Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

[Van]

Well I am determined to present my views clearly, even as others claim they are confused.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well I am determined to present my views clearly, even as others claim they are confused.

Amen to that.
I must admire your calm, utterly reasonable stubborness.

 

[Ben johnson]

Romans 9:16 clearly indicates salvation does not depend on a person committing themselves to keeping the commands of Christ, or believing that Jesus is the Christ, but upon God who has mercy upon whom He has mercy. Salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast. Scripture is clear, we are told to believe and trust and fully commit to Jesus, this is the work God requires of us. But God who knows our heart, evaluates our faith, and if it is heartfelt rather than rootless, God has mercy on us and places us in Christ. So salvation is by grace through faith and not of works.

Hi, Van. I'm not understanding you here. Looking at 1Jn5:10:
"He who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the witness that God has borne concerning His Son."

How does Rom9:16 indicate that "salvation does not depend on ...believing Jesus is the Christ"? It only says, "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy". Calvinists think this expresses "limited atonement" --- but when compared with Rom11:32 ("...so that God might show mercy to ALL"), it only reflects that "salvation is NOT of ourselves, it is the gift of God". Like Eph2:8-10 says.

And like expressed in John1:12-13; verse 13 says "the begottenness (salvation) is not of flesh nor of man's will"; but verse 12 plainly conveys that BECOMING "begotten", is by belief and receiving Jesus.

we are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. If this protection could fail because we fail to continue to believe in Jesus, God's protection would be meaningless. The clause, "through faith" describes how God protects us, not a filter for that protection. Note the verse reads we are protected by God's power, not by our power or by God's and our power. Nope, it reads we are kept by God's power and how does God do this? By protecting our faith.

And yet, passages like 2Tim2:11-13 present the true possibility of "if we ENDURE, we shall also reign with Him (saved); if we DENY Him, He will deny us (unsaved); if we are FAITHLESS (unsaved), yet He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

A.T.Robertson on Eph2:8, says: "Grace is GOD'S part, faith is OURS." The idea of "drifting away" is clear in places like Heb2:1-3; we are charged to "pay close attention to ourselves and our teaching". Perseverance IN faith is charged to us: "For as you DO you will save yourselves and those who hear you."

Turning again to the mistaken view that when Jesus says we must abide in Him, Jesus is referring to our effort, lets go over it again. What the verse says is we must abide in Him and Him in us. Now the only way for us to abide in Him is to be born again and to be placed in Christ by God, 1 Corinthians 1:30. And then once we have been made firm in Christ, having been spiritually altered by the circumision of Christ, we arise in Christ a new creation. After this, we are indwelt. In summary, Jesus is saying in John 15, you must be born again to bear fruit. Same thing Jesus says in Matthew 13.

2Cor5:17 says "if any man be 'IN CHRIST', he is a new creation". What do you think of Paul's charge to "examine ourselves to SEE if we are IN CHRIST"? 2Cor13:5

Please read 1Jn2:26-28. Doesn't it charge us "to abide in Christ"? Watching ourselves against deceivers?

"And now, little children, abide in Him, SO THAT when He appears we may ...not shrink in shame at His coming."

Do you think "shrink-in-shame" (by "not-abiding") isn't presented as real possibility? And if it IS possible, can it still be saved?

Turning now to Hebrews 3:14, here is how it reads, "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."
Note again, it does not say we continue to partake in Christ if we hold fast to the end." Some, like you read this as a challenge, we must hold on tight or we will fall out of Christ's ark. I do not. To paraphrase, we have been placed in Christ, and therefore share in Christ, if we hold fast the faith we had when we were saved. This is because God protects our faith, and so from the beginning when it was protected till we die, we know we are saved if our faith never wavers.

Most Calvinists assert that "saving-faith is a GIFT from God" --- completely removing man's choice and accountability. If God "protects our faith", then how is that conceptionally different? You and I agree that "man HAS a choice to believe"; where is the idea that "once we DO believe, we cannot then DISbelieve"?

The context of Heb3:12-14, is admonition --- to "take care that we not be deceived by sin, to an UNBELIEVING heart that falls away from God." How does "partners IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end", not convey "hold-on-tight-or-fall"?

Note Hebrews 4:1, let us fear, revere, hold in highest esteem, trust, God while the promise remains of entering His rest, being placed in Christ. This is not looking forward to salvation in the afterlife. This is looking forward to the reward of being placed in Christ. Look at verse 2!! Or verse 3!!

It compares us to the Israelites. Verse 3, says: "We who BELIEVED".

"Let us therefore be diligent TO enter His rest, lest anyone FALL by following their example of disobedience (and unbelief!)." Heb4:11

Can you contend that "enter His rest", isn't speaking of Heaven?
Can you contend that "fall", does not oppose "enter His rest"?
Can you contend that "imitate their disobedience and unbelief", does not place "continue IN faith", as a constant choice?

What did they share in? The gospel of Christ. They fully shared in it, they understood it. And they accepted it superficially, they did not believe it from the heart. Yes, exactly as Hebrews 3:12 says they are falling away due to their unbelieving heart!!! Ben it all fits together like a picture of Almighty love. Restoration is impossible not because they are falling, but because of their unbelieving heart. They have the gospel, and their is no other. As long as they have an unbelieving heart, they will not turn back to God's salvation. They turned to God when it was a me, me, me thing, I will get eternal life and that is good, but they turned away, when they did not trust enough in God to endure suffering and hardship.

