Predestination and Election

[frumanchu]

Nooooo --- not "two will", at all --- your position is God's SOVEREIGN will, and man's SOVEREIGNLY-PREDESTINED-will.

Man's will being sovereignly-predestined, is NOT man's will but GOD'S.
Exactly the same as when you read Eph2:8, and perceive "By grace THROUGH GRACE (sovereignly-gifted-faith) have you been saved".

Faith is causal, not consequential.

Scripture stands starkly against you on this, Ben. Joseph states with perfect clarity this principle in pointing out that his brothers meant something for evil, but God meant it for good.

Are you saying then that Joseph's brothers had no will and no responsibility for their sinful actions simply because God superintended it for His own purposes?

The subject has the ability to be "awol", or "desert"; but not in your paradigm. A sovereignly-predestined-will cannot be thwarted.

...and it CERTAINLY cannot be "stopped/shut-off" --- Matt23:13. So when Jesus says "those who ARE ENTERING, you STOP/SHUT OFF" --- you have to perceive it as "those who were only SUPERFICIALLY entering (not really entering)", and/or "shut off for NOW but if they're predestined they WILL enter at a future time God CHOOSES".

Eventually you'll see how your position is founded on reading Scripture in many places, and perceiving "NOT REALLY"...

The same can be said of your position, Ben. It is being demonstrated over and over, whether you will respond or not. The refutations I've given stand unaddressed, Ben. Will you address them or shall they remain standing as witness against your position?

 

[nobdysfool]

They will stand as clear and final refutations which cannot be denied, thus forever ending Ben's claim that "no refutation has been given". Refutation HAS been given, and that refutation STANDS, ESPECIALLY if he does not reply to it and ignores it. Ben can no longer credibly claim that no Calvinist has ever refuted any portion of his "Responsible Grace" theology. Ignoring refutation does not equal "it has never been made". Refutation does not depend on the one being refuted acknowledging it, it stands on its own. Denying it or ignoring it does not vaporize it, or make it null and void. Calvinists have refuted EVERY POINT of Ben's false theology.

 

[frumanchu]

There is no responsibility when man's will is sovereignly-decreed. It's all GOD'S CHOICE in your doctrine.

God: 100%
Man: fully-decided-by-GOD (0%)

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

Both wills represented, God's and man's.

Both wills given responsibility, God's and man's.

No way around it, Ben...Scripture clearly presents the fact that God's will and man's will both have responsibility in a choice which God ordains.

 

[frumanchu]

Oh it means much more than that.
"Dikaios" ("just"), means "rendering to each his DUE" --- precisely as Rom2:6-8 says.

If all were rendered their due, all would be condemned. You cannot deny that the opening chapters of Romans clearly teach this. The whole point of the first few chapters is to explain the universal need for Christ; a need founded upon the clear truth that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that there is none righteous and none who seek after God. Can you give a credible argument as to why Thayer was somehow wrong?

Can you deny even your good pal A.W. Robertson?

Just and the justifier of (dikaion kai dikaiounta). "This is the key phrase which establishes the connexion between the dikaiosunh qeou and the dikaiosunh ek pistewß" (Sanday and Headlam). Nowhere has Paul put the problem of God more acutely or profoundly. To pronounce the unrighteous righteous is unjust by itself (Romans 4:5). God's mercy would not allow him to leave man to his fate. God's justice demanded some punishment for sin. The only possible way to save some was the propitiatory offering of Christ and the call for faith on man's part.
​

Robertson's clear theological bias aside, even HE agrees with the Calvinist on the clear meaning of how God is both just and the justifier of those who believe....and with respect, it stands in stark contrast to what you are attempting to make this verse say.

A will that is "sovereignly-decreed" and "monergistically-instilled", is NOT separate from God's will.

No Calvinist has EVER said that the will is "instilled." The will acts naturally in accordance with the change of man's heart through regeneration. I have corrected you on this before...please stop saying that we believe the will is "instilled" for this is NOT AT ALL what our position is.

What does "monergistic" mean to you, Mike?

Monergistic is literally "one working."

REGENERATION is monergistic. The rest is not. I think you may be misapplying the concept of monergism to the whole of salvation when that again is not the Reformed view.

