predestination

[Chappie]

Where exactly did you get your information? A despot can be any ruler that has absolute authority. And of course, if you want to look at the human despots that have reigned, the vast majority of them would have been unjust. The difference is that God is a divine, benelovent, despot. That should be a given.

So I take it then that you disagree with the thought of God being despotic? God stands outside of time and history and He is completely un-influenced. He does exactly as He pleases. And yet He is completely loving and at times He even accomadated the actions of His people, even though they were wrong (polygamy).

Can both of these evaluations be true? If God accomodates the actions of his people, it would seem to me that he was influenced by them.

A God that is totally un-unifluenced does not answer prayer....

 

[frumanchu]

Can both of these evaluations be true? If God accomodates the actions of his people, it would seem to me that he was influenced by them.

A God that is totally un-unifluenced does not answer prayer....

Ah, yes...but it was by His own choice according to His own sovereign will. God is neither obligated nor bound to respond to men's prayers. Which prayers are answered? Those which He chooses to answer...those which are according to His good will and pleasure.

God is completely uninfluenced in that He is not bound or coerced into anything, nor is He taken by surprise. All that happens does so according to God's ordination. He does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever more.

Sin may not be decreed by God (for God is not the author of sin), but it is necessarily ordained by God simply by the fact that He knows of it beforehand, has it within His power to prevent it, and yet allows it according to His purposes. How many times has God used your own sin to accomplish greater good in you? He did not force you to sin, and yet He masterfully uses your sin to accomplish His will for your life. It is the glory of the promise in Romans 8:28, that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord.

God does not change His mind or His plans. Were that not true, our entire hope would rest in what is by no means a sure thing...

 

[Ben johnson]

So I take it then that you disagree with the thought of God being despotic? God stands outside of time and history and He is completely un-influenced. He does exactly as He pleases. And yet He is completely loving and at times He even accomadated the actions of His people, even though they were wrong (polygamy).

God's choices are NOT unlimited; God is constrained by His own nature. God cannot tempt, He cannot do evil, and He cannot be unjust. Predestined-election contends that God ignores the reprobate and they perish from their own sinfulness; but if "total depravity" prevents them from doing otherwise, then they HAVE NO CHOICE. For anyone to enter Hell, it must be the just consequence of their choices; and there must be no excuse. If only God chooses SOME out of Hell, then the rest have the best excuse in the Universe.

And if God cannot be moved by prayer, then why did James write in 5:16 that "the prayer of a righteous man avails much"? Seems to me that PE must assert that "the prayer of a righteous man does not influence God at all"...

My issue is that our view of God seems skewed greatly by our perception, our upbringing, the preaching we've sat under, etc., etc. We can't comprehend a God who could receive glory for creating someone who perhaps was never intended to receive salvation. We consider God to be glorified only by the sucess of the life, never the failure.

God creates one who CANNOT be saved? How can that exist under the umbrella, of "JUST"? Whatever your view is, or my view is, both are irrelevant. Theological discussions always strive to discern what Scripture SAYS; and opinions are irrelevant.

I've wrestled greatly with this whole issue and I'm not sure that I've arrived at the truth. However, coming from a very strict Arminian background, I can tell you that my view of God as an Arminian is greatly less than my view of God as a Calvinist. As an Arminian I placed so much emphasis on me -- my life, my decisions, my choices, my salvation. Whereas my Calvinistic approach emphasizes God -- God's character, God's will, God's choice, God's salvation. I find myself resting more on God's abilities instead of my own. Best of all it sure feels good to feel secure after 30 years of feeling insecure in my relationship with Christ.

Both "PE" and "RG" (responsible-grace) people believe that "salvation IS of God". We (RG) just see that John1:12 asserts "all who receive Christ become adopted children", then John1:13 says "that salvation (that we RECEIVED) is not of us, it is all of God". We see the RECIEVING as volition, but the GIFT remains entirely of God. (Accepting a gift changes nothing of the gift --- it remains entirely of the giver.)

Now, if we are predestined, then none who are TRULY SAVED can be LOST, can they? But Peter speaks of some "truly saved" ("ontos-apopheugo-truly-escaped" vs18) becoming unsaved in 2:2:20-22, Paul speaks of truly saved becoming unsaved in Gal3:1-3 & 5:1-7, in 1Tim1:19-20 & 2Tim2:17-18, again in (I believe Paul wrote Hebrews) Heb2:1-3, 3:12-14, 4:1, 6:4-6, 10:26-36, 12:15 & 25; James in 1:14-16 and 5:19-20; John in 2:1:7-9 and Rev2:4-5. Jesus in Luke 22:30 and John6:66-70. These verses are not ALL; and do not include many REAL WARNINGS against falling from salvation (see Col1:21-23, 2:8; 2Pet3:14 & 17; 1Tim4:1&16; 2Cor11:3; Rom11:21-22.).

The overwhelming evidence from ALL of Scripture, is that God is sovereign; and we are responsible.

 

[Chappie]

Ah, yes...but it was by His own choice according to His own sovereign will. God is neither obligated nor bound to respond to men's prayers. Which prayers are answered? Those which He chooses to answer...those which are according to His good will and pleasure.

Yes he is, he is bound by his word, he said that he would not let it return to him void. God said that he answers prayer. He is therefore obligated. Where I think that you need to go with this is; should he change his mind, who can compel him..

God is completely uninfluenced in that He is not bound or coerced into anything, nor is He taken by surprise. All that happens does so according to God's ordination. He does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever more.

God hates evil, there is more evil in the world than good. Is God double minded? Does God produce more of what he hates than what he loves? God does not ordain evil in order to produce good. I so wish that people would stop saying that. God takes the evil that we do, manipulates it so that it does not produce more evil.



The immutability of God pertains to his nature, not his plans, not his actions. When God created the heavens and the earth and placed man therein, his plan was for an existence somewhat parallel to our concept of paradise. When Adam sinned, God amended his plan to include the redemption of mankind.

Aaah, but you ask about the omnipotence of God. Did God know that Adam was going to sin? Yep! Before the first, and God said, “let there be”: Adam’s disobedience had been perceived by the power of God’s Holy Spirit, and dealt within the creative mind of God. You see, when Adam sinned, God did not have to go to plan “B”, because plan “A” was still on the table.

