How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Rick Otto]

 

[cygnusx1]

I call it "Shake-n-Bake" salvation

"Jesus saved me, AN' I HELPED!"

*Was that the 8.6 pound infant baby Jesus ???









Note to Mods: *Taladega Nights reference

Otto's sides just split open.

That's funny.
I was just thinkin' last night how to explain Predestination to Free Willies,
.

How typical of the side that lost to engage in this kind of straw man mockery.

Muz

Go easy on Ben, please.

 

[Ben johnson]

but if God's consideration is causal to man's faith (God causing faith in us), then responsibility is overturned in favor of predestination.

Hogwash. Man is responsible for his sin and deserves death as a result of SIN not simply because he does not believe..

If man has no choice but to pursue sin (if his depravity is God's choice in leaving him to his unavoidable demise), then God is responsible; not man. Scripture never asserts that "non-belief is somehow sovereignly ordained". as Paul said in Rom2, "God's patience and kindness is MEANT to lead you to repentance --- but your stubborn unrepentant heart is making God MAD."

"Unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins."

Sins are the basis of condemnation not simply lack of God-given faith!!

"Unbelief", and "condemnedly-sinning", are the same thing. One does not exist without the other.

BTW, when does that THE END OF CALVINISM tome yer working on get launched? I want to wear my shirt on that day...

With respect, why don't you wear a shirt that answers Rom2:2-8, Matt23:13-15, Heb11:6, Rom11:21-23, and several other passages?

How 'bout Heb3:8-14, and 4:11? THAT would be a shirt I'd like to see.
"Do not harden YOUR heart. Take care, lest your heart be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Be diligent to enter God's rest, lest any one of you FALL by imitating the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

 

[Ben johnson]

Woody has proven beyond any doubt that regeneration precedes faith, in another thread. Your failure to concede and accept that point does not negate it, or "overturn" it.

Scripture "negates/overturns" that point.

Your misreading and twisting of Titus does not trump 1 John 5:1

In Titus3:5-6, the Spirit is poured, through our Savior Jesus.
1. Does "Our Savior Jesus", denote "belief"? How could it not?
2. Does "poured" denote "received"? How could it not?
3. Is "poured" listed as a quality of the REGENERATING Spirit? How could it not?
4. If regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit, then how could regeneration precede belief? It could not.

There is no "twisting" in these three statements. They can be ignored, but they cannot be denied --- if they can, please show the substance of that denial.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

Does it say "was born so they COULD believe"? Or does it say "who believes now, was born of God"?

You're denying that John1:12 places "believe", before "become-adopted-children".
5. Can "become-adopted" mean anything other than "become born of God"? No.
6. Can "he WHO believes, God gives right to become adopted", mean else than "belief precedes adoption"? No.

Sorry to have to number the points; but to progress towards resolution, we need a structured discussion. If Ben is wrong, then cite the number and the reason. Without credible refutation, "Responsible Grace" prevails. Please answer each number and establish the refutation of Ben's points.
(1Jo 5:1) ESV

Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him: (1Jo 5:1) YLT

Let's see how you answer numbers 5-6 especially.

End of discussion, really. Predestination prevails, because regeneration clearly comes before faith. QED

Oh it can be "end-of-discussion" --- no one is required to reply; not you, not me. But if you're claiming "victory", then please demonstrate which number(s) above, 1-5, are wrong, and why they are wrong.

Those points can be ignored, but they cannot be answered. Not in favor of "predestination". If they can, then please answer.

This directed not just towards NBF, but to everyone.

 

[Ben johnson]

Very Good, fru. Ben has been finally totaly refuted.

Who's up next?

Next, is everyone here in favor of Calvinism, answering points 1-6 above.

And answering how God "causes saving-faith".

"Without faith, it is impossible to please God; for he who COMES to God must believe God IS, and that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

Is this verse speaking of "saving-faith"? Yes.
Does it place God as CAUSING saving-faith, or RECEIVING it? Receiving.
Does it present God as saving those who SEEK Him? Yes.

Show me anywhere that "God causes saving-faith"; and/or please explain how God could judge anyone for what He Himself sovereignly decreed.

Thanx in advance, Rick (and whoever else accepts the challenge)...

 

[nobdysfool]

Typical avoidance. Ben won't answer to, or admit where he has been shown to be wrong, Instead, he tries to put Calvinists on the defensive, and claims that if we don't answer, then we admit defeat.

Sorry, you don't set the parameters of debate, especially when they are so obviously biased. We have not imposed any such parameters, because we don't need to. You obviously feel that the playing field must be tilted in your favor.

What I see here is a man scrambling to limit the damage he has suffered from close and relentless examination of his pet doctrines.

Face it Ben, you have been shown to be wrong, beyond any doubt. Your denial does not change the fact.

Suck it up, and admit you were wrong.