That's the point. Suppose men are born purple, and the Judge only likes orange. He goes into the jail and paints ten people orange.

The judge then JUDGES people for BEING purple (which is beyond their control), and AQUITS people for being ORANGE (also beyond their control).

That entire COURT-scene (judging/condemning people for purple/orange), is pageantry.

And it is not correctly applicable to the situation at hand.

Your error is in the notion that the initial condition of man is in and of itself not justly condemnable. In this case, the initial condition is original sin and you have two choices here:

1. Side with Pelagius and say that the only way man could be condemned for his sin is if he were born with a choice whether or not to ever sin.

2. Acknowledge the clear Scriptural teaching on the universality of man's sinfulness and the fact that all men are justly condemnable by God for sinning according to their corrupt nature.

Those are your choices, Ben. If you see some third choice, please let me know what it is.

Let me leave you with a verse:
"Since childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures which are able to give you WISDOM that leads to saving-faith in Jesus." 2Tim3:15

Tell me --- where does "saving-faith" come from, in that verse?

How is it then that the Scriptures give some wisdom and not others?

Who is it that Scripture says grants wisdom?

Contrast that with John5:39-47, "You study the Scriptures but are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life; HOW can you believe, WHEN you seek men's glory rather than God's. ...IF you believed Moses, THEN you would believe Me --- HOW can you believe Me when you don't believe Moses?

Sounds pretty clear that it's not just the Scriptures that give the wisdom, but rather a willingness to believe and trust in them....a willingness which fallen man by his sinful nature lacks.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
They will stand as clear and final refutations which cannot be denied, thus forever ending Ben's claim that "no refutation has been given". Refutation HAS been given, and that refutation STANDS, ESPECIALLY if he does not reply to it and ignores it.​

First, each of those "refutations" has been refuted; if you disagree, pick one and we'll discuss it.

Second, Fru is well aware I don't respond to his posts. I consider him a brother in Christ, but history supports the recommendation of "ignore".

Quote:
Ben can no longer credibly claim that no Calvinist has ever refuted any portion of his "Responsible Grace" theology. Ignoring refutation does not equal "it has never been made". Refutation does not depend on the one being refuted acknowledging it, it stands on its own. Denying it or ignoring it does not vaporize it, or make it null and void. Calvinists have refuted EVERY POINT of Ben's false theology.​

Let's see how you refute Rom2:3-8; how can God's kindness and patience and forebearance be meant to lead to repentance, those who are stubbornly unrepentant (and making God MAD)?

 

[nobdysfool]

Your refusal to answer Fru's posts shows that you cannot. As for the rest of your post to me, I won't waste my time. The refutations have been given, and they stand, despite your denials. You are not the final arbiter. You can attempt to refute, but the attempt does not equate with actual refutation. We have refuted your refutations of our refutations of your refutations.

Fru has punched holes in your doctrine all over the place. Looks like those refutations will stick, as well.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
No, Ben. What you are advocating here is a will that is passive. Calvinists do not teach that the will is passive.​

Calvinists claim "the will is active", but in the same breath also claim "the will is CONFORMED to God's sovereign predestination".

A will that is capable of ONLY following God's sovereign unilateral predestination (either TOWARDS righteousness by active regeneration, or TOWARDS sin by His negligence and His leaving them impotently enslaved in sin), is NOT "active"; it's conformed to God's decision.

Quote:
You persist in this straw man, and base all of your judgments of Calvinism against such straw men.​

It's "one of my judgments against Calvinism" --- previous paragraph...

Quote:
Your position is libertarian free will, which necessitates a will that is free from any constraints, even sin. Scripture emphatically does not teach that. ​

For the umpteenth time (never really figured out how big is "umpteenth", but it's pretty big) --- we are corrupt. Totally depraved. Apart from Jesus we can do nothing. John15:5

...yet, every last man is "invited/called/helkuo-dragged" to Christ --- this CALL has sufficient power to overcome depravity, that each man CAN believe.

Each chooses then what to love; the Creator, or sin.

This is the point of the rebuke of Jn5:39-47; they CHOSE to seek men's glory, rather than God's.