Sin may not be decreed by God (for God is not the author of sin), but it is necessarily ordained by God simply by the fact that He knows of it beforehand, has it within His power to prevent it, and yet allows it according to His purposes.

To know something before hand does not mean that it is decreed or ordained. One has nothing to do with the other unless joined in a sentence, each must still maintain its original intererity. The simple mechanics of language, and the fact that you cannot express yourself with out contradicting yourself is sufficient evidence of that truth. God did not decree it but he ordained it, these are simply two different ways of saying the same thing; God caused it.



Essentially, this is what you just said: Sin may not be caused (decreed) by God (for God is not the author of sin), but it is necessarily caused (ordained) by God simply by the fact that He knows of it beforehand, has it within His power to prevent it, and yet allows it according to His purposes.



Sin may not be caused by God (for God is not the author of sin), but it is necessarily caused by God

How many times has God used your own sin to accomplish greater good in you? He did not force you to sin, and yet He masterfully uses your sin to accomplish His will for your life. It is the glory of the promise in Romans 8:28, that all things work together for good to them that love the Lord.

Sin is not necessary to God’s plan, God hates sin. And he is equally adept at producing a greater good out of good as he is at producing a greater good out of evil. And no!!! God did not cause me to sin, neither did he ordain it, predestine it, nor was it necessary for God to accomplish his eternal plan. I messed up, me, myself, and I... Not God.



[/quote]God does not change His mind or His plans. Were that not true, our entire hope would rest in what is by no means a sure thing...[/QUOTE]



Sure God changes his mind, for that you ought to be eternally grateful. God said that the soul that sinnith, it shall die; yet he changed his mind and sent Christ to save our butts. The Old Covenant is filled with so many times that God changed his mind that I fail to see how someone can ignore such evidence and for what purpose…



Jonah 3:10: And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

1 Chronicles 21:15: And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Amos 7:6: The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

 

[frumanchu]

Yes he is, he is bound by his word, he said that he would not let it return to him void. God said that he answers prayer. He is therefore obligated. Where I think that you need to go with this is; should he change his mind, who can compel him..

God did not say that He answers ALL prayer. So the question becomes what prayer DOES He answer? Why are some prayers answered and others not, and what is the determining factor?

God hates evil, there is more evil in the world than good. Is God double minded? Does God produce more of what he hates than what he loves? God does not ordain evil in order to produce good. I so wish that people would stop saying that. God takes the evil that we do, manipulates it so that it does not produce more evil.

The very fact that evil exists shows forth its ordination. I think you misunderstand what I mean by the term "ordain." God has it within His power to prevent any and all sin...and yet He does not. So, does He allow sin to happen because He has no choice (He is obligated) or does He allow sin to happen because has been ordained as a means that He did not instrumentally cause yet nevertheless has purposed to use for His own GOOD purpose?

The immutability of God pertains to his nature, not his plans, not his actions. When God created the heavens and the earth and placed man therein, his plan was for an existence somewhat parallel to our concept of paradise. When Adam sinned, God amended his plan to include the redemption of mankind.

So when the Scriptures speak of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, it really means.....what?

Aaah, but you ask about the omnipotence of God. Did God know that Adam was going to sin? Yep! Before the first, and God said, “let there be”: Adam’s disobedience had been perceived by the power of God’s Holy Spirit, and dealt within the creative mind of God. You see, when Adam sinned, God did not have to go to plan “B”, because plan “A” was still on the table.

But you just said that WHEN Adam sinned, God amended His plan. According to you, the plan DID change, Chappie. You said His plan was "for an existence somewhat parallel to our concept of paradise" but that plan clearly changed when Adam was expelled from the Garden.

To know something before hand does not mean that it is decreed or ordained. One has nothing to do with the other unless joined in a sentence, each must still maintain its original intererity.

In and of itself, not it does not. HOWEVER, when you have a God who is not only omniscient, but ALSO omnipotent (and thus possessive of the ability to prevent that which is afore conceived), then it DOES necessarily follow that what is known beforehand is ordained (NOT necessarily decreed).

The simple mechanics of language, and the fact that you cannot express yourself with out contradicting yourself is sufficient evidence of that truth. God did not decree it but he ordained it, these are simply two different ways of saying the same thing; God caused it.

Flattery will get you nowhere

What you perceive as a contradiction is nothing of the sort, and in fact is only shown as such by manipulation of the "simple mechanics of language."

Sin may not be caused by God (for God is not the author of sin), but it is necessarily caused by God

You need to study the concept of causality, friend. There are different forms of causality. For example, faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. Christ's atoning sacrifice is the material cause of our salvation. God's redemptive purpose/plan is the formal cause of our salvation.

So, in one sense we are the cause of our salvation, in another sense Christ is the cause of our salvation, and in yet another God the Father is the cause of our salvation.

God is not the instrumental cause of our sin. In fact He can only said to be the formal cause of it by virtue of it's (our sin) being ordained as part of His overall plan. Certainly God does in fact prevent men from sinning, but clearly He does not prevent ALL men from sinning AT ALL. Joseph and his brothers are an excellent example of God's allowing the sins of men to bring about a greater purpose. There is no escaping this fact.

Sin is not necessary to God’s plan, God hates sin.

Sin is not necessary to His plan in the sense that the only means He has of accomplishing good is to allow sin, but God's plan most certainly incorporates sin as a component. To argue otherwise brings a predicament concerning the sacrifice of our Lord. He was innocent...completely blameless. And yet His death was necessary to secure the salvation of God's people. So...short of Christ committing suicide, how was that act to be accomplished?

And he is equally adept at producing a greater good out of good as he is at producing a greater good out of evil. And no!!! God did not cause me to sin, neither did he ordain it, predestine it, nor was it necessary for God to accomplish his eternal plan. I messed up, me, myself, and I... Not God.

There is no denying that you are responsible for your own sin. God did not compel, force, coerce or otherwise bring about your sin. But in knowing it beforehand and having within His power the ability to prevent it, the very fact that it occurs NECESSARILY means that is was ordained (NOT decreed). Again, I think you misunderstand my use of the word "ordain."