 

[drstevej]

If man has no choice but to pursue sin (if his depravity is God's choice in leaving him to his unavoidable demise), then God is responsible; not man. Scripture never asserts that "non-belief is somehow sovereignly ordained". as Paul said in Rom2, "God's patience and kindness is MEANT to lead you to repentance --- but your stubborn unrepentant heart is making God MAD."
"Unbelief", and "condemnedly-sinning", are the same thing. One does not exist without the other.
With respect, why don't you wear a shirt that answers Rom2:2-8, Matt23:13-15, Heb11:6, Rom11:21-23, and several other passages?

How 'bout Heb3:8-14, and 4:11? THAT would be a shirt I'd like to see.
"Do not harden YOUR heart. Take care, lest your heart be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Be diligent to enter God's rest, lest any one of you FALL by imitating the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

Avoidance, changing of the subject.
Not gonna dance that dance with ya, Ben.

Jesus said "Unless you believe I am you will die in your sins."

Sin other than rejecting Him as Messiah remain a basis for condemnation and wrath. Don't change the topic to depravity unless you concede your error here first.

 

[nobdysfool]

Scripture "negates/overturns" that point. In Titus3:5-6, the Spirit is poured, through our Savior Jesus.

Scripture does not contradict itself. 1John5:1 specifically and clearly says that Regeneration come before faith. Titus does not say what you want it to, and it has been explained to you many, many times. Your denial does not overturn that fact. And Titus does not overturn 1 John5:1. Therefore, your understanduing of Titus needs to change, because 1 John5:1 clearly shows that how you view Titus is wrong.

1. Does "Our Savior Jesus", denote "belief"? How could it not?

It doesn't, necessarily, Jesus is the Lord whether or not we believe. His Lordship is not a result of our faith.

2. Does "poured" denote "received"? How could it not?

Assuming your conclusion. Something can be poured whether or not there is anything to receive it. Poured does NOT equal received.

3. Is "poured" listed as a quality of the REGENERATING Spirit? How could it not?

The Spirit of God pours AFTER He regenerates. He doesn't pour His Spirit into dead vessels.

4. If regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit, then how could regeneration precede belief? It could not.

That is your mischaracterization of the verse. It is not what the verse says. Washing and regeneration are equivalent terms, and happen prior to reception of the Spirit.

There is no "twisting" in these three statements. They can be ignored, but they cannot be denied --- if they can, please show the substance of that denial.

It has been shown, many, many times. Your view is untwisted only if a classic pretzel is untwisted (pretzel sticks don't count). Your mischaracterization of this verse is so ingrained that you can't even read it correctly. I can, and have denied every one of your mischaracterizations and misinterpretations of this verse, as have others, many times over. What we have here is a failure of Ben to listen, or to consider, any other view than his own. And his own view was arrived at by assuming a sequence that isn't spelled out in the verse, and superimposing it on the verse.

Does it say "was born so they COULD believe"? Or does it say "who believes now, was born of God"?

Typical subject-jump. 1 John 5:1 clearly says that he who is (now) believing, has been (prior to that belief) born of God.

You're denying that John1:12 places "believe", before "become-adopted-children".

Now you're stretching, trying to find sequence where none is specified.

5. Can "become-adopted" mean anything other than "become born of God"? No.

Non-issue. When we are born again (regeneration), adoption takes place, and we believe, receive forgiveness and justification, and are sealed with the Spirit. Adoption is not regeneration, like you insist it must be. In fact, your whole problem stems from a failure to understand the difference between logical progression of events, and temporal progression of events.

The salvation process temporally is nearly instantaneous, all of the components happening nearly simultaneously in temporal terms. We speak of the logical progression of events. Regeneration (the new birth) MUST happen first.

6. Can "he WHO believes, God gives right to become adopted", mean else than "belief precedes adoption"? No.

Non-issue, because adoption and regeneration are not the same.

Sorry to have to number the points; but to progress towards resolution, we need a structured discussion. If Ben is wrong, then cite the number and the reason. Without credible refutation, "Responsible Grace" prevails. Please answer each number and establish the refutation of Ben's points.

There you go again, trying to bias the discussion in your favor, so that you win, if a Calvinist does not play your game. I answered every one of your list of "killer" questions, and showed you to be wrong. Not because I was forced to play your game your way, but because I am not afraid to show your errors for all to see. Having answered those questions, I am not going to be dragged into incessant wrangling about my answers. They are clear, concise, and spot-on. Deal with it.

(1Jo 5:1) ESV
Let's see how you answer numbers 5-6 especially.
Oh it can be "end-of-discussion" --- no one is required to reply; not you, not me. But if you're claiming "victory", then please demonstrate which number(s) above, 1-5, are wrong, and why they are wrong.

Already done. Numerous times.

Those points can be ignored, but they cannot be answered. Not in favor of "predestination". If they can, then please answer.

This directed not just towards NBF, but to everyone.

Isn't it funny how Ben occasionally shows his true agenda? His real problem is with Predestination. In my opinion, he must lay awake nights trying to figure out how he can get around a doctrine clearly taught in the Bible. Most of his tirades against it are straw men, because he doesn't even rightly understand predestination, and has this nutty idea that responsibility and predestination are polar opposites.

