predestination

[Mark the Builder]

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...
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.

It's been very interesting to me to read through all your arguments. You're a good scholar -- misinformed, but good nonetheless. I have struggled over this issue for years and still don't have a complete grasp on it. But I would like to respond to some of the Scriptures you use to defend your position. I'm sure you've heard these arguements before and perhaps my explanations are below you so please be patient.

First of all an observation. It seems to me that the Arminian position is skewed even from a logical standpoint. What I mean is that there are many Scriptures that could be used for both Arminians and Calvinists on the subject of predestination. That's obvious, otherwise there would be no debate. However, the Arminian postion has a great deal of difficulty explaining away the texts that seem so plainly pointing to the support of predestination. Whereas the Calvinist position deals with all texts and all fit into the position and flow logically through all of Scripture. If God doesn't save forever then you've really got a lot to explain away that seems incredibly clear cut from Scripture. So the logical flow of Scritpure is out of sync in the Arminian position.

Col. 1:21-23 -- First of all, do you believe that all who profess to be Christians are in fact saved? I believe Matt. 7:22-23 would say no. The parable of the soils would be another -- "some receive the word with joy; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." The falling away gives evidence to the fact that they were never truly saved. Or how about John 8:31? "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine." John 2:19 says -- "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us." Scripture presents many marks of a genuine believer and I believe this passage to be one of those identifying marks. The evidence given here is that truly saved people continue in the faith and are firmly established and steadfast. Perseverence is the hallmark of the true saint. Therefore this passage is not claiming that salvation is conditional. It is establishing the evidence of reconciliation.

Hebrews passages -- First of all I believe you have to understand who the book was written to. Three groups are addressed in the opinions of many scholars: 1) Hebrew Christians 2) Hebrew non-Christians who are intellectually convinced & 3) Hebrew non-Christians who were not convinced. If you don't keep that in mind the book is totally contradictory in regards to things said that could only be said to believers and things said that could only be referring to unbelievers.

So this thread won't be 12 pages long I'll limit the number of vs. I respond to. (Again, I'm sure you've heard all the arguements before.)

Heb. 2:1-3 -- In my estimation this is a warning to those who are intellectually convinced but not committed. The thought here is not neglecting something you already have but rather the thought of neglecting something you know to be true but never committing yourself to it. You say, "Well the author uses the word 'us' in the vs. Is he then lumped into this group of non-committed Jews?" No, the use of the word us is the us of nationality or of all those who have heard the truth. He is simply saying that all of us who have heard the gospel ought to accept it.

There are two key words in v. 1 -- prosecho -- to give attention to; and pararheo -- to let slip. Correctly rendered prosecho is telling us that on the basis of who Christ is, we must give creful attention to what we have heard about Him. We cannot hear these things and let them just slide through our minds. The word pararheo can have several meanings. It can be used of something flowing or slipping past -- a ring falling off a finger. It can be used of something slipping down and getting caught in a difficult place. It is used of something which cerelessly has been allowed to slip away. Both words have nautical connotations as well. Prosecho means to moor a ship, to tie it up. Paraheo can be used of a ship that has been allowed to drift past the harbor because a sailor forgot to attend the steerage or to properly chart the wind, tides and current. So a translation could be "Therefore, we must the more eagerly secure our lives to the things which we have been taught, lest the ship of life drift past the harbor of salvation and be lost forever." So the passage is teaching hearers of the gospel that there is an urgency to respond because of the character of Christ and so that they don't slip into eternity without having committed themselves to Him.

Heb. 6:4-6 -- First of all you are using this text to tell us that salvation is conditional but you have completely ignored the fact that if your postition is correct then how do you explain that once these people lose their salvation the passage says that there is no way they can regain it? "For it is impossible to to restore again to repentance . . ." If all else is argueable in this passage the one fact that is unequivocal is that it is imossible to renew these who apostacize to salvation. And that thought doesn't gell with the rest of neither Scripture nor your position. The word fall away here can be rendered in many different ways -- cause, time, concession and condition. So this passage could be rendered "if they fall away" or "when they fall away" or "because they fall away." Because of the many possibilities you have to determine meaning based on context. And the key element in the present context is found in v. 9 -- "Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation." Therefore I see the people in v. 6 and v. 9 are the same people. They are genuinely saved people who could fall away. Vs. 4-6 declare what their status would be if they did. Vs. 9 is a sstatement that they will not fall away. They could, but they will not! Their persistence to the end is evidence of that truth. The writer of Hebrews knows that his readers will not fall away; he is convinced of better things regarding them -- the things that accompany salvation. Also note v. 10 -- he speaks of their past work and love and v. 11 exhorts them to continue earnestly in the same pursuits. Therefore this passage does not indicate that a believer can fall from salvation, rather the opposite, a true believer won't fall.