Quote:
The logical outcome of this is your desire to "cut God down to size".​

It is YOUR logic that is in question, NBF. If God sovereignly regenerates men, then why (how) can they still SIN?

Quote:
Your theology weakens God and strengthens man, all out of proportion to what Scripture, rightly interpreted, teaches. I don't care how many scriptures you quote, if you do not quote them rightly, you reach wrong conclusions, as you clearly have been doing for a long time.​

I understand that is your perception of what I teach; but your perception does not reflect Scripture. No insult meant.

Quote:
Ben, do you believe the Holy Spirit indwells a man BEFORE he is regenerated? That's logically what you're arguing. How can the HOLY Spirit indwell, even briefly, an unclean vessel?​

Three things --- as the Spirit is received, He regenerates. He does not regenerate a non-believer.

Second --- nowhere is a man "cleaned/regenerated", BEFORE belief. We proved beyond all dispute that 1Cor2:14 does NOT assert "unspiritual men cannot believe savingly in Jesus". We discussed Titus3:5-6, where regeneration (us! ) is by the Spirit who WAS POURED on us through JESUS-OUR-SAVIOR. It does not make sense to alter Paul's words into "God saved us, by the washing and renewal of regeneration, by the Spirit who was THEN poured on us through Jesus our Savior-after-we-THEN-believed".

Third, because regeneration is THROUGH our faith, a believer who comes to UNBELIEF (as Heb3:6-14 & 4:11 clearly say) ceases to BE "regenerated".

Quote:
In stating that "there is no monergism", you are doing exactly what I pointed out above. You are attempting to "cut God down to size".​

Instead of "cutting-down-to-size", my words reflect God's sovereign approach; spelled out in passages like Jn6:40.

"This is God's thelema-will, that all WHO see Jesus and believe, may be saved." This connects directly with John20:29, Jn10:38, Matt11:21-24, and John5:39-47.

Quote:
Your theology cannot abide a God who acts monergistically, and independently of your so-called "free will". You believe that God must dance to YOUR tune, and do YOUR bidding. ​

"My theology" recognizes that God is "JUST", and responds to men who come to Him by faith. Heb11:6.

God cannot condemn anyone without their having ANY chance at repenting --- indeed, the very foundation of Calvinism opposes passages like Ezk18:32:
"I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

Which part of that sounds like God saying "I SAY who lives and who dies", rather than Him saying "CHOOSE THIS DAY whom you will serve"?

Quote:
Your oft-repeated canard that regeneration is by the RECEIVED Spirit is a misreading of Titus 3:5, and it has been proven that you misread this verse, injecting into it what you want it to say.​

How has it been "proven"?

"God saved us, ...by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit who WAS POURED on us through Jesus-our-Savior."

Tell me how "Jesus-our-Savior", does not precede "poured", which is presented as an aspect of the regenerating Spirit.

Quote:
Your view has been refuted, whether you admit it or not. Frumanchu, whom you refuse to answer, because you know you cannot win against him...​

Both of you know very well why I don't respond. In the past, responding has gone very badly; and not just once or twice, but dozens of times. I am to "ignore" him, and I am honoring that request.

Quote:
has refuted your view of this verse several times. You can bluff and bluster all you want, but it does not change the clear fact that you have been refuted. ​

There is zero "bluff and bluster" --- let's see how you answer the question "Why isn't 'POURED', an aspect of the REGENERATING Spirit?"

Quote:
Receiving the spirit is not equal to faith.​

Really? Show me where the Spirit is ever received apart from faith. See Acts11:17, Eph1:13.

Quote:
You attempt to reduce everything to belief (or faith), when logically it doesn't make sense, nor does it make grammatical sense. Faith may be involved, but that is not all that it is. By equating everything with faith, you make ridiculous statements:​

It begins, and ends, with faith. Rom1:17.

Quote:
Scripture says in Heb.11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not see."

But you say. "The Received Spirit is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"Justification is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not see."

"Salvation is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not see."

And on and on. It's no wonder your biblical interpretation skills are so poor. You substitute words and equate words with no regard for proper definition or usage.
​

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

You do realize we just connected "come-BY-faith", with "seeking"? What's God's position on that --- CAUSE, or REWARDER?