Oh, and Ben, I answered every one of your questions, with ease. I didn't ignore a single one of them. Will you admit that you made a wrong statement in saying that "they can be ignored, but not answered"? I have clearly shown that you mis-spoke. Will you admit it?

have a nice day.....

 

[Rick Otto]

If man has no choice but to pursue sin (if his depravity is God's choice in leaving him to his unavoidable demise), then God is responsible; not man.

Man does have a choice, but it is predestined.

Scripture never asserts that "non-belief is somehow sovereignly ordained".

Sure it does. Many times.
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Now we can put that behind us. Free will is overturned & totaly refuted. Welcome to The Reformation.

as Paul said in Rom2, "God's patience and kindness is MEANT to lead you to repentance --- but your stubborn unrepentant heart is making God MAD."
"Unbelief", and "condemnedly-sinning", are the same thing. One does not exist without the other.

Forgive them both.

With respect, why don't you wear a shirt that answers Rom2:2-8, Matt23:13-15, Heb11:6, Rom11:21-23, and several other passages?

I try to keep a low fashion profile.

How 'bout Heb3:8-14, and 4:11? THAT would be a shirt I'd like to see.

WE make 'em where I work.
I could get you a quote, but we're expensive.

"Do not harden YOUR heart. Take care, lest your heart be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Be diligent to enter God's rest, lest any one of you FALL by imitating the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

So what? He's talking to people, not to God. People need warnings & encouragement. None of that disproves predestination. Just because you don't know what's next doesn't mean God doesn't. And He's not just a "know-it-all", He's a "created -it-all".

 

[frumanchu]

Next, is everyone here in favor of Calvinism, answering points 1-6 above.

Points 1-4 were answered clearly in [post=36019493]post 418[/post]. Why are you pretending as though your points are not answered when they clearly have been?

1. Does "Our Savior Jesus", denote "belief"? How could it not?

The epistle is written to a believer ("To Titus, my true child in a common faith")

2. Does "poured" denote "received"? How could it not?

As stated in the above post:

The "pouring out" of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which occurs after faith. The indwelling of the Spirit and the regeneration of the Spirit are disctinctly separate concepts.
​

3. Is "poured" listed as a quality of the REGENERATING Spirit? How could it not?

Because it is not listed as the MEANS by which the Spirit regenerates. To put it another way, the Spirit who saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal is that same Spirit which was poured out on us richly through Jesus.

4. If regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit, then how could regeneration precede belief? It could not.

This point is simply an erroneous conclusion proceeding from the three previous errors.

As for the other two:

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." - John 1:12-13 (ESV)

You're denying that John1:12 places "believe", before "become-adopted-children".
5. Can "become-adopted" mean anything other than "become born of God"? No.

Of course it can. Just because the two are inseparably related does not mean they are the exact same thing conceptually. It is true that all those who are born of God are adopted and vice versa. Simply stating it one way or the other in terms of grammatical order of words does not establish a chain of causality.

The error you have here is exactly the same as the error you have in Titus. You presume that the entire passage is meant to establish a clear chain of causality...right down to the choice of word order (which in addition to being fundamentally flawed is very dangerous when dealing with a translation)...when in fact it does not.

What you need this verse to say in order to prove your position was "To all who believe...He gave the right to become children of God, who were THEN born...of God." But that "then" does not exist in this passage. The phrase "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" simply refers back to the subjects of the passage in a descriptive/illustratory manner. It DOES NOT establish a chain of causality. It simply states, in like manner to passage in Titus, that those who believed and were given the right of adoption were those same people which were born of God.

6. Can "he WHO believes, God gives right to become adopted", mean else than "belief precedes adoption"? No.

False conclusion proceeding from error in #5. If adoption is not precisely synonymous with regeneration (being "born of God")...which it is not...then this conclusion is unsound.

Sorry to have to number the points; but to progress towards resolution, we need a structured discussion. If Ben is wrong, then cite the number and the reason.

Done (again).

 

[Ben johnson]

Scripture does not contradict itself. 1John5:1 specifically and clearly says that Regeneration come before faith.

Hi, NBF. No, Scripture doesn't; it only says "He who believes, is born of God". As I said, it perfectly allows the idea of "was born WHEN he first believed". And combined with John1:12, "received" denotes "belief", and "received precedes born-of-God". How can John1:12 not settle it? "Those who RECEIVED, to them He gave the right to become children of God".

That makes a case for "believed, precedes birth" --- 1Jn5:1 does not.

Titus does not say what you want it to, and it has been explained to you many, many times. Your denial does not overturn that fact.

The "subject", is "us"; "He saved US". How? By ...regeneration. Regeneration by Whom? By the POURED Spirit. Poured on whom, NBF? "Us", or "others"?

"Poured", is a quality of the regenerating Spirit. It's established and incontravertible that "poured" is "received" is "believed" --- and that reflects the quality of the REGENERATING Spirit.