I've got a lot more to say but will wait to hear back from you. Again, I value your imput.

mark.

p.s. I rely heavily on the following sources -- John MacArthur, David Jeremiah, Millard J. Erickson, John Murray, John Stott and Arthur Pink.

 

[frumanchu]

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.

Not so fast, Ben. You will not escape this that easily. You were quite willing to cite Robertson when it appeared he supported your position, but it seems now that it has been shown he in fact did NOT support your position, you casually stroll away. Any "average Bible-reader" who can read plain English can see that this verse says precisely the OPPOSITE of what you are maintaining it says. It is translated "as many as were appointed/ordained unto eternal life believed," NOT "as many as appointed themselves/ordered themselves unto eternal life believed" as you maintain. So great is your desire to be vindicated in your denunciation of "predestination-election" that you will not only ignore a CLEAR refutation of your position, but you will stand in opposition to the orthodox understanding of this verse and EVERY TRANSLATOR of the English Bible who WITHOUT EXCEPTION render the structure as passive, not to mention the excellent scholarly work of Gill in demonstrating that the context of this passage does indeed prove predestination towards salvation. Your appeal to the "rest of Scripture" in turn sets up a major problem for you, which you further compound by pleading the case of the "average Bible-reader."

As far as your "attrociously flawed logic" you have yet again demonstrated it in stating that "If Luke was asserting that "God DECREES salvation", then Luke does not harmonize with the rest of Scripture." This presumes your conclusion, Ben.

I see three possibilities with this verse:

1. Acts 13:48 really shows men appointing themselves
2. This verse contradicts the "rest of Scripture" in its soteriology
3. The rest of Scripture does not conflict with the sovereign decree of election, but rather supports it.

Is there another understanding? I don't think so...

Number one does violence to the Greek language and stands against centuries of scholarly translation and interpretation.
Number two does violence to the integrity of the Word of God.
Number three does violence to your doctrinal view.

You cannot, no matter how hard you try, fit this square peg into any of the many round holes in your position. Acts 13:48 STANDS as a testament to the sovereignty of God in election.

Will you own up to the fact that you were absolutely wrong regarding Acts 13:48? Your position is unorthodox and proven faulty. You've nothing left to cite but your two CF pals, who also stand against the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars and translators. Can you provide ANY credible scholarly source to support definitively your claims that Acts 13:48 does not REALLY mean what it says IN PLAIN ENGLISH OR GREEK?

 

[nobdysfool]

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

Oh, it was, Ben. It was and is extremely successful, because it is correct.

 

[Ben johnson]

You're a good scholar -- misinformed, but good nonetheless.

Ha ha! Uhmmmmm... thank you?

I'm sure you've heard these arguements before and perhaps my explanations are below you so please be patient.

Your comments are always welcome, Mark. The text that I've written on OSAS (of which "predestination" is one of THREE osas views), strives to present every passage ever used by the OSAS proponents. (Every verse you've given here is in the text; this is why I can respond with ease.)

What I mean is that there are many Scriptures that could be used for both Arminians and Calvinists on the subject of predestination.

The point of my participating in these discussions is to arrive at a destination. Which is, to show OSAS proponents that they must filter MANY passages by thinking: "He doesn't realy MEAN what he WROTE" or "it's an empty warning, mere HYPERBOLE but not taken LITERALLY", or "they can be FALLEN-from-grace-SAVED" or they can be "unsteadfastly saved" or "faithlessly saved", or "denied by Jesus before God but STILL HEAVEN-BOUND", on and on. Responsible Gace requires no such twists; it reads Scriptures simply and accurately...

However, the Arminian postion has a great deal of difficulty explaining away the texts that seem so plainly pointing to the support of predestination

I do not claim to be Arminian. But the RG position explains every verse easily, and presents many verses that Predestined-Electionists CANNOT explain...

Whereas the Calvinist position deals with all texts and all fit into the position and flow logically through all of Scripture.

I'm afraid it does NOT. Take 2Tim2:11-13: "If we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we DENY Him, HE WILL DENY US (and we will NOT reign with Him); if we are FAITHLESS, He remains faithful (even though we PERISH), for He cannot deny Himself." The parentheses are mine; and are valid, UNLESS one is willing to say "Jesus will DENY us but we're still SAVED." (see Matt10:32-33) Or, "if we are FAITHLESS He keeps us nevertheless SAVED" (if we are "saved by grace through faith", how can we be saved without faith????) Is there anything in the passage that reads as INSINCERE? Mere "hyperbole to keep us in line"? Where is the OSAS understanding? Not there, is it?