(Hint --- rewarder...)

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
"In general" is your own addition to the scripture, and is not correct.​

It's the only way to accommodate "None seek", with "seek and you will find", and "God rewards those WHO seek". And it aligns perfectly with what was said about Noah in Genesis 6.

QUote:
Both David and Paul wrote what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write, and the point of Paul's quotation (via the Holy Spirit) is not to make an "in general" statement (which shows you using the "not really" argument you vilify Calvinists for), but to establish the absolute understanding that no man seeks after God, no man believes, no man can save himself, all men are sinners. ​

Yet, those WHO seek, find; God rewards those WHO seek Him. Those who seek with all their hearts WILL FIND Him. (Adding in Jeremiah 29:11-13, to Matt7:8, and Heb11:6.)

QUote:
"If you seek you will find" is a conditional statement, in the form of "If A, then B". Here's another one: "if you step off a tall cliff, you will fall to your death". The logical form "if A, then B" does not address ability or desire to do A, it only states that "if A is done, B is the result". ​

Yet your same logic also perceives Acts17:30 as "God's command for all men TO REPENT, doesn't mean He enables them TO repent."

I cannot convince you if the logical breech.

QUote:
God makes a promise in stating that "If you seek me, you will find Me". But, taken with the whole counsel of God, it can be seen that only those who believe, will seek. So, it cannot be extrapolated backward to say that since God says those who seek will find, it must mean that anyone can seek, regardless of whether they believe or not. Only Believers will seek, and they will find. ​

What you miss, is that EACH man is brought to the DECISION-POINT --- decide this day to love God, or to love sin.

See 1Jn5:10 --- men are condemned FOR unbelief, not for God's negligence in sovereignly-choosing.

Quote:
So, in your view, man's will can thwart, trump, and overturn God's will. Is that what you're saying? God obviously wants them to enter.​

Our disagreement is not on "thwarting God's will", but what you and I PERCEIVE to BE God's will.

I read Jn6:40, and connect it to Matt11:21-24 --- Jesus blasting three entire cities for REFUSING to believe, even in the FACE of His miracles. That connects with John20:29; Thomas WOULD NOT believe until he saw the scars. Jesus said:
"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

How is it possible that UNSEEN (saving) faith is greater than SEEN (saving-faith), if all saving-faith is SOVEREIGNLY-PREDESTINED? Why would Jesus rebuke all those men (three cities worth) for having SEEN, but REFUSING to believe?

How could Jesus have asserted John10:38, saying essentially "You can BELIEVE in Me, just by looking at what I've DONE".???

QUote:
But according to you, evil men can thwart God's will, and prevent them from entering, finally and irrevocably. No other way is possible, given the way you insist on seeing this passage. Your invocation of "not really" is a straw man, a canard, a red herring. Once again, Ben is "cutting God down to size" to fit his theology, which exalts man, and debases God. ​

If God's WILL is that all WHO SEE Jesus AND BELIEVE be saved, then those who REFUSE, do not thwart/cut-down-to-size.

No way, no how.

Quote:
Once again, Ben is showing his utter ignorance of Calvinist theology, and his stubborn refusal to be corrected, or to learn correctly. He has too much at stake to change now. Too much invested. He'd have to trash the book he's been promising for years now. Years of work, down the drain, into the shredder.​

It's been well receive by 8-9 people, who USED to be "osas" before reading it.

QUote:
Personally I still think this "book" is vaporware.​

It doesn't boher me that you think that.

However, it really needs to be published, because time is really running out in the world.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by NBF:
Ben, do you believe the Holy Spirit indwells a man BEFORE he is regenerated? That's logically what you're arguing. How can the HOLY Spirit indwell, even briefly, an unclean vessel?​

As the Spirit enters the heart of a believer, He brings regeneration. Regeneration is by the POURED Spirit, and "poured" is after belief.

Another "fatal flaw" in Predestinationism, is that because the "ELECT" have been predestined since the beginning of time, your paradigm perceives that for YEARS there are MANY "elect" who are wanton sinners (until the time God has predestined for them TO believe, and TO repent).

