contend, why does He tell Ezekiel in his vision that He will take out their stony heart (hard heart) and give them a heart of flesh (pliable heart) and cause them to walk in His statutes and keep His ordinances?

But Don, they turned FIRST, and THEN He changed their hearts. And not ALL of them turned. Some preferred abominations --- He promised severe treatment. If God "regenerated them", then why did they turn from abominations FIRST, and why were there any left who KEPT abominations?

So, unless you just wish to destroy any credibility that you have, you must acknowledge that "world" does not always mean "all people without exception." Additionally, the grammer of the verse as well as the very meaning falls apart when you apply a condition to a statement that doesn't infer any such condition. The verse says that He IS the propitiation for sins. Now, you and I have had numerous conversations on this very verse. It seems that they were of little benefit to you, even on a grammatical level. You still want to isolate this verse from its context. If we wish to understand the verse properly we must look at it in context. So, this epistle is written to Christians to warn and instruct them about a kind of false teaching that denied Jesus Christ had come in the flesh.

No, it doesn't. And I can show you a verse that explains it.

Take the "false prophets" and "false teachers" of 2Peter2. Were they ever saved? No. They "never cease from sin" (2:14), they are "slaves of corruption" (2:19). Yet look at verse1: "False prophets ...and false teachers among you, secretly intruducing destructive heresies, even denying the Master who BOUGHT them".

It doesn't matter whether you accept that Peter meant, "the Master BOUGHT the false teachers/prophets", or if you say "it's BOUGHT those IN the body the false are trying to DECEIVE" --- the end result is the same, there are some BOUGHT, who receive "swift destruction".

I submit to you, that "bought them", carries the exact same meaning, as "propitation for sins FOR them".

You see, if Jesus died on the Cross for ALL, then all are truly PURCHASED, PROPITIATED, REDEEMED. Yet --- they are all, CONDITIONALLY. They must BELIEVE to BE redeemed/propitiated/purchased.

To say, "propitiation for the WHOLE WORLD", and "bought them", and "died for all", asserts the universal presentation of atonement to everyone.

This is precisely what Paul writes of in Romans5:18; "SO AS came condemnation to ALL MEN, EVEN SO came justification of life to ALL MEN." Exact equality --- justification came to as MANY as came condemnation; and here too, is "conditionality" --- for though verse 5:12 says "all are condemned", verse 5:17 says "only those who RECEIVE the abundance of life, who RECEIVE the gift of righteousness will reign with Jesus (will be justified)".

Is John actually saying that everyone everywhere, even those he distinguishes as "we that are of God," is held in subjection to the devil??!!

"Keimai en poneros", means "lies under the power of the evil one". Jesus, in Lk10:19, says: "I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you..."

So, yes, it DOES mean "whole world". But "greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." 1Jn4:4

Seriously, does Paul actually mean that the faith of these Christians is spoken of by every single person everywhere? Do the babies speak of these people's faith? I daresay there's a good possibility that there are tons of people who don't speak of their faith, and not just babies. Tell me Ben, are we going to apply a universal meaning to this combination of words universally or only when you think it supports your position?

The focus of thought, was "known-world of the time." Thus, yes it DID mean "whole world".

What opposes you in 1Jn2:2, is the distinguishment --- he says, "Not only US" --- I don't think this can mean anything, but "us-SAVED". Or, if you prefer, "us-ELECT". Therefore, "but ALSO the whole world", is absolutely "universal" (in availing).

The verse you cite and the two I cite are the only three I could find who use the combination holos kosmos. Are there any more that you know of? If so, cite those and we can analyze those. If not, I'd say that it doesn't bode well for your position that two out of the three verses that use that combination are clearly not using in an universal manner so it's likely that the third, the one you cite, is also not using it in that manner.

Too sleepy; but I think those verses you shared, DO mean "whole world"...

Why can't they repent Ben? Am I purporting that God withholds something from them that He owes them that enables them to repent? Am I claiming that God omnipotently forces them to not repent? The reason you have so much conflict with this idea is clear. You deny the state of fallen man. God commands them to repent because He is holy and demands holiness of us. What's He going to do Ben, say, "Well, I know you can't be holy so I'll just lower my standards and, well, go ahead and be sinful?" That's insane. As for those who don't repent, well, they can't repent simply because they lack all desire to repent.

Well, with respect, doesn't His "not-choosing-them" (not electing them), MEAN "go ahead and be sinful"? Acts 3:19 says, "repent and return, that your sins may be wiped away..." It reads to me as "God declares that all men everywhere should repent", that "repentance is charged to US".

LOL! Here you skip past the first definition in favor of the one you think is more in line with your position.

I'm perfectly "ok" with "perfector". Rom12:3 says "God gives to each BELIEVER a measure of faith" --- this does not remove our choice.

But --- to say that God AUTHORS our faith, as in "machinates with disregard to prior will", I don't see that in Scripture. Nowhere is "saving-faith INSTILLED by God". I think Robertson has it correct in Eph2:8, where he says "'that' refers not to 'faith' nor to 'grace', but to the idea of salvation as a whole; grace is God's part, faith is ours."

So, when you read 2 Peter 3:9, in what sense do you understand His will being referrenced?

All of 2Peter stands against any form of OSAS, including "Calvinism". Chapter 1 denies it, chapter 2, chapter 3. 3:14 & 17 to be exact. (See 1:5-11, 2:20-22.)

So we can expect 3:9 to also reflect "non-OSAS". I understand it to say, "God does not DECREE (boulemai) anyone to perish, but MAKES-ROOM (choreo) for all to repent".

I look forward to hearing your comments on especially the 2Cor3 passage...

 

[Van]

Ben, I agree with your view of 2 Corinthians 3:14-16. In verse 14, Paul tells us the veil is lifted "in Christ" so the veil is lifted post salvation, after we are in Christ. Verse 16 says the veil is lifted after a man "turns to the Lord." In light of verse 14, this means after a man turns to the Lord and is saved, then the veil is lifted, therefore supporting the belief before regeneration view.

Turning now to a difference, 2 Peter 2:1 says the false teachers deny the Lord who bought them. Your contention is being bought is the same as being saved.
My view is different. I think "bought" refers to Christ dying for all men on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins, and so because the price was so high, we who have received the reconcilation should live accordingly, we who were bought and set free from slavery to sin (reconciled and received reconcilation) should remain slaves to Christ.