If God doesn't save forever then you've really got a lot to explain away that seems incredibly clear cut from Scripture. So the logical flow of Scritpure is out of sync in the Arminian position.

God DOES save forever; He is eternally faithful, will never leave nor forsake us, will not "revoke/repent of His gifts/calling" (Rm11:29); but we are RESPONSIBLE. Our salvation requires DILIGENCE; in 2Pet1:10-12, 2Pet3:14 & 17, 1Tim4:16, 2Cor13:5, Heb6:11, God's FAITHFULNESS never interferes with our ability to be UNFAITHFUL. The "logical flow of Scripture" is 100% opposed to predestination.

The parable of the soils would be another -- "some receive the word with joy; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away." The falling away gives evidence to the fact that they were never truly saved

I beg you to reconsider that passage. For it stands AGAINST predestination. Luke8:15 says, "The good soil are the ones who hear the word with honest and good heart, and HOLD FAST and bear fruit WITH PERSEVERANCE." (Mark4:20 "hear and ACCEPT, bear fruit...") Tell me, Mark --- are they "good soil" because God has CHOSEN THEM TO BE? Or are they called "good soil" because of how they RECEIVED IT? Where is the impetus? It's 100% on THEM, isn't it?

Look at Lk8:13: "They RECEIVE with joy, and BELIEVE for a WHILE" --- are you willing to say that they would PERISH if they DIED RIGHT THEN? Predestined-election asserts that we are "totally depraved and CANNOT believe WITHOUT regeneration" (and a regenerated heart CANNOT DISBELIEVE) --- do you see the CONTRADICTION? They BELIEVED. But in temptation they DISBELIEVED. Gone is "regenerated heart causes belief, cannot disbelieve". Gone is "predestined-election".

While you are in Jn8, please see verse 42-44; They claim God is their Father; but Jesus says: "If God WAS your Father, you would believe in ME; but you WANT to do evil desires." In Jn5:39-47 Jesus says, "You are UNWILLING to come to Me; you CLAIM to follow Moses, but you really DON'T; if you DID, then you would love ME." They are 100% responsible, and 0% predestined, aren't they?

John 2:19 says -- "They went out from us ...in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

This referred to specific persons, "certain ANTICHRISTS" (who were NEVER SAVED). Can this extend to say, "ALL who go out from us were never WITH us"? Not according to John. First look at Jn20:28 --- Jehovah's Witnesses try to BUTCHERKNIFE the verse to pretend Thomas is not calling Jesus, "GOD"; identically, OSAS tries to chop 2Jn1:9 away from verse 8, claiming that "deceivers only endanger HEAVENLY CROWNS but not ETERNITY ITSELF"; but verse 9 is NOT apart from verse 8. John writes to the SAVED, warns them about deceivers and antichrists, and says: "Anyone (of YOU) who GOES TOO FAR and does NOT ABIDE in the teachings of Christ, HAS NOT GOD!" 2Jn1:7-9 is the answer to 1Jn2:19 --- not EVERYONE who "goes out from us", was NEVER WITH us.

The evidence given here is that truly saved people continue in the faith and are firmly established and steadfast.

On the contrary, it asserts that "you are saved IF INDEED you CONTINUE in the faith and NOT BE MOVED AWAY FROM JESUS". Identical to Heb10:35, "Do not throw away your hope (don't throw away JESUS!).

Col1:23 says "we-holy-and-blameless" --- have you seen Peter's charge for DILIGENCE in 2:3:14, that we BE holy and blameless? Or his WARNING to US SAVED in 2:3:17 against being DECEIVED FROM SALVATION? (Or are you willing to suggest "unsteadfastly saved"???)

Perseverence is the hallmark of the true saint. Therefore this passage is not claiming that salvation is conditional. It is establishing the evidence of reconciliation.

Then why does Jesus say, Jn15:1ff: "Anyone IN ME (can the NEVER-SAVED ever BE "in Him"?) who does not bear fruit HE TAKES AWAY; if anyone does NOT abide in Me he is cast off as a branch ...and burned."

"Therefore, we must the more eagerly secure our lives to the things which we have been taught, lest the ship of life drift past the harbor of salvation and be lost forever."

