Predestination and Election

[sola_scriptura]

This discussion seems focused on the minutia and the big picture is getting lost. I mean how can anyone think they chose God?

When God said we have two choices, life and death, who was He speaking to? At that point only the Jewish people. However, even among them many were called but only few were chosen. Has the nature of election changed?

God's voice spread throughout the world; but is His word preached everywhere? Since the obvious answer is no and we know no one can believe in something they've never heard, then we know not everyone is called, let alone chosen.


Didn't Jesus say only His sheep will hear His voice?

It wasn't easy for me to give up the idea that I'm control either, so it's of no surprise to me that most cannot accept this reality. By grace not by our own will power.

 

[chestertonrules]

This discussion seems focused on the minutia and the big picture is getting lost. I mean how can anyone think they chose God?

When God said we have two choices, life and death, who was He speaking to? At that point only the Jewish people. However, even among them many were called but only few were chosen. Has the nature of election changed?

God's voice spread throughout the world; but is His word preached everywhere? Since the obvious answer is no and we know no one can believe in something they've never heard, then we know not everyone is called, let alone chosen.


Didn't Jesus say only His sheep will hear His voice?

It wasn't easy for me to give up the idea that I'm control either, so it's of no surprise to me that most cannot accept this reality. By grace not by our own will power.

Food for thought:

1 Tim 4:10
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

• Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
  John 12:31-32

• For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
  1Cor. 15:21-22

• Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the Sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme.
  Mark 3:28

• Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

• For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
  Rom 11:32

• My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
  1 John 2:1-2

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Chesterton:
1 Corinthians 10:12 "Therefore let him who thinks he is standing, beware, that he does not fall".

We aren't at the end yet, right?

Hebrews 3:12-14 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."


Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father."​

Excellent. But no matter what verse is proferred, it's always understood within the framework of "predestination". James5:19-20 becomes
"Brethren, if any unsaved lurking amonst you-saved wanders away from truth (that he never REALLY had, he was only PROFESSING) and another leads him back (to where he never WAS, it really means 'leads him TO saving-faith'), let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way (was ALWAYS sinner-error) has saved a soul from death (that was never saved BEFORE) and covered many sins."

The verses you cited, become:
"Let he who thinks he stand take heed, lest he FALL (that is, from steadfastness or lose rewards, not "fall from SALVATION ITSELF").

And,
"yes IF we hold fast, but this is effective means by which God keeps us --- it is GOD who hardens hearts away from belief so whoever becomes hardened was really ALWAYS hardened --- and 4:11 means "lose REWARDS but never ETERNAL-REST-HEAVEN".

2Pet2:18-22 becomes
"The false entice the true; for if after having escaped the defilements of the world through the epignosis-knowledge of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus (that is, they escaped defilements but through the superficial (unsaved!) knowledge of Jesus!) they become again entangled in them and overcome (that is, move from ESCAPED-DEFILEMENTS-UNSAVED to RETURNED-DEFILEMENTS-UNSAVED), the last state is worse than the first (though the last is UNSAVED, and the first is UNSAVED, there is an "unsaved state" that is worse than another "unsaved state") ...better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness (not REALLY known it, but only known it SUPERFICIALLY) than having known it to have turned away from the holy commandment (not really turned away, because they never really HAD it --- they turned away from SUPERFICIALLY obeying it but were never REALLY saved)..."

2Pet1:6-10 becomes
"Therefore (against the man who WAS once purified but now LACKS godly qualities [well he was purified but without salvation]) --- therefore be all the more diligent about your calling and election (well both "calling" and "election" are sovereignly ordained so "be diligent" is but another "effective means that God uses to ENSURE we will abide") --- as long as these qualities are yours ...you will not stumble (that is, "ptaio-stumble-BECOME-WRETCHED" does not REALLY MEAN "become unsaved", it means "lose rewards"); in THIS way the gates of Heaven will be abundantly provided to you (that is, provided in ABUNDANCE, if you do stumble the entrance will still be provided but SPARSELY!).

How do we convince anyone that these understandings are not credible? You can't convince them; I can't convince them. The only thing we can do, is to love each other and expect that as EACH of us grows closer to God His truths will become part of our hearts.