And Titus does not overturn 1 John5:1.

But Jn1:12, does.

Therefore, your understanding of Titus needs to change, because 1 John5:1 clearly shows that how you view Titus is wrong.

Tell me how "poured", especially when it says "ON US", does not place "belief" before "regeneration".

It doesn't, necessarily, Jesus is the Lord whether or not we believe. His Lordship is not a result of our faith.

It doesn't say "Lord"; it says "Savior". Is He the Savior of the unsaved?

Assuming your conclusion. Something can be poured whether or not there is anything to receive it. Poured does NOT equal received.

He says, "He saved US", then "Spirit-whom-He-poured-on-US". At once, "poured", is relegated to "saved-us". So He's not poured on anyone else.

"Poured", is a quality of the regenerating Spirit; we can establish that "poured" equates to "received-by-belief-Spirit"; it is up to you to place "poured", after "regeneration". Can you do that, in Titus3:5-6?

The Spirit of God pours AFTER He regenerates. He doesn't pour His Spirit into dead vessels.

Please stay with Titus3:5-6; "Saved-US", by ...regeneration ...by the "poured-on-US Spirit".

Show me how "poured-on-us", happens after regeneration.

That is your mischaracterization of the verse. It is not what the verse says. Washing and regeneration are equivalent terms, and happen prior to reception of the Spirit.

Tell me the reasoning that can deny "whom-He-poured", is a quality of the regenerating-Spirit.

God saved us, through regeneration by the Spirit, whom He poured. Is regeneration by the "NOT-YET-POURED Spirit" (who will THEN be poured)? Or does he say "regeneration is by the Spirit-whom-He-poured"?

I don't think you argue that the Spirit is not poured out upon believers; the question, is timing --- we were regenerated by the POURED Spirit, or not?

It has been shown, many, many times. Your view is untwisted only if a classic pretzel is untwisted (pretzel sticks don't count).

I like pretzels; the soft Chicago kind, hot and fresh; a bit of mustard (my mouth is watering)....

Your mischaracterization of this verse is so ingrained that you can't even read it correctly. I can, and have denied every one of your mischaracterizations and misinterpretations of this verse, as have others, many times over. What we have here is a failure of Ben to listen, or to consider, any other view than his own.

I'm listening now, aren't I? And I know you're listening to me.

Is regeneration by the POURED Spirit, or is it by the NOT-YET-poured Spirit?

Typical subject-jump. 1 John 5:1 clearly says that he who is (now) believing, has been (prior to that belief) born of God.

The Greek structure allows "He who believes, is born of God" --- so translates the NASV.

John1:12 places "received", solidly before "born".

Now you're stretching, trying to find sequence where none is specified.

Again, "those-who-received", is presented as a qualitity of those WHO gain the right to become adopted children (born-of-God).

Therefore, "received", must precede "born". That is a sequence that exists apart from my, or your, opinion.

Non-issue. When we are born again (regeneration), adoption takes place, and we believe, receive forgiveness and justification, and are sealed with the Spirit.

I look forward to your thoughts on how "received" precedes "adopted" in Jn1:12. I'm sure you accept that "received", denotes "belief".

Adoption is not regeneration, like you insist it must be. In fact, your whole problem stems from a failure to understand the difference between logical progression of events, and temporal progression of events.

That is what we're trying to establish; well, you perceive it's established, and I'm challenging your perception...

The salvation process temporally is nearly instantaneous, all of the components happening nearly simultaneously in temporal terms.

THAT, ...is TRUE.

We speak of the logical progression of events. Regeneration (the new birth) MUST happen first.

Not if regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit.

Non-issue, because adoption and regeneration are not the same.

It's an important issue; if "they-WHO-received", are "given the right to become adopted children", then belief precedes birth.

I answered every one of your list of "killer" questions, and showed you to be wrong.

Uhm, first --- let me say I am very grateful you answered them. I appreciate you, NBF, and respect you. I know your heart truly does yearn after God --- there is no doubt.

I asked you to answer the specific points, because I thought it was a method we could focus on our differences in understanding, and see if we could move towards a resolution. Now --- I've challenged your answers --- it's my humble opinion that unless you can credibly assert that "regeneration is NOT by the poured Spirit" (haven't we established that "poured-on-us", and "God-saved-us", removes the claim that "poured" does not mean "to the saved"?) --- then credibility shifts towards "regeneration, by the poured-through-belief Spirit".

Having answered those questions, I am not going to be dragged into incessant wrangling about my answers.

With respect, I do not think you have established credibility with the answers you gave; we discussed "US" in Titus3, how it means "poured-on-us-THROUGH-Jesus-our-Savior" (and "US", contextually reflects "SAVED-us"). We've discussed before how "poured" appears on Acts10-11, where it clearly means "received", and occurs AFTER belief.

We also discussed John1:12; haven't we established that "those WHO received", are the ones who "are given the right to become adopted"? Is there any way that "received", does not precede "adopted"? I think that's established.