So "we" doesn't really MEAN "we"; I think it does. Tell me --- were Hymenaeus and Alexander and Philetus NEVER SAVED? They "suffered shipwreck in regards to their faith", they "wandered from the truth" (1Tim1:19-20, 2Tim2:17-18) How can one suffer shipwreck of faith and wander away from faith, if one has never dwelt IN faith?

how do you explain that once these people lose their salvation the passage says that there is no way they can regain it?

Simply reading the Greek shows what the writer intended.
Heb3:1: "Metochos-partners in a heavenly calling"
Heb3:14: "Metochos-partners in Christ"
Heb6:4: "Metochos-partners in the Spirit"

...they were SAVED. But they "parapiptos fall away". WHY?
King James: "SEEING AS they crucify to themselves Christ anew and hold Him to shame."
New International Version: "BECAUSE they crucify..."
New American Standard: "SINCE they crucify..."
New Amercian Standard FOOTNOTE: WHILE! ...they crucify to themselves..."

So it is ADUNATOS-UNABLE-POWERLESS-IMPOTENT to make them repent WHILE they disbelieve and WHILE they contempt Christ. Go ahead and demand "impossible" if you wish; the reason is still 100% on THEIR SHOULDERS. This is identical to Heb10, where one TRAMPLES Jesus, SCORNS the blood by which he WAS sanctified (was he UNSAVED-SANCTIFIED???), and insults the Spirit. This contradicts not oine bit of Rom11:23: "And if they do not CONTINUE in their unbelief, THEY WILL BE GRAFTED IN AGAIN"...

And the key element in the present context is found in v. 9 -- "Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation." Therefore I see the people in v. 6 and v. 9 are the same people.

They're not the same. Verse 9 is "POSITIVE AFFIRMATION". First the writer warns against falling from salvation, then he gives "positive affirmation" as ENCOURAGEMENT, then in verse 11 warns that "we desire you to be DILIGENT, SO THAT you realize the full assurance of hope UNTIL THE END, that you may not be sluggish, but IMITATE those who through faith and patience INHERIT the PROMISES."

The "positive affirmation" occurs elsewhere; for instance, Heb10 warns agains those who have SAVED KNOWLEDGE ("epignosis") but SIN WILLFULLY (vs26), warns about one who tramples Jesus / scorns the blood / insults the Spirit, warns us to NOT THROW AWAY JESUS, warns that we NEED diligence SO THAT when we have done the will of God we will receive the Promise, but then says: "But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul." Do you understand that POSITIVE AFFIRMATION is ENCOURAGEMENT, and not DICTATE?

They are genuinely saved people who could fall away

Not according to Predestination they couldn't. "The REGENERATE HEART cannot be UNREGENERATE." (so they claim...)

The writer of Hebrews knows that his readers will not fall away;

Are you really SURE of that? "Therefore let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any of YOU should seem to have come short of it." 4:1 "See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God" 12:15. Have you read Heb3:12-14? Any of that sound INSINCERE? 12:25? What makes you believe that "he doesn't think his readers could really fall away"?

Again, I value your imput.

I very much value your input too; in debating this, we "contend for the faith" --- we come to terms with the nature of our salvation. Predestination claims that Jesus did not die for ALL, but only the ELECT; that atonement was LIMITED. This makes God the sole orchestrator of salvation, mankind is mindless pawns; without His regeneration they CANNOT seek God (denying Jeremiah29:12-14), and those whom God ELECTS can never become UNSAVED. Here we have shown, they CAN.

 

[Ben johnson]

now that it has been shown he in fact did NOT support your position, you casually stroll away

Robertson clearly says "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." Robertson supports the idea of "middle passive", that God did NOT predestine them. "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. Voluntarily rejected God, voluntarily ranged themselves on God's side. VOLUNTARILY, not PREDESTINED. How did you miss that?

Number three does violence to your doctrinal view.

Please see post #44 above; can the UNELECT ever BELIEVE? Not according to PE; they are TOTALLY DEPRAVED, remember? And if they WERE elect, then they could never DISBELIEVE, could they? Please feel free to respond to the entire post.

Will you own up to the fact that you were absolutely wrong regarding Acts 13:48? Your position is unorthodox and proven faulty. You've nothing left to cite but your two CF pals, who also stand against the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars and translators. Can you provide ANY credible scholarly source to support definitively your claims that Acts 13:48 does not REALLY mean what it says IN PLAIN ENGLISH OR GREEK?

Acts 13:48 stands with the rest of Scripture; for me to state "Acts13:48 asserts predestination", I would have to deny that atonement is UNLIMITED, I would have to deny that diligence is required to remain in Christ (to remain in salvation), I would have to accept that DOZENS of warnings are EMPTY and MEANINGLESS. When all these OTHER verses can be proven to accomodate PE, then (and only then) I will be willing to believe Acts13:48 is "predestined".