This is why I came up with the "Five-Ways". Each verse attempting to show "personal responsibility in salvation" and/or "possibility of becoming unsaved", is interpreted with one of the Five-Ways:

1. Subjects were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place
2. Subjects never REALLY fell (became unsteadfast, a smidgeon faithless, but STAYED SAVED)
3. Two groups --- one NEVER-saved lurking amongst the SAVED (subject change mid-verse!)
4. Hypothetical; can't really happen --- "effective means by which God KEEPS the 'elect', saved"
6. Dispensation --- applied to THEM back THEN, but not to US here TODAY; sometimes applies to a NATION but not INDIVIDUALS (no one ever explained how that works)

Each one of those "Five-Ways", is really asserting "NOT REALLY" upon Scripture verses.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by SolaScriptura:
This discussion seems focused on the minutia and the big picture is getting lost. I mean how can anyone think they chose God? ​

Oh, because of many verses that say things like:

"I have set before you life and death, prosperity and adversity, the blessing and the curse; so CHOOSE LIFE by loving the Lord your God and by obeying His voice and walking in His statutes; for this is life and the length of your days." Ex30:15-17

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

"I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies (says the Lord God); so REPENT and LIVE." Ezk18:32

There are dozens if similar verses in the NT...

Quote:
When God said we have two choices, life and death, who was He speaking to? At that point only the Jewish people. However, even among them many were called but only few were chosen. Has the nature of election changed? ​

It hasn't; of those "chosen from the called" (Matt22:2-14), who were chosen by the KING, and who chose themselves by turning from farming, from business, and from filthy clothing?

Are the Jewish people given a DIFFERENT GOSPEL? Are WE not warned (Heb4:11) not to fail to enter God's rest by IMITATING Israel's disobedience and unbelief?

QUote:
God's voice spread throughout the world; but is His word preached everywhere? Since the obvious answer is no and we know no one can believe in something they've never heard, then we know not everyone is called, let alone chosen.​

Paul says (Rom10:14) "HOW can they believe in whom they have not heard, how can they hear without a preacher?" Ever wonder how God's sovereignty coincidentally aligns with opportunity?

Rom1:19-20 says that "God can be known through what He has made, so they are WITHOUT EXCUSE."

Quote:
Didn't Jesus say only His sheep will hear His voice? ​

Two things:
First, anyine (tis!) who enters through Jesus BECOME His sheep (Jn10:9)

Second, the context of that verse (Jn10:26) includes verses 25, and 28; explain to me how this verse supports "predestination":
"If you do not believe Me, then believe My WORKS, and you will know I am in the Father and the Father is in Me."

How is it they could BELIEVE in Jesus, just by looking at what He DID?

Quote:
It wasn't easy for me to give up the idea that I'm control either, so it's of no surprise to me that most cannot accept this reality. By grace not by our own will power.​

It would be "easier" if it existed somewhere in Scripture.

...but it does not...

Look at the "Five-Ways" I just presented, previous post; show me ONE verse that "Responsible Grace" advocates have presented, that is not responded to with one of those Five-Ways.

"Predestination" asserts that "no one who is not sovereignly predestined, can EVER "enter Heaven". And those who ARE "chosen", can never be THWARTED.

...leaving you at a complete loss to explain Matt23:13:
"Those who ARE ENTERING, you stop; you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men!"

WERE they "entering", or were they "only STARTING to enter but not really SOVERIEGNLY-ELECT"?

Were they "stopped/shut-off", or were they "not-REALLY, only stopped for NOW but will enter at a future time that God decides (if they ARE "elect")?

Which verse that speaks of "becoming-unsaved" (Heb3:6-14, 4:11 for instance) is interpreted with some form of "NOT REALLY", to endorse "Sovereign Predestination and Election"?

 

[Ben johnson]

Something I posted recently, was about Matt7:24-27. Jesus said:
"He who hears My words and ACTS UPON them (does them), is as a wise man who...
He who hears My words and DOES NOT ACT upon them (does not do them), is as a foolish man who..."

Per "Predestination and Election", GOD decides who believes, and who does not. But "acts-upon" in this passage, can only mean "believes".

He who hears and believes, is wise; he who hears and does NOT believe, is foolish.

How does God call FOOLISH, those He has chosen to BE foolish (not-believe), and how does God call WISE those He has decided to BE wise (believe)?

