Predestination and Election

[nobdysfool]

Sounds to me like we ought to call Finney what he was: an heretic. Anyone who would hold up Finney as a model of Christian revival is in danger of wearing the same label. His "retention record" was abysmal. And his theology (if you can call it that) even more so.

 

[Ben johnson]

So, it's settled then, about 1Cor2:14? It does not convey "unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus"?

We'll never again see a post from anyone here, towards that interpretation???

 

[nobdysfool]

So, it's settled then, about 1Cor2:14? It does not convey "unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus"?

We'll never again see a post from anyone here, towards that interpretation???

Ben, just shut up. You are not going to control or define the terms of discussion and debate here, or anywhere. You are not going to pronounce what is allowed, and not allowed in terms of doctrinal views. You are not going to have the final say on any point.

Did I make myself clear enough? Or do you need it explained, yet again?

 

[frumanchu]

So, it's settled then, about 1Cor2:14? It does not convey "unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus"?

We'll never again see a post from anyone here, towards that interpretation???

Sure...as soon as you agree never to post the parable of the sower again (if you remember, you did actually at one point concede it did not speak to the issue of perseverance, only to retract it).

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Ben, just shut up. You are not going to control or define the terms of discussion and debate here, or anywhere. You are not going to pronounce what is allowed, and not allowed in terms of doctrinal views. You are not going to have the final say on any point.

Did I make myself clear enough? Or do you need it explained, yet again?​

With respect, we need to go forward. The debates serve no purpose if we just go round in circles.

It's not a question of BEN having the final say, or Dave or Mike or Fred or Jim or Phil; it's a question of Scripture having final say.

1Cor2:14 has long been asserted to convey "men must be regenerated BEFORE they can understand spiritual things like saving-faith-in-Jesus".

1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Cr 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.}
1Cr 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
​

The "THINGS freely given by God", are taught by our words but by the Holy Spirit (through us), and are the same things as natural men cannot understand.

The point, is that natural men cannot understand spiritual things because they have not received the Spirit.

1. We receive the Spirit THAT we may know those spiritual things.
2. "Receive-the-Spirit" is what enables understanding of those spiritual things.
3. Receive-the-Spirit denotes BELIEF.

It doesn't matter HOW those spiritual things are presented (even if by our lips, as verse 13 states) --- by STATING "received-Spirit", verse 14 can NOT be made to be "Natural men must be regenerated, so that they can believe savingly in Jesus".

Verse 14 simply says "natural men cannot understand, because they have not received the Spirit".

It cannot mean "...cannot understand without sovereign-regeneration".



This is "moving forward", NBF; either what I just said can be refuted and shown to be wrong, proving one of the three points false by Scripture (in which case I'm wrong and we move forward), or we accept the verse does NOT assert "natural men must be regenerated so that they CAN believe in Jesus" --- and we move forward.

Moving forward means that we will not re-hash this again, unless a newcomer posts the verse.

Sound reasonable?

 

[Rick Otto]

Yo Fru!
I have the worst time explaining how predestination doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Would you be so kind as to refresh & upgrade my understanding of that? It seems to be a favorite objection to predestination.
BTW, was your father an exceptionaly calm person not given to expressing anger or indignation? I admire your patience & manners & wonder who modeled that kind of behavior for you, assuming it doesn't come naturaly, at least in my limited experience.

 

[frumanchu]

Yo Fru!
I have the worst time explaining how predestination doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Would you be so kind as to refresh & upgrade my understanding of that? It seems to be a favorite objection to predestination.

I will endeavor to do so tomorrow, bro.

BTW, was your father an exceptionaly calm person not given to expressing anger or indignation? I admire your patience & manners & wonder who modeled that kind of behavior for you, assuming it doesn't come naturaly, at least in my limited experience.

LOL! Oh, I don't know about calm, but he's a pretty OK guy

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
I have the worst time explaining how predestination doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Would you be so kind as to refresh & upgrade my understanding of that? It seems to be a favorite objection to predestination.​

I can do that!