Superficial, but not-REALLY-saved? It says, "partners in the Holy Spirit". It says "tasted of the heavenly gift, tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come" --- using the same word for "taste" (geuomai) as "Jesus TASTED death", in Heb2:9. It says "renew AGAIN to repentance". So they:

1. WERE repentant
2. Partnered in the Holy Spirit (see "metochos" in 3:1 & 14)
3. Tasted heavenly gift, God's good word and powers to come

Do you think it's credible to say "they weren't REALLY saved"?

You start off repeating the same idea, sharing in something in one verse implies sharing in the same thing in another view. As I said, this has no merit. Say we share nachos on Monday, and Nachos on Thursday, and we share a Chinese meal on Satuday. To draw from Monday and Thursday, we shared Nachos on Saturday does not make sense.

But if a word ("taste") means Jesus DIED (in Heb2:9), how can the same word just a chapter or two later NOT mean "joined the heavenly gift of salvation"? It's like how some people deny that "apopheugo-escaped corruption through the epignosis-true-saved-knowledge of the Kurios-Lord and Soter-Savior Jesus Christ" denotes saved in 2Pet1:1-4, but they say it refers to NOT-SAVED in 2:20-22. There is only one difference between the two; ch1 uses "corruption", ch2 uses "defilements". How are those in ch2, NOT saved? (That is, until they become "again entangled in defilements and OVERCOME; better to have never KNOWN [epiginosko] the way of righteousness, than HAVING KNOWN it to have TURNED AWAY FROM it [epistrepho-ek].")

Looking forward to your reply...

 

[Ben johnson]

That is completely false. Show me where Calvinists teach that God is a respector of persons. I don't want to see your misguided, fallacious pseudo-logical conclusions about what Calvinists teach. I want you to show me in their own words where Calvinists teach that God is a respector of persons or retract your statement.

Calvinsts perceive that faith is the CONSEQUENCE of God's election (that's the sequence). IOW, "those whom God CHOOSES, turn to Him and believe".

But verses like Acts10:34-35 say "God is NOT partial (no respecter of persons), but evey man who reveres God and does right, is WELCOME to Him". That's the opposite sequence.

Calvinism also asserts that "those who ARE saved, were chosen from the start BY God". So HE is the "ultimate respecter of persons", HE is "partial".

It's the same word in Acts10:34, as in Col3:24. If he who does WRONG will receive the due consequence (because God is NOT-PARTIAL/no-respecter), and he who follows God is (therefore) welcome, then how is it different in "saving-faith" (God being partial/respecter in ELECTING whom HE chooses)?

You see, "God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES", places belief as causal to salvation; not the reverse (which Calvinism requires)...

Rm3:26

 

[frumanchu]

I see you declined to meet my above request:

I don't want to see your misguided, fallacious pseudo-logical conclusions about what Calvinists teach. I want you to show me in their own words where Calvinists teach that God is a respector of persons or retract your statement.

Calvinsts perceive that faith is the CONSEQUENCE of God's election (that's the sequence). IOW, "those whom God CHOOSES, turn to Him and believe".

But verses like Acts10:34-35 say "God is NOT partial (no respecter of persons), but evey man who reveres God and does right, is WELCOME to Him". That's the opposite sequence.

Context, Ben. Context!

What was the cirumstance under which Peter said, "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality?" It was the revelation from God that the scope of God's covenant people had been expanded beyond the nation of Israel to every nation. God did not show partiality to Israel and give them only the Gospel, but expanded it to the ends of the Earth.

What you have done is taken this portion of this verse out of its original context and applied it in a scope it was never intended to be applied. Using your same logic I could ask why God is "partial" towards believers only rather than applying the work of Christ to all men.

Calvinism also asserts that "those who ARE saved, were chosen from the start BY God". So HE is the "ultimate respecter of persons", HE is "partial".

This is simply a continuation of your error from above. Election is unconditional. That means there is no condition of these men that gained them favor in His sight.

It's the same word in Acts10:34, as in Col3:24. If he who does WRONG will receive the due consequence (because God is NOT-PARTIAL/no-respecter), and he who follows God is (therefore) welcome, then how is it different in "saving-faith" (God being partial/respecter in ELECTING whom HE chooses)?

Because election is an act of pure grace. If God were impartial in the manner you're trying to argue, there would be no salvation, Ben, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death.

You see, "God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES", places belief as causal to salvation; not the reverse (which Calvinism requires)...

Ben, how many times do I have to explain basic causality to you before you comprehend it?

Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation. I have said that repeatedly and consistently since day one of our discussions. For you to claim otherwise is nothing short of blatant misrepresentation.

Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation.
Christ's righteousness is the material cause of our salvation.
Election is the formal cause of our salvation.
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of our salvation.
God's glory is the final cause of our salvation.

All of these things can be said to be the cause of our salvation.

 

[Ben johnson]

I see you declined to meet my above request:

I want you to show me in their own words where Calvinists teach that God is a respector of persons or retract your statement.