Nowhere is repentance decreed, decided, dictated, predestined --- by God.
"Unless YOU REPENT, you WILL perish."

"God's patience and kindness are MEANT to lead you to repentance; but your stubborn unrepentant heart is storing up WRATH for yourself for the DAY of wrath when God gives to each man according to his deeds --- to those who seek glory honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness (unrepentant!) wrath and indignation."

"God commands all men everywhere to repent."

"God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

"The kingdom of God is at hand --- repent and believe the Gospel."

Somehow you read Philip 1:29 and 2Tim2:25 and think that these verses just quoted do NOT charge men with repentance but somehow God DECIDES men's repentance FOR them (and then JUDGES men for His OWN decision).

 

[frumanchu]

First, each of those "refutations" has been refuted; if you disagree, pick one and we'll discuss it.

Sorry, but that's simply not true, Ben. You have NEVER responded to my refutation of your position on Titus 3. NEVER. I have made the exact same refutation prior to your stated refusal to respond to me as I have recently. It was not addressed then and it has not been addressed since. Only one time did you come close, and it was responding to somebody else appealing to it. It was not sufficiently addressed and I did not have the opportunity to point it out or engage in further explanation and discussion.

Second, Fru is well aware I don't respond to his posts. I consider him a brother in Christ, but history supports the recommendation of "ignore".

I will repeat my appeal to you to, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood and in keeping with the forgiveness we have extended each other for all past issues, to resume discussion with me.

Have I slandered you at all since I returned?
Have I attacked your character at all since I returned?
Have I acted in any way other than with civility and charity since I returned?

Ben, I have given you no reason not to respond to me given what has transpired over the past month (other than, perhaps, my diligence and thoroughness in responding point by point to your arguments ).

I view myself as one of the most capable and articulate defenders of the Reformed faith on this forum, not by my own estimation but by the comments I have received from other Reformed Christians here. I labor to be as clear and thorough as possible in considering every word I use to communicate my position. Given your zeal in refuting the Calvinist view, it only makes sense to engage in discussion with those most familiar with that view and those most able to articulate it. As such, I again appeal to you to let go of this unwillingness to engage me in conversation and step up to the plate. I indeed may never change your views, but iron sharpens iron and we will both be the better for it.

 

[frumanchu]

Calvinists claim "the will is active", but in the same breath also claim "the will is CONFORMED to God's sovereign predestination".

Scripture clearly presents the alignment of man's will to God's sovereignty as upholding the responsibility of the former. Such is clearly and irrefutably demonstrated in Genesis 50:20.

Moreover, such is clearly demonstrated in the principle of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. The words of Scripture were not dictated to the authors (except where indicated) and were the words of the authors themselves, yet God sovereignly insured through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that every word of Scripture was infallibly true to the point that it is understood rightly to be the "Word of God."

The principle that God can infallibly and efficaciously accomplish His sovereign will through man while a the same time preserving the responsibility of man is clearly taught in Scripture, Ben.

A will that is capable of ONLY following God's sovereign unilateral predestination (either TOWARDS righteousness by active regeneration, or TOWARDS sin by His negligence and His leaving them impotently enslaved in sin), is NOT "active"; it's conformed to God's decision.

Ahh, but here you confuse two different scopes of choice. There is the choice as to whether to obey or to sin, to which man's will responds according to his desire. His nature is to choose sin, and left to his own devices he will do just that. That man universally and without exception sins, and that man universally and without exception is held responsible for that sin, is irrefutable Biblical truth.

The other choice is whether or not to comply with God's sovereign purposes. That is indeed NOT a choice man's will is capable of making because it is not a choice presented to him. Man does not know God's specific sovereign decrees (beyond those explicitly stated in Scripture), particularly those related to individual choices, actions and circumstances. Man's will acts freely in choosing according to his desire from the options available to him.

Again, the principle of man's responsibility for the choices he makes even as those choices are sovereignly predestined is clearly taught in Scripture.

For the umpteenth time (never really figured out how big is "umpteenth", but it's pretty big) --- we are corrupt. Totally depraved. Apart from Jesus we can do nothing. John15:5

...yet, every last man is "invited/called/helkuo-dragged" to Christ --- this CALL has sufficient power to overcome depravity, that each man CAN believe.