Per Webster's New World Dictionary (Simon & Schuster 1979), Responsibility:
1. Being responsible
2. A thing or person that one is responsible for

Responsible:
1. Obliged to account for, answerable to
2. Involving obligation or duties
3. Accountable as being the cause of something
4. Accountable for one's behavior or for an act
5. trustworthy; dependable

Predestination asserts GOD is the sole cause of salvation --- both election AND faith. Thus, if God decides who will be saved, and sovereignly monergistically regenerates a person so that he THEN (irresistibly) believes, then man has no responsibility --- it all belongs to GOD.

The concept of "obligation" is starkly clear, in Paul's words --- Rom8:12-14 says we are under OBLIGATION --- not to walk after the flesh; for if we DO we must die. But if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live.

The "obligation", is man's decision, not God's. THAT'S why "responsibility" is such an objection to Predestination.

Quote:
BTW, was your father an exceptionaly calm person not given to expressing anger or indignation? I admire your patience & manners & wonder who modeled that kind of behavior for you, assuming it doesn't come naturally, at least in my limited experience.​

Not always.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by RickOtto:
I have the worst time explaining how predestination doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Would you be so kind as to refresh & upgrade my understanding of that? It seems to be a favorite objection to predestination.​

I can do that!

Per Webster's New World Dictionary (Simon & Schuster 1979), Responsibility:
1. Being responsible
2. A thing or person that one is responsible for

Responsible:
1. Obliged to account for, answerable to
2. Involving obligation or duties
3. Accountable as being the cause of something
4. Accountable for one's behavior or for an act
5. trustworthy; dependable

Actually, Ben, you're the last person that should be attempting to answer this, because of your opposition to Calvinism. It's a question about Calvinist doctrine. You are hardly the authority on that. And did you notice that the question was directed at Fru, and NOT you?

Predestination asserts GOD is the sole cause of salvation --- both election AND faith. Thus, if God decides who will be saved, and sovereignly monergistically regenerates a person so that he THEN (irresistibly) believes, then man has no responsibility --- it all belongs to GOD.

False definitions arising from flawed understanding of what Calvinism actually teaches rather than what you imagine and assume it teaches. You are erecting a straw man. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to be corrected regarding such statements, Despite many attempts to correct your understanding.

This begs the question: Will you listen and be corrected concerning your errors, and will you abide by that correction?

The concept of "obligation" is starkly clear, in Paul's words --- Rom8:12-14 says we are under OBLIGATION --- not to walk after the flesh; for if we DO we must die. But if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live.

Paul is speaking to believers, about believers. Yes, we (believers) are under obligation to God, but we discharge and meet the obligation by the empowering and enabling of the Holy Spirit, not solely by our own efforts. As we (believers) cooperate with the Spirit, He enables and empowers us to fulfill our obligation to God.

The "obligation", is man's decision, not God's. THAT'S why "responsibility" is such an objection to Predestination.

Obligation is not a decision, it is debt incurred by reason of commitment. That is why Paul says we are debtors to the Spirit, and not to the Flesh. Funny how you ran to a dictionary to define "responsible", but didn't to define "obligation".

All men have a duty to submit themselves to God, by reason of His Sovereign standing as Creator. It is only believers who are empowered to actually do so. Your view logically assumes that all men have the natural ability to obey what God commands and demands, which is rooted in a flawed human idea of "fairness". God, as Sovereign Lord has the right to demand and command whatever He wishes. And by His very Nature, those commands are Just, and Good. The Kingdom of Heaven is NOT a democracy.

Quote by RickOtto:
BTW, was your father an exceptionaly calm person not given to expressing anger or indignation? I admire your patience & manners & wonder who modeled that kind of behavior for you, assuming it doesn't come naturally, at least in my limited experience.​

Not always.

Come now, Ben. Why mistake passion for truth and accuracy with mere anger and indignation? I'm actually a very calm guy, with a very positive outlook. But, I am passionate for the Truth.

 

[Rick Otto]

LOL.
Ben, I truly appreciate your sincere friendliness, but do you realize you did the opposite of what I asked? (lol)
I also admire your tenacity even tho I think it is misplaced.
Thanks for not being ornery, Ben. I know I can get to being that way sometimes.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
LOL.
Ben, I truly appreciate your sincere friendliness, but do you realize you did the opposite of what I asked? (lol)​

Hi, Rick --- yes of course I realize that. My reply was appropriate, because whatever a Calvinist would say would deny the obvious "non-responsibility of man", on which Calvinism is based.