There was nothing to decline; I never said that "Calvinists teach God is a respecter of persons". Predestined-election is full of contradictions; it holds that "God elects whom He CHOOSES", but also asserts "God is not partial (not respecter of persons". That's a contradiction.

Ben, how many times do I have to explain basic causality to you before you comprehend it?

Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation. I have said that repeatedly and consistently since day one of our discussions. For you to claim otherwise is nothing short of blatant misrepresentation.

Faith is the instrumental cause of salvation.
Christ's righteousness is the material cause of our salvation.
Election is the formal cause of our salvation.
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of our salvation.
God's glory is the final cause of our salvation.

All of these things can be said to be the cause of our salvation.

Annnnnd --- in Matt23:13 (and Luke11:52), those who were PREVENTED from entering in ---

"it was GOD'S will that they NOT enter, so the Pharisees were nothing less than God's instrumental means to KEEP them from entering in"?

Is that right?

 

[frumanchu]

There was nothing to decline; I never said that "Calvinists teach God is a respecter of persons".

Here is what you said that prompted my request:

Van does not believe that God's mercy is "arbitrary", nor that "God is a respecter of persons"; like Calvinists do.

Generally people use quotation marks to quote people, Ben.

You also made the claim that Calvinists are "heard to say" that men can be faithlessly saved. Either provide the quotes or retract the statement, Ben.

Predestined-election is full of contradictions; it holds that "God elects whom He CHOOSES", but also asserts "God is not partial (not respecter of persons". That's a contradiction.

Did you not READ what I wrote, Ben? You are ripping this verse out of its context and misapplying it, then declaring a contradiction based on your strawman argument.

Annnnnd --- in Matt23:13 (and Luke11:52), those who were PREVENTED from entering in ---

"it was GOD'S will that they NOT enter, so the Pharisees were nothing less than God's instrumental means to KEEP them from entering in"?

Is that right?

You could view it that way, yes. If God had purposed to bring them in, the Pharisees could not have prevented it. God allowed their false teachings knowing full well that the result would be men following after them to their destruction.

It should be pointed out though that you are framing this as though had God not ordained the false teaching of the Pharisees these people would otherwise have come into the Kingdom.

 

[pcwilkins]

There was nothing to decline; I never said that "Calvinists teach God is a respecter of persons"

So what exactly does this say:

Calvinism asserts that "man is elect by God's SOVEREIGN choice" --- casting God forever as the ultimate "respecter of persons".

Don't take this wrong, Ben, but you have noticeable slipped into the habit of using quote marks to express what you think of Calvinism - which gives the impression that that is what Calvinists actually believe.

For example, if I said that Arminianism teaches that "Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all" - that's just an example - does it not appear that Arminians actually believe (and say) that Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all?

You see the problem?

Peter

 

[cygnusx1]

So what exactly does this say:



Don't take this wrong, Ben, but you have noticeable slipped into the habit of using quote marks to express what you think of Calvinism - which gives the impression that that is what Calvinists actually believe.

For example, if I said that Arminianism teaches that "Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all" - that's just an example - does it not appear that Arminians actually believe (and say) that Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all?

You see the problem?

Peter

i think the problem is worse than a bad habit of accidently quoting someone ........... it is also just plain contradiction to say I haven't said this and that , then someone comes along and shows he has ........

God Bless Peter
I have to get to work now

 

[Ben johnson]

To pcwilkins:
The quote "Man is elected by God's sovereign choice" --- does reflect Calvinists' view.

Right?

The quote, "God is a respecter of persons" --- is the concept that is CAST by the previous quote.

Thus the first quote is assigned to Calvinists.
The second quote is assigned to the FIRST QUOTE.

You see the problem?

No, I don't. It is the very idea of "sovereign election" that (itself!) reveals God as "the ultimate respecter of persons".

For example, if I said that Arminianism teaches that "Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all" - that's just an example - does it not appear that Arminians actually believe (and say) that Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all?

Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything effective --- because if election was a prior monergistic-unilateral-sovereign-DECISION, then the Cross effected nothing, but only fulfilled/demonstrated/reflected that prior sovereign choice.

As another writer (on the OSNAS subject) says, "The Cross becomes mere pageantry; because Jesus died to save only those whom God had FORMERLY CHOSEN".

Jesus' death did not EFFECT salvation, but only fulfilled/demonstrated/reflected what God had DECREED.

To the contrary, Scripture says that "Jesus died that whosoever (WILL) believe, may be saved".

...and the "whosoever WILL" is clear in verses like Rev22:17...

I have no time right now; but tonight I would like to address several points you made on the other thread. You hold a view of "Fatalism" --- that man is incapable of conscious choice (you say even your choice of cereal this morning was decided from previous events). Where is the accountability? Were is the responsibility? We are saved BECAUSE we believe, while others are condemned BECAUSE they disbelieve. That's the only way "JUST", works.

Calvinists also require a specific sequence of logic; man must have his eyes opened BEFORE he can believe. But each verse used to support that sequence, can be refuted in that understanding. The sequence is "seek God and turn to Him, and THEN He receives you".

Calvinsts (including you) assert "we are born again, and THEN we believe". The clearest passage on "born again", is Roman6; it presents the idea as including "dying to sin (UNITED in His death), and likewise united in His resurrection". All of that is caused BY belief.