They are clear, concise, and spot-on. Deal with it.

I dealt with them, NBF; gently questioning how your answers "fit" Scripture. I don't think they do; we're not engaging in a "senseless wrangling", I'm only asking you to explain how "saved-us, by regeneration through the POURED-ON-US Spirit", does not place "poured", before "regeneration".

And I'm asking how "received" is not placed as a description of those WHO gain the right to become adopted. If Jn1:12 does subordinate "adopted" to "received", then that same meaning must transfer to 1Jn5:1; "belief" must precede "born". Same thing.

Isn't it funny how Ben occasionally shows his true agenda? His real problem is with Predestination. In my opinion, he must lay awake nights trying to figure out how he can get around a doctrine clearly taught in the Bible.

Heh heh --- if it's so "clearly taught", how have I written an entire text fully overturning it?

Most of his tirades against it are straw men, because he doesn't even rightly understand predestination, and has this nutty idea that responsibility and predestination are polar opposites.

No straw men here, NBF; mainly two passages, and sequence. "Poured" then "regenerated"; "received" then "adopted".

Oh, and Ben, I answered every one of your questions, with ease. I didn't ignore a single one of them. Will you admit that you made a wrong statement in saying that "they can be ignored, but not answered"? I have clearly shown that you mis-spoke. Will you admit it?

And I am very grateful, my friend. With sincere respect, I do not think you have sufficiently answered them; as I have responded in this post.

I look forward to your further answers, if you wish.

have a nice day.....

I hope yours was pleasant as well. Ours, was, well, wet. When so many places are suffering drought, we're getting tons and tons of rain.

 

[Ben johnson]

Jesus said "Unless you believe I am you will die in your sins."

Sin other than rejecting Him as Messiah remain a basis for condemnation and wrath.

Precisely, Steve. Yet the question remains, is our belief our choice, or God's?

 

[Ben johnson]

Man does have a choice, but it is predestined.

If "choice is predestined", how is it "free"?

Sure it does. Many times.
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

NASV translates "time/atimia", as "honor/common". Both being "saved". There is no indication that "atimia" connects to "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction".

Now we can put that behind us. Free will is overturned & totaly refuted. Welcome to The Reformation.

I see it differently...

Forgive them both.

He certainly will NOT do that, without repentance. Look at verse 8 --- "wrath and indignation". They will not receive "eternal life".

I try to keep a low fashion profile.

Oh, the right color, some kakhi slacks, docker shoes, I think it would work...

WE make 'em where I work.
I could get you a quote, but we're expensive.

I'm more interested in the responses of those who read that particular shirt.

"Do not harden YOUR heart. Take care, lest your heart be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Be diligent to enter God's rest, lest any one of you FALL by imitating the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

So what? He's talking to people, not to God. People need warnings & encouragement. None of that disproves predestination. Just because you don't know what's next doesn't mean God doesn't. And He's not just a "know-it-all", He's a "created -it-all".

So --- somehow heart-hardening by deceitful sin to falling away from God, is NOT presented as possible? And "falling/not-entering-rest, by imitating disobedience/unbelief", is also NOT a real danger?

Please tell me why "people need warnings and encouragement", if regneration is predestined, and then faith irresistibly follows"? With respect, isn't God sovereign enough?

 

[cygnusx1]

Precisely, Steve. Yet the question remains, is our belief our choice, or God's?

It's God's gift , and man's duty .

deny these and you are certainly in error.

 

[Ben johnson]

It's God's gift, and man's duty .

deny these and you are certainly in error.

I don't deny them, Cygnus --- I accept and celebrate them.

You and I define "duty", differently; I see the word as the same concept as in Rom8:12-14 --- "We are therefore under OBLIGATION to live not by the flesh; if we DO we must die. But if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

Duty, obligation.

To me, if "duty" is something unavoidable, which flows from (is caused by) God's monergistic regeneration, then it's not "duty" nor "obligation".

How can it be our "duty", to do what God sovereignly caused us TO do?

Webster's New World, Simon & Schuster, 1976 Prentice-Hall, pg153
Duty: 1.Obedience
2. conduct based on moral or legal obligation;
3. Any action required by one's position.
4. A sense of obligation.

I look forward to your thoughts on Titus3:5-6; is regeneration-us by the poured-on-us-Spirit? Or are we regenerated by the THEN-poured-on-us-Spirit?

IOW, is "poured-on-us", a quality of the REGENERATING (us) Spirit?

Is "right-of-adoption", given to "those who received Jesus"? IOW, is "those-who-received", a quality of those WHO are given "right-of-adoption"?

Do those qualities exist at the time of the action? Or do they follow after the action? Please tell me the reasoning of them "following".

 

[drstevej]

Precisely, Steve. Yet the question remains, is our belief our choice, or God's?

That was not the question. It is the question you are trying to substitute.

Curious, Ben as a mod do you read the reports from this forum?