Why are we wise for God-ordained-belief, and why are others foolish for ordained-unbelief?

Quote:
It wasn't easy for me to give up the idea that I'm control either​

Perhaps when you begin to think of passages like this, you will "re-visit" whatever convinced you of "Predestination and Election".

 

[frumanchu]

1 Corinthians 10:12 "Therefore let him who thinks he is standing, beware, that he does not fall".

We aren't at the end yet, right?

Hebrews 3:12-14 "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."


Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father."

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']We are told that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and given an earnest guarantee of our salvation (Eph 1:13-14)...we are told that He is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us blameless before the presence of His glory (Jude 24)...we are told that He is at work within us both to will and to do (Phil 2:13)...we are told that He is able to preserve us and deliver us from every evil work (2 Tim 4:18)...we are told that those He justified will be glorified (Rom 8:30)...we are told He will confirm us to the end (1 Cor 1:8)...we are told we are sealed for the day of redemption (Eph 4:30)...we are told we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation (1 Pet 1:5)...we are told that whatever is born of God overcomes the world (1 John 5:4)...we are told it is God who give the increase (1 Cor 3:6)...we are told we are preserved in Jesus Christ (Jude 1)...we are told He is faithful to those He calls and will preserve them spirit, soul and body (1 Thess 5:23-24)...we are told none shall snatch His sheep out of His hand (John 10:28)...we are told He is able to put His fear in our hearts so that we will not depart from Him (Jer 32:40).[/FONT][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/FONT]

 

[frumanchu]

Excellent. But no matter what verse is proferred, it's always understood within the framework of "predestination".

Not just within the framework of predestination...within the framework of the rest of Scripture.

2Pet2:18-22 becomes
"The false entice the true; for if after having escaped the defilements of the world through the epignosis-knowledge of the LORD and SAVIOR Jesus (that is, they escaped defilements but through the superficial (unsaved!) knowledge of Jesus!) they become again entangled in them and overcome (that is, move from ESCAPED-DEFILEMENTS-UNSAVED to RETURNED-DEFILEMENTS-UNSAVED), the last state is worse than the first (though the last is UNSAVED, and the first is UNSAVED, there is an "unsaved state" that is worse than another "unsaved state") ...better to have never KNOWN the way of righteousness (not REALLY known it, but only known it SUPERFICIALLY) than having known it to have turned away from the holy commandment (not really turned away, because they never really HAD it --- they turned away from SUPERFICIALLY obeying it but were never REALLY saved)..."

How anyone can even FOLLOW that mess is beyond me, Ben.

I realize that your belief in annihilationism gives you sufficient excuse to dismiss the notion of graduated punishment in hell, but the fact is that Scripture does teach such a thing. While all sin is sufficient to condemn men, some sins will bring worse torment than others in Hell.

Moreover, I still cannot fathom why you deny the plain and evident truth that unbelievers are often in fact less prone to grievous sin in the presence of godly people or having had a religious education. How can you deny that men may appear saved without actually being saved when Scripture so plainly teaches it and common experience so easily and readily bears it out?!?

2Pet1:6-10 becomes
"Therefore (against the man who WAS once purified but now LACKS godly qualities [well he was purified but without salvation]) --- therefore be all the more diligent about your calling and election (well both "calling" and "election" are sovereignly ordained so "be diligent" is but another "effective means that God uses to ENSURE we will abide") --- as long as these qualities are yours ...you will not stumble (that is, "ptaio-stumble-BECOME-WRETCHED" does not REALLY MEAN "become unsaved", it means "lose rewards"); in THIS way the gates of Heaven will be abundantly provided to you (that is, provided in ABUNDANCE, if you do stumble the entrance will still be provided but SPARSELY!).

What you refuse to address is the fact of whether or not saved believers can actually stumble and struggle and yet still be saved. You argue as though it's a black and white deal...either they are doing great and without struggle and therefore in a wonderful state of salvation, or they are struggling and therefore no longer in a state of justification and no longer saved. But you can't seem to own up to this clear conclusion from your teachings. At every turn you insist that any talk of stumbling, faltering, or otherwise stumbling can only possibly mean falling from salvation, and the only way you can justify such an insistence is by equally maintaining that there is no way in which a saved person can stumble, falter or struggle and still be saved. But again, when it comes down to it you can't seem to either own up to that or else give any qualification as to what extent a believer can have difficulty and still be saved.