Calvinism asserts faith is "gifted", or at least irresistibly/unavoidably consequential to God's sovereign choice --- "elect" men can do nothing BUT believe (and then it's claimed "that is still FREE WILL"), and "unelect men can do nothing BUT disbelieve" (and then it's claimed THAT is free will TOO).

In the face of Lk8:13, where some men received the Gospel with JOY and BELIEVED, Calvinism/Predestinationism must propose that they didn't REALLY believe --- it was only professing but not true heart-faith evidenced by their eventual FALLING (because no sovereignly-predestinedly-elect COULD EVER fall).

If a man cannot choose against what God sovereignly-predestinedly-decides, then the responsibility (which as we showed includes "CAUSE") cannot be the man's. The definition of "responsibility" includes "OBLIGATION" --- and man is not obligated, but sovereignly-predestined under "predestination".

"Obligation" is defined as "bound by contract, promise, or sense of duty.
Are we OBLIGATED, or PREDESTINED? Can't be both, Rick.

Quote:
I also admire your tenacity even tho I think it is misplaced.​

I know you do. But my enthusiasm is for the Gospel that I have received, as I understand it. My greatest concern for my brothers, is the certain time in just a couple years when all of us realize we are IN the Great Tribulation, and some brothers' beliefs will crumble.

"The Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons." 1Tim4:1

If we disagree on "OSAS", and/or "Pre-Trib-Rapture", let us agree on the essence of salvation --- that is, "Christ in us" (indwelt fellowship of love); and let us agree that WHATEVER happens, we will stand together in Christ, in faith, and in Christian fellowship and love.

I can think of NOTHING more joyfull than to find myself in the clouds with Jesus, and be with you, NBF, Fru, and everyone else here.

Quote:
Thanks for not being ornery, Ben. I know I can get to being that way sometimes.​

Oh, we just define "ornery", differently; I am very ornery, but it's always a teasing attitude. I crack myself up ALL the time, and it's a pleasure to enjoy laughter with others. You get me as a wrong telephone number, and there's no telling what you'll get.

...on the PLUS side, by making people laugh, so many times I've told people about Jesus, about the simplicity of Heaven (it's not because of WHAT we know, but WHO we know).

There is one Savior; not you, not me. But to be useful in teaching them of Him, is a great honor and privilege. The closer we are to Him, the better the Spirit can guide us TO being good teachers. If some are not convinced of "OSNAS", then at least they are driven deeper into Scripture, and closer to Him. If that, then we have all succeeded.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by RickOtto:
LOL.
Ben, I truly appreciate your sincere friendliness, but do you realize you did the opposite of what I asked? (lol)​

Hi, Rick --- yes of course I realize that. My reply was appropriate, because whatever a Calvinist would say would deny the obvious "non-responsibility of man", on which Calvinism is based.

Calvinism asserts faith is "gifted", or at least irresistibly/unavoidably consequential to God's sovereign choice --- "elect" men can do nothing BUT believe (and then it's claimed "that is still FREE WILL"), and "unelect men can do nothing BUT disbelieve" (and then it's claimed THAT is free will TOO).

Because it's a predestination of the will.

Most people make the mistaken conclusion -- as you have in other threads -- that sovereign choice demands completely monergistic action in all aspects. That's simply not the case.

Responsibility can be divided. There is no "one responsible". There are many responsible people, even the Law acknowledges this fact. The fact is, God is responsible in ultimate ways for everything that happens. That conclusion is inescapable, when ex-nihilo creation is assumed.

You're attributing responsibility to the will, and I would agree, of course. But then, the will is created. Your will is created. It's controlled by a variety of things, and it's created ultimately by God. It's not left up to chance. Chance is a function of partial information. God controlled everything at one time. He does so now. He didn't "let Himself go" when He created Creation.

In the face of Lk8:13, where some men received the Gospel with JOY and BELIEVED, Calvinism/Predestinationism must propose that they didn't REALLY believe --- it was only professing but not true heart-faith evidenced by their eventual FALLING (because no sovereignly-predestinedly-elect COULD EVER fall).