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi, NBF. No, Scripture doesn't; it only says "He who believes, is born of God". As I said, it perfectly allows the idea of "was born WHEN he first believed". And combined with John1:12, "received" denotes "belief", and "received precedes born-of-God". How can John1:12 not settle it? "Those who RECEIVED, to them He gave the right to become children of God".

Ben, You are ignoring the tenses of the verbs in 1 John 5:1. He who IS believing (a current state, which began in the past and continues into the present) HAS BEEN (an event which happened in the past) born of God (regenerated). How can one believe before one is born? The disconnect in your thinking I believe results from differing views of what regeneration means. You tend to want to view regeneration as more than just the act of God giving life to the sinner's heart, so that he can believe, receive, and enter in to the Kingdom. Modern theology has blurred the lines, and defined regeneration as something different than the New Birth, and defined "born again" as the entire process of salvation, rather than just the initial act of God on the man's heart.

That makes a case for "believed, precedes birth" --- 1Jn5:1 does not. The "subject", is "us"; "He saved US". How? By ...regeneration. Regeneration by Whom? By the POURED Spirit. Poured on whom, NBF? "Us", or "others"?

"Poured", is a quality of the regenerating Spirit. It's established and incontravertible that "poured" is "received" is "believed" --- and that reflects the quality of the REGENERATING Spirit.
But Jn1:12, does. Tell me how "poured", especially when it says "ON US", does not place "belief" before "regeneration".

Explain to us how a dead man can believe. Does it not make more sense to see that God regenerates the man's heart, and THEN the man believes? Does a baby draw breath before it is born?

You're expending all kinds of effort to make Titus say something that it does not say. 1 John 5:1 is absolute, and clear: regeneration precedes faith. Ongoing Faith is the evidence of prior regeneration. Just as a baby breathes after it is born, so a man believes after he is regenerated.

It doesn't say "Lord"; it says "Savior". Is He the Savior of the unsaved?
He says, "He saved US", then "Spirit-whom-He-poured-on-US". At once, "poured", is relegated to "saved-us". So He's not poured on anyone else.

Just as Lord is a title, and is not dependent on our belief, so Savior is the same. He is the Savior, whether we believe or not. His being the Savior does not depend on our belief. He is OUR Savior, when we believe. That does not make regeneration a subsequent act to our exercising faith. Regeneration is an act of God, which causes us to be able to believe, which we willingly do. It is illogical and unscriptural to insist that we first believe, while we are dead in sins and alienated from God, and then God regenerates us. I don't understand why you resist this so.

"Poured", is a quality of the regenerating Spirit; we can establish that "poured" equates to "received-by-belief-Spirit"; it is up to you to place "poured", after "regeneration". Can you do that, in Titus3:5-6?
Please stay with Titus3:5-6; "Saved-US", by ...regeneration ...by the "poured-on-US Spirit".

Show me how "poured-on-us", happens after regeneration.
Tell me the reasoning that can deny "whom-He-poured", is a quality of the regenerating-Spirit.

God saved us, through regeneration by the Spirit, whom He poured. Is regeneration by the "NOT-YET-POURED Spirit" (who will THEN be poured)? Or does he say "regeneration is by the Spirit-whom-He-poured"?

Ben, you are twisting and turning, trying to establish an illogical concept, which the passage does not teach. It is not indicating any kind of sequence here. You are injecting sequence where there is none.

I don't think you argue that the Spirit is not poured out upon believers; the question, is timing --- we were regenerated by the POURED Spirit, or not?

Again, I pointed out that there is a difference between the logical progression, which we use to help us understand how we are saved, and the temporal progression, which is nearly a simultaneous confluence of events. Temporally, man is regenerated, believes and is filled with the Spirit as an instantaneous event. Logically, he is regenerated, then believes, and then is filled with the Spirit. He is born, then breathes in (believes), and his lungs are filled with air (filled with the Spirit).

I like pretzels; the soft Chicago kind, hot and fresh; a bit of mustard (my mouth is watering)....

I was never big on pretzels, and even less so now, because I have to watch my diet.

I'm listening now, aren't I? And I know you're listening to me.

But are you really hearing what I'm saying? Are you considering it, weighing it in your mind, thinking about it, or are you just immediately running and looking for a way to shoot it down, and claim another "win"?

Is regeneration by the POURED Spirit, or is it by the NOT-YET-poured Spirit?

Regeneration is not pouring. You are confusing and melding terms that are dissimilar. We are filled with the Spirit AFTER we are regenerated, and believe. Logically, that is the order of events. Temporally, they are usually simultaneous, or nearly so.

The Greek structure allows "He who believes, is born of God" --- so translates the NASV.

You must take the verb tenses and voices into account, and they clearly show that "he who believes was born of God" prior to his believing.

John1:12 places "received", solidly before "born".
Again, "those-who-received", is presented as a qualitity of those WHO gain the right to become adopted children (born-of-God).

No sequence is being established in this verse, Ben. Your desperation to find a sequence has caused you to read into the verse something that is not there.