And you continue to COMPLETELY AVOID the clear issue you have in your theology when it comes to assurance of salvation.

How do we convince anyone that these understandings are not credible? You can't convince them; I can't convince them. The only thing we can do, is to love each other and expect that as EACH of us grows closer to God His truths will become part of our hearts.

Well, you certainly won't convince anyone by avoiding responses and explanations.

This is why I came up with the "Five-Ways". Each verse attempting to show "personal responsibility in salvation" and/or "possibility of becoming unsaved", is interpreted with one of the Five-Ways:

1. Subjects were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place
2. Subjects never REALLY fell (became unsteadfast, a smidgeon faithless, but STAYED SAVED)
3. Two groups --- one NEVER-saved lurking amongst the SAVED (subject change mid-verse!)
4. Hypothetical; can't really happen --- "effective means by which God KEEPS the 'elect', saved"
6. Dispensation --- applied to THEM back THEN, but not to US here TODAY; sometimes applies to a NATION but not INDIVIDUALS (no one ever explained how that works)

Each one of those "Five-Ways", is really asserting "NOT REALLY" upon Scripture verses.

And it has [post=47970010]already been demonstrated[/post] in this very thread that your "Five-Ways" is a fallacy by means of dismissal without proof.

With respect, unless you can actually PROVE those explanations to be invalid, simply claiming they fall into your predefined categories does not qualify as a refutation.

Ben, in all respect, I am being quite patient and amicable in my responses to you. I sincerely wish that you would consider actually engaging me in conversation again, and I fail to understand why you refuse to give me a second chance.

 

[frumanchu]

It hasn't; of those "chosen from the called" (Matt22:2-14), who were chosen by the KING, and who chose themselves by turning from farming, from business, and from filthy clothing?

The call went out to all, but only those who were properly clothed were chosen. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom.

Are the Jewish people given a DIFFERENT GOSPEL? Are WE not warned (Heb4:11) not to fail to enter God's rest by IMITATING Israel's disobedience and unbelief?

They are not all Israel who are born of Israel. Being a part of the covenant community does not itself confer salvation.

Paul says (Rom10:14) "HOW can they believe in whom they have not heard, how can they hear without a preacher?" Ever wonder how God's sovereignty coincidentally aligns with opportunity?

Hmmm...could it be that God chose to ordain the preaching of His Word as the means of bringing His people to faith?

Could not God appear directly to people, seeking to convert them in the same manner He converted Paul? What explanation do you have, Ben, for why God does not do so?

If salvation is wholly reliant upon opportunity, then you have much difficulty with the unevangelized. You must either admit the clear truth that, being born children of wrath, they justly perish in their sins...or you must advocate salvation apart from faith in Christ, for "how can they believe in whom they have not heard?"

Two things:
First, anyine (tis!) who enters through Jesus BECOME His sheep (Jn10:9)

Yes, just as whosoever believes will not perish. It's a simple conditional statement, Ben. It makes no commentary on who fulfills the condition or why.

Second, the context of that verse (Jn10:26) includes verses 25, and 28; explain to me how this verse supports "predestination":
"If you do not believe Me, then believe My WORKS, and you will know I am in the Father and the Father is in Me."

How is it they could BELIEVE in Jesus, just by looking at what He DID?

His works bear witness to His identity and validate His message. That was the primary function of His miracles, Ben...to bear witness to the truth of His claims, just as his scars bore witness to Thomas.

Look at the "Five-Ways" I just presented, previous post; show me ONE verse that "Responsible Grace" advocates have presented, that is not responded to with one of those Five-Ways.

I can show you DOZENS that are GUILTY of the "Five-Ways!" If I do so, would you respond to defend them?

"Predestination" asserts that "no one who is not sovereignly predestined, can EVER "enter Heaven". And those who ARE "chosen", can never be THWARTED.

...leaving you at a complete loss to explain Matt23:13:
"Those who ARE ENTERING, you stop; you shut off the kingdom of Heaven from men!"

And thus you continue the error shown forth above. You make God's purpose in salvation wholly subject not just to the will of the individual, but to the machinations of sinful men. You seem to be advocating the notion that sinful men can thwart the efforts of God in reaching the lost and completely frustrate Him to the point that they can prevent God from saving those whom He otherwise would save. I don't see how you can possibly believe Scripture teaches such a thing, yet that's the logical conclusion of what you are saying.