Where? Where does Scripture say that all men received the outward call of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I do not see that anywhere in Scripture.

It is YOUR logic that is in question, NBF. If God sovereignly regenerates men, then why (how) can they still SIN?

Because regeneration is unto faith in Christ, not unto perfect and immediate glorification. Find me the Calvinist that says regeneration involves God completely eradicating all vestiges of the sin nature from the man.

Three things --- as the Spirit is received, He regenerates. He does not regenerate a non-believer.

Doesn't address the point. Nobodysfool has rightly pointed out that you have the Spirit indwell an unclean vessel. Unless you are advocating that man cleans himself purely and solely by the act of faith, then the point is unavoidable.

Second --- nowhere is a man "cleaned/regenerated", BEFORE belief. We proved beyond all dispute that 1Cor2:14 does NOT assert "unspiritual men cannot believe savingly in Jesus". We discussed Titus3:5-6, where regeneration (us! ) is by the Spirit who WAS POURED on us through JESUS-OUR-SAVIOR. It does not make sense to alter Paul's words into "God saved us, by the washing and renewal of regeneration, by the Spirit who was THEN poured on us through Jesus our Savior-after-we-THEN-believed".

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
​

Ben, none of us is advocating that the word "then" need be inserted. While it can certainly be argued that it is implied, it need not be because YOU likewise have to draw an implication from the text to prove your position. You assume that because he describes the Holy Spirit in terms of His being the One who was poured out on us through Jesus Christ that he therefore MUST mean that this pouring out occurred before the regeneration. You argue as though it's the necessary implication when you have no grounds whatsoever to make that argument.

Third, because regeneration is THROUGH our faith, a believer who comes to UNBELIEF (as Heb3:6-14 & 4:11 clearly say) ceases to BE "regenerated".

Forgetting for a moment that this conclusion is drawn from the false premise of faith preceding regeneration, you have NO VERSE WHATSOEVER to support the notion that a man can become "unregenerated" after having been regenerated. NONE...WHAT...SO...EVER.

Hebrews 3:6-14 and 4:11 say nothing of the sort. They speak in covenantal terms in the context of the covenant community of Israel, and the admonishments given simply do not support the notion of men being "unregenerated."

Instead of "cutting-down-to-size", my words reflect God's sovereign approach; spelled out in passages like Jn6:40.

"This is God's thelema-will, that all WHO see Jesus and believe, may be saved."

The Greek word in this case does you absolutely no good because the fallacy here is in (once again) taking a conditional statement and claiming that it has necessary implications about the means of its fulfillment.

"My theology" recognizes that God is "JUST", and responds to men who come to Him by faith. Heb11:6.

There is nothing about the Reformed view which conflicts with God's justice, and you are misquoting Heb 11:6.

God cannot condemn anyone without their having ANY chance at repenting ---

FALSE. That, Ben, is one of the most troubling statements I have ever heard you make. It is akin to saying that a judge cannot condemn a murderer without their having any chance to say they're sorry.

Men are condemned on the basis of their SIN....NOT on the basis of whether or not they have the choice to repent of it.

indeed, the very foundation of Calvinism opposes passages like Ezk18:32:
"I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

Incorrect. The death of the wicked in and of itself does not please God. It grieves Him deeply. But He DOES take pleasure in the upholding of His righteousness.

How else do you explain the fact that it "pleased the Lord to bruise [Christ]" on the Cross (Isaiah 53:10)?

"God saved us, ...by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit who WAS POURED on us through Jesus-our-Savior."

Tell me how "Jesus-our-Savior", does not precede "poured", which is presented as an aspect of the regenerating Spirit.

It precedes it in terms of the order of words in English. It does not therefore follow that it precedes it in the logical order of events related to salvation. It simply states that the Spirit who regenerates and renews us is the same Spirit who is poured out upon us (indwells us) through faith. To establish a logical order from this verse is to manipulate the text.

Both of you know very well why I don't respond. In the past, responding has gone very badly; and not just once or twice, but dozens of times. I am to "ignore" him, and I am honoring that request.

