predestination

[nobdysfool]

You're trying to make this into a "depravity thing", aren't you? How was it GIVEN to them? They couldn't hear because they were DEPRAVED? The DISCIPLES didn't understand EITHER, did they? Jesus had to EXPLAIN it to them, didn't He? And if He had explained it to the OTHERS, do you think they would not have UNDERSTOOD???
What if this is simply parallel to John10:26: "You do not believe (that I am the Messiah), because you are not of My sheep (because you have not believed in Me)"?

How do you get Depravity out of Jesus' own words that "It has not been GIVEN to them"? Who does the giving? Your hatred of the Truth is showing...

Matt13:15 says "THEY have closed THEIR eyes" --- not, "GOD has closed their eyes". What must be proven (for "predestined-election") is that the IMPETUS is solely from GOD; and it still reads "good ground by how they HELD FAST and PERSEVERED and BORE GOOD FRUIT."

What makes the ground good Ben? Who makes it good? The seed? Or the Sower? What does a farmer do before he plants? Doesn't he first plow? He prepares the soil to receive the seed. If he sows by hand, as in the parable, some seed falls on ground that has not been prepared. The seed, being viable and alive, attempts to grow even where the ground has not been prepared. However, that lack of preparation can cause the seed to ultimately not produce fruit, because it can get no good root to grow. The seed that falls on the prepared ground takes root, grows, and produces fruit, 30, 60, and 100-fold, which is what good seed in good ground does. Certainly you can see how this applies.

This verse stands solidly against "PE"; for there is no difference exhibitted in the parable, between the calling of the CHOSEN, and the calling of the UNCHOSEN; the CHOSEN are none but they who CAME, and put on righteousness. There are none in the parable who were NOT invited. It reads that ALL are sincerely invited, and the "chosen" reflects how they RECEIVED the invitation... (Again, to support "Predestined-Election", you must prove that GOD does the choosing WITHOUT their participation; and no such perspective exists in this parable; contrarily, it exhibits the OPPOSITE idea...)
Can you find these words together in the Scripture? Nope...
You know, you're RIGHT; receiving Him of volition does not "qualify ourselves"; He still qualifies us, through OUR faith...
God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Rom9:18, Ex10:1), OR Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart (Ex9:34). It's just a matter of perspective...

Oh, how you hate Predestination and Election, because it removes from you any credit for your walk with God! You want to be able to say that you had a hand in your salvation, you want to be patted on the back for "making a good choice". How you hate the Sovereignty of God, in reserving to Himself the right of choice, and of predestining of all things, including your salvation, to the Praise of His Glory! How you spit in God's Face, in saying that even if He did choose you, it was because you chose Him! How you hate predestination, a word found in the Bible that you fervently wish wasn't there, because it destroys your man-centered view!

Have you ever considered CONNECTING Romans 8:28 with Jn3:19-21? Let's read them together, and see if you don't agree about the connection:
"God causes all things to work together for good to those who LOVE GOD, to those who are called according to His purpose."
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than (loving) the light; for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed; but he who practices truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be shown as having been wrought in God."

THERE'S Depravity, Ben! Taught right in that verse! The judgment is that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, BECAUSE their deeds were evil. Depravity in a nutshell! John goes on to delineate the difference between the children of Light and the children of Darkness, by contrasting how they react to the Light. This is not saying that men can come to the Light on their own. It doesn't address ability, it addresses results. Evil men avoid the Light, because that is what they do, they hate the Light! Good men (he who practices Truth) come to the Light, because they love the Light. No man can love the Truth unless he is born again. Would you not agree to that? If he is born again, he loves the truth, and is not afraid of the Light.

What Predestinationists have failed to prove, is that the "predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, to be first among many" (Rm8:29), happens BEFORE they "love God". I submit that "predestination" is founded on "foreknew", which means they JOIN the predestination THROUGH love. Identically as in Eph1:4-13, "He chose us IN HIM before the beginning of time", does not remove our "having believed" (Eph1:13); so JESUS is the "predestined-before-time", and our "bleieved" means we JOIN His predestined plan. Nowhere does Scripture say "God makes the choice of our eternity"...
And yet the "ROCKY ground" are they who RECEIVE the word with JOY, and BELIEVE. Do you say "they FAKED it"? There is nothing here to hint their belief was not REAL. What MADE them rocky, instead of good soil, is that they did not HOLD FAST and PERSEVERE...

Why do you set aside clear meaning of words, and substitute a preconceived idea? You are stating the equivalent of waiting until the lottery numbers have been drawn, and then choosing the numbers you know have won. That is not Predestination at all! Predestination is specific, not general. It is BECAUSE He chose us in Him before the beginning of time that ENSURES our belief in Him. You want to limit Predestination to Christ alone, and leave all else to chance. That is NOT biblical, Ben! What makes some rocky soil is not their own lack of holding fast and perserverance, but the lack of preparation by the Sower (God). The soil cannot change itself, it cannot prepare itself. Rocky soil cannot plow itself. It cannot remove any of the rocks, or do anything to make itself that which it is not. It is the same with men. NO MAN can prepare himself, make himself something that he is not, or in any way affect that which he is. He must be prepared by God, his heart plowed by the hearing of the Word, his heart resuscitated by the preparation of God (bringing him to spiritual life) so that the Word (seed) can take root, grow, and produce fruit.

How could they have BELIEVED, at ALL, if they were NEVER ELECTED? You said yourself --- "They require the grace of God TO believe". How do you justify their belief in terms of PREDESTINATION?

And just what is that Grace, Ben? Is it not the preparation of the ground to receive the seed? The Word of God is quick and powerful (it has Life), and will attempt to grow even where it is not on good ground. The fact that the rocky ground, the weed infested ground cannot change itself to receive the Word is evidence in and of itself of Predestination and Election, those things being the plowing of the ground to receive the seed (Word).

Ben, why do you hate God's Word so much? Why do you hate God's Sovereignty so much?

 

[Ben johnson]

How do you get Depravity out of Jesus' own words that "It has not been GIVEN to them"? Who does the giving? Your hatred of the Truth is showing...

I was presuming that the PE position was "depravity". As in meaning, "those unelected, are depraved; it is not given to them to know." The point I was tryin' to make, was that it wasn't given to the DISCIPLES, either; until Jesus EXPLAINED it to them...

What makes the ground good Ben? Who makes it good?

The context says to me that "they are CALLED good, by virtue of how they RECEIVED it, and HELD IT FAST"...

However, that lack of preparation can cause the seed to ultimately not produce fruit, because it can get no good root to grow.

No, they are "rocky" and "thorny" because they allow thorns to choke, and temptations and persecution to overtake them. In short, they do not "hold fast and produce fruit".

Certainly you can see how this applies.

I say what you're sayin'; do you see what I'm saying?

Oh, how you hate Predestination and Election, because it removes from you any credit for your walk with God! You want to be able to say that you had a hand in your salvation, you want to be patted on the back for "making a good choice".

I simply have this "weird idea" that truth stands outside of my desires. I only seek to expose what the Scripture, says.

How you hate predestination, a word found in the Bible that you fervently wish wasn't there, because it destroys your man-centered view!

I have yet to find the concept, "PREDESTINED-ELECTION". I can find things like "Those He FOREKNEW, He predestined TO BE CHRISTLIKE". I can't find "He predestined for salvation"....

THERE'S Depravity, Ben! Taught right in that verse!

There's no denying that "there is depravity". It's still a question of CAUSE. Jn5:40 says "you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have eternal life". Jn5:44 says, "how can you believe, WHEN YOU SEEK glory from one another and DO NOT SEEK GOD'S GLORY?" Where is the FORCE here, NBF? Is it GOD'S CHOICE, or is He rebuking THEM for not WANTING to follow Him?

Jn5:47 says, "You don't REALLY even believe Moses; how will you then believe Me?" Jn8:42-44 says, "You SAY you're following God, but you're NOT; if you WERE following God, then you would love ME. But you WANT to do evil things...."