Which verse that speaks of "becoming-unsaved" (Heb3:6-14, 4:11 for instance) is interpreted with some form of "NOT REALLY", to endorse "Sovereign Predestination and Election"?

Again, you yourself employ these "five-ways" all the time in defense of your positions. The real test is whether or not you can prove that those explanations aren't valid for a reason other than "because I've categorized them as a 'five-way.'"

I wait patiently for you to answer to the refutations I have given.

 

[frumanchu]

Something I posted recently, was about Matt7:24-27. Jesus said:
"He who hears My words and ACTS UPON them (does them), is as a wise man who...
He who hears My words and DOES NOT ACT upon them (does not do them), is as a foolish man who..."

Per "Predestination and Election", GOD decides who believes, and who does not. But "acts-upon" in this passage, can only mean "believes".

And? Action is the fruit of belief. He who believes, acts accordingly. That does not conflict at all with God's role in bringing about that faith.

He who hears and believes, is wise; he who hears and does NOT believe, is foolish.

How does God call FOOLISH, those He has chosen to BE foolish (not-believe), and how does God call WISE those He has decided to BE wise (believe)?

Why are we wise for God-ordained-belief, and why are others foolish for ordained-unbelief?

Is widsom purely the product of man, or is it something God grants?

It is something God gives, Ben. (Job 38:36, Psalm 51:6, Prov 2:6, etc.)

Unregenerate men are fools, and they thus show themselves to be so by failing to act upon the words of Christ and are rightly said to be fools.

Those whose eyes God has opened to the truth and who embrace it in faith show forth the wisdom given them by acting upon the words of Christ, and are rightly said to be wise.

Again, you are taking simple declarative statements and injecting a philosophical argument into them that they are not intended to address and do not contain the implications you claim.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Sorry, not true. I'm free. I've also only made ONE CHOICE.

The options are open. But the will may only make ONE CHOICE.​

"OPTION" --- something that is or can be chosen.
Mikey: "The will can only make ONE CHOICE."

There is no other option in your doctrine, Mike. Fatal conflict.

Wrong again, Ben. Both options are open. I make one choice because my will is unwilling. There is nothing other than the nature and controls on my will that is involved.

The fatality is in your myopathy. You can't see past the need to be free, when freedom is the presentation of alternatives -- not the choice that inevitably must be made by the will.

Quote:
That's kind of a constant of this creation. When you come to a fork in the road you can't take it -- you make ONE CHOICE. Your will chooses. And your will has all sorts of controls on it to prevent or preclude quite a number of WRONG CHOICES. If there were more right controls and more insight into the right choice, I assert the number of controls would be reduced further. Until there were complete knowledge of right choices. Then the number of choices would reduce to those.​

So --- how is it that your will, still SINS? You have no answer for that...

ROFL! Of course I have an answer for that. My will sins because its nature is to sin.

How is it your will doesn't sin? After all, you're saying you don't continue to sin (acc. 1 John, even though it says quite differently just a few lines distant).

 

[heymikey80]

Quote:
As I've quoted to you before, even monergists make this same claim:
God alone regenerates. We alone believe. And we believe in Christ alone for salvation. John Murray, "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", "Faith and Repentance", p. 106​

But which is the "chicken", and which is the "egg"?

Do we believe BECAUSE we are regenerated, or are we regenerated THROUGH our faith?

Ah, so now you must admit we hold the same position, so you have to move to some other point on which we differ.

You were wrong about monergism. So you can be wrong about which came first.

Even Thomas Aquinas had regeneration as prior to faith. There wasn't a controversy here 'til Pelagianism came along again.

Quote:
And that's no divided responsibility. That's actually an inseparable responsibility. God isn't being an individualist. He's not looking at you, "Well, until you gather up enough gumption to have faith, I'm not touching your soiled soul."

If He were, you'd never rely on Him enough to warrant His consideration.​

On what do you base your "absolute"?

On Paul's statement, copiously quoted to you. No human will is why God is choosing people.