So the sequence required by Calvinism of "born-again and then believe", is nowhere found in Scripture; instead it's "born-again THROUGH belief, BY the received Spirit and Son."

I'll give you many Scriptural citations tonight.

You also made the claim that Calvinists are "heard to say" that men can be faithlessly saved. Either provide the quotes or retract the statement, Ben.

I don't have extensive files of what people said (like one or two others do), so that I can try to accuse them of something untoward. But I have a memory of what has been said. Things like:

"Unsteadfast" in 2Pet3:17 doesn't mean "unsaved".
"Unfaithful" in 2Tim2:11-14, doesn't mean "unsaved".
(God's faithfulness TO us, in SPITE of our unfaithfulness in 2Tim2 keeps us saved!)

Do you deny that "unsteadfast" is possible in 2Pet3:17?
Do you deny that "unfaithful" is possible in 2Tim2:11-14?

 

[pcwilkins]

To pcwilkins:
The quote "Man is elected by God's sovereign choice" --- does reflect Calvinists' view.

Right?

The quote, "God is a respecter of persons" --- is the concept that is CAST by the previous quote.

Thus the first quote is assigned to Calvinists.
The second quote is assigned to the FIRST QUOTE.

If the second quote is not a 'quote' but a 'concept', then don't use quotation marks. Simple.

Peter

 

[cygnusx1]

If the second quote is not a 'quote' but a 'concept', then don't use quotation marks. Simple.

Peter

do you wanna bet

 

[nobdysfool]

So what exactly does this say:

Don't take this wrong, Ben, but you have noticeable slipped into the habit of using quote marks to express what you think of Calvinism - which gives the impression that that is what Calvinists actually believe.

For example, if I said that Arminianism teaches that "Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all" - that's just an example - does it not appear that Arminians actually believe (and say) that Jesus' death didn't accomplish anything at all?

You see the problem?

Peter

You have exposed exactly what the problem is. Over and over, Ben repeats things, despite them being refuted repeatedly, because he believes that as long as HE says they're not refuted, then they aren't. He projects his own unwillingness to be corrected onto reality, and declares that his reality is the only one. Not in so many words, but that is the logical conclusion of his thought processes.

He has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not really understand what Calvinism actually teaches, but relies on his mental caricature of Calvinism to establish his contrary view. Calvinists have repeatedly tried to correct that caricature, to no avail, because Ben will not be taught by anyone, but fancies himself a teacher.

Ben makes many contradictory statements, and erects straw man after straw man, and has demonstrated an absolute hatred for the Doctrines of Predestination and Election because of the damage that those doctrines do to his "Responsible Grace" theory. His over-riding goal is to set those doctrines completely aside, and to expunge them from scripture. He will deny that, but when one weighs the evidence, it can be clearly seen that this is his goal.

He is on record as believing some unscriptural doctrines regarding the final destination of the damned, yet somehow he is given a pass on that. He often references in an oblique fashion the many exchanges he has had with frumanchu, where fru has shown that Ben's ideas about losing salvation and eternal security are not scriptural, yet Ben continues to promote them, as though fru had not refuted them .

Lest anyone believe that I have attacked Ben without warrant, all one has to do is research the many threads which are accessible, and see that I am not making unwarranted charges, but telling the truth. I do not judge his teachings with regard to him as a person (no ad hominem here), but with regard to the Word of God. I have nothing against Ben as a person, but find his doctrinal positions to be unscriptural, and illogical.

I do not doubt his salvation at all, but pray that he learn more perfectly the Way, and teach Truth and not error.

 

[Ben johnson]

Jim --- I thought we were friends. If I had not a spirit of forgiveness, I would be hurt. But I believe you are motivated by what you consider as "truth".

You have exposed exactly what the problem is. Over and over, Ben repeats things, despite them being refuted repeatedly, because he believes that as long as HE says they're not refuted, then they aren't. He projects his own unwillingness to be corrected onto reality, and declares that his reality is the only one. Not in so many words, but that is the logical conclusion of his thought processes.

Let's look at some of the things I've refuted.

2Cor4:3-4 was taken to be "PROOF" that God must remove the veil over a man's heart (which the devil placed), BEFORE he CAN believe. But 2Cor3:16 very clearly says, "WHEN a man turns to the Lord, THEN the veil is removed."

Is the "veil-removed and THEN turn-to-Lord" sequence refuted, or not?


1Cor2:14 is presumed to mean that "natural/unspiritual man CANNOT understand (even JESUS and SALVATION), because they are spiritually discerned". But verse 12 says "We have RECEIVED the Spirit of God that we may KNOW the (spiritual) things freely given by God".

So the spiritual understanding of verse 14, is from the RECEIVED Holy Spirit. Unless you can show any way for the Spirit to be received BEFORE belief, then the Calvinistic understanding of 1Cor2:14 is refuted.

Right, or wrong?



Mark4:11-12 is presumed to be in support of "predestination". (Thinking that GOD has closed their eyes, so they CANNOT believe and be saved --- because it has not been given to them TO believe.) But the parallel passage in Matt13:15 very plainly says "they closed their OWN eyes and ears"!