I'm sorry...who made the request to "ignore" me? I know of no such request, and again any such request would have been made months ago without regard to anything which has transpired since. To continue to operate as though the circumstances have not changed does not seem very prudent.

There is no doubt we had some very intense and negative interactions in the past. In fact I was just reading through some of them last week and was surprised at how intense the language was. Most of the intensity however revolved around perceived affronts...actions and words which have since been forgiven. I have endeavored to take a different approach with you since then, and believe I have been true to that intention. I only ask that I be given the benefit of the doubt in the spirit of Christian brotherhood.

 

[frumanchu]

It's the only way to accommodate "None seek", with "seek and you will find", and "God rewards those WHO seek". And it aligns perfectly with what was said about Noah in Genesis 6.

No, it is not the only way to accommodate it...it is the only way to accommodate it and still promote your view.

Yet your same logic also perceives Acts17:30 as "God's command for all men TO REPENT, doesn't mean He enables them TO repent."

I cannot convince you if the logical breech.

That's because there IS NO logical breech.

Again, I will take you back to original sin and the fact that Scripture teaches both that man universally and without exception sins and is by nature a child of wrath, and that all men are under the condemnation of God for that sin. God commands obedience of all men, and they are quite clearly under condemnation for failure to obey because of the wickedness of their hearts. It is perfectly logical to understand that God commands repentance of all men (which, I might add, clearly implies the universal state of condemnation) even with the understanding that apart from His mercy and grace they will refuse because of the wickedness of their hearts.

I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, Ben, but it bears repeating. A very famous incident occurred early in church history where an ascetic monk took issue with the prayers of another, arguing that the command to obey implies the moral ability to obey. That seems to clearly be what you too are arguing.

What you miss, is that EACH man is brought to the DECISION-POINT --- decide this day to love God, or to love sin.

Again, I do not see a single verse of Scripture which teaches this. Please provide us with a verse or passage which says each man is "brought to a decision point."

See 1Jn5:10 --- men are condemned FOR unbelief, not for God's negligence in sovereignly-choosing.

Men are born in a state of unbelief and condemnation, Ben. Do you deny this??

 

[frumanchu]

Another "fatal flaw" in Predestinationism, is that because the "ELECT" have been predestined since the beginning of time, your paradigm perceives that for YEARS there are MANY "elect" who are wanton sinners (until the time God has predestined for them TO believe, and TO repent).

Yes, and....?

Nowhere is repentance decreed, decided, dictated, predestined --- by God.

Repentance is the natural response in faith to the Word of God.

Somehow you read Philip 1:29 and 2Tim2:25 and think that these verses just quoted do NOT charge men with repentance but somehow God DECIDES men's repentance FOR them (and then JUDGES men for His OWN decision).

That's simply not the way it works. It is man's sinful heart from which proceeds his unwillingness to obey God and repent of his sins. Man's will is fully functional in his persistant and willful sin and disobedience. God's sovereignty in bringing the elect to faith operates in accordance with the natural function of man's will, NOT in opposition to it.

Again, Scripture clearly demonstrates the principle of God's superintention of man's actions and man's responsibility for those actions.

 

[nobdysfool]

It appears the Ben will not respond to Fru's refutations of Ben's theology, so by the standard that Ben himself uses, Fru's posts are and will remain unrefuted. Therefore, those points of Ben's theology have been, and are refuted, which means that Ben can no longer claim that none of his theology has been refuted by the Calvinists, or anyone else.

Ben must immediately stop claiming that no one has refuted his understanding. To continue to claim such would be a lie, seeing that Fru has refuted his understanding, and by Ben's own standard, and because Ben will not respond to said refutation, Fru's refutation stands.

QED

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Therefore, those points of Ben's theology have been, and are refuted, which means that Ben can no longer claim that none of his theology has been refuted by the Calvinists, or anyone else.

Ben must immediately stop claiming that no one has refuted his understanding. To continue to claim such would be a lie, seeing that Fru has refuted his understanding, and by Ben's own standard, and because Ben will not respond to said refutation, Fru's refutation stands.
​

Hardly. Why don't you post how you understand the relationship between "regeneration" and "poured" in Titus3:5-6...