John 1:12-13 (ESV) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
​

Verse 13 shoots your whole theory down, because you teach that we are regenerated AFTER we make the choice to believe, thereby making regeneration a result of our will to believe, and John clearly shows that being born of God was the act of God, not of our will. We didn't cause it by our choice to believe. There is no sequence being established here, for the sense of the verses clearly shows that they believe BECAUSE they were born of God, AND THEN were given the right to become children of God. What does it mean to be "given the right"? It means that because He birthed us, and we then believed, we are eligible to receive the inheritance, and all the rights and privileges pertaining thereunto.

Therefore, "received", must precede "born". That is a sequence that exists apart from my, or your, opinion.
I look forward to your thoughts on how "received" precedes "adopted" in Jn1:12. I'm sure you accept that "received", denotes "belief".

No, it does not. How can an unborn baby receive breath prior to being born? Obviously, the baby cannot breathe air until after it is born. An unregenerate man cannot receive the Spirit prior to his regeneration, because elsewhere in scripture it is taught that new wine is not put into old wineskins, but into new wineskins, a clear and direct allusion to regeneration prior to receiving, and infilling. Regeneration results in belief, belief results in the infilling of the Spirit, and the infilling results in adoption as children of God. THAT is the proper sequence.

That is what we're trying to establish; well, you perceive it's established, and I'm challenging your perception...

And failing miserably.

THAT, ...is TRUE.

one small victory....

Not if regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit.

Ben, the Spirit is received AFTER regeneration, not before. New wine, and old wineskins, remember?

It's an important issue; if "they-WHO-received", are "given the right to become adopted children", then belief precedes birth.

Logically, that is ludicrous! They are not given the right to become children of God until they have first been regenerated, which then brings faith, which results in the infilling of the Spirit (new wine into a new wineskin, (heart), which then qualifies the newly born, infilled believer to be a child of God, having had their sins forgiven, being clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and sanctified to his service.

Uhm, first --- let me say I am very grateful you answered them. I appreciate you, NBF, and respect you. I know your heart truly does yearn after God --- there is no doubt.

I wasn't going to, for reasons I have stated before, but for the benefit of the readers and lurkers, I felt it necessary to try one more time to get through to you, and help you see that you are holding illogical, contradictory theology which does violence to the Word of God.

I asked you to answer the specific points, because I thought it was a method we could focus on our differences in understanding, and see if we could move towards a resolution. Now --- I've challenged your answers --- it's my humble opinion that unless you can credibly assert that "regeneration is NOT by the poured Spirit" (haven't we established that "poured-on-us", and "God-saved-us", removes the claim that "poured" does not mean "to the saved"?) --- then credibility shifts towards "regeneration, by the poured-through-belief Spirit".

Leave it to you to try and slip something through the cracks, which you would later use against me. I have shown in detail why regeneration logically precedes faith in Christ, and if you would think for a minute, you would see that this really does no violence to the rest of your theology. We Calvinists have never stated that the entire Christian walk is monergistic from start to finish, despite your often charges that we say that. Regeneration is monergistic, and everything following that is synergistic, i.e. God and man working together and cooperating to bring the believer to perfection, to the full measure of the mark of the high calling in Christ Jesus. Please read that statement again, and tatoo it on your brain. Regeneration is monergistic, and the rest is synergistic. Calvinism teaches that, and always has.

With respect, I do not think you have established credibility with the answers you gave; we discussed "US" in Titus3, how it means "poured-on-us-THROUGH-Jesus-our-Savior" (and "US", contextually reflects "SAVED-us"). We've discussed before how "poured" appears on Acts10-11, where it clearly means "received", and occurs AFTER belief.

I have overturned your assertions, from both a logical and scriptural basis.

We also discussed John1:12; haven't we established that "those WHO received", are the ones who "are given the right to become adopted"? Is there any way that "received", does not precede "adopted"? I think that's established.

Ben, that is not the point in contention. Of course, those who have received are the ones given the right to become children of God, i.e. adopted. But they received because they were born of God, not by the will of man, which means that their belief was not the reason they were regenerated, (born) but the result of that regeneration.

I dealt with them, NBF; gently questioning how your answers "fit" Scripture. I don't think they do; we're not engaging in a "senseless wrangling", I'm only asking you to explain how "saved-us, by regeneration through the POURED-ON-US Spirit", does not place "poured", before "regeneration".

And I have explained it to you, as others have also, many, many times. You claim you are listening, but the evidence shows otherwise. You refuse to consider that you have misinterpreted and misread scriptures, trying to establish sequence where there is none, and refusing to truly consider that you could be wrong. It becomes senseless wrangling when you refuse to accept clear, concise, and overwhelming correction and explanation of these things, all to avoid being found to be wrong on any point, or to accept that your word is not the final word, especially where you are clearly shown to be wrong.