Therefore the Calvinistic interpretation of Mark4:11-12 is refuted. It was not GIVEN to them to know, because they had not BELIEVED Jesus. Right or wrong?

He has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not really understand what Calvinism actually teaches, but relies on his mental caricature of Calvinism to establish his contrary view. Calvinists have repeatedly tried to correct that caricature, to no avail, because Ben will not be taught by anyone, but fancies himself a teacher.

Calvinistic paradigms are slippery. Words are re-defined, meanings are interpreted. Changes-in-subject are asserted; a word means ONE thing in ONE verse, and changes into something ELSE in the NEXT (sometimes even in the SAME VERSE!). And then I'm condemned for not getting it "exactly right". "All men" in Romans5:18 (changes within the SAME VERSE!). "Brethren" in Heb3:1 & 12. Subject-change between 2Jn1:8, and 9.

I'm held to an impossible standard in trying to deal with Calvinistic brothers; all the while, _I_ am often labeled by Calvinists here, as "Pelagian Heretic", "False Teacher", even "sinner in presenting a DIFFERENT Gospel than what JESUS said".

Double standard, Jim.

Ben makes many contradictory statements, and erects straw man after straw man...

Show me the contradictions.

... and has demonstrated an absolute hatred for the Doctrines of Predestination and Election because of the damage that those doctrines do to his "Responsible Grace" theory.

Every one of the "predestinary verses", have been shown to accommodate "Responsible Grace". You cannot say the same for the "responsibility" verses.

...well, perhaps you CAN "say" it. By agreeing with Fru on things like, "the FALSE teachers who NEVER cease from sin, escaped defilements through the TRUE konwledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ --- but it was only a SKIN-DEEP-escape; he wasn't REALLY saved." Denying the full context of the FALSE, seeking to entice the TRUE back INTO defilements. 2Pet2:7, 9, 14, 18. Denying the entire letter --- the warning to be diligent TO enter Heaven in ch1, and the warning TO be found blameless, and NOT to fall from steadfastness (in Christ) in ch3.

...yet your understanding (false-ESCAPED!) you find credible, and allows you to say such words to your brother.


It's not "hatred for Calvinism" that drives me --- it's "love of Scripture".

His over-riding goal is to set those doctrines completely aside, and to expunge them from scripture. He will deny that, but when one weighs the evidence, it can be clearly seen that this is his goal.

Show me what I have "set aside".

He is on record as believing some unscriptural doctrines regarding the final destination of the damned

Because I consider the possibility of those in Hell, ceasing to EXIST? You have yet to prove with Scripture, otherwise. They are compared to "chaff" --- and chaff burns UP. Malachi4 speaks of "evildoers will be burned like chaff --- and they will be ASHES under your feet!" Matt10:28 very clearly uses "DESTROY". I've seen no verse that speaks of "eternal torture in Hell". (Not for HUMANS, anyway...)

Those who are saved, will receive IMMORTALITY. Please tell me how "burning in Hell forever, ISN'T a kind of "immortality"?

But whether someone burns forever, or is consumed (yes that word is in Heb10:26) --- what does that have to do with salvation and Jesus' Gospel? Nothing.

yet somehow he is given a pass on that. He often references in an oblique fashion the many exchanges he has had with frumanchu, where fru has shown that Ben's ideas about losing salvation and eternal security are not scriptural, yet Ben continues to promote them, as though fru had not refuted them .

Fru stands on Calvinism; and every verse is read in light OF that understanding.

How can anyone deny Jesus' words in Matt23:13? The Pharisees REFUSE to enter in to salvation, and they STOP others who WERE entering in.

Were entering, Jim. Jesus said it, I believe it.

Lest anyone believe that I have attacked Ben without warrant, all one has to do is research the many threads which are accessible, and see that I am not making unwarranted charges, but telling the truth.

Most will not search --- why don't you do a service to all the readers, and YOU search and post them here. If you make the charge, you should back it up. All right?

I do not judge his teachings with regard to him as a person (no ad hominem here), but with regard to the Word of God. I have nothing against Ben as a person, but find his doctrinal positions to be unscriptural, and illogical.

Illogical? Because I see "God wanting for ALL MEN to repent" --- an idea that includes "kings and all in authority" --- it's "ILLOGICAL" because I don't read it as YOU do, "God desires only SOME of ALL TYPES of men to repent". 1Tim2:1-4

I read true warnings NOT to be deceived away from Christ. The conditionality of Jesus' reconciliation, "IF INDEED we CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and NOT be moved away from JESUS (the Hope)." Col1:21-23 But I'm illogical because I don't agree with you that even though a verse IS a warning, AND a conditional, God always MEETS those conditions (Scriptural proof?) and the warnings are the instrumental means OF persevering us.

We are warned TO walk in Christ, and NOT to be deceived in Col2:6-8.