Then there are all of the verses that speak of "falling from salvation". Brethren, if any of YOU wander from the truth, and another leads him back, let him know that turning a sinner from his error has SAVED A SOUL FROM DEATH ('thanatos-death-n-Hell"), and covered amultitude of sins." James5:19-20 Which part of that shall I dismiss? Or take as "insincere"?

 

[Rick Otto]

Did I notice a loss of context?

"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."


Condemnation did not come to all men unconditionally, for it came to some w/mercy attached. The equation is qualitative, not quantitative.

 

[Ben johnson]

Oh, it was, Ben. It was and is extremely successful, because it is correct.

Was that objective, or subjective???

 

[Ben johnson]

Condemnation did not come to all men unconditionally, for it came to some w/mercy attached. The equation is qualitative, not quantitative.

Was this addressed to me? Condemnation CAME to ALL MEN, and it came CONDITIONALLY; on the condition that they SIN. Yet Rom5:12 says, "All men sin, so all are condemned."

All meet the CONDITION for condemnation.

Rom5:18 says "justification CAME to all men in the SAME QUANTITY as came CONDEMNATION." Justification came with a CONDITION.

5:17 says "all who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and who RECEIVE the gift of righteousness shall reign with Jesus." There is nothing here that conditions their RECEIVING, on God's ELECTING; indeed, the CAME TO ALL MEN DEMANDS that they are NOT elected. For if elected, then justification does NOT "come to all men", but "only to the ELECT".

PE asserts that "God does NOT call EVERYONE to salvation" (denying the substance of the parable of Matt22:2-14, MANY are called but FEW (only those who CAME and put on RIGHTEOUSNESS) are CHOSEN."

-OR-

PE asserts that God DOES call ALL, but only equips the elect to ANSWER; thus for MOST, God is INSINCERE.

Neither position is tenable; God calls ALL to salvation, God is NEVER insincere.

 

[Rick Otto]

to y'all..
"Was this addressed to me? Condemnation CAME to ALL MEN, and it came CONDITIONALLY; on the condition that they SIN. Yet Rom5:12 says, "All men sin, so all are condemned."
All meet the CONDITION for condemnation.
>I believe I agreed w/that. All men are condemned.


"Rom5:18 says "justification CAME to all men in the SAME QUANTITY as came CONDEMNATION." Justification came with a CONDITION."

>No it doesn't.

"5:17 says "all who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and who RECEIVE the gift of righteousness shall reign with Jesus." There is nothing here that conditions their RECEIVING, on God's ELECTING;"
> Well, no, not here, not explicitly...
"indeed, the(y) CAME TO ALL MEN DEMANDS that they are NOT elected. For if elected, then justification does NOT "come to all men", but "only to the ELECT".

>I think you simply forgot that the speaker was saying this to indicate the Gentiles, as in the sense "All men, not just Jews" - thank goodness your contextual confusion doesn't exclude the possibility of any WOMEN getting saved!

"PE asserts that "God does NOT call EVERYONE to salvation" (denying the substance of the parable of Matt22:2-14, MANY are called but FEW (only those who CAME and put on RIGHTEOUSNESS) are CHOSEN."
>I should let PE answer that, but how do you shift from MANY are called to ALL are called? & why must you ascribe credit to individuals for desicions & acts only made individually possible by God? Because YOU experienced it?
Confusing effect w/cause confuses the divine w/the human.

"-OR-

PE asserts that God DOES call ALL, but only equips the elect ANSWER; thus for MOST, God is INSINCERE.

Neither position is tenable; God calls ALL to salvation, God is NEVER insincere"

>God was insincere in 1Kings22:22. It was not "insincerety" that led God to say,'dream the impossible dream', so to speak, as He did when He gave us the Law. The law (as the call) was a challenge, in the sense that its purpose wasn't a final solution, but to teach us that we CANNOT be saved by our own efforts. To issue such a challenge, to offer a conditional reward to those unable to meet it, is not insincere, it is condemnation. We are ALL unable to meet it, except those who are unable, but have been mercifully intervened upon(before the foundation).
Insincerety, like false witness, is not of itself an evil thing. The call DOES speak of a final solution, but different in quality to the "enabled to respond" elect, than to those not placed in Christ by God's determinate council before the foundation of the world(creation).