... They "believe for a while and in time of testing fall away." Lk 8:13 Jesus sets the attributes of this faith -- it's temporary. Do you propose that they're saved while they believe? That God gives eternal life, then takes it back -- based on whether they have faith or not -- do I get that accurately?

How is faith then not an effort (exertion, exercise, work) of the will for the wage of eternal life? Rom 4:4

And why can't -- shouldn't -- a Christian, not to mention a Calvinist, hit on a way of understanding Scripture from both Jesus and Paul to be consistent with one another about this new kind of justification?

We're not talking about conventional works-justification in a human law court. You've said it. We're talking about the court of the King, the court of the King of the Universe, that can walk into the human heart, that first sets itself up there -- or people die without Him.

If a man cannot choose against what God sovereignly-predestinedly-decides, then the responsibility (which as we showed includes "CAUSE") cannot be the man's. The definition of "responsibility" includes "OBLIGATION" --- and man is not obligated, but sovereignly-predestined under "predestination".

Well yes it can. My cat is only permitted to live among the birds when he's prevented from choosing regarding their life or death. Because his choice is invariably for their death.

The only way I could allow my cat the freedom to live with the birds and me would be if I could change his will. I can't. God can, and He did.

"Obligation" is defined as "bound by contract, promise, or sense of duty.
Are we OBLIGATED, or PREDESTINED? Can't be both, Rick.

It can indeed be both. We are both OBLIGATED AND PREDESTINED.

We're also responsible for our sinfulness, because ... it's us. It's our will. We don't free a compulsive prisoner just because he can't help himself. We leave him where he can't do further harm.

I don't understand why this constantly recurs. Look at it from within your perspective -- and for the moment I'm walking over beside your viewpoint. There are people who are unconvinced by your presentation, Ben. They can't be convinced otherwise. You say they're wrong -- but since they really can't be convinced, their wills are irretrievable -- would you then conclude that their obligation to your view of the truth is null & void?

No?

Then they're obligated. And their wills are set in the opposite direction. They don't believe you. They aren't credulous of your arguments. You aren't changing their wills, and they don't have the capacity to change either. There is no "in" to fix their wills. From a human standpoint, it seems clear to me this is a counterexample to your assertion? They can't change their wills. So they're off the hook for the truth as you see it.

Quote:
I also admire your tenacity even tho I think it is misplaced.​

I know you do. But my enthusiasm is for the Gospel that I have received, as I understand it. My greatest concern for my brothers, is the certain time in just a couple years when all of us realize we are IN the Great Tribulation, and some brothers' beliefs will crumble.

I appreciate that we cling to the same Person, but the Gospel is often received in ways we wouldn't expect. There isn't one receipt that's good -- Jesus pointed out in your cited passage that there were varying yields even in successful reception.

There are receptions that don't save. Jesus described one as "believing for a time, and then falling away." As it doesn't save in either theology, I'm skeptical it can be pushed into an argument against either theology.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Actually, Ben, you're the last person that should be attempting to answer this, because of your opposition to Calvinism. It's a question about Calvinist doctrine. You are hardly the authority on that. And did you notice that the question was directed at Fru, and NOT you? ​

True; but anticipating a wrong answer, I pointed out the meaning of "responsible", and its connection to "obligation" (lending well to the citation of Rom8:12-14).

I don't think I'll get shot for replying --- at lease I hope not.

Quote:
False definitions arising from flawed understanding of what Calvinism actually teaches rather than what you imagine and assume it teaches. You are erecting a straw man. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to be corrected regarding such statements, Despite many attempts to correct your understanding.​

Show me the error in what I said about "irresistible faith", and "sovereign-election". The "corrections" given to me, I've not found consistent with Scripture...

Quote:
This begs the question: Will you listen and be corrected concerning your errors, and will you abide by that correction?
​

If the "correction" is backed by Scripture, and not demonstrably in conflict, of course.

Quote:
Paul is speaking to believers, about believers. Yes, we (believers) are under obligation to God, but we discharge and meet the obligation by the empowering and enabling of the Holy Spirit, not solely by our own efforts. As we (believers) cooperate with the Spirit, He enables and empowers us to fulfill our obligation to God.
​

No he's not; he says "if WE walk after flesh-lust, WE must die".