Sure God changes his mind, for that you ought to be eternally grateful. God said that the soul that sinnith, it shall die; yet he changed his mind and sent Christ to save our butts. The Old Covenant is filled with so many times that God changed his mind that I fail to see how someone can ignore such evidence and for what purpose…

I see. And what's to prevent God from changing His mind once again and sending all of us to hell for our sins?

And once again, YOU show contradiction by saying God "changed His mind and sent Christ to save our butts" after saying that He is still carrying out Plan A.

As far as the verses you provided, these verses have already been discussed at length in other threads, but I would suggest you study the word "repent" beyond it's contemporary meaning. If I can find the prior threads I will send you the link.

 

[Chappie]

God did not say that He answers ALL prayer. So the question becomes what prayer DOES He answer? Why are some prayers answered and others not, and what is the determining factor?

Neither did he say that he answers some prayer. All that he said is that he answers prayer, whatever that means.



He answers all prayer. Some yes, some no; some if you do this, I will do that; some, wait.

The very fact that evil exists shows forth its ordination. I think you misunderstand what I mean by the term "ordain."

OT:7760 ORDAIN
suwm (soom); or siym (seem); a primitive root; to put (used in a great variety of applications, literal, figurative, inferentially, and elliptically):


KJV-X any wise, appoint, bring, call [a name], care, cast in, change, charge, commit, consider, convey, determine, + disguise, dispose, do, get, give, heap up, hold, impute, lay (down, up), leave, look, make (out), mark, + name, X on, ordain, order, + paint, place, preserve, purpose, put (on), + regard, rehearse, reward, (cause to) set (on, up), shew, + stedfastly, take, X tell, + tread down, ([over-]) turn, X wholly, work.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

God has it within His power to prevent any and all sin...and yet He does not. So, does He allow sin to happen because He has no choice (He is obligated) or does He allow sin to happen because has been ordained as a means that He did not instrumentally cause yet nevertheless has purposed to use for His own GOOD purpose?

It is you that is using the word incorrectly. Ordain, in all of its applications is proactive, not passive. To cause is proactive, to allow is passive. Passive means that God decided to do nothing.

So when the Scriptures speak of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, it really means.....what?

The understanding of the passage is subject to the truth that before literal creation was began, God had already decided that he was going from point "A" to point "B", and all the details of how he was going to get there. Kinda like an engineer does before beginning to build a bridge. Every known need and detail is incorporated into a blue print.



Say they go out and measure the dept of the water, the water is 40 feet deep, so they decide on 50 feet pylons to support the bridge. They want the bridge to be safe for 100 years. Ok, here is where omnipotence steps in. They think, and they realize that over the next hundred years, at the rivers present rate of flow, over a hundred years it is reasonable to expect 20 feet of erosion to occur: So they decide on pylons of 70 feet in length and they add another 15 feet to compensate for floods or other circumstances that might increase the rate of erosion....



So, did the engineer cause, ordain, or predestine the times of the increased erosion? No!!! But the plans certainly had contingencies for them.



When was the decision made concerning the length of the pylons, it was made before the first shovel full of earth was turned.



Hence, the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world was laid...

But you just said that WHEN Adam sinned, God amended His plan. According to you, the plan DID change, Chappie. You said His plan was "for an existence somewhat parallel to our concept of paradise" but that plan clearly changed when Adam was expelled from the Garden.

By amended, I mean that he added to. Not changed. Hope that I have used the word correctly.



Point "A" is creation; point "B" is still paradise. The plan has not changed.

In and of itself, no it does not. HOWEVER, when you have a God who is not only omniscient, but ALSO omnipotent (and thus possessive of the ability to prevent that which is afore conceived), then it DOES necessarily follow that what is known beforehand is ordained (NOT necessarily decreed).

This I do not understand

What you perceive as a contradiction is nothing of the sort, and in fact is only shown as such by manipulation of the "simple mechanics of language."

May it be true even as you wish..

You need to study the concept of causality, friend. There are different forms of causality. For example, faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. Christ's atoning sacrifice is the material cause of our salvation. God's redemptive purpose/plan is the formal cause of our salvation.

Always willing to learn, and there indeed appears to be much to learn. For example, you say that faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. I have indeed learned that "Grace", not faith is the cause of our salvation. To be more precise, grace applied through faith.



God gives all men faith, but the minute that he does so, we mess it up. We contaminate it. God has to continually wash it, regenerate it, and clean it up so that at a time when it is pleasing to him, he sends his grace through it that we might be saved. Even after salvation, the washing and regeneration goes on.



Oh, by the way. It is not so much that we are saved by the blood; the real truth of the matter is that we cannot be saved without the blood. The blood made it possible, grace does the saving...

So, in one sense we are the cause of our salvation, in another sense Christ is the cause of our salvation, and in yet another God the Father is the cause of our salvation.

I love that old gospel song that says, I'm going home on the evening train, still I can promise you this: If I get on that train, and it has a sign on it that says that I am in any way the cause of my salvation, they better handcuff me and chain me down with many chains, because I’m gonna tear that buggar up trying to get off. If I am saved, God did it....

God is not the instrumental cause of our sin. In fact He can only said to be the formal cause of it by virtue of it's (our sin) being ordained as part of His overall plan. Certainly God does in fact prevent men from sinning, but clearly He does not prevent ALL men from sinning AT ALL. Joseph and his brothers are an excellent example of God's allowing the sins of men to bring about a greater purpose. There is no escaping this fact.

All that you have logically concluded is that God allows men freewill. Why would men rather conclude that god allows sin rather than freewill. God allowed Joseph and his brothers to exercise their own evil. If God wanted Joseph in Egypt, he did not have to depend on Joseph's brothers sinning. Shucks, there was a 747 leaving for Egypt in an hour down at the airport anyway..

Sin is not necessary to His plan in the sense that the only means He has of accomplishing good is to allow sin, but God's plan most certainly incorporates sin as a component.

God's plan does not incorporate sin, it deals with sin.