 

[nobdysfool]

Quote:
Therefore, those points of Ben's theology have been, and are refuted, which means that Ben can no longer claim that none of his theology has been refuted by the Calvinists, or anyone else.

Ben must immediately stop claiming that no one has refuted his understanding. To continue to claim such would be a lie, seeing that Fru has refuted his understanding, and by Ben's own standard, and because Ben will not respond to said refutation, Fru's refutation stands.
​

Hardly. Why don't you post how you understand the relationship between "regeneration" and "poured" in Titus3:5-6...

Changing the subject, or trying to. My post stands. By your own measure and method, Fru has refuted your view on the specific points he addressed. You can no longer claim that none of your view has been refuted. Never, ever again. And those specific points have been refuted by Fru.

Mat 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

As for Titus 3:5-6, I agree with Fru. Your view has been refuted.

 

[Ben johnson]

It's easy to say "you've been refuted" --- but where is the refutation?

Look at the refutations I've given to formerly-predestinary-perceived-passages:

1. 1Cor2:14 says natural man cannot believe in spiritual things...
Those "spiritual things", are the same "spiritual things" as in verse 12.
Verse 12 says "those spiritual things are revealed by the RECEIVED Spirit".

Refutation:

The Spirit is received by BELIEF; "received" precedes "revealing-spiritual-things". Therefore verse 14 does NOT assert "natural men cannot believe savingly in Jesus".​

2. John10:26-28 is thought to assert "predestination"; but the Jews did not believe in Jesus' MESSIAHSHIP, because they had not (as verse 9 says) entered into Jesus (believed and become His sheep).

Refutation:

In context, verse 38 says the listeners can KNOW Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus just by looking at what He had DONE. If belief is possible just by looking at His actions, then belief is voluntary, not predestined.​

3. Acts13:48 is thought to assert "God ORDAINED some for salvation". But Rom13:1 says "ordained by God", Acts13:48 does not.

Refutation:

If the JEWS "considered THEMSELVES unworthy for eternal life" (verse 46, obvious reference to unbelief), then it is consistent to perceive "the Gentiles ARRANGED THEMSELVES on God's side", in the words of A.T.Robertson.​

These are refutations of Calvinistic positions, that have been responded to but not overturned. Please provide the proof of why Titus3:5-6 does not assert "regeneration is by the POURED/RECEIVED Spirit". (I did search the thread, it's not here.)

 

[Rightglory]

""Guys....

Changing the subject, or trying to. My post stands. By your own measure and method, Fru has refuted your view on the specific points he addressed. You can no longer claim that none of your view has been refuted. Never, ever again. And those specific points have been refuted by Fru.

Actually none of you have refuted each other. That is an impossibility. You cannot refute one system of theology with another system. All you can do is point out the differences or what each point might be in each system. One must either stay with their own interpretations or accept the other system. You cannot be piecemeal and think that the system remains unchanged. You are simply evolving a whole new theological system if you add or substract from another. I guess that is how one can claim to be a three-point Calvinsist. Just what is that?

The ironic thing is that any Calvinist cannot refute another Calvinist. Heymikey has already stated that Calvinism has changed, evolved, been reformed, revised many ways since Calvin. If one was to show precisely what Calvin stated, then one could show how one interpretation differed from Calvin and an agreement might be reached. But that is the problem, not many accept pure Calvinism which leaves individual interpretations as authority and no one can refute personal opinion.

The differing opinions here will not be settled in the next 400 years, but in all probability it will increase in differing opinions or completely new Calvinisms.

 

[Rick Otto]

Good point, RG.
I believe the "Calvinist" Canons of Dordt, but I part ways with Calvin on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Actually none of you have refuted each other. That is an impossibility. You cannot refute one system of theology with another system. All you can do is point out the differences or what each point might be in each system. One must either stay with their own interpretations or accept the other system. You cannot be piecemeal and think that the system remains unchanged. You are simply evolving a whole new theological system if you add or substract from another. I guess that is how one can claim to be a three-point Calvinsist. Just what is that?
​

That's not true --- in my post #517, are clear refutations of verses supposed to endorse "Calvinism" and the refutations are not subject to opinion.