But you're right, it's by the Spirit's power. Where you miss, is that the Spirit's power works through our faith.

Quote:
Obligation is not a decision, it is debt incurred by reason of commitment. That is why Paul says we are debtors to the Spirit, and not to the Flesh. Funny how you ran to a dictionary to define "responsible", but didn't to define "obligation".

All men have a duty to submit themselves to God, by reason of His Sovereign standing as Creator. It is only believers who are empowered to actually do so. Your view logically assumes that all men have the natural ability to obey what God commands and demands, which is rooted in a flawed human idea of "fairness". God, as Sovereign Lord has the right to demand and command whatever He wishes. And by His very Nature, those commands are Just, and Good. The Kingdom of Heaven is NOT a democracy.​

We just discussed the English definition of "obligation"; I haven't time just now to look up the Greek. But "obligation" is promise, sense-of-duty. Completely "our choice".

Quote:
Come now, Ben. Why mistake passion for truth and accuracy with mere anger and indignation? I'm actually a very calm guy, with a very positive outlook. But, I am passionate for the Truth.​

As am I. And I pray that both of us will continue to post with kindness, respecting each other, fully aware that the world judges GOD, by what they see in US.

You and I are both passionate about the truth; at the end of our discussions, we will come to agreement on whether saving-faith is something God RECEIVES, or something He CAUSES.

 

[Ormly]

Big difference between the words "can't" and "won't". There is also reasons for both in a man's thinking. Distinctions in the reasoning for one's using either word to describe their disposition, however, are most always, discernible.

 

[frumanchu]

"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." - Augustine

Such was the prayer which sent Pelagius into fits and ultimately led to his open denial of the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. I bring this up because the doctrine of Original Sin, which has been affirmed by Christian churches throughout history, is central to the right understanding of predestination and responsibility.

Man, as the creation of almighty God, is under obligation to acknowledge God, to worship Him, to obey Him, and to be thankful to Him (Rom 1:18-32).

As the heart goes, so goes the will. Man will always choose not simply according to pure logic but rather according to the strongest desire of his heart at the moment. There is never a choice made by man that is not according to his desire; in the case of a conflict of desire, the strongest at that time always wins out. It is in such that the natural freedom of the will lies. Man's will is free insofar as he always has the ability and capacity to choose or do that which he desires (external circumstances notwithstanding).

Because of the effects of the Fall, man's heart is evil (Gen 6:5, Gen 8:21, Matt 15:19) and thus his will is in slavery to sin (John 8:34,Gen 8:21) and at enmity with the will of God (Rom 8:7,7:18), making him dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). This is his condition from birth (PS 51:5) and is universal (Rom 3:10-12).

Given these truths, man has the obligation to obey the commandments of God, but in his sinful nature chooses freely according to the desires of his heart to disobey God. Even in his superficial obedience to the Law of God, his desires and motivations are self-serving. That man's sin proceeds from his corrupt heart, and that he is responsible for his sin, is clear in Scripture.

Given the universality of man's sinfulness, all men fall under the condemnation of God and are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). As such, God in His perfect justice has no obligation to show anything but justice to man, and it is only by His grace that man is even born let alone continues to live. As such, the salvation of man is in principle a pure act of grace, and likewise the extension of it to any man is a pure act of grace. Because of the universal sinful nature of man, if left to his own corrupt will and hard heart his response to the command of repentance would be likewise universal in the negative. It is only by the grace of the Holy Spirit in freeing the mind from its slavery to sin by breathing new life into the dead heart of man that he is then able to turn from darkness to light and respond positively to the Word of God (Acts 26:18).

Given again the universality of the condemnation of man in his sinfulness, God is under no obligation in terms of His perfect justice to show mercy upon any individual in particular, let alone mankind as a whole. As such, His determination to show mercy upon some individuals, to the glory of His grace, while passing over others, to the glory of His justice, is in perfect keeping with His divine holiness. In the elect His magnificent grace and mercy is made manifest, and in the reprobate His divine wrath and justice is made manifest, all to the glory of His name.


Rick, I hope this is sufficient for your request. If not, let me know.