To argue otherwise brings a predicament concerning the sacrifice of our Lord. He was innocent...completely blameless. And yet His death was necessary to secure the salvation of God's people. So...short of Christ committing suicide, how was that act to be accomplished?

If my daddy formulated a plan in which he predestines sin, and then nails my but to a cross to pay for what he did, he would not be my daddy for very long. Truth is, if sin is the father’s idea in the first place, it makes a mockery out of the suffering and death of Christ.

There is no denying that you are responsible for your own sin. God did not compel, force, coerce or otherwise bring about your sin. But in knowing it beforehand and having within His power the ability to prevent it, the very fact that it occurs NECESSARILY means that is was ordained (NOT decreed). Again, I think you misunderstand my use of the word "ordain."

Again, what I think that you misunderstand is that I am telling you (after looking the words up in both a contemporary dictionary and a bible dictionary) is that you are using the words outside of their given meanings. Whenever we use a word, we must realize that it has certain inherent baggage that cannot be left behind. I do not think that you realize that a word that is passive cannot substitute for one that is proactive. They each have different baggage...

I see. And what's to prevent God from changing His mind once again and sending all of us to hell for our sins?

Certainly not me, how about you.....

And once again, YOU show contradiction by saying God "changed His mind and sent Christ to save our butts" after saying that He is still carrying out Plan A.

As far as the verses you provided, these verses have already been discussed at length in other threads, but I would suggest you study the word "repent" beyond it's contemporary meaning. If I can find the prior threads I will send you the link.

Send all help that you can.....



May God Bless...

 

[frumanchu]

He answers all prayer. Some yes, some no; some if you do this, I will do that; some, wait.

God does not even "hear" the prayers of the unrighteous (John 9:31, Isaiah 59:2), which is to say He does not regard them. He does not answer the prayer...He simply ignores it.

It is you that is using the word incorrectly. Ordain, in all of its applications is proactive, not passive. To cause is proactive, to allow is passive. Passive means that God decided to do nothing.

A decision is action with intent.

In any case, I believe you understand what I was getting at...that sin exists in at least some measure according to God's will.

The understanding of the passage is subject to the truth that before literal creation was began, God had already decided that he was going from point "A" to point "B", and all the details of how he was going to get there. Kinda like an engineer does before beginning to build a bridge. Every known need and detail is incorporated into a blue print.

Say they go out and measure the dept of the water, the water is 40 feet deep, so they decide on 50 feet pylons to support the bridge. They want the bridge to be safe for 100 years. Ok, here is where omnipotence steps in. They think, and they realize that over the next hundred years, at the rivers present rate of flow, over a hundred years it is reasonable to expect 20 feet of erosion to occur: So they decide on pylons of 70 feet in length and they add another 15 feet to compensate for floods or other circumstances that might increase the rate of erosion....

So, did the engineer cause, ordain, or predestine the times of the increased erosion? No!!! But the plans certainly had contingencies for them.

An interesting analogy, but it is not directly applicable for two reasons. First, the engineers do not have actual knowledge of how much erosion will occur over those 100 years. They are making an educated guess. That is not omniscience.

Second, in light of such absolute knowledge, and given God's omnipotence, the engineer is bound by something God is not...the ability to actively prevent (or choose NOT to actively prevent) that which He knows will occur. The engineers cannot prevent the erosion. Surely they may take measures in the hopes of preventing it, but they have no idea whether or not they will be successfuly. God possesses the ability to prevent sin, and to do so with absolute success.

When was the decision made concerning the length of the pylons, it was made before the first shovel full of earth was turned.

Hence, the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world was laid...

But again, the decision to send the Son to be crucified was not a potential contingency plan, it was with full knowledge of the reason and purpose: that such a sacrifice would be needed to secure the salvation of those who were to be the recipients of God's divine mercy. It was known before the moment of creation who the Son was being sent to save.

By amended, I mean that he added to. Not changed. Hope that I have used the word correctly.

Correctly, but inconsistently with what it appears you were saying. Your analogy of the engineers and the bridge shed a little light on what it was you were getting at, and I believe I showed the inconsistency above.

Point "A" is creation; point "B" is still paradise. The plan has not changed.

But is is not THE paradise created in Genesis. It is a new heavens and a new earth.

This I do not understand

I think we are both in agreement that God is both omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). As such, if there is something He perceives will happen (via His omniscience) He is more than capable of preventing its occurance (via His omnipotence).

Consider the following:

"20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." -Matthew 11:20-24 (parallel Luke 10:13-16)

There is a clear cause and effect set forth here...that IF the works were done in their presence had been done in Tyre and Sidon or in Sodom, THEN they would have repented and remained. This is a clear cut example of God possessing knowledge of a sin and the ability to prevent it with assured success, and yet He allows it to occur. To summarize it:

God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.


That is the sense in which I say that sin is "ordained" by God. God does not decree or command sin, but He does allow its occurance with the full foreknowledge of it and the ability to prevent it.

Always willing to learn, and there indeed appears to be much to learn. For example, you say that faith is the instrumental cause of our salvation. I have indeed learned that "Grace", not faith is the cause of our salvation. To be more precise, grace applied through faith.

There are different types of causes:

formal: the design or idea
material: the material means
instrumental: the instrument
efficient: chief agent causing it
final: purpose
sufficient: equal to the task of causing it

Think of a sculpture. The formal cause is the mental or drawn image that the sculpture is made according to. The material cause is obviously the material (marble, ice, etc.) that the sculpture is made from. The instrumental cause is the instrument (chissel, chainsaw, etc) the sculpture is made with. The efficient cause could be seen as the sculptor. The final cause is the reason the sculptor sculpted. The sufficient cause could also be seen as the scupltor. There is a sense in which all of these things caused the sculpture.

God gives all men faith, but the minute that he does so, we mess it up. We contaminate it. God has to continually wash it, regenerate it, and clean it up so that at a time when it is pleasing to him, he sends his grace through it that we might be saved. Even after salvation, the washing and regeneration goes on.

I disagree, but that is beyond the scope of our current conversation.

Oh, by the way. It is not so much that we are saved by the blood; the real truth of the matter is that we cannot be saved without the blood. The blood made it possible, grace does the saving...