Making dogmatizing statements are like shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Ben johnson]

>I think you simply forgot that the speaker was saying this to indicate the Gentiles, as in the sense "All men, not just Jews" - thank goodness your contextual confusion doesn't exclude the possibility of any WOMEN getting saved!

The context says: "SO THEN condemnation came to PAS ANTHROPOS" (all Humankind, including women...)
"EVEN SO justification came to PAS ANTHROPOS" (all Humankind).

It is the "SO THEN / EVEN SO" that forbids the PAS to mean "condemnation came to ALL" but "justification came to SOME". Justification, contextually, came in the same quantity as did condemnation.

The condition for condemnation, is SIN; and all men sinned.
The condition for justification, is BELIEF;RECEIVING-JESUS. Not all men do...

how do you shift from MANY are called to ALL are called? & why must you ascribe credit to individuals for desicions & acts only made individually possible by God? Because YOU experienced it?
Confusing effect w/cause confuses the divine w/the human

In the parable,who is NOT CALLED? It is really useless to try to say "not all were called" --- because of those who WERE called (everyine who was mentioned), only those who CAME and put on righteousness were chosen. There is no difference in the cal to the UNCHOSEN, or the call to the CHOSEN; what made them CHOSEN is how they RECEIVED that call.

"MANY are CALLED but FEW are CHOSEN" flat refutes Predestined-Election"; if only the elect are CALLED, then all called WILL be saved. OR --- if only the EQUIPPED can ANSWER the call, why is there NO MENTION of "equipping by God" in Jesus' paraable? Did Jesus FORGET? The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE...
Jesus speaks simply, because it is simple. PE makes it complicated.

why must you ascribe credit to individuals for desicions & acts only made individually possible by God?

No one has demonstrated that only God "ENABLES JUST THE ELECT to be saved". From Deut30:15ff (I set before you life and death, blessing and curse; so CHOOSE LIFE...") to even the oft-touted Ezk verse about "heart-change" (Ezk36:26-27 & 11:18-20) shows a CHOICE between seeking God or seeking abominations (Ezk11:18,21).

The call DOES speak of a final solution, but different in quality to the "enabled to respond" elect, than to those not placed in Christ by God's determinate council before the foundation of the world(creation).

Jesus says, "I will draw all to Myself" (Jn12:32). There is nothing to indicate "only some". So many verses refute "limited atonement", like 2Jn2:2, 1Tim4:10 (savior of ALL MEN, "malista" above all BELIEVERS). There is nothing in all of Scripture that asserts "Jesus died for a FEW"; John recounts in 4:42 & 12:47, and 1:4:14 that "Jesus died for ALL".

Think about the Cross --- if we saved are ELECT, then the Cross accojmplished NOTHING; Jesus only FULFILLED what God had DECIDED. On the other h and, we RG believe that the Cross was EFFECTIVE; rather than PAGEANTRY, the Cross is "salvation for all who BELIEVE". Rom3:22

Making dogmatizing statements are like shooting yourself in the foot.

Sorry; shall I wait while you get a bandage and try to return to searching for "God DECIDED"?

 

[frumanchu]

Robertson clearly says "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." Robertson supports the idea of "middle passive", that God did NOT predestine them. "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. Voluntarily rejected God, voluntarily ranged themselves on God's side. VOLUNTARILY, not PREDESTINED. How did you miss that?

Take another look, Ben.

Robertson: "Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassw"

Ben: "Robertson supports the idea of "middle passive""

Robertson: "This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency."

Ben: "Robertson supports the idea ... that God did NOT predestine them."

It seems you and Robertson have a bit of a disconnect here, Ben.

Roberston: "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."

The subject of this verb (believed) is the relative clause (as many as were appointed unto eternal life). Thus the structure given: as many as were appointed unto eternal life believed. BY NO MEANS OF LEGERDEMAIN can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed unto eternal life. Robertson is soundly condemning YOUR position, NOT mine, Ben! He says there's NO POSSIBLE WAY given this text that one can say their appointment unto eternal life was predicated on their belief. On the contrary, it was "saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life." Their faith REVEALED them as the subjects of God's grace. Because Robertson is concerned solely with the text at hand, he does not go so far as to comment on the reason they were appointed/ordained ("Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us."), but he makes abundantly clear what is NOT the source: their belief at that time. Their ordination/appointment/ranging logically PRECEDED their faith.

Please see post #44 above; can the UNELECT ever BELIEVE? Not according to PE; they are TOTALLY DEPRAVED, remember? And if they WERE elect, then they could never DISBELIEVE, could they? Please feel free to respond to the entire post.