Do you see the dynamic in all of Scripture? It's not woven from, "You cannot pursue Me, because God has not elected you..."

Instead, the fabric presents: "Choose whom you will follow; God, or mammon. You cannot pretend to follow God, if your deeds expose you as evil. If you love God and follow Him, then God gives you to Me (Jesus); but unless you REPENT and FOLLOW ME, you will perish."

Why do you set aside clear meaning of words, and substitute a preconceived idea?

I see "PE" as the preconceived idea. Why do I believe as I do? Because it is the only idea that harmonizes the rest. If God ELECTS, then none can FALL; yet verse after verse speaks OF falling. If God ELECTS, then why does Jesus spend so much time rebuking them for REBELLING?

Does it make sense to deliver REBUKES, against that which they CANNOT AVOID???

Ben, why do you hate God's Word so much? Why do you hate God's Sovereignty so much?

Teach me how God's sovereignty does not allow man to be DRAWN to where he CAN choose. If "election" means "HEART-REGENERATION", which MUST occur BEFORE he can believe, teach me how in Lk8:13, they BELIEVED. According to PE, they CANNOT believe WITHOUT regeneration. And, with that regeneration, they could not CEASE to believe.

Yet here it is: "They received the word with joy, and BELIEVED; but in persecution and affliction CEASED and fell away." How can you make it work? CAN you make it work at all? (I don't think you can...)

And just what is that Grace, Ben? Is it not the preparation of the ground to receive the seed?

Grace is the SEED ITSELF. If the seed (God's word) convicts the heart to steadfastness and perseverance, then the seed falls on GOOD GROUND. If the seed convicts the heart but WITHOUT perseverance, then the seed falls on ROCKY ground. If the seed convicts not at all, then the seed falls on the PATH and does not grow.

Salvation is always two things: "By grace have you been saved, through faith". God's grace, our faith.

God's free gift; our broken and humbled acceptance of His free gift. The gift (salvation) remains 100% of Him, and 0% of us; yet the gift passes us by if we do not receive it.

Every passage says it; "Justification CAME to ALL MEN, in the same measure as came condemnation to ALL MEN; and those who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and WHO RECEIVE the gift of righteousness shall reign with the One, Jesus Christ." Rom5:18,17. Crystal clear, no???

"Those on whom the seed was sown on the GOOD soil, are they who ACCEPT it and bear fruit..." Mk4:20

Those who RECEIVE, NBF; not "those whom God has selected."

 

[Chosen210]

Ben correct me if im wrong, but from what i hear from you is that it is ultimatly up to us to choose Christ or not. And if that is true then God would no doubt find fault in those who reject Him. And if God finds no fault in us, then why on earth in did Paul write this, "Romans 9: 19-23...19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
He writes this because He did appoint those to be the reprobate (I Peter 2:8). And if there were those appointed to be reprobate, why does He still find fault. If we reject God then of course He finds fault in us, because we rejected Him. And now that we fault there would be no need of this passage of scripture because it is clearly talking of the reporbate.

 

[Received]

Oh, how you hate Predestination and Election, because it removes from you any credit for your walk with God! You want to be able to say that you had a hand in your salvation, you want to be patted on the back for "making a good choice".

Do you know what love is?

 

[Boanerge]

I don't understand how a simple concept can get so misinterpreted. The point of predestination is that there will always be a believer of the One True God. Israel.

Those who follow predestination: God does all the choosing for us?
Does this mean that We are not to blame for anything we do?

There is no fault in us? We are perfect and blameless before God?

Since God is 100% righteous He will save ALL mankind? Since He is the one who made us reject His Word?

What is the point of Hell and those who Fall away?

If God chooses who will obey and disobey, who can override His choice?

How then can one "fall away" or "fall in" temptation and into sin?

If we fall into sin, is it that God made us fall or that we chose to fall?

But how can God make us obey and then make us fall away? what would be the reason?

IF God revealed Himself to remind the Elect, (for some reason), how can we choose to remember if we have no free will?

What would then be the point of His commandments if we do not make choices?

Is free will non existant in religious matters or in ALL aspects of life?

If the former, do we have semi-free will? If the Latter, are we nothing but puppets?

Why did Jesus waste his time dying for puppets and not human beings?

if the doctrine is true, Why do we question it so much?

If Truth is the teaching and God is the Teacher and we are the Children, What would the child learn if the teacher did all his homework and all his tests? How can the teacher be a teacher at all?

If Purpose is the Walk, and God is the One who carries and we are the children, Can a child learn how to walk if they have been carried all their lives? What would be the point of having legs?

Salvation is for those who believe. But HEARING is the part that ONLY COMES FROM GOD'S MERCY AND GRACE. One would say i was raised with a Christian family by Luck. But it is not luck, nor is it because God favors me, but because of His purpose. I do not do good things to recieve His grace, but it is because of His grace that I can do good things. You can not buy God's love, but there are ways to show that you Love Him. God searches the hearts, He knows whether we are Honest or not.

I don't know how else to explain. We have free will in the sense that we can learn or we can become ignorant, we can do what is right or we can do what is wrong. But has for Salvation, it was freely given. It is His grace that opens our eyes. Once our eyes are open, we can choose to obey or disobey. Those who disobey reject salvation.

Grace --> Word of God --> Hearing --> Faith --> Salvation

At the moment we are at the section of Faith and therefore it is possible to fall away and not receive salvation when the Lord comes. For those who fall away, fall because sin seemed more attractive; and for them to repent once again will be more difficult if not impossible (Hebrews 6:1-5)

My point is that free will may seem foolish, but The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisest man, and the weakness of God is stronger than the strongest man. (1 Corinthians 1:25)

Man may feel that if they were God they would need to Elect and Unelect in order to make everything work properly, but God doesn't work this way. God seems to find it pleasing to use the lowest things as the greatest. Where men may think "How can man have free will?" God says "The better to express my unconditional love for all of you." Therefore no matter how deep in sin you are, God can take you out of there. (circumcision). When He takes you out, Do not go back in! The reason the door is still open is because the Harvest is not yet.... For how can someone be physically circumcised twice? And What makes us think that this does not apply spiritually, of the heart? would it then not mean that those who disobey have not been circumcised of the heart? meaning, they have no sign of the Promise (Salvation)? For it is those who obey God who are circumcised of the heart. (Romans 2:28-29)

There is no one we can blame for our sins, except for our choices.

There is no one we can thank for our salvation, except for Jesus our Lord and Savior

 

[nobdysfool]

I was presuming that the PE position was "depravity". As in meaning, "those unelected, are depraved; it is not given to them to know." The point I was tryin' to make, was that it wasn't given to the DISCIPLES, either; until Jesus EXPLAINED it to them...

But the fact that Jesus did explain it to them is proof that it WAS given them. You have to learn to differentiate between God's view and man's. In God's view, these things were given before the foundation of the world, but to our eyes, it seems as though it wasn't, then it was. Jesus specifically stated that to some (most) it was not given to know, but the fact that He explained it to the disciples shows that it WAS given for THEM to know. The giving to know is the choice of God, not the choice of the hearer.

The context says to me that "they are CALLED good, by virtue of how they RECEIVED it, and HELD IT FAST"...

No, they are "rocky" and "thorny" because they allow thorns to choke, and temptations and persecution to overtake them. In short, they do not "hold fast and produce fruit".
I say what you're sayin'; do you see what I'm saying?

You're mixing metaphors, Ben. The soil is the soil. It is either prepared for planting or not prepared. Good soil is good because it has been prepared, not by how it receives the seed. The soil does not differentiate between weeds and thorns, and good seed. The rocky and thorny soil was not prepared to receive the seed. The rocks and the thorns were ALREADY THERE. The soil is not responsible for preparing itself, it is prepared by another. This parable actually is a good teaching for PE, because it highlights the fact that the soil MUST be prepared by another, it cannot prepare itself. The free will-ers believe that they can choose whether or not to receive, as though the soil could decide to give preference to the seed over the thorns or rocks.