Look at is this way: the blood of Christ (His atoning sacrifice) is the material means of our salvation. We are justified judicially on the basis of His righteousness, not our own. God's grace is more the formal or sufficient cause of our salvation. Our faith is the instrumental cause.

I love that old gospel song that says, I'm going home on the evening train, still I can promise you this: If I get on that train, and it has a sign on it that says that I am in any way the cause of my salvation, they better handcuff me and chain me down with many chains, because I’m gonna tear that buggar up trying to get off. If I am saved, God did it....

I agree. We are only the cause in an instrumental sense in that we are actually the possessor of the faith which leads to salvation.

All that you have logically concluded is that God allows men freewill. Why would men rather conclude that god allows sin rather than freewill. God allowed Joseph and his brothers to exercise their own evil. If God wanted Joseph in Egypt, he did not have to depend on Joseph's brothers sinning. Shucks, there was a 747 leaving for Egypt in an hour down at the airport anyway..

No, I have concluded logically much more than that, as the example of Tyre and Sidon above shows. God's omniscience and omniscience, as revealed in Scripture, leave no choice but to accept that God willfully allowed sin to occur when He could have prevented it. Does maintain otherwise does radical violence to the nature and intentions of God. Now, I did not say that God enjoys or celebrates sin. Far from it! But God has chosen to allow it in accomplishing His greater purpose. He abhors sin, but He has a larger plan. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, yet the wicked perish.

God's plan does not incorporate sin, it deals with sin.

Disagree. God foreknew with perfect certainty every sin that has happened, is happening, and will happen, and thus has incorporated it into His plan. That again does not mean He is the author of that sin, but it does mean that He has willfully allowed that sin.

If my daddy formulated a plan in which he predestines sin, and then nails my but to a cross to pay for what he did, he would not be my daddy for very long. Truth is, if sin is the father’s idea in the first place, it makes a mockery out of the suffering and death of Christ.

This is not at all what I've been presenting. God need not author sin to "predestine" it. Again I refer you to the example above. God by no means authored the sins of Tyre and Sidon, and yet they were predestined according to the purpose of God in that He willfully allowed them to occur.

Again, what I think that you misunderstand is that I am telling you (after looking the words up in both a contemporary dictionary and a bible dictionary) is that you are using the words outside of their given meanings. Whenever we use a word, we must realize that it has certain inherent baggage that cannot be left behind. I do not think that you realize that a word that is passive cannot substitute for one that is proactive. They each have different baggage...

I understand that, and I think I've shown that there is baggage with terms such as "predestine" and "cause" that need also to be addressed.

Are you willing to accept then that strict adherence to the term "ordain" as proactive gives large support to the Calvinist doctrine of election in Acts 13:48?

May God Bless...

And you, friend.

 

[Chappie]

Are you willing to accept then that strict adherence to the term "ordain" as proactive gives large support to the Calvinist doctrine of election in Acts 13:48?

That I am willing to accept. It is the one passage in the bible, standing alone, that gives support to your concept of electon.

If that were the only passage in the bible, I would believe as you do.

The rest of what we disagree on appears to be irreconcilable. Neither of us are at this time willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong.

God is good, huh?

 

[frumanchu]

That I am willing to accept. It is the one passage in the bible, standing alone, that gives support to your concept of electon.

If that were the only passage in the bible, I would believe as you do.

The rest of what we disagree on appears to be irreconcilable. Neither of us are at this time willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong.

God is good, huh?

Oh, I'm always willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong. I have by no means always believed as I do, and part of what has brought me to my present position is conversations such as the one we are having. If one can convince me with Scripture and clear, plain reason of a doctrine I will readily accept it. So long as this remains the spirit of the conversation, I will always (time permitting) participate in such debates and discussions.

 

[Chappie]

Frumanchu:
Our problems have not reached the pages of scripture yet. To this point, we do not have a common language from which to discuss scripture.

Take your phrase, "willfully allowed": From that phrase I glean a God that is pratictally encouraging man to sin. I believe that God reluctantly allows sin and has devised a plan that will eternally defeat it. From your phrase I see a God speaking out loud to Adam saying, (((((do not disobey me Adam,))))) but secretly wispering in his ear; pssst, sin Adam sin.

So you see, our problem is more one of language/communication...
I will accept that as my fault. Still, the more we talk, the more it happens.
May God Bless

 

[frumanchu]

Our problems have not reached the pages of scripture yet. To this point, we do not have a common language from which to discuss scripture.

We have had a disagreement over the term "ordain" but I have explained the concept I'm trying to convey. At this point that puts us on equal ground as I disagree with your use of "repent" in defending your position. If you would prefer I use another term please provide one.

As far as reaching the pages of scripture, I've been citing Scriptures in support of my position. I'm interested to hear your explanation of those Scriptures.

Take your phrase, "willfully allowed": From that phrase I glean a God that is pratictally encouraging man to sin. I believe that God reluctantly allows sin and has devised a plan that will eternally defeat it. From your phrase I see a God speaking out loud to Adam saying, (((((do not disobey me Adam,))))) but secretly wispering in his ear; pssst, sin Adam sin.

You are "gleaning" false conclusions from my position. I never said nor have I implied that God in any way encourages man to sin. God indeed hates sin, but He is not obligated or forced to allow it. He does so willfully. He commands with absolute sincerity, yet knows that we will not obey, and He accomplishes His will not only in spite of our sin but by bringing good out of that sin.

How else would you explain Gen 50:20, Rom 8:28, the passages in Matt 11 and Luke 10, and many others?

So you see, our problem is more one of language/communication...
I will accept that as my fault. Still, the more we talk, the more it happens.

I don't think that problem is insurmountable. We simply need to be sure we are clear on our terms and patient enough to explain where there is confusion.

 

[Ben johnson]

That I am willing to accept. It is the one passage in the Bible, standing alone, that gives support to your concept of electon.

Click here: "An Examination of Acts13:48"

Other passages make strong cases for Predestined-Election; like Eph1:4-12, some of Rom9, Rom8:29-30; yet if these passages ARE "predestinary", then they conflict with other passages.