In due time, Ben. In due time. I could simply say that many of those points HAVE been addressed at various times in various threads, but quite frankly I do not have the time to search for and compile likes to the relevant posts. The last time I did so the point was ignored and the claims continued.

I am focused right now on one single verse: ACTS 13:48

Acts 13:48 stands with the rest of Scripture; for me to state "Acts13:48 asserts predestination", I would have to deny that atonement is UNLIMITED, I would have to deny that diligence is required to remain in Christ (to remain in salvation), I would have to accept that DOZENS of warnings are EMPTY and MEANINGLESS. When all these OTHER verses can be proven to accomodate PE, then (and only then) I will be willing to believe Acts13:48 is "predestined".

Regarding limited atonement, there are those who hold to predestination which do not hold to limited atonement (one of my close Reformed friends is an Amyraldian "four-pointer"). Regarding perseverance, while you would be logically and Scripturally inconsistent in doing so, you could very well deny perseverance while embracing sovereign election.

As far as "all these OTHER verses" what has been the established pattern with you is that when you are confronted on one specific verse and due diligence is given to exposing your fallacy in claiming it as a proof for your position, you jump to other verses and say it has to mean this because this other verse means this. This is the specific reason I am focusing on Acts 13:48 at the moment: to show that you are incorrect in claiming this verse as being in support of your position and unjustified in your gross interpretive and hermeneutical errors. What you have claimed in the past as an inability on the part of the Calvinists to address certain verses you have put forth is actually an unwillingness to be drug into Scriptural leap-frog and faulty syllogisms. Whether you are willingly and knowingly doing so or not I cannot say, but that is the established pattern I've witnessed and been subject to. You clearly have a list of a dozen or so verses/passages that you cite repeatedly in support of your position or in refutation to ours. There are some that no longer appear in your posts that once were there, such as 2 Peter 3:9. Others will follow in like manner.

Then there are all of the verses that speak of "falling from salvation". Brethren, if any of YOU wander from the truth, and another leads him back, let him know that turning a sinner from his error has SAVED A SOUL FROM DEATH ('thanatos-death-n-Hell"), and covered amultitude of sins." James5:19-20 Which part of that shall I dismiss? Or take as "insincere"?

You cannot establish from this verse position, only direction. If any of you wander from the truth (either in principle or in practice or both) and another turn him from that error and lead him back to the truth, know that in turning a sinner from his error you have saved a soul from death. We know of course that it is Christ who actually saves men from death, so the person who "saves" them clearly does so "not efficiently, but instrumentally...and he will be the means of saving 'a soul', which is of more worth than a world; and that from death, the second death which lies in the separation of the soul from God, and in a sense of his wrath; which apostasy threatens with, and leads unto, if grace prevents not." (Gill)

It does not say that they were in an actual position of lost salvation, only indicated that a)they were going 'in the wrong direction' and b)by righting their course they have been 'instrumental' in preventing them from reaching the destination of the path they were on.

As with many of your verses, you read more into it than is stated.

But I digress...back to Acts 13:48, Ben. You've claimed Robertson as supporting your position when he does nothing of the sort. Not only must you concede that men do NOT "appoint" themselves by their faith (which Robertson has boldly proclaimed as needing more than "legerdemain"), but that rather their belief is evidence of such appointment/ordination which PRECEDED it. I would also be interested to hear what you would claim is the basis of such an appointment seeing as belief is clearly not the cause but the outgrowth of such appointment.

 

[nobdysfool]

Was that objective, or subjective???

Let me put it to you this way, Ben: Fru has totally devastated your argument in Acts 13:48. There is absolutely no way that Acts 13:48 says what you want it to say. The context doesn't support it, the words themselves don't support it, and virually every scholar and translator who has tackled it (including Robertson) has translated it as you find it in your bible, any version, today: "as many as were appointed unto eternal life believed." Any reasonable, average person would understand that to mean that they believed BECAUSE they were appointed to do so. The appointment happened BEFORE they believed. There is no other honest way to read that verse. NONE!!

You're bleeding, you just haven't noticed it yet....

 

[Chappie]

Reformed theologoins ask us to take Acts 13:48 at face value. I am willing to do that. If they are willing to establish doctrine based on one passage of scripture, I extend to them my sympathy. But when they get to passages like John 3:16, John 12:32, Romans 10:9-13, John 3:16, and other passages that on face value show that Christ tasted death for every man: Now they want to improvise.

 

[frumanchu]

Reformed theologoins ask us to take Acts 13:48 at face value. I am willing to do that. If they are willing to establish doctrine based on one passage of scripture, I extend to them my sympathy. But when they get to passages like John 3:16, John 12:32, Romans 10:9-13, John 3:16, and other passages that on face value show that Christ tasted death for every man: Now they want to improvise.