 

[Ormly]

"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." - Augustine

Such was the prayer which sent Pelagius into fits and ultimately led to his open denial of the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. I bring this up because the doctrine of Original Sin, which has been affirmed by Christian churches throughout history, is central to the right understanding of predestination and responsibility.

Is it really? Phooey!

 

[Sphinx777]

Original sin is, according to a doctrine in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man. While the Old Testament and the New, which frequently speak of the sinfulness of humans, do not contain the terms "original sin" and "ancestral sin", the doctrine expressed by these terms is claimed to be based on the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. Some see the doctrine, which however is not found in Jewish theology, as implied in Old Testament passages such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.


In the history of Christianity this condition has been characterized in many ways ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature," to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.

Western Christian tradition regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from any actual sins that a person may or may not commit later. Different views exist as to whether a person bears real guilt or personal responsibility only for actual sins that they personally commit, while being tempted by original sin, or whether they bear actual guilt for the sins of ancestors.

Eastern Christian tradition too identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of "the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life" Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV), although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish.

 

[heymikey80]

Predestination asserts GOD is the sole cause of salvation --- both election AND faith. Thus, if God decides who will be saved, and sovereignly monergistically regenerates a person so that he THEN (irresistibly) believes, then man has no responsibility --- it all belongs to GOD.

First, if you check you're objecting not simply to Calvinistic Predestination, but also to Trent's Predestination. Because your words apply flatly and directly to the word "predestination".

Second: man is a second cause. Show me anyone who considers humans a First Cause, and I'll show you a Pelagian, if not an egotist. Of course God is the primary Cause of salvation. But to say there are no other causes makes God's creation irrelevant. It isn't. Calvinism (specifically Calvin) recognizes second causes. Calvinism gets this.

The concept of "obligation" is starkly clear, in Paul's words --- Rom8:12-14 says we are under OBLIGATION --- not to walk after the flesh; for if we DO we must die. But if by the Spirit we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live.

The "obligation", is man's decision, not God's. THAT'S why "responsibility" is such an objection to Predestination.

Submitting to God's Law is another obligation delivered by God. How is your decision doing with that, Ben? The parallel is crystal. Scripture says you are unable do it. Yet you're responsible. Billions will be condemned to eternal fire for not meeting God's demand for morality. And they can't. You're saying responsibility requires a decision. Can no one be held accountable for breaking God's Law?

There's the explicit counterexample staring us all in the face. The Law. There is none righteous, not a one. Trying to follow the Law gets you nowhere. You don't have a choice here. Scripture says it: you're incapable. This counterexample nails your view. God most certainly does impose obligations which people are incapable of deciding for, incapable of fulfilling.

So how's your study of Sproul's view going? You said you would review it. This should've sounded familiar.

 

[Ormly]

First, if you check you're objecting not simply to Calvinistic Predestination, but also to Trent's Predestination. Because your words apply flatly and directly to the word "predestination".

Second: man is a second cause. Show me anyone who considers humans a First Cause, and I'll show you a Pelagian, if not an egotist. Of course God is the primary Cause of salvation. But to say there are no other causes makes God's creation irrelevant. It isn't. Calvinism (specifically Calvin) recognizes second causes. Calvinism gets this.

Submitting to God's Law is another obligation delivered by God. How is your decision doing with that, Ben? The parallel is crystal. Scripture says you are unable do it. Yet you're responsible. Billions will be condemned to eternal fire for not meeting God's demand for morality. And they can't. You're saying responsibility requires a decision. Can no one be held accountable for breaking God's Law?

There's the explicit counterexample staring us all in the face. The Law. There is none righteous, not a one. Trying to follow the Law gets you nowhere. You don't have a choice here. Scripture says it: you're incapable. This counterexample nails your view. God most certainly does impose obligations which people are incapable of deciding for, incapable of fulfilling.

So how's your study of Sproul's view going? You said you would review it. This should've sounded familiar.

Sproul should be avoided if you looking for sound doctrine. He is not.

 

[frumanchu]

Sproul should be avoided if you looking for sound doctrine. He is not.

This after promoting Finney?

That's two pointless responses in a row without any substance whatsoever. Can we expect you to grace us with your years of wisdom or are you simply going to continue chucking batteries from the stands?