And the many Scriptures that speak of "the truly saved FALLING from salvation" refute PE; prominent among these is Gal3:1-3 & 5:1-7. No "PE" proponent has been able to accomodate this passage (nor many others, such as 2Pet2:20-22, James 5:19-20 & 1:14-16). If God ELECTS, then no truly-saved person can ever become unsaved --- those whom God elects will be elected forever; this is why the belief is also called, "Irresistible Grace" --- the idea that it cannot be resisted...

( @ Fru...)

 

[frumanchu]

Click here: "An Examination of Acts13:48"

While you're at it, click [post=1390778]here[/post] as well

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the hoops you and your pals are jumping through to try and reconcile Acts 13:48 to your position are not employed by any credible Greek scholar, nor were they employed by the translators of ANY major translation of the Bible.

he has rendered PERIPHRASTIC PLUPERFECT/PERFECT MIDDLE-PASSIVE FORM, AS A DIRECT MIDDLE VOICE, (a rare structure in the New Testament) WHEN THE PARTICULAR STRUCTURE IS WITHOUT EXCEPTION TRANSLATED AS A PASSIVE FOR ALL VERBS OF THAT FORM, AND NOT JUST 'TASSO'.

The purpose of this gross mistranslation that is not substantiated by grammar context or syntaxt is to obscure the clear meaning of the passage in order to support and impose a predetermined theological bias upon the text, and the clear teaching of the passage.

ACTS 13:48

ajkouvonta de; ta; e[qnh e[cairon kai; ejdovxazon to;n lovgon tou' kurivou kai; ejpivsteusan o&soi h\san
​

when (they) heard and the Gentiles rejoiced and glorfied the word (of) the Lord and they believed as many as were
tetagmevnoi eij" zwh;n aijwvnion:
​

having been [and remaining] appointed unto life eterernal

Text: UBS/IBS 4th Ed, 1994. Interlinear translation supplied by Calvinist Dark Lord, emphasis by Calvinist Dark Lord​

​

You have yet to reveal what credible scholarly source warrants ignoring centuries of prior translation.​

Other passages make strong cases for Predestined-Election; like Eph1:4-12, some of Rom9, Rom8:29-30; yet if these passages ARE "predestinary", then they conflict with other passages.

The inverse can be said of the passages you continue to provide as "proof" against "predestination-election." I have not forgotten your verses in Gal and will address them in due time.

And the many Scriptures that speak of "the truly saved FALLING from salvation" refute PE; prominent among these is Gal3:1-3 & 5:1-7. No "PE" proponent has been able to accomodate this passage (nor many others, such as 2Pet2:20-22, James 5:19-20 & 1:14-16). If God ELECTS, then no truly-saved person can ever become unsaved --- those whom God elects will be elected forever; this is why the belief is also called, "Irresistible Grace" --- the idea that it cannot be resisted...

Again, in due time. You are presumptuous and in my opinion dishonest in stating that no Calvinist "has been able to accomodate [that] passage." It would be more accurate to say either "none of the Calvinists here has shown how to accomodate these verses with predestination-election" or something similar. As I said, in due time I will address those verses.

 

[Rick Otto]

Fru,
good work, my man.
Dave Hunt tried that trick in his book "What Love Is This?" & got called on it.
A local christian talk show host tried to parse ordained into "positioned themselves".
It's refreshing to see the Reform position so well defended, especially lately.

 

[Ben johnson]

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the hoops you and your pals are jumping through to try and reconcile Acts 13:48 to your position are not employed by any credible Greek scholar, nor were they employed by the translators of ANY major translation of the Bible.

Robertson's Word Pictures provides for Acts 13:48:
As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (akouonta ta eqnh ecairon). Present active participle of akouw and imperfect active of cairw, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. Glorified the word of God (edoxazon ton logon tou qeou). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether Galatians 4:13 describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. As many as were ordained to eternal life (osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiß zwhn aiwnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassw, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuw. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

You say "Ben jumps through hoops"; Robertson says your position is "legerdemeain", which is magician-slight-of-hand, trickery.

Notice Robertson states "ranged themselves on God's side", "took their stand for God" --- reflecting exactly what I said. "There is no evidence that Luke considered salvation, DECREED."

The inverse can be said of the passages you continue to provide as "proof" against "predestination-election." I have not forgotten your verses in Gal and will address them in due time.

No, Fru. There are several pillars of "predestined-election" --- one is Limited Atonement. It is not successful to pretend that the FIRST "pas anthropos" in Rom5:18 is EVERY HUMAN, but the SECOND is only SOME. The exact equality (SO THEN / EVEN SO) equates the quantity of justification, to the quantity of condemnation. Condemnation CAME to all men, identically justification CAME to all men. Atonement is not limited in Scripture.

Scripture cannot be rewritten to accomodate "preconcieved views"; Rom5:18b cannot CHANGE to become "SOME"; 2Pet2:20-22 cannot CHANGE to be "not-REALLY-saved" when the exact same Greek descripture in 2Pet1:1-4 undeniably means "SAVED". "Apopheugo-escaped corruption/defilements through the epignosis-saved-knowledge of the Kurios-Lord and Soter-Savior Jesus Christ."

And I wait with eagerness the "treatise" of passages like Eph3:1-3 & 5:1-7, 2Pet2:20-22, James1:14-16, James5:19-20. OSAS must take one of these views:
1. They were never really SAVED in the FIRST place, only PRETENDED to be saved
2. They didn't really FALL from salvation, but REMAINED saved THROUGH their stumbling
3. The passage is not REAL, only HYPERBOLE; fatherly advice but could never happen
4. There is a reason that entire letters of Biblical cannon can be ignored and disregarded (oerhaps they were not written to US, here TODAY...)
5. Is there another understanding? I don't think so...

The inverse can be said of the passages you continue to provide as "proof" against "predestination-election." I have not forgotten your verses in Gal and will address them in due time.

I am not aware of ANY Calvinist successfully replying; here, only Mounts tried. And (as memory serves), he chose #1. The Calvinist must choose one of the understandings I have just listed; and each is clearly refuted by Scripture.