The Word of God (seed) is broadcast abroad (sown by the sower, casting handfulls far and wide), and most of it falls in the prepared soil, but some falls on the path, the rocky soil, and in amongst the thorns and thistles. The seed will attempt to grow wherever it lands. Where it lands on good soil, it takes root and grows, producing fruit. Where it lands in the thorns and thistles, it tries to grow, but is starved out by the thorns and thistles. In the rocky soil, the seed succeeds in starting to grow, but cannot put down good roots, and rough weather will prevent it from growing, because it cannot maintain its hold on the hard and rocky ground. The seed that falls on the path cannot take root before the birds (Satan and his demons) come and take the seed away.

The good soil are those whom God has chosen, and has prepared to receive the Word in the time appointed. There is PE, in a nutshell. The soil is prepared because the intent of the sower is to plant the seed in good soil. The fact that seed lands in other places is the result of the method of sowing, not the express intent of the sower. The thorny soil are those who receive the Word intellectually, seeing the wisdom and marveling at it, gladly adding it to what they already have (thorns and thistles), but those other things choke out the word, so it does not produce any lasting fruit in their lives. It becomes just another of the many things they have considered, and moved on. The Rocky ground are those who have built up resentments and grudges, harboring ill will in their hearts for others, and the Word has some effect on them (it tries to take root), but they can't get past the resentments, hurts, and grudges, so the Word cannot maintain a hold on them. The Path are the people who have hardened their hearts completely, and have no interest in the Word. The birds come and take the seed away, lest it find a crack in the path and try to take root.

The seed (Word) is viable and alive, and will attempt to grow anyplace it lands. But the intent of the sower (God) is to sow the seed in good soil, and good soil doesn't prepare itself, it is prepared by the sower (God).

I simply have this "weird idea" that truth stands outside of my desires. I only seek to expose what the Scripture, says.
I have yet to find the concept, "PREDESTINED-ELECTION". I can find things like "Those He FOREKNEW, He predestined TO BE CHRISTLIKE". I can't find "He predestined for salvation"....

Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Predestination right there Ben. Who is predestined (before ordained) to walk in the works? Those whom He has created in Christ Jesus (if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation), for that express purpose (unto or for good works), to walk in them (the good works). That is specific. Those whom God has created in Christ are specifically created for the works which He has specifically fore-ordained that they should perform. God cannot specify particular good works, and not specify who will do them. Therefore, He MUST predestine specific people to do the specific predestined works.

There's no denying that "there is depravity". It's still a question of CAUSE. Jn5:40 says "you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have eternal life". Jn5:44 says, "how can you believe, WHEN YOU SEEK glory from one another and DO NOT SEEK GOD'S GLORY?" Where is the FORCE here, NBF? Is it GOD'S CHOICE, or is He rebuking THEM for not WANTING to follow Him?

A Holy God has every right to demand of His creation that they obey Him, whether they can or not. Jesus upbraided the Jews because, of all people, they were the most without excuse, because they had the Word of God, the Law of God, and they could not plead ignorance or inability, because the Law provided for their inability. The depravity common to all men guarantees that they will not choose Him, even when they have the opportunity and know what God requires. Jesus pointed out their depravity by showing them that they were willfully seeking glory from another and not seeking God's Glory. He chewed them out because of all people, the Jews should know better.

And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (Joh 9:39-41)

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22)

Do you see the dynamic in all of Scripture? It's not woven from, "You cannot pursue Me, because God has not elected you..."

Instead, the fabric presents: "Choose whom you will follow; God, or mammon. You cannot pretend to follow God, if your deeds expose you as evil. If you love God and follow Him, then God gives you to Me (Jesus); but unless you REPENT and FOLLOW ME, you will perish."

Again, you insist on seeing it as something that any person can choose to do on his own, by his own volition, apart from God. You do not see man's inherent depravity as an inability to do so, but only a hindrance to doing so. That is a grave mistake. Jesus makes it clear: No man cancome to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44). All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (Joh 6:37) no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (Joh 6:65)

[size=+0]Ben it is very clear here that the Father MUST draw those whom He gives to Christ. It is not Christ who draws them, it is not the Holy Spirit who draws them, it is the Father who draws them. The Father gives to the Son those whom HE draws. No man can draw himself to Christ, no man can come to Christ, no man has the ability to choose Christ, UNLESS and UNTIL the Father FIRST draws him, and gives him to Christ. This is a powerful teaching on Predestination and Election. It is laid out right here, in no uncertain terms. To deny PE is to deny this passage of scripture, to rip it out of the bible and say it is not God's Word, and these are the very words of Jesus Himself. If anyone would know, it would be Him, dontcha think? Jesus teaches PE in John 6.
[/size]

I see "PE" as the preconceived idea. Why do I believe as I do? Because it is the only idea that harmonizes the rest. If God ELECTS, then none can FALL; yet verse after verse speaks OF falling. If God ELECTS, then why does Jesus spend so much time rebuking them for REBELLING?

Does it make sense to deliver REBUKES, against that which they CANNOT AVOID???
Teach me how God's sovereignty does not allow man to be DRAWN to where he CAN choose. If "election" means "HEART-REGENERATION", which MUST occur BEFORE he can believe, teach me how in Lk8:13, they BELIEVED. According to PE, they CANNOT believe WITHOUT regeneration. And, with that regeneration, they could not CEASE to believe.

Yet here it is: "They received the word with joy, and BELIEVED; but in persecution and affliction CEASED and fell away." How can you make it work? CAN you make it work at all? (I don't think you can...)

How many people do you know that say they believe in God? Statistics show that in America, the majority of people say they believe in God. Does that mean they're all saved? According to what you're saying here, your answer would have to be "yes", because they SAY they believe in God. Does the SAYING confer salvation? I hope you don't believe that. The demons believe, Ben, but not savingly. Belief by itself cannot save. Unless the heart is changed, unless the heart is regenerated, all the belief in the world will not save one person. American Christianity makes a grave mistake, in my opinion, by stressing "saying the words" rather than stressing that the heart MUST be regenerated, or salvation has not taken place. The proof of regeneration is a changed life, a radical change. Many people who say the words can produce what appears to be fruits of salvation, but that is only self-discipline. They can say all the "right" words, read all the "right" books, associate with the "right" people, and do all the "right" works, but unless their hearts have been regenerated by God, they are not saved. They're not born again. American churches are FILLED with unsaved "saved" people. Even in the most fundamental, Gospel-preaching churches.

They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luk 8:13)

I submit to you that the reason they only believed for a while is because their faith wasn't saving faith, because their hearts had not been changed (prepared) to receive the word. They believed the same way the demons do, the same way most people do, with their heads, as a mental acceptance. The difference between rocky soil and plowed soil is preparation. The soil does not prepare itself. No soil can receive the seed and produce a harvest without preparation, and without attendance to it after the planting. So it is with man. Unless his heart has been first prepared by God to receive the Word (regeneration), the Word will not take root and grow, and produce the harvest of a life lived in God's service, producing the fruit of the Spirit, and the works of God. God prepares the heart, (plows the soil), and plants the Word (the Seed), and nurtures the resulting growth (the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit), to produce the Harvest in due season (a life of God-centered service and devotion, and accompanying godly works).

Just because someone says they believe does not mean they are saved. In the NT, the places where you see people falling away, if you look closely and prayerfully, you will see that those people were not really saved, or they would not have fallen away. If a heart has been regenerated by God, it will not fall away. If they fall away, they were not really regenerated. It's just that simple, Ben.

Grace is the SEED ITSELF. If the seed (God's word) convicts the heart to steadfastness and perseverance, then the seed falls on GOOD GROUND. If the seed convicts the heart but WITHOUT perseverance, then the seed falls on ROCKY ground. If the seed convicts not at all, then the seed falls on the PATH and does not grow.