Warned to abide in Jesus, SO THAT we not shrink in shame when He returns in 1Jn2:26-29

Warned to "watch ourselves against deceivers" --- you deny that the NEXT verse is the CONSEQUENCE of "not watching against deceivers" (going too far and not abiding, so as to not have God). 2Jn1:8-9

You read "brethren, if any of YOU" in James5:19; and interpret it as: "brethren, if any UNSAVED AMONG you". They ALWAYS WERE unsaved? How can they "wander from truth", if they haven't ever been IN it? How can someone "bring them BACK" to where they've never BEEN? (And if you might try to assert that "they didn't FULLY wander to UNsalvation", recognize that "soul-death" uses "psuche-thanatos", which absolutely DOES mean "eternal death". Recognize that "uncovered sins" means "UNFORGIVEN sins" --- that doesn't allow "saved".)

You read Paul's worry about us being "deceived away from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ, just as EVE was deceived by the serpent". And you try to assert that "deceived from devotion to Christ, can still be SAVED" (or perhaps it's ANOTHER case of "Paul's concern was the INSTRUMENTAL MEANS of preventing deception-away-from-Christ").

....after all of that, you accuse me of "unscripturallness", and "illogical"?

I do not doubt his salvation at all, but pray that he learn more perfectly the Way, and teach Truth and not error.

The moment that you can refute what I've said (starting with this post), with Scripture, I'll reject "Responsible Grace" and become a "Calvinist".

But so far, you have not. And in your post to which I'm responding, there is not a single Scripture reference.

You'll find this post, full of 'em.

Your turn, Jim; tell me how I'm so wrong.

Gamaliel was a wise man; he said: "Be careful how you treat these men; if they are not of God, they will come to nothing; but if they ARE of God, not only will you not be able to overthrow them; but you might even be found fighting against God." Acts5:39

 

[cygnusx1]

You have exposed exactly what the problem is. Over and over, Ben repeats things, despite them being refuted repeatedly, because he believes that as long as HE says they're not refuted, then they aren't. He projects his own unwillingness to be corrected onto reality, and declares that his reality is the only one. Not in so many words, but that is the logical conclusion of his thought processes.

He has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not really understand what Calvinism actually teaches, but relies on his mental caricature of Calvinism to establish his contrary view. Calvinists have repeatedly tried to correct that caricature, to no avail, because Ben will not be taught by anyone, but fancies himself a teacher.

Ben makes many contradictory statements, and erects straw man after straw man, and has demonstrated an absolute hatred for the Doctrines of Predestination and Election because of the damage that those doctrines do to his "Responsible Grace" theory. His over-riding goal is to set those doctrines completely aside, and to expunge them from scripture. He will deny that, but when one weighs the evidence, it can be clearly seen that this is his goal.

He is on record as believing some unscriptural doctrines regarding the final destination of the damned, yet somehow he is given a pass on that. He often references in an oblique fashion the many exchanges he has had with frumanchu, where fru has shown that Ben's ideas about losing salvation and eternal security are not scriptural, yet Ben continues to promote them, as though fru had not refuted them .

Lest anyone believe that I have attacked Ben without warrant, all one has to do is research the many threads which are accessible, and see that I am not making unwarranted charges, but telling the truth. I do not judge his teachings with regard to him as a person (no ad hominem here), but with regard to the Word of God. I have nothing against Ben as a person, but find his doctrinal positions to be unscriptural, and illogical.

I do not doubt his salvation at all, but pray that he learn more perfectly the Way, and teach Truth and not error.

Amen!!!!

 

[Ben johnson]

Over and over, Ben repeats things, despite them being refuted repeatedly, because he believes that as long as HE says they're not refuted, then they aren't.

Heb3:1 is recognized by Calvinists as referring to "SAVED brethren". Heb3:12 is perceived to refer to UNSAVED (only professing brethren).

That makes no sense. "BE hardened by the deceitfulness of sin to falling away from God", conveys MOVEMENT. One who was NEVER saved, cannot move TOWARDS "falling-away-from-God".

Verse 14 summarizes the warning; watching ourselves against deceit by sin, against becoming hard hearted, against falling-away-from-God, is the same idea presented in verse 14. "We are PARTNERS ('metochos', see Heb3:1 partners-in-heavenly-calling, Heb6:4 partners-in-Holy-Spirit) IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

This fits perfectly with 4:1 & 11. "See that none of you (saved) FALLS SHORT of His glory. Be diligent TO enter His rest (Heaven!), lest anyone FALL by imitating the Israelites' disobedience and unbelief."

Again, movement. If one is NOT saved, then he is ALREADY in unbelief and disobedience.

The "refutations that have been repeatedly REFUSED by Ben", are of this caliber; "brethren doesn't MEAN saved-brethren (oh it does in verse ONE, but not in verse TWELVE); it SAYS 'fall away' but doesn't really MEAN 'fall away'. It SAYS 'if you hold fast the beginning firm until the end', but that's a condition that God ALWAYS MEETS."

I don't see that as a refutation at all, Jim. The understanding of warning-against-true-falling, fits perfectly; other interpretations do not.

 

[Ben johnson]

Amen!!!!

 

[nobdysfool]

Jim --- I thought we were friends. If I had not a spirit of forgiveness, I would be hurt. But I believe you are motivated by what you consider as "truth".

We ARE friends, Ben. Where have I ever stated that we were not? I know you have never stated that, so let's not stamp that particular issue over top of the real issue: scriptural accuracy. I simply strongly disagree with you regarding some (not all) of your Responsible Grace theory.