But what's more, that's exactly what the Pharisees were doing. Just take a look at some of the scholarship characterizing Judaism. It's not works-righteousness Jesus is objecting to. It's this idea that God accepts or rejects people through some attraction they're generating within themselves. Read Jesus as reacting to that. Because that's what Judaism was generally about, from Temple Saduceeism to Pharisaism to Zealotry to asceticism. And that's what's been uncovered now for 30 years.

Quote:
Again, wrong. It is 100% responsibility for men, 100% responsibility for God.​

Hmmm; let's see --- 100% + 100% --- recognizing that percent is really 1/100 --- therefore it's REALLY 1 + 1, that's TWO, isn't it?

Two. And there are two wills involved, two roles, two beings, two responsibilities, two positions in this relationship. Funny, isn't it.

You don't add derivative responsibilities. The responsibility of a subject to carry out the order of his superior is a derivative responsibility.

The "whole" can never be "DOUBLE-whole". Probability can never exceed ONE.

Sorry you missed the point. One is a secondary responsibility -- obviously, because it's fulfilled by relying on the reliability of the Other.

That's always the way it is when you're living in reliance -- that is, in faith.

Quote:
It's a derivative responsibility on the part of the new man, and it's empowered by the God Who is ultimately responsible for this man's New Birth.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes Rom 1:16​

In plainer words, God is NOT just and justifer of he who believes (in your doctrine), God authors faith in whom He ELECTS and jusifies.

Look it up sometime -- "justification by faith".

"Justification" means something. "Salvation" means something. "Faith" means something. When you make all the words mean one thing, you confound the concepts and generate conundrums from the lack of meaning. But when you watch the words being used, you can arrive at a meaningful treatment of each.

QUote:
Two wills. Both required. One predestined.​

Not two wills; in your doctrine, God ordains HIS will, and God ordains MAN'S will. That's only ONE will.

Two wills. Your sentence can't even deny it without reference to two wills. It's clear the human will is dependent on God. The rest is an attempt to split them asunder.

There is no "obligation/responsibility/option" in your paradigm. Thus, the Final Judgment, is mere pageantry.

You try telling that to a judge when you've committed a crime: "This is mere pageantry." I'm sure you can muse over the pageant of what results.

A trial is a determination after the fact. After the fact. At the Final Judgment your case is at its weakest. There is no repentance at the Final Bar. The protestations aren't even credible. Judgment is through to the core. And the core is a will that is unwilling, and will not embrace its own salvation.

As for pageantry, in your case it's no different. In your view your free will then is all in the past.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Wrong again, Ben. Both options are open. I make one choice because my will is unwilling. There is nothing other than the nature and controls on my will that is involved.​

No they're not --- the WILL demands one choice, and that will is SOVEREIGNLY-DECREED. Only ONE CHOICE is open to you.
The fatality is in your myopathy. You can't see past the need to be free, when freedom is the presentation of alternatives -- not the choice that inevitably must be made by the will.
[/color][/indent]There is no alternative in your view --- man chooses according to his WILL, and that will is soveriegnly-DECREED.

Fatal conflict.

Quote:
ROFL! Of course I have an answer for that. My will sins because its nature is to sin.

How is it your will doesn't sin? After all, you're saying you don't continue to sin (acc. 1 John, even though it says quite differently just a few lines distant).​

If the will can make only ONE CHOICE, then it CANNOT SIN.

That's the conflict. That we SIN, proves God is RESISTIBLE.

Quote:
Ah, so now you must admit we hold the same position, so you have to move to some other point on which we differ.

You were wrong about monergism. So you can be wrong about which came first.

Even Thomas Aquinas had regeneration as prior to faith. There wasn't a controversy here 'til Pelagianism came along again.​

We do not hold the same position. Regeneration is by the received Spirit. You're trying to walk both sides of the street --- saying we have free will, but that free will is dictated by God. There is no "Monergism", there is no "regeneration-before-faith". Regeneration is 100% God and nothing of us, but regeneration is by the RECEIVED (belief!) Spirit. It will be an eternity before you can find Scripture to overturn that.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
On Paul's statement, copiously quoted to you. No human will is why God is choosing people.​

What verse? Rom3:10? Have you "whited-out" 2:3-8? Will you answer what "justifier" means, in the Greek, in 3:26?

Rom3:10 is NOT "Paul's statement", it's citing Psalms 14 & 53. In no way does "No one (in general) seeks", conflict "if you seek you will find".