Grace is not the seed, the Word is the seed. The parable itself says so. Grace is the ground preparation. You are saying that the seed changes the ground at planting. That's not true. Grace is the ground preparation, Ben. The seed attempts to grow where it's planted. The seed does not alter the ground to be received, the ground is altered by Grace (preparation). The seed does not make the ground receptive, Grace does. The ground is what it is. Grace is what makes the ground receptive to the seed, to enable it to take root and grow. When God, by His Grace, prepares the heart to receive the Word (seed), the seed will grow and produce fruit. The seed does the growing, not the ground. The ground is strengthened by the seed taking root and spreading its roots throughout the ground, so that they are intertwined and working in symbiosis, the seed strengthening the ground, and the ground nurturing the seed.

You really need to prayerfully look at this parable again, Ben, because you have missed what it is saying. You're reversing the order of things and seeing it as teaching what men do, when it is really teaching what God does.

Salvation is always two things: "By grace have you been saved, through faith". God's grace, our faith.

And the faith with which we believe unto salvation is a gift of God, Ben, it is not something you worked up yourself. Self-generated faith will land you in the Lake of Fire.

Every passage says it; "Justification CAME to ALL MEN, in the same measure as came condemnation to ALL MEN; and those who RECEIVE the abundance of grace and WHO RECEIVE the gift of righteousness shall reign with the One, Jesus Christ." Rom5:18,17. Crystal clear, no???

"Those on whom the seed was sown on the GOOD soil, are they who ACCEPT it and bear fruit..." Mk4:20

Those who RECEIVE, NBF; not "those whom God has selected."

Romans 5 must be viewed along with and tempered by John 6. You cannot isolate scripture to make it say what you want. You are the master of eisegesis, Ben. Justification does not happen until after one believes. One must believe to be forgiven, and justification is the statement that one HAS been forgiven, and is therefore no longer guilty. If that has happened to all men apart from their reception of forgiveness, then it matters not what we do, because we are already justified (not guilty) in the sight of God, and the whole world, every man woman and child, is already saved. You really need to study this one out, Ben, because you are saying that this passage says something it does not say, when compared to the rest of the Word. You cannot "proof text" your way to sound doctrine.

Your whole tirade against PE and OSAS is one of eisegesis and "proof texts". If that is what your book will be like, it will not be accepted by sound biblical scholars, and will sink like a stone. I do not say that to insult you or hurt you, I say it because I believe that you can be a better bible scholar, and a better Christian by proclaiming the Gospel, and not trying to "destroy" doctrines you have proven that you don't truly understand.

In Christ, and for His glory,

nobdysfool

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben correct me if im wrong, but from what i hear from you is that it is ultimatly up to us to choose Christ or not.

The choice has always been to follow God, or not. Under the New Covevnant, the choice is to believe in Jesus, or not. Jesus said: "He who believes in Jesus is not judged; but he who does not believe is judged already, BECAUSE he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

And if God finds no fault in us, then why on earth in did Paul write this, "Romans 9: 19-23...

That passage is a HYPOTHETICAL, it is arguing with what the detracter MIGHT say. "YOU will say..." "WHAT IF..."

The illustration of "time" and "atimia" in 2Tim2:21 refers to "saved" and "unsaved"; but in Rom9:21, I concur with NAS translation, "honor" and "common" (both are SAVED); this because of the THIRD group in Rom9, the "wrath vessels for destruction".

If you really think the Rom9 passage asserts "predestination", then please explain vs 30-33: "The Gentiles ...pursued by faith, and atained righteousness; but Israel pursued LAW, rather than faith; pursued works, and did NOT attain righteousness. They stumbled over the stumbling-stone (Jesus), as it is written: 'I lay in Zion a stone... and he who BELIEVES will not be disappointed.' " Tell me --- were GENTILES saved and ISRAEL missed, because of GOD'S CHOICE< or because Gentiles pursued FAITH while Israel chose WORKS? Which does it SAY?

He writes this because He did appoint those to be the reprobate (I Peter 2:8).

You cannot insert "by God' in a verse that merely says "were PLACED in their doom" ("tithemi", aorist passive indicitave). There is nothing in the verse that gives reason to think "they were placed for doom by anything other than their unbelief". (This parallel to Jn3:18, "He who does NOT believe is condemned already, BECAUSE he has not believed...")

 

[Ben johnson]

Very good post, Boanerge!

 

[Ben johnson]

But the fact that Jesus did explain it to them is proof that it WAS given them.

Something "given to them", would be like when Peter asserted that Jesus was the Messiah; "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in Heaven." Yet in the parable of the seed, they were NOT "given it", flesh and blood HAD to "reveal it".

(And Matt16:16 does not contradict Jn10:26, Peter was "given the fact of Jesus' Messiahship", because Peter believed in Jesus; in Jn10:26 Jesus says, "You don't believe in My Messiahship, because you have not believed in Me (you are not My sheep)".)

The soil is the soil. It is either prepared for planting or not prepared. Good soil is good because it has been prepared, not by how it receives the seed.

WHERE does it say ANYTHING about "God preparing the soil"? It says, "The GOOD soil are they who RECEIVED the word, with honest and good heart, and HELD IT FAST and BORE FRUIT." 100% about "how they received the seed", isn't it?

The rocks and the thorns were ALREADY THERE.

No, the ROCKS and THORNS are METAPHORE; reflecting how they let worries and cares CHOKE OUT the word that had been sown.

The good soil are those whom God has chosen, and has prepared to receive the Word in the time appointed. There is PE, in a nutshell

You're right; that IS "predestined-to-salvation", in a nutshell.

...rather, it WOULD be "predestined-to-salvation", if it SAID "whom God has CHOSEN", and "whom God has PREPARED to receive the word" --- but were those words written there by JOHN, or are they just your understanding (what you think John meant)?

Ephesians 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Predestination right there Ben. Who is predestined (before ordained) to walk in the works? Those whom He has created in Christ Jesus (if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation), for that express purpose (unto or for good works), to walk in them (the good works). That is specific. Those whom God has created in Christ are specifically created for the works which He has specifically fore-ordained that they should perform. God cannot specify particular good works, and not specify who will do them. Therefore, He MUST predestine specific people to do the specific predestined works.

How can I convince you that this is the END, justifying the MEANS?

Eph2:8 says, "by grace through faith have you been saved". If it is by OUR faith that we are saved, then the deeds prepared for walking-in, are prepared for those who BELIEVE.

2Cor5:17 says "if any man be IN CHRIST" --- the argument, is that "in Christ" is through voluntary FAITH/BELIEF. If being "IN CHRIST" is predestined, why do you s'pose that Paul warns us to "test ourselves to see IF we are IN CHRIST"? 2Cor13:5 I do not think it acceptable to assert, "oh the TEST is RHETORICAL; of COURSE we WILL be IN CHRIST" --- 1Cor13:5 asserts that "you CAN fail the test" (and verse 6 affirms that "I trust that you realize WE do not fail the test). In no place does this verse hint that the "test" is "rhetorical"; it is as real as Peter's admonition in 2:1:10-11: "Be DILIGENT about His calling and ELECTION; as long as these traits are yours, you will not stumble, and the GATES of Heaven will be provided; but he who has NOT these things, is blind shortsighted and FORGOTTEN FORMER PURIFICATION OF SINS." How much clearer can it be?

He chewed them out because of all people, the Jews should know better.

But they CANNOT know better if they are not PREDESTINED, can they? What's the purpose of chewing out a PIG, for BEING a pig??? Can he help what he is?

Jesus teaches PE in John 6.

There is no such sequence given by Jesus in John6. There is ONE GROUP LIFTED UP; those God gives Jesus, those who BELIEVE, those who who are drawn, those who participate in communion. Each is PARALLEL; there are NONE who are given to Jesus who are NOT BELIEVERS at the TIME THEY ARE GIVEN...