2Cor4:3-4 was taken to be "PROOF" that God must remove the veil over a man's heart (which the devil placed), BEFORE he CAN believe. But 2Cor3:16 very clearly says, "WHEN a man turns to the Lord, THEN the veil is removed."

Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (2Co 3:16 KJV)

But whenever it turns to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.
(2Co 3:16 MKJV)

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2Cor 3:16 NASB)

This is in reference to Exodus 34:34, when Moses went in to speak with God, he removed the veil over his face, and replaced it when he came out to speak with the people.

Ben, you inserted a word to skew the meaning, because you wrongly interpret sequence in this passage, where sequence is not what is being talked about. It is the Lord who removes the veil over the heart, not the man. And, also there is no indication that it is satan who places the veil over the heart anywhere in this passage. The veil is the result of sin, both inborn and committed.

Now, let's look at 2 Cor 4...

But also if our gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those being lost, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. (2Co 4:3-4 MKJV)

While this indicates that satan blinds those who are lost, you cannot infer that it is only his action at work in them, otherwise you fall into the old "the devil made me do it" argument, which is fallacious, because the devil cannot MAKE anyone do anything, he can only tempt them to do what they inwardly desire to do anyway. The god of this world blinds them by keeping their minds occupied with trivial, non-godly, and lustful thoughts, to prevent them from hearing the Gospel. But they are blind by reason of their sin from the start.

Is the "veil-removed and THEN turn-to-Lord" sequence refuted, or not?

Since there is no sequence being spoken of in this passage, there is no refutation either. You're grasping at straws, trying to find traction for a sequence that is at odds with the totality of scripture.

1Cor2:14 is presumed to mean that "natural/unspiritual man CANNOT understand (even JESUS and SALVATION), because they are spiritually discerned". But verse 12 says "We have RECEIVED the Spirit of God that we may KNOW the (spiritual) things freely given by God".

Paul's reference to "we" in verse 12 is in contrast to "the natural man" in verse 14. Missed that, didn't you? WE are given to know spiritual things BECAUSE we have the indwelling spirit. The natural man cannot know these things because he does not have the indwelling spirit. So what is necessary for the natural man to know spiritual things? He must first be indwelt, right? Does that happen by the man's decision? Or is the indwelling a function of the One who indwells?

You would argue that the man decides to believe that which he finds foolish (because he cannot know it as anything other than foolishness), but you can offer no reason why a man would do such a thing. You basically argue that the man initiates the indwelling by an irrational choice.

Calvinism offers that reason. The man believes BECAUSE his heart has been revived by God to spiritual life, SO THAT he can understand and perceive spiritual things, the very first of them being that Christ died for him to save him from his sins. With that understanding, the newly born man eagerly embraces that salvation, because he can perceive his true state before God.

So the spiritual understanding of verse 14, is from the RECEIVED Holy Spirit.

Spiritual understanding is progressive, is it not? Does anyone receive the totality of all spiritual understanding at the moment of indwelling? No, they do not. Paul is referring to progressive spiritual understanding in verse 12, in fact the whole context leading up to these verses argues for such a view. Paul contrasts this advantage the believer has over the natural man by explaining why the natural man cannot see these things.

Unless you can show any way for the Spirit to be received BEFORE belief, then the Calvinistic understanding of 1Cor2:14 is refuted.

Right, or wrong?

Who initiates the indwelling, Ben? Man, or God? When you can rightly answer that question, you will know that your view has been soundly refuted.

Better start stocking up on your Sproul, Pink and Spurgeon...

Mark4:11-12 is presumed to be in support of "predestination". (Thinking that GOD has closed their eyes, so they CANNOT believe and be saved --- because it has not been given to them TO believe.) But the parallel passage in Matt13:15 very plainly says "they closed their OWN eyes and ears"!

So what man does supersedes God's own actions? Do you not see that it is BOTH?? Just as God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and scripture also shows that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, so God has closed their eyes because their eyes are already closed. God just gives them more of what they already have.

Therefore the Calvinistic interpretation of Mark4:11-12 is refuted.

Just because YOU say so? Scripture says otherwise, as I have shown. It has to fit with ALL of scripture, Ben, not just the parts that seem to say what you have already decided is true.

It was not GIVEN to them to know, because they had not BELIEVED Jesus. Right or wrong?

So they must believe (have faith) in Christ before God will give them to know Christ? Do you not see the illogic of that statement?

Implicit in your view is the idea that man possesses the natural ability to believe savingly apart from any action or intervention by God. To believe that is to deny the seriousness of sin, and the depth of the Fall of man, and reduces the sinful state to one of "spiritual sickness", not spiritual death, which scripture plainly and clearly calls it.

Until God opens their eyes, and gives them to understand (by His Spirit) they cannot and will not know or understand, and therefore cannot and will not believe, that they may be saved.

Calvinistic paradigms are slippery. Words are re-defined, meanings are interpreted. Changes-in-subject are asserted; a word means ONE thing in ONE verse, and changes into something ELSE in the NEXT (sometimes even in the SAME VERSE!). And then I'm condemned for not getting it "exactly right". "All men" in Romans5:18 (changes within the SAME VERSE!). "Brethren" in Heb3:1 & 12. Subject-change between 2Jn1:8, and 9.