Fortunately, we do not and need not establish our doctrine based on one passage of Scripture.

Since you mentioned John 3:16 not once but twice, please tell me what it is you feel in that verse is incompatible with the Reformed doctrines of grace. Same with John 12:32 and Romans 10:9-13. Feel free to Private Message me if you wish on these points as they aren't quite on topic with what is currently being discussed.

 

[nobdysfool]

When it comes to my faith, I am neither Protestant nor Catholic, Pentecostal, nor Baptist, Charismatic, nor Christadelphian; Calvinist, nor any other denomination. I am an equal opportunity believer. I believe the bible every opportunity I get. If you advocate it, and I can find it in the Bible: On that particular issue; that is what denomination I am. If I cannot find it, then I am some other denomination

He who stands for nothing, will fall for anything....

 

[rnmomof7]

Reformed theologoins ask us to take Acts 13:48 at face value. I am willing to do that. If they are willing to establish doctrine based on one passage of scripture, I extend to them my sympathy. But when they get to passages like John 3:16, John 12:32, Romans 10:9-13, John 3:16, and other passages that on face value show that Christ tasted death for every man: Now they want to improvise.

Calvinists do not base their doctrine but on the entire word of God.Predestination and election and a limited atonement are supported by Gods interaction with men from Adam.

We do not run and hide from John 3:16 we claim it as our own.

You may want to start an investigation of the word PAS (which translates all or whosoever)
I will ask you this question .

If Jesus died for all men , why are not all men saved?

If He paid the debt for all mankind, how can God demand a double payment from any man for the sins .

 

[Rick Otto]

"Sorry; shall I wait while you get a bandage ..."
>You'll have to settle for a wet wipe, but you can lean on me while I straighten out this other mess...

"The context says: "SO THEN condemnation came to PAS ANTHROPOS" (all Humankind, including women...)
"EVEN SO justification came to PAS ANTHROPOS" (all Humankind)."

>Well, Ben the text may say that, but the context is something different from just the text alone. I can explain if ya want.

"It is the "SO THEN / EVEN SO" that forbids the PAS to mean "condemnation came to ALL" but "justification came to SOME". Justification, contextually, came in the same quantity as did condemnation."

>Forbid, or not to forbid, that is NOT the question. The text is not the question, the CONtext of the text is. This is the distinction you fail to make.

When a person says all, it doesn't allways mean "every single one" as when "All Jerusalem went out to see him". When that person is speaking to a specific, exclusive group(Jews) on a point(salvation) that is meant to apply to ALL mankind(Gentiles), not just that group, it will still retain as much exclusivity as did the original grouping, wherein demonstrably, not all were participants. That is to say not ALL Jews partook of salvation, in spite of the fact that all were chosen. Same thing re: apostles. Judas demands an awareness of context. Jesus said, " Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? Jn6:70
Context, Ben, sometimes requires "reading between the lines" as well.

"The condition for condemnation, is SIN; and all men sinned.
The condition for justification, is BELIEF;RECEIVING-JESUS. Not all men do..."
>And so says me & Isaiah, too. He even tells WHY some loved their sins more than the light - listen to John, making the same point:
John12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39: Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41: These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

"There is nothing in all of Scripture that asserts "Jesus died for a FEW";"
>Ben it is statements like these that reveal a hardheartedness toward honest discussion, since this is our position. Your assertion at this late stage seems more like spastic thrashing than confident reason. Sorry, no malice, just observation.

 

[Ben johnson]

Question: in "Predestined-Election" theology, does "total depravity" preclude one's ability to believe in Jesus? IOW, the heart must be regenerated before one can believe, and that divinely-regenerated heart is what prevents the believer from falling? Do I understand it right?

 

[Rick Otto]

Question: in "Arminian-Free-Will" theology, does the unregenerated mind include one's ability to believe in Jesus? IOW, the heart needn't be regenerated before one can believe, and that good obedient works are what prevents the believer from falling? Do I understand it right?

 

[Ben johnson]

I think we agree that mankind, to be saved, must first be called to salvation. To say that "man has inherent goodness, apart from God", is Pelagic heresy; Jesus says, "apart from Me you can do nothing".

No, "good obedient works" are not "what keeps the believer from falling". Jesus said, "No good tree produces bad fruit (works), no bad tree produces good; therefore you will know them by their fruit." A saved heart produces godly works, an unsaved heart produces sinful works...