1. They were running well, begun by the Spirit; they are BELOVED BRETHREN, escaped the defilements ("TRULY ESCAPED"!) through the SAVED knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus. The unsaved CANNOT even APPEAR to be righteous; no bad tree can produce good fruit; and we are slaves EITHER to sin, OR to righteousness --- there is no "fence-sitting"...

2. They are "FALLEN from grace and SEVERED from Christ" --- we are saved by grace, fallen-from-grace CANNOT be saved. They are ENTANGLED and OVERCOME by defilements, they are WORSE than BEFORE they were saved, "epistrepho-ek-spiritually-turned-FROM the holy commandment". They are "deceived by sin to THANATOS DEATH". They cannot still be saved.

3. The Galatians were REAL PEOPLE with REAL HISTORY; it cannot be "hyperbole". James' passages read as real, so too Peter's.

4. All the New Testament harmonizes; once we "throw out" James' and Peter's letters, we will then throw out all of Paul's, and many of the others. It is REAL, it applies to us today.

5. What have I missed? What is the "device" that accomodates these with OSAS?

It's refreshing to see the Reform position so well defended, especially lately.

It might be refreshing for Reformationsts, if that defense was successful...

 

[frumanchu]

Ben, you can cut-and-paste your nifty little points as many times as you want, but don't expect oohs and ahhs. You still haven't given any reasonable defense or explanation for your atrociously flawed logic despite repeated requests.

As I said, I will address your points in due time but I have much more important things to attend to.

 

[Ben johnson]

Atrociously flawed logic, huh? If we are predestined, then:
1. Atonement is limited, either only offered to FEW, or offered to ALL but only a few are equipped to RECEIVE it
2. Those whom God has chosen, WILL be saved; and can never become unsaved. The rest cannot be saved, ever.
3. Perseverance is GOD'S job; we cannot seek rebellion, our hearts are forever changed; those who stumble in the face of temptation and fall, were never really SAVED. They only THOUGHT they were saved.

Do I have PE right?

BTW --- which part of post #35 just above, was "attrociously flawed logic"?

 

[frumanchu]

BTW --- which part of post #35 just above, was "attrociously flawed logic"?

The flawed logic to which I referred had to do with your repeated misuse of conditional statements in support of your position. They've been documented. They've been exposed. They remain.

More on your Robertson quote soon...

 

[frumanchu]

Robertson's Word Pictures provides for Acts 13:48:
As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (akouonta ta eqnh ecairon). Present active participle of akouw and imperfect active of cairw, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. Glorified the word of God (edoxazon ton logon tou qeou). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether Galatians 4:13 describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. As many as were ordained to eternal life (osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiß zwhn aiwnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassw, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuw. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

Notice Robertson states "ranged themselves on God's side", "took their stand for God" --- reflecting exactly what I said. "There is no evidence that Luke considered salvation, DECREED."

~(osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiß zwhn aiwnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassw, a military term to place in orderly arrangement.~
​

It just makes our point (as Calvinist_Dark_Lord pointed out), that it is not to be translated as a direct middle.

It was saving faith that was exercised onlyby those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.
​

Note that this is all Passive action.

Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation.​

Note that there is no evidence that he did not have an absolutum decretum of personal salvation either. Robertson is not the pope, and is not God. An argument from silence is not an argument at all. Robertson also leaves room for the rest of scripture to answer that question.

Note that Robertson Has contradicted himself here.

1. First he admits that TASSO here is passive
2. Yet he is rendering an admittedly passive voiced verbal structure as a direct middle.
3. By virtue of the fact that the structure is admittedly passive, the Subject recieves the action performed, and does not initiate the action
4. Q.E.D. Robertson has contradicted himself in this analysis
5. Apparently NONE of the English translators of the New Testament, many Post Robertson and still alive, have accepted Robertson's argument as valid. Examples would include J. Gresham Machen, Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace, Julian Manty, D.A. Carson, William D. Mounce, and others.
6. While Robertson did some revolutionary work on the significance of the Direct Article, including early formulations of what is today called Colwell's Rule, he was not infallible as evidenced by this example of shoddy logic and scholarship.
7. Robertson was a 19th Century scholar, and while brilliant, did not have the best resources available to him, including computer compillations of every Grammatical structure in the New Testament (Grammcord), and the most recent archiaological discoveries (the non-literary papyrii). He was limited by what he had available to him.

You say "Ben jumps through hoops"; Robertson says your position is "legerdemeain", which is magician-slight-of-hand, trickery.

I'm not the only one who disagrees with you, Ben. EVERY COMPETENT NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR AND TRANSLATOR DOES, and they also happen to disagree with Robertson, who DID NOT by the way dispute that the structure is translated as a PASSIVE.


Perhaps if you had read Gill....

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this…
That it was the will of God, and the command of Christ, that the Gospel should be preached to them; by whom are to be understood the Pisidians, the inhabitants of Antioch, who had never been proselytes to the Jewish religion:

they were glad;
not that the Jews were likely to have the Gospel taken away from them, and be utterly deprived of it, but that it was to be preached to them:

and glorified the word of the Lord;
not the Lord Jesus Christ, the essential word of the Lord, whom they might not as yet have such a distinct knowledge of; but rather God himself, for his word, particularly his word of command, (Acts 13:47) as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions read; or the sense is, they spake well of the Gospel, and gave glory to God, or the Lord, who had sent it among them: Beza's most ancient copy reads, they "received the word of the Lord", which seems to be a more agreeable reading; to glorify the word of the Lord, is an unusual phrase:

and as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed;
faith is not the cause, or condition of the decree of eternal life, but a means fixed in it, and is a fruit and effect of it, and what certainly follows upon it, as in these persons: some would have the words rendered, "as many as were disposed unto eternal life believed"; which is not countenanced by the ancient versions. The Arabic renders it as we do, and the Syriac thus, "as many as were put, or appointed unto eternal life"; and the Vulgate Latin version, "as many as were pre-ordained". Moreover, the phrase of being "disposed unto", or "for eternal life", is a very unusual, if not a very improper, and an inaccurate one; men are said to be disposed to an habit, or to an act, as to vice or virtue, but not to reward or punishment, as to heaven or hell; nor does it appear that these Gentiles had any good dispositions to eternal life, antecedent to their believing; for though they are said, (Acts 13:42) to entreat the apostles to preach the same things to them the next sabbath, yet the words as there observed, according to their natural order, may be rendered "they", i.e. the apostles, "besought the Gentiles"; and in some copies and versions, the "Gentiles" are not mentioned at all: and as for their being "glad", and "glorifying the word of the Lord", it is not evident that this was before their believing; and if it was, such things have been found in persons, who have had no true, real, and inward dispositions to spiritual things, as in many of our Lord's hearers; besides, admitting that there are, in some, good dispositions to eternal life, previous to faith, and that desiring eternal life, and seeking after it, be accounted such, yet these may be where faith does not follow; as in the young rich ruler, that came to Christ with such an inquiry, and went away sorrowful: as many therefore as are so disposed, do not always believe, faith does not always follow such dispositions; and after all, one would have thought that the Jews themselves, who were externally religious, and were looking for the Messiah, and especially the devout and able women, were more disposed unto eternal life, than the ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; and yet the latter believed, and the former did not: it follows then, that their faith did not arise from previous dispositions to eternal life, but was the fruit and effect of divine ordination unto it; and the word here used, in various places in this book, signifies determination and appointment, and not disposition of mind; see (Acts 15:2) (22:10) (28:23) The phrase is the same with that used by the Jews, (Mlwe yyxl wnqtad) , "who are ordained to eternal life" F25; and (yyxl bytkd lk amle) , "everyone that is written to eternal life"; F26 i.e. in the book of life; and designs no other than predestination or election, which is God's act, and is an eternal one; is sovereign, irrespective, and unconditional; relates to particular persons, and is sure and certain in its effect: it is an ordination, not to an office, nor to the means of grace, but to grace and glory itself; to a life of grace which is eternal, and to a life of glory which is for ever; and which is a pure gift of God, is in the hands of Christ, and to which his righteousness gives a title: and ordination to it shows it to be a blessing of an early date; and the great love of God to the persons ordained to it; and the certainty of enjoying it.

Scripture cannot be rewritten to accomodate "preconcieved views";

In light of your continued tendency to do just that, I would recommend you heed your own admonitions.

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Fru. Thank you for the intensive effort you have shown here.

What our colleagues here on CF asserted (on the "Acts 13:48" thread), is existence of "middle passive". Though rare, real. The thing is, Acts 13:48 does not stand alone; it exists submerged in the entirity of Scripture. So the average Bible-reader need not be a Greek scholar nor theologian to correctly understand the Bible; context, and completeness shall harmonize. If Luke was asserting that "God DECREES salvation", then Luke does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture. This was the recognition that I believe Robertson was seeing; clearly with the rest of Scripture, salvation is NOT decreed.

Now --- on my "flawed logic" in recognizing the CONDITIONALITY of salvation --- we have MANY conditional verses.

Col1:21-23 is a conditional; He will present us before God holy and blameless, IF INDEED we continue in the faith firm and steadfast and NOT BE MOVED AWAY FROM JESUS. How is it that this CONDITION, is not REAL and DANGEROUS?

Heb is full of conditionals. How could 2:1-3 not be saying that "drifting away and forsaking salvation" is NOT poissible? 3:12-13 saying that "being hardened by deceitful sin to FALLING AWAY FROM GOD" is NOT possible? 3:14 that "partners in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance FIRM UNTIL THE END", is NOT declaring that "falling from Jesus-partnership" is possible? 4:1 saying that "falling short and NOT entering His rest" is NOT possible? 6:4-6 saying that "while they fall away they won't want to repent" is NOT possible and real? 10:26-27 is NOT possible for us? 10:29 is NOT a real warning for us? 10:35 is NOT admonishing us to "don't throw away Jesus"? 10:36 is NOT admonishing us to endurance TO eternal life? 12:15 is NOT rebuking us against "failing God's grace"? 12:25 is NOT admonishing us against "refusing God"?

How can Paul NOT be warning us against "falling away from God, EXACTLY as Eve was deceived" in 2Cor11:3?

How can James NOT be warning us against falling from salvation in 1:14-16, 5:19-20?

I could easily go on...

Scripture cannot be rewritten to accomodate "preconcieved views";

In light of your continued tendency to do just that, I would recommend you heed your own admonitions.

REALLY. I cite verse after verse after verse of "warnings against falling from salvation", some SAY "falling from the living God" or "falling from grace" or "falling from steadfastness"; some colleagues here say "you can be FALLEN from GRACE but saved", or "fallen away from God but saved", or "unsteadfastly saved". My "crime", in your eyes, is that I take the warnings as REAL. Yet you say, "your attrociously flawed logic", you say "you heed the admonition yourself against rewriting Scripture".

Is there any way I can twist your arm, Fru, to reconsider your words of "attrociously flawed logic" and "twisting/rewriting Scripture" about what I have said?

Why do PE proponents say "you have been EXPOSED and REFUTED", when that "exposition" and "refutation" consists of saying things liike:

"You can be saved RELATIONSHIP but outta FELLOWSHIP with Jesus".
"You can be FALLEN from grace but SAVED"
"You can be UNSTEADFAST but SAVED"
"You can be FAITHLESS, and Jesus will deny you before God but YOU'LL STILL GO TO HEAVEN"

None of these are refutation, Fru; they violate the essence of the Gospel of salvation, by grace, through faith...

Before Responsible Grace is "shown to be defeated", we must come to agreement ON the conditionals; are they REAL, or NOT? And agreement on those who FELL from salvation. (Any way to contend that Hymenaeus and Alexander and Philetus were NEVER saved?) Was that REAL, or NOT?

I do look forward to your reply about Gal5; I suspect you have consulted "degreed scholars"; by giving you my refutations IN ADVANCE, I have equipped you to be able to defend your position (if you can), WITHOUT ambush; with all possible means. There is no "surpise response"; there MUST be an understanding that Predestined-Electionists have of that passage (and the others of "falling from salvatiion"); I look forward to hearing your defense.