Jesus in Jn6 is equating Himself with GOD; by saying, "God gives you to Me", He is merely repeating Jn8:42 (if you BELIEVED God then you would BELIEVE ME) and Jn5:46 (if you BELIEVED Moses then you would believe ME).

They on the rock [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. (Luk 8:13)

I submit to you that the reason they only believed for a while is because their faith wasn't saving faith, because their hearts had not been changed (prepared) to receive the word. They believed the same way the demons do, the same way most people do, with their heads, as a mental acceptance. The difference between rocky soil and plowed soil is preparation.

According to "Total Depravity", they cannot believe at ALL unless they are REGENERATED. This it doesn't work to say, "they had FALSE BELIEF"; they are totally depraved, remember? And cannot seek God in ANY measure.

Nowhere in this passage is the idea of "ground prepared to receive the seed". The GOOD soil aare "they who receive (accept) the word with a good and honest heart, and HOLD FAST AND PERSEVERE. Where is the GOD-PREPARED-THE-SOIL"?

If they fall away, they were not really regenerated. It's just that simple, Ben.

I'm glad you said that; it IS the belief of "predestined-election". But it does not answer the contradiction of the Galatians. They were "begun in the Spirit, running well" (3:3, 5:7); any way to say "they were NOT REALLY REGENERATED"? But they FELL AWAY, didn't they? The same contradiction exists in Col1:21-23, 2:8, 2Pet2:20-22, 3:17, Jms1:14-16 & 5:19-20 to name just a FEW. Can PE resolve these contradictions?

No.

Grace is not the seed, the Word is the seed. The parable itself says so. Grace is the ground preparation. You are saying that the seed changes the ground at planting. That's not true. Grace is the ground preparation, Ben. The seed attempts to grow where it's planted. The seed does not alter the ground to be received, the ground is altered by Grace (preparation).

The Word is the SEED; grace is the PROVISION of the seed. The ground-preparation is FAITH.

You really need to prayerfully look at this parable again, Ben, because you have missed what it is saying. You're reversing the order of things and seeing it as teaching what men do, when it is really teaching what God does.

If you're correct about the parable, and I am wrong, then I must strive to resolve all the OTHER contradictions (a few of which I have just cited.) But if I am RIGHT, then there are no other contradictions to worry me...

And the faith with which we believe unto salvation is a gift of God, Ben, it is not something you worked up yourself. Self-generated faith will land you in the Lake of Fire.

No one said "it is self-generated". I say, "salvic faith consequents from the HEART that is CONVICTED by the word of God." I am called to salvation, my depravity is overcome by Him in enough measure that I CAN believe, or NOT; it is my choice to have faith, or not. If I have faith, it is not faith in myself; it is faith in the One who died for me; faith born of conviction by the Gospel. Not faith INSTILLED by God.

Romans 5 must be viewed along with and tempered by John 6. You cannot isolate scripture to make it say what you want. You are the master of eisegesis, Ben. Justification does not happen until after one believes

The word is "exegesis". Rom5 says "justification CAME in the SAME QUANTITY as came condemnation; and justified are they who believe." John 6 says "I JESUS am GOD; if you believe in Him, He will give you to Me (believing in Me is the same as believing in God). Those who are LIFTED UP, are they who BELIEVE; there is no "giving to Jesus UNBELIEVERS". Can you deny that?

Your whole tirade against PE and OSAS is one of eisegesis and "proof texts".

Then answer the contradictions I have raised in this post, this post alone. Can you?

I was "absolutely contradicted by the Greek on Acts13:48" --- until I spoke with a Greek professor. And he supported nearly everything I have been saying; disputing only that the writer meant "middle-passive"; but in context asserting that it does NOT prove divine decree, just as Robertson proclaimed. Is anyone still answering what the Greek professor said?

The one thing the professor said, is that "no authority is really needed to understand the text; the Greek speaks for itself." The context of Acts13:48 includes 13:46, "the Jews JUDGED THEMSELVES unworthy". Where is the DIVINE DECREE?

Which of us writes valid exegesis, and which really has eisegesis?

 

[nobdysfool]

Something "given to them", would be like when Peter asserted that Jesus was the Messiah; "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in Heaven." Yet in the parable of the seed, they were NOT "given it", flesh and blood HAD to "reveal it".

And that wasn't "giving it to them"? Jesus didn't explain it until they ASKED Him, and then He gave them to understand, by explaining it to them. You're straining at gnats here Ben.

(And Matt16:16 does not contradict Jn10:26, Peter was "given the fact of Jesus' Messiahship", because Peter believed in Jesus; in Jn10:26 Jesus says, "You don't believe in My Messiahship, because you have not believed in Me (you are not My sheep)".)

Here we go with the "you don't believe in Me because you don't believe in Me" explanation again. Spare me! If you can't see the circular reasoning in your interpretation of that scripture, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

WHERE does it say ANYTHING about "God preparing the soil"? It says, "The GOOD soil are they who RECEIVED the word, with honest and good heart, and HELD IT FAST and BORE FRUIT." 100% about "how they received the seed", isn't it?
No, the ROCKS and THORNS are METAPHORE; reflecting how they let worries and cares CHOKE OUT the word that had been sown.
You're right; that IS "predestined-to-salvation", in a nutshell.

Good soil is soil that is prepared Ben. Any fool knows that! Soil doesn't become good on its own. The preparation of the soil is implicit in the parable. No farmer worth his salt fails to prepare the soil before he plants!

The whole parable is a metaphor, Ben! People aren't soil, and rock and thorns aren't the cares and worries of life! Working within the metaphor, those who let the cares and worries of life choke out the Word had those cares and worries BEFORE they received the Word. Those cares and worries didn't suddenly come on them at the same time the seed did! Think, man, think! You're making a fool out of yourself trying to disprove what anyone else can see!

And this parable is a beautiful illustration of Predestination unto salvation. In my last post, I analyzed it in depth just to show that. You are so dead-set against Predestination in any form that you will do anything, say anything, to keep from agreeing with me.

...rather, it WOULD be "predestined-to-salvation", if it SAID "whom God has CHOSEN", and "whom God has PREPARED to receive the word" --- but were those words written there by JOHN, or are they just your understanding (what you think John meant)?

It's a parable, Ben.Within it is contained the teaching, but you have to dig it out. That's the point of a parable. Jesus didn't spell it out, and John didn't either. This was Jesus' preferred method of teaching, because He could say a lot in few words. Parables are a very compact form of teaching, and very efficient for conveying a great deal of Truth. Think about it, Ben, 2000 years later, and we're STILL digging out Truths from the parables of Jesus. Oh, but you don't want to have to work for it. "If it doesn't specifically say it in so many words, then it can't possibly mean that." How sad....

How can I convince you that this is the END, justifying the MEANS?

Eph2:8 says, "by grace through faith have you been saved". If it is by OUR faith that we are saved, then the deeds prepared for walking-in, are prepared for those who BELIEVE.

And I'll remind you that it is illogical to think that God predestined (before ordained) specific and particular deeds, but did not predestine (before ordain) specific and particular people to do them. You cannot specify one side of the equation and not specify the other.

2Cor5:17 says "if any man be IN CHRIST" --- the argument, is that "in Christ" is through voluntary FAITH/BELIEF. If being "IN CHRIST" is predestined, why do you s'pose that Paul warns us to "test ourselves to see IF we are IN CHRIST"? 2Cor13:5 I do not think it acceptable to assert, "oh the TEST is RHETORICAL; of COURSE we WILL be IN CHRIST" --- 1Cor13:5 asserts that "you CAN fail the test" (and verse 6 affirms that "I trust that you realize WE do not fail the test). In no place does this verse hint that the "test" is "rhetorical"; it is as real as Peter's admonition in 2:1:10-11: "Be DILIGENT about His calling and ELECTION; as long as these traits are yours, you will not stumble, and the GATES of Heaven will be provided; but he who has NOT these things, is blind shortsighted and FORGOTTEN FORMER PURIFICATION OF SINS." How much clearer can it be?