Quote:
But what's more, that's exactly what the Pharisees were doing. Just take a look at some of the scholarship characterizing Judaism. It's not works-righteousness Jesus is objecting to. It's this idea that God accepts or rejects people through some attraction they're generating within themselves. Read Jesus as reacting to that. Because that's what Judaism was generally about, from Temple Saduceeism to Pharisaism to Zealotry to asceticism. And that's what's been uncovered now for 30 years.​

And Pharisees were shutting off the kingdom to those who WERE ENTERING.

Leaving you struggling to explain, "they weren't REALLY entering", or "they weren't REALLY shut off". Matt23:13

 

[Ben johnson]

QUote:
Two. And there are two wills involved, two roles, two beings, two responsibilities, two positions in this relationship. Funny, isn't it.​

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.

QUote:
You don't add derivative responsibilities. The responsibility of a subject to carry out the order of his superior is a derivative responsibility.​

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"...

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Sorry you missed the point. One is a secondary responsibility -- obviously, because it's fulfilled by relying on the reliability of the Other.

That's always the way it is when you're living in reliance -- that is, in faith.​

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%)

 

[Ben johnson]

Quote:
Look it up sometime -- "justification by faith".​

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

Quote:
"Justification" means something. "Salvation" means something. "Faith" means something. When you make all the words mean one thing, you confound the concepts and generate conundrums from the lack of meaning. But when you watch the words being used, you can arrive at a meaningful treatment of each.​

"Faith" means nothing to you, but a God-gifted (monergistic) sovereign decree. When Peter says "Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH salvation", you perceive "receive as a sovereign gift faith AND salvation".

Quote:
Two wills. Your sentence can't even deny it without reference to two wills. It's clear the human will is dependent on God. The rest is an attempt to split them asunder.​

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

What does "monergistic" mean to you, Mike?

Quote:
You try telling that to a judge when you've committed a crime: "This is mere pageantry." I'm sure you can muse over the pageant of what results.

A trial is a determination after the fact. After the fact. At the Final Judgment your case is at its weakest. There is no repentance at the Final Bar. The protestations aren't even credible. Judgment is through to the core. And the core is a will that is unwilling, and will not embrace its own salvation.

As for pageantry, in your case it's no different. In your view your free will then is all in the past.​

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.

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?
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?

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Wrong again, Ben. Both options are open. I make one choice because my will is unwilling. There is nothing other than the nature and controls on my will that is involved.​

No they're not --- the WILL demands one choice, and that will is SOVEREIGNLY-DECREED. Only ONE CHOICE is open to you.
The fatality is in your myopathy. You can't see past the need to be free, when freedom is the presentation of alternatives -- not the choice that inevitably must be made by the will.
[/color][/indent]There is no alternative in your view --- man chooses according to his WILL, and that will is soveriegnly-DECREED.

Fatal conflict.

No, Ben. What you are advocating here is a will that is passive. Calvinists do not teach that the will is passive. You persist in this straw man, and base all of your judgments of Calvinism against such straw men. Your position is libertarian free will, which necessitates a will that is free from any constraints, even sin. Scripture emphatically does not teach that.

Quote:
ROFL! Of course I have an answer for that. My will sins because its nature is to sin.

How is it your will doesn't sin? After all, you're saying you don't continue to sin (acc. 1 John, even though it says quite differently just a few lines distant).​

If the will can make only ONE CHOICE, then it CANNOT SIN.

That's the conflict. That we SIN, proves God is RESISTIBLE.

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

Quote:
Ah, so now you must admit we hold the same position, so you have to move to some other point on which we differ.

You were wrong about monergism. So you can be wrong about which came first.

Even Thomas Aquinas had regeneration as prior to faith. There wasn't a controversy here 'til Pelagianism came along again.​

We do not hold the same position. Regeneration is by the received Spirit. You're trying to walk both sides of the street --- saying we have free will, but that free will is dictated by God. There is no "Monergism", there is no "regeneration-before-faith". Regeneration is 100% God and nothing of us, but regeneration is by the RECEIVED (belief!) Spirit. It will be an eternity before you can find Scripture to overturn that.

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?

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". 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.

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. 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, 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.

Receiving the spirit is not equal to faith. 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:

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.