And I'm asking how "received" is not placed as a description of those WHO gain the right to become adopted. If Jn1:12 does subordinate "adopted" to "received", then that same meaning must transfer to 1Jn5:1; "belief" must precede "born". Same thing.

Not the same thing. How can a dead man believe? How can a dead man draw breath? How can a baby breathe before it is born? How can the Spirit of God infill and indwell a dead-in-sins heart, prior to regeneration? How can new wine be put into an old wineskin, without causing it to be destroyed?

BABIES BREATHE AFTER THEY ARE BORN; MEN BELIEVE AFTER THEY ARE REBORN (REGENERATED). New wine is poured into new wineskins. God inhabits the Temple AFTER it is rebuilt.

Heh heh --- if it's so "clearly taught", how have I written an entire text fully overturning it?

Many people waste their time on a lot of different things....You haven't "fully overturned" anything, except in your own mind, and we're attempting to bring you to your senses.

No straw men here, NBF; mainly two passages, and sequence. "Poured" then "regenerated"; "received" then "adopted".

The Spirit is poured after regeneration, new wine into the new wineskin. Adoption is after received, we don't disagree on that, but received is after regeneration, which you refuse to see or believe.

And I am very grateful, my friend. With sincere respect, I do not think you have sufficiently answered them; as I have responded in this post.

And I have answered them in more detail, and given you plenty to think about, if you only will do so, and quit trying so hard to "score points" to avoid being found wrong on anything. Nobody is that good. Your theology needs an adjustment.

I look forward to your further answers, if you wish.

Done (again) for the umpteenth time.

 

[nobdysfool]

]I hope yours was pleasant as well. Ours, was, well, wet. When so many places are suffering drought, we're getting tons and tons of rain.

I've been to Tulsa, and thought it was pretty nice. Have you ever figured out why there is that echo at the "Center of the Universe"? The Philbrook Museum is pretty nice too. Too bad the 57 Plymouth time capsule wasn't in better shape when it was unearthed a couple weeks ago. I buy raw honey made in Sapulpa, not too far away from Tulsa. I had (have) a lady friend who used to live in Sapulpa. I've lost track of her, since I've remarried. She was a marriage possibility at one time, but she wasn't ready, or interested at that time. God gave me a gem of a wife, and I have no complaints or regrets. But I do have a soft spot in my heart for Tulsa....

 

[Markea]

Even though I presently cringe at the idea of election -- how can it be refuted after reading Romans 9?

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[4] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[5]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[6] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[8] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?



(emphasis mine)

How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

It can easily be refuted when a person understands that Romans 9 is about God's purpose according to ELECTION..

Calvinists often apply Romans 9 to SALVATION.. although God's purpose according to election is not what calvinists apply to salvation.. Chapter 10 of Romans speaks of salvation.. ie, whoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be SAVED..

God's purpose in election is this.. (Romans 9:7-8)

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

This is what the entire basis of Romans just finished telling us.. that ALL in Adam are condemned.. ie, in the flesh.. there's none righteous, no not one..

So how many does that make righteous, who are children of the flesh..?

That's correct.. ZERO... NOTTA...

This is what happens when we confound election with salvation.. if they were the same thing, then they wouldn't have two different names..

God elects that ALL IN ADAM (ie, children of the flesh) are under condemnation, and that ALL IN CHRIST (sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise) are freely justified by placing their faith and trust in Him.. we believe God's testimony concerning His Son and then God, knowing the heart, purifies the heart by faith..

Abraham's two sons are a picture of the Christian life.. as Ishmael comes first according to the FLESH.. and yet he will NOT be heir with the son of promise.. which is Christ in us.. our hope of glory.. the new man in us.. ie. the elder shall serve the younger..

We're to PUT OFF the old man who is corrupt according to deceitful lusts, and put on the new man who is created (is us) in righteousness and true holiness..

So, even the believers old nature remains condemned.. it's not reformed.. it is crucified with Christ..

That is God's purpose according to election..

 

[Rick Otto]

If "choice is predestined", how is it "free"?

It isn't. Should it be? Why?

ASV translates "time/atimia", as "honor/common". Both being "saved". There is no indication that "atimia" connects to "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction".

The indication is the context. Election is unto salvation.

He certainly will NOT do that, without repentance.

No, I meant YOU forgive them.

So --- somehow heart-hardening by deceitful sin to falling away from God, is NOT presented as possible?

Of course it's presented as possible.
That doesn't mean whatever actualy happens wasn't predestined.

And "falling/not-entering-rest, by imitating disobedience/unbelief", is also NOT a real danger?

Of course it's a real danger, but that doesn't mean it isn't predestined.

Please tell me why "people need warnings and encouragement", if regneration is predestined, and then faith irresistibly follows"?

God made it that way. We need food & get hungry even tho we're destined to die. Why? It seemed good to God.
Why eat if were just gonna die? Why live? Why create anything at all? Why? Why ask why?
Predestination does not eliminate cause & effect, it orders it.

With respect, isn't God sovereign enough?

Sovereign enough not to have created in the first place.