I can't help it if you can't keep up, Ben. It might help if you approached it with an open mind, instead of a predetermined mindset.

I'm held to an impossible standard in trying to deal with Calvinistic brothers; all the while, _I_ am often labeled by Calvinists here, as "Pelagian Heretic", "False Teacher", even "sinner in presenting a DIFFERENT Gospel than what JESUS said".

Double standard, Jim.

Nope, not a double standard. A requirement that if you're going to speak with ANY authority about Calvinism, either for or against, you're going to have to do some study and some searching, with an open mind, to find out what Calvinism actually teaches, not the caricature that you hold now, and refuse to be corrected about.

Show me the contradictions. Every one of the "predestinary verses", have been shown to accommodate "Responsible Grace". You cannot say the same for the "responsibility" verses.

Done, over and over again. But, you insist that no refutation has taken place because you don't accept it as refutation. Instead, you dismiss it with a wave of the hand and go right back to the same thing, as though nothing had been said to refute it. Truth is not established by repetition.

...well, perhaps you CAN "say" it. By agreeing with Fru on things like, "the FALSE teachers who NEVER cease from sin, escaped defilements through the TRUE konwledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ --- but it was only a SKIN-DEEP-escape; he wasn't REALLY saved." Denying the full context of the FALSE, seeking to entice the TRUE back INTO defilements. 2Pet2:7, 9, 14, 18. Denying the entire letter --- the warning to be diligent TO enter Heaven in ch1, and the warning TO be found blameless, and NOT to fall from steadfastness (in Christ) in ch3.

Fru does not set the standard for truth, the bible does. I agree with him insofar as he agrees with scripture. His understanding agrees with scripture, and yours does not.

...yet your understanding (false-ESCAPED!) you find credible, and allows you to say such words to your brother.

Because you will not accept the idea that there are those in the church who are not truly saved, but only appear outwardly to be so, and lead others astray. You have a very narrow, black-or-white view.

It's not "hatred for Calvinism" that drives me --- it's "love of Scripture".

Can you accept the idea that however much you love scripture, you may have it wrong in some points? Sincerely wrong, but wrong nonetheless?

Show me what I have "set aside".

C'mon, Ben, you're whole attitude toward Predestination and Election is one of refutation, not of acceptance. You practically blow a gasket anytime someone asserts the scriptural truth that God has chosen to salvation those who will be saved from before Creation, and did so apart from any foreseen action or virtue on their part. He chose them because He loved them, and it pleased Him to choose them, and to not choose others.

Because I consider the possibility of those in Hell, ceasing to EXIST? You have yet to prove with Scripture, otherwise. They are compared to "chaff" --- and chaff burns UP. Malachi4 speaks of "evildoers will be burned like chaff --- and they will be ASHES under your feet!" Matt10:28 very clearly uses "DESTROY". I've seen no verse that speaks of "eternal torture in Hell". (Not for HUMANS, anyway...)

And a third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark in his forehead or in his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the anger of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name. (Rev 14:9-11 MKJV)

If they cease to exist, they cease to be tormented, don't they? And yes, this passage is referring to humans. The torment is unending, Ben. That means they do not cease to exist, but are tormented forever. Pretty scary, huh?

Those who are saved, will receive IMMORTALITY. Please tell me how "burning in Hell forever, ISN'T a kind of "immortality"?

Those who are saved receive everlasting LIFE. That is not synonymous with immortality. Being cast into the Lake of Fire is referred to as the second death. The natural man in this life is spiritually dead, and will physically die. Even Believers will physically die, but they will be raised to everlasting life. Those who are cast into the Lake of Fire have never been spiritually alive, and will not receive everlasting life, but everlasting torment.

Most will not search --- why don't you do a service to all the readers, and YOU search and post them here. If you make the charge, you should back it up. All right?

The infiormation is available for anyone who wants to search for posts made by you and/or Frumanchu. It is not hard to find.

Illogical? Because I see "God wanting for ALL MEN to repent" --- an idea that includes "kings and all in authority" --- it's "ILLOGICAL" because I don't read it as YOU do, "God desires only SOME of ALL TYPES of men to repent". 1Tim2:1-4

It's there in black and white. Either God is unable to bring about that which He desires, or His intent is different that what you have interpreted it to be.

The moment that you can refute what I've said (starting with this post), with Scripture, I'll reject "Responsible Grace" and become a "Calvinist".

Hasn't worked so far....

But so far, you have not. And in your post to which I'm responding, there is not a single Scripture reference.

Which in and of itself proves nothing. Can I not engage you and challenge you logically and rhetorically? I can and have in the past backed up with scripture the things I am saying, and I have provided scripture in this reply. Whether or not I quote scripture is not the point, nor is it the determiner of who is right.

Your turn, Jim; tell me how I'm so wrong.

Already done.

Gamaliel was a wise man; he said: "Be careful how you treat these men; if they are not of God, they will come to nothing; but if they ARE of God, not only will you not be able to overthrow them; but you might even be found fighting against God." Acts5:39

Cuts both ways, Ben. See to it that you do not find yourself fighting against God. Expend the effort to study Calvinism, I mean, really study it, with an open mind, not looking for loopholes, but sincerely trying to understand the teaching.