 

[frumanchu]

No they're not --- the WILL demands one choice, and that will is SOVEREIGNLY-DECREED. Only ONE CHOICE is open to you.

The fatality is in your myopathy. You can't see past the need to be free, when freedom is the presentation of alternatives -- not the choice that inevitably must be made by the will.

WRONG. Freedom is the ability to choose what you want from the available alternatives. The alternatives are most certainly presented. The problem is that apart from the prior work of the Holy Spirit the choice will always be the same: creature over Creator.

The choice you're railing against is not whether or not one believes, but rather whether or not one can agree to go along with God's elective will. IOW, it's whether or not one has the freedom to act other than according to his nature. That is a choice we simply do not have. We will do what we will do.

If the will can make only ONE CHOICE, then it CANNOT SIN.

That's the conflict. That we SIN, proves God is RESISTIBLE.

Now you're confusing the efficacy of the work of the Spirit in regenerating and bringing an individual to faith with the ongoing sanctification and obedience of the believer. No Calvinist has ever said that our sanctification is monergistic, nor do we believe it is instantaneous. Both are grievous errors.

​

We do not hold the same position. Regeneration is by the received Spirit. You're trying to walk both sides of the street --- saying we have free will, but that free will is dictated by God. There is no "Monergism", there is no "regeneration-before-faith". Regeneration is 100% God and nothing of us, but regeneration is by the RECEIVED (belief!) Spirit. It will be an eternity before you can find Scripture to overturn that.

And it will be an eternity before you can find a Scripture that explicitly states that regeneration is the result of faith.

No matter how long you continue to ignore me, my arguments stand and will continue to bear witness against your interpretation of Titus 3. That passage does not say what you claim and your continued refusal to address the clear refutation of your position only serves to further undermine that claim.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quote:
On Paul's statement, copiously quoted to you. No human will is why God is choosing people.​

What verse? Rom3:10? Have you "whited-out" 2:3-8? Will you answer what "justifier" means, in the Greek, in 3:26?

God is the One who justifies, not us. Your theology logically leads to saying that we justify ourselves. Just another example of Ben trying to "cut God down to size."

Rom3:10 is NOT "Paul's statement", it's citing Psalms 14 & 53. In no way does "No one (in general) seeks", conflict "if you seek you will find".

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

"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".

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.

Quote:
But what's more, that's exactly what the Pharisees were doing. Just take a look at some of the scholarship characterizing Judaism. It's not works-righteousness Jesus is objecting to. It's this idea that God accepts or rejects people through some attraction they're generating within themselves. Read Jesus as reacting to that. Because that's what Judaism was generally about, from Temple Saduceeism to Pharisaism to Zealotry to asceticism. And that's what's been uncovered now for 30 years.​

And Pharisees were shutting off the kingdom to those who WERE ENTERING.

Leaving you struggling to explain, "they weren't REALLY entering", or "they weren't REALLY shut off". Matt23:13

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. 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.

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.

Personally I still think this "book" is vaporware.

 

[frumanchu]

What verse? Rom3:10? Have you "whited-out" 2:3-8? Will you answer what "justifier" means, in the Greek, in 3:26?

Thayer: Especially it is so used, in the technical phraseology of Paul, respecting God who judges and declares such men as put faith in Christ to be righteous and acceptable to him, and accordingly fit to receive the pardon of their sins and eternal life, thus absolutely.

As already explained, God is just (dikaios - His justice is upheld in the pouring out of His wrath due our sins upon Christ) and the justifier (dikaioo - He justifies believers by declaring them righteous based upon the work of Christ) of those who believe.

Rom3:10 is NOT "Paul's statement", it's citing Psalms 14 & 53. In no way does "No one (in general) seeks", conflict "if you seek you will find".

The claim that it is meant only in a general sense is wholly without merit, particularly in the context of Romans 3 whereby Paul is clearly establishing the universal state of man as being sinful and under the condemnation of God.

Or do you believe that there ARE perfectly righteous men?

And Pharisees were shutting off the kingdom to those who WERE ENTERING.

Leaving you struggling to explain, "they weren't REALLY entering", or "they weren't REALLY shut off". Matt23:13

Moreover, leaving you to explain how men actually have the POWER to thwart the will of God such that God has no means of overcoming their efforts when it comes to reaching them.