Ben, do you believe that every person in every church everywhere is saved BECAUSE THEY SAY SO? Is saying so enough to get you saved? Or does it take a regenerated heart? Paul was writing to Believers, but he could not know personally every person there. Paul's warning was against self-deception, i.e. thinking you're saved, although your heart hasn't changed. many of Paul's letters dealt with how you can KNOW you are Christ's. Seems to me that the early church had questions about that, it isn't something new. And it is spoken of that wolves have "crept in unaware" into the flock, meaning that there were people faking their salvation. So, no, I'm not taking a view that he was only speaking theoretically, or rhetorically. A Christian is responsible to nurture and pursue their faith. Paul teaches a lot about that. There's a reason! But God has also promised to preserve those who pursue Him in faith, walking in their salvation. They don't preserve themselves, God preserves them.

But they CANNOT know better if they are not PREDESTINED, can they? What's the purpose of chewing out a PIG, for BEING a pig??? Can he help what he is?

The Jews were God's Chosen People. If anyone should have known, it would be the Jews. They had the Word of God. They had the teachings and traditions going all the way back to Abraham. Those teachings and traditions pointed straight at Jesus as the Messiah. But, it was also prophesied that they would reject Him, so His chewing them out for unbelief was a witness against them, and a witness to fulfilled Divine Prophecy. Since prophecy was involved, Predestination was also involved. Prophecy is the single best proof for Predestination.

There is no such sequence given by Jesus in John6. There is ONE GROUP LIFTED UP; those God gives Jesus, those who BELIEVE, those who who are drawn, those who participate in communion. Each is PARALLEL; there are NONE who are given to Jesus who are NOT BELIEVERS at the TIME THEY ARE GIVEN...

More redundant and circular reasoning on your part. They come to Jesus TO RECEIVE eternal life. If they come to Him after they have believed, they have already received eternal life BEFORE they came to Jesus. But belief in Jesus is how one receives eternal life, so one has to come to Jesus TO BELIEVE and TO RECEIVE eternal life. No one can do that unless the Father draws him. The drawing is Predestination, Ben. It is Election. Those whom the Father draws are those whom He has Predestined to salvation, and the drawing is proof of their Election unto salvation. It's right there, Ben.

Jesus in Jn6 is equating Himself with GOD; by saying, "God gives you to Me", He is merely repeating Jn8:42 (if you BELIEVED God then you would BELIEVE ME) and Jn5:46 (if you BELIEVED Moses then you would believe ME).
According to "Total Depravity", they cannot believe at ALL unless they are REGENERATED. This it doesn't work to say, "they had FALSE BELIEF"; they are totally depraved, remember? And cannot seek God in ANY measure.

Large crowds followed Jesus around. If you asked them they would say they believed in Jesus, or at least they believed that He could do miracles, and they wanted to see a miracle. But that wasn't saving belief. It wasn't "leave your old life and follow Him" belief. John 6 is where Jesus separated the hangers-on from the true believers. Many people give mental assent to Jesus as the messiah, as the Son of God, and as God. But if their heart is not regenerated, they are not saved. You're taking a Calvinist teaching (Total Depravity)to an extreme, and misrepresenting it, to try and disprove it. I trust the reader to see the distortion and inaccuracy in that view.

You know personally people who are not really saved, even though they may go to church with you. If I were a gambling man, I'd put money on that, because it's a sure thing!

Nowhere in this passage is the idea of "ground prepared to receive the seed". The GOOD soil aare "they who receive (accept) the word with a good and honest heart, and HOLD FAST AND PERSEVERE. Where is the GOD-PREPARED-THE-SOIL"?

How did they get that good and honest heart???? They weren't born with it, Ben! The good and honest heart is proof that they were prepared, because "good and honest" is NOT the natural condition of any man. Of course, since you don't believe that man's natural nature makes him unable to choose Christ, but only hinders him from doing so, I'm not surprised you don't see the preparation. Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean that it is not there.

Do gold miners find gold laying on top of the ground? Do diamond miners find diamonds on top of the ground? Very few, and very little. By far the vast bulk of gold and diamonds has been mined, meaning that someone had to go digging for it, and expend effort to obtain them. But you want all of God's Truth to be laying on top of the ground, just waiting for you to pick it up, laying there so all can see it without either you or them having to think or pray or consider and meditate in order to see it.

Can PE resolve these contradictions? No.

Don't be so sure....

The Word is the SEED; grace is the PROVISION of the seed. The ground-preparation is FAITH.

But Ben, you said there was no preparation. So now suddenly there is???

Anyway, you're still wrong. The Word is the seed. Grace is the preparation, and FAITH is what makes the seed grow!!! Get it right, Please!!!

If you're correct about the parable, and I am wrong, then I must strive to resolve all the OTHER contradictions (a few of which I have just cited.) But if I am RIGHT, then there are no other contradictions to worry me...

Better get busy then, Ben, because I AM right about the parable...

No one said "it is self-generated". I say, "salvic faith consequents from the HEART that is CONVICTED by the word of God." I am called to salvation, my depravity is overcome by Him in enough measure that I CAN believe, or NOT; it is my choice to have faith, or not. If I have faith, it is not faith in myself; it is faith in the One who died for me; faith born of conviction by the Gospel. Not faith INSTILLED by God.

This is pretty standard Arminian/Wesleyan stuff.You admit that depravity is in you, but you see it as crippling, not incapacitating. Romans says otherwise. You still see yourself as being able to choose, even after Grace, to reject God. You see your own faith as somehow not tainted and stained by your own nature, but something acceptable to God, once He "overcomes" your depravity. You see your faith as being energized by "conviction".

Conviction makes you aware of your guilt and sure judgment, but that doesn't produce faith. Faith is produced by hearing the Gospel, that Christ came into the world to save sinners. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Faith IS a gift of God, Ben, and it is given in order that you can believe savingly on Jesus. God brought you to that place Ben, you didn't.

The word is "exegesis".

No, Ben, I chose eisegesis for a reason. It is reading into the text what you want it to say, and you do a lot of that, as well as misquote scriptures. I know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, and I know which one you most often employ.

Rom5 says "justification CAME in the SAME QUANTITY as came condemnation; and justified are they who believe." John 6 says "I JESUS am GOD; if you believe in Him, He will give you to Me (believing in Me is the same as believing in God). Those who are LIFTED UP, are they who BELIEVE; there is no "giving to Jesus UNBELIEVERS". Can you deny that?

If you truly believed that, you would believe in universal salvation, or at the very least you would be forced to admit that Jesus died in vain for an awful lot of people, because they rejected Him. Is that where you really want to go with that?

John 6 does not say what you're are eisegeting into it. Jesus words speak very clearly, and do not need to be reinterpreted. No man cancome to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44). All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (Joh 6:37) no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (Joh 6:65)

The lifting up happens on the Last Day. Of course they're believers at that point! But they come to Jesus TO BELIEVE, and TO RECEIVE eternal life. the Father brings them to Jesus. The Father draws men to Jesus, because ONLY those who the Father draws WILL COME!!! They don't come to the Father first, the Father brings them straight to Jesus! This is a clear teaching on Predestination. Also on Irresistable Grace.

Then answer the contradictions I have raised in this post, this post alone. Can you?

Why should I waste my time unless you truly want to know the truth, and will open your mind and heart to receive it? I don't have to do so, Ben. I engage in this with you because of my love for the truth, and the jealousy I feel when I see it distorted, denied, and perverted. And, I also have no desire to see you embarrassed by your unreasoning hatred of Reformed Doctrine.

I was "absolutely contradicted by the Greek on Acts13:48" --- until I spoke with a Greek professor. And he supported nearly everything I have been saying; disputing only that the writer meant "middle-passive"; but in context asserting that it does NOT prove divine decree, just as Robertson proclaimed. Is anyone still answering what the Greek professor said?

Trust me, it will be answered. But I must say, unless you supply us with the name of the professor, we have no objective way to verify your exchange with him. You could have made the whole thing up. You say he didn't want his name given, but that can be interpreted as him not wanting to stand behind what he said. I read your account, and personally, I saw you asking him a lot of leading questions, maneuvering him into saying what you wanted to hear. Besides, even one profgessor doesn't outweigh the hundreds of other greek scholars who have translated the passage exactly as you see it in nearly every bible today. I've got to go with scripture on this one, Ben. "In the multitude of counselors, there is safety"

You and the Professor do not make up a "multitude".

Which of us writes valid exegesis, and which really has eisegesis?

That's for the readers to decide, but I think you already know the answer to that one...You've been stopped dead in your tracks on Acts 13:48, and the Parable of the Sower.

 

[Ben johnson]

And this parable is a beautiful illustration of Predestination unto salvation. In my last post, I analyzed it in depth just to show that. You are so dead-set against Predestination in any form that you will do anything, say anything, to keep from agreeing with me.

Do/say-anything, huh? Let's look at your analysis:
The soil is the soil. It is either prepared for planting or not prepared. Good soil is good because it has been prepared, not by how it receives the seed. The soil does not differentiate between weeds and thorns, and good seed. The rocky and thorny soil was not prepared to receive the seed. The rocks and the thorns were ALREADY THERE. The soil is not responsible for preparing itself, it is prepared by another. This parable actually is a good teaching for PE, because it highlights the fact that the soil MUST be prepared by another, it cannot prepare itself. The free will-ers believe that they can choose whether or not to receive, as though the soil could decide to give preference to the seed over the thorns or rocks.

WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATINAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (1966)
Eisegesis: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.
Exegesis: critical interpretation of a text or portion of Scripture.

You assert that the SOIL must be PREPARED to receive the seed; where is "PREPARE" in the text? If you add what is not there, it is eisegesis, defined.

The text merely says, "The GOOD soil are they who accept the word with a good and honest heart, hold it fast and bear fruit with perseverance." The only deduction allowed by the text, is that they who RECEIVE and PERSEVERE, are called GOOD SOIL; there is NOTHING about "preparation".

It's a parable, Ben.Within it is contained the teaching, but you have to dig it out.

But the Scripture only says "good soil are those who RECEIVE and HOLD FAST"; you say "it is PREPARED BY GOD". If by DIGGING you come up with MORE THAN WAS WRITTEN, then you have just done "eisegesis".

The good soil are those whom God has chosen, and has prepared to receive the Word in the time appointed. There is PE, in a nutshell. The soil is prepared because the intent of the sower is to plant the seed in good soil. The fact that seed lands in other places is the result of the method of sowing, not the express intent of the sower. The Rocky ground are those who have built up resentments and grudges, harboring ill will in their hearts for others, and the Word has some effect on them (it tries to take root), but they can't get past the resentments, hurts, and grudges, so the Word cannot maintain a hold on them.

You cannot deny that Jesus said, "They RECEIVE WITH JOY, and BELIEVE". There is nothing to indicate that they are NEVER SAVED. Exegesis. Yet they FALL from temptation/affliction/persecution. Fall from what? FALL FROM BELIEVING. Exegesis --- the parable conveys that the LABELS (path, rocky, thorny, good) reflects how they RECEIVE the word, or NOT. Exegesis.

Asserting "God PREPARED them" and/or "predestined" is digging out what was never there --- eisegesis.

And I'll remind you that it is illogical to think that God predestined (before ordained) specific and particular deeds, but did not predestine (before ordain) specific and particular people to do them. You cannot specify one side of the equation and not specify the other.

I am not constrained by my logic and reason; I am constrained by Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture assert that we are "decreed for salvation".

Ben, do you believe that every person in every church everywhere is saved BECAUSE THEY SAY SO? Is saying so enough to get you saved? Or does it take a regenerated heart? Paul was writing to Believers, but he could not know personally every person there. Paul's warning was against self-deception, i.e. thinking you're saved, although your heart hasn't changed. many of Paul's letters dealt with how you can KNOW you are Christ's

I just quoted Peter, who said "FORGOTTEN FORMER PURIFICATION FROM SINS". Do you recognize that? Choose:

1. Peter was wrong, they weren't REALLY "formerly purified" (because that means they were SAVED)

2. Peter was rhetorical; warning against what CANNOT HAPPEN; he just wanted us to KEEP IN LINE, which of course happens anyway if we are elect, the regenerated heart cannot be unregenerated, only perseverance can flow from the heart God regenerates, only growth and maturity is possible for the elect, Peter was kidding/exaggerating about "stumbling" (ptaio-become-wretched), there is no danger of the eisodos-gates-of-Heaven ACTUALLY not being provided to us...

3. It is a real warning against drifting away from Salvation, and missing Heaven.

#1, #2, or #3. Pick one.

 

[Ben johnson]

And it is spoken of that wolves have "crept in unaware" into the flock, meaning that there were people faking their salvation.

"FAKING SALVATION" doesn't work in 2Pet2:20-22; nor in James5:19-20. Nor in Heb6:4. Nor in any other passage that speaks of "falling from salvation". Jesus said, "No bad tree can produce good fruit". In saying "fake salvation", how far do you think they went?
Do you contradict Jesus' words?

They don't preserve themselves, God preserves them.

Show me the Scripture where GOD PRESERVES THEM without their consent. And I will show you:

"By YOUR endurance save your soul" (Lk21:19).

"Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere; as you do you will save yourself..." 1Tim4:16

"Receiving as the outcome of YOUR faith the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

"You have need of endurance; so that when you have done God's will you may receive the Promise." Heb10:36

"Do not throw away Jesus" Heb10:35

"Watch yourselves against the deceivers; whoever goes too far and does not abide in Jesus' teachings, has not God." 2Jn1:7-9

"Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit, He TAKES AWAY; anyone does not abide in me is cast off ...and burned." Jn15:2-6

These and many more like them do not speak of "HIM ENDURING US" --- but rather, "US ENDURING IN HIM". Can you give any verse that says "HE ENDURES US", as clearly as these say "WE ENDURE IN HIM"?

"He is ABLE to keep us from stumbling" (Jd24); keep YOURSELVES in the love of God." (Jd21)

More redundant and circular reasoning on your part. They come to Jesus TO RECEIVE eternal life. If they come to Him after they have believed, they have already received eternal life BEFORE they came to Jesus. But belief in Jesus is how one receives eternal life, so one has to come to Jesus TO BELIEVE and TO RECEIVE eternal life. No one can do that unless the Father draws him. The drawing is Predestination, Ben. It is Election. Those whom the Father draws are those whom He has Predestined to salvation, and the drawing is proof of their Election unto salvation. It's right there, Ben.

Right where? "I will draw ALL MEN to Myself." Jn12:30 You say, "It REALLY means only SOME." Exegesis or eisegesis?

"SO THEN condemnation CAME to all, EVEN SO justification CAME to all." You say, "Condemnation came to all, but justification came to SOME." exegesis or eisegesis?

"He is the propitiation for our sins; not just ours, but also those of the WHOLE WORLD (holos kosmos)". 1Jn2:2 You say, "propitiation for only SOME of the world." Exegesis or eisegesis?

"...the living God, who is the Savior of all men; chiefly ("malista", above all) believers." 1Tim4:10 You say, "Savior of only a FEW men, ONLY the elect." Exegesis or eisegesis?

Would you agree that CALLING to salvation, is the same as DRAWING? Where is the verse that says "NOT ALL ARE CALLED"? Indeed, Jesus Himself said: "MANY are CALLED, but FEW are CHOSEN." What is the difference between the CALLED-UNCHOSEN, and the CALLED-CHOSEN? Exegete, NBF, don't eisegete --- the only difference in the parable of Matt22:2-14, is the CHOSEN, are they who CAME and put on righteousness. Can you disagree?

How did they get that good and honest heart???? They weren't born with it, Ben!

Conviction. Belief. Exegesis --- nowhere does it say "their regeneration is INSTILLED, which CONSEQUENTS in "a good and honest heart".

"When they HEARD this, they were PIERCED TO THE HEART (smitten in conscience, CONVICTED); and asked 'what to do to be saved?'." Acts2:37

 

[Ben johnson]

This is pretty standard Arminian/Wesleyan stuff.You admit that depravity is in you, but you see it as crippling, not incapacitating. Romans says otherwise. You still see yourself as being able to choose, even after Grace, to reject God. You see your own faith as somehow not tainted and stained by your own nature, but something acceptable to God, once He "overcomes" your depravity. You see your faith as being energized by "conviction".

Romans MERELY QUOTES Psalm14 & 53; exaggeration, NBF. Unless you deny Jeremiah 29:12-13? DO YOU? Or Matt7:7-8? Do you?

"With the HEART man believes, resulting in righteousness; and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation." Rm10:10 Exegete, NBF; does it say "God INSTILLS salvic-belief/faith"? Or does it say "with the HEART man BELIEVES"? Exegete, don't eisegete. What does it SAY?

"For SALVIC-FAITH comes from hearing the word of God." Rom10:17 Exegete --- does faith come from HEARING, or instilled by GOD? What does it SAY?

"...sacred writings ...give wisdom that leads to faith to salvation through Jesus." 2Tim3:15 Exegete, NBF --- does salvic faith come from wisdom from sacred writings, or is it instilled by God? What does it SAY?

It is my faith that RECEIVES Jesus; it is Jesus in my heart that regenerates and saves. Each person has set before them a choice --- believe in Him, or not.

Conviction makes you aware of your guilt and sure judgment, but that doesn't produce faith. Faith is produced by hearing the Gospel, that Christ came into the world to save sinners. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Faith IS a gift of God, Ben, and it is given in order that you can believe savingly on Jesus. God brought you to that place Ben, you didn't.

Salvic faith IS IDENTICALLY salvic belief; the same, interchangeable. To BELIEVE, is to have FAITH. Show me the words that FAITH is DIVINELY INSTILLED so that we CAN BELIEVE. Where are the words?

If you truly believed that, you would believe in universal salvation, or at the very least you would be forced to admit that Jesus died in vain for an awful lot of people, because they rejected Him. Is that where you really want to go with that?

Where are the words, "They don't believe in Jesus because they CANNOT"? Instead, I read "they WILL not" (Jn5:40), they don't WANT to (Jn8:44); nowhere does it say "they must be regenerated BEFORE they WANT Jesus". Scripture asserts that BELEIF, which RECEIVES Jesus, is what begins the regeneration. We are NOT regenerated BEFORE Jesus is "in us".

Now look at PE. Why did Jesus die? The ELECT, are already chosen. Thus the CROSS, only FULFILLED what God had decreed. Do you deny this? The Cross did not EFFECT their salvation; but fulfilled it, or demonstrated it, etc. Do you believe the Cross was INEFFECTIVE?

The lifting up happens on the Last Day. Of course they're believers at that point! But they come to Jesus TO BELIEVE, and TO RECEIVE eternal life. the Father brings them to Jesus. The Father draws men to Jesus, because ONLY those who the Father draws WILL COME!!! They don't come to the Father first, the Father brings them straight to Jesus! This is a clear teaching on Predestination. Also on Irresistable Grace.

What you have failed to prove, is that NOT ALL ARE CALLED. I submit Scripture says, they ARE. Again, Jn6 is NOT predestination, it is Jesus saying "I AM EQUAL TO GOD."

"Everyone who beholds Jesus and believes, may have eternal life." Jn6:40 You say, "Not everyone CAN believe." Exegesis or eisegesis?

You have also failed to prove they are NOT believers WHEN they are given to Jesus. It is the GROUP I was referring to, not their eventual "lifting up"; one group, who BELIEVE, who God gives to Jesus, whom the Father draws, the one group; there is nothing that asserts they are GIVEN to Jesus, and THEN they believe...

(Jesus) "YOU aren't going away TOO, are you?!"
(Peter) "No; we know You are the Messiah."
"Did I not choose all TWELVE of you, and one of you IS a devil?" Jn6:67-70
You say "Jesus didn't MEAN that any COULD go away. Jesus was being OBTUSE." Exegesis or eisegesis?

Why should I waste my time unless you truly want to know the truth, and will open your mind and heart to receive it?

Translates, "UNLESS YOU LAY ASIDE THE SCRIPTURE and accept the EXTRA WORDS WE HAVE WRITTEN INTO IT.
(I don't mean to anger you, but this long post has listed those EXTRA WORDS.)

I don't have to do so, Ben.

No, you don't; I am not the one that Humans will ultimately answer to. But I very respectfully submit that if PE's could respond, they would.

I engage in this with you because of my love for the truth, and the jealousy I feel when I see it distorted, denied, and perverted. And, I also have no desire to see you embarrassed by your unreasoning hatred of Reformed Doctrine.

Hatred? Only love for the TRUTH. Unreasoning? Have I not refuted each PE post, soundly?

But I must say, unless you supply us with the name of the professor, we have no objective way to verify your exchange with him. You could have made the whole thing up. You say he didn't want his name given, but that can be interpreted as him not wanting to stand behind what he said. I read your account, and personally, I saw you asking him a lot of leading questions, maneuvering him into saying what you wanted to hear. Besides, even one professor doesn't outweigh the hundreds of other greek scholars who have translated the passage exactly as you see it in nearly every bible today. I've got to go with scripture on this one, Ben. "In the multitude of counselors, there is safety"

I have already considered this; if I am to be called a liar, then I must still honor his request for anonymity (and I shall only defend myself to my Lord); the only option remaining for me, would be to ask the professor to post here one or two posts. I suspect in the face of being called a liar, he just might.

Besides, even one professor doesn't outweigh the hundreds of other greek scholars who have translated the passage exactly as you see it in nearly every bible today. I've got to go with scripture on this one, Ben. "In the multitude of counselors, there is safety"

What I see in the Bible, supports "Responsible Grace". And you do not go with Scripture. You add WORDS. Eisegesis. I have shown that especially in this post, time after time.

You've been stopped dead in your tracks on Acts 13:48, and the Parable of the Sower.

"DEAD IN MY TRACKS"??? To the contrary, I successfully ANSWERED your question of Acts 13:48; it does not prove PE, and it does not contradict RG. And I answered AGAIN in this post, the sower; I have successfully refuted each post of PE.

 

[Ben johnson]

Here we go with the "you don't believe in Me because you don't believe in Me" explanation again. Spare me! If you can't see the circular reasoning in your interpretation of that scripture, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

"How long will you keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
(Jesus) "I told you, and you do not believe; the words I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."

What do they not believe, what do they ask Him? "ARE YOU THE MESSIAH?"

Jesus said, "You do not believe THAT I'M THE MESSIAH, because you are not of My sheep."

Jesus said, "If TIS-ANYONE enters through Me, he shall be saved; and shall go in and out and find pasture. Jn10:9

Exegesis: ANYONE who enters Jesus BECOMES HIS SHEEP; "enter Jesus", is "BELIEVE IN HIM." Those in vs24 did NOT "believe in Him", thus they were NOT His sheep.

Eisegesis: "Anyone OF THE FEW ELECT who enters Jesus (of course they WILL, all of the elect WILL enter) becomes His sheep; but they were already chosen, so in a sense they were ALREADY His sheep even BEFORE they entered." (This was stated by a PE person on another thread.) You do not believe in Me-the-Messiah, because you are not of the elect-chosen-sheep-any-and-ALL-of-whom-WILL-enter-Me-and-BELIEVE."

I mean no disrespect, NBF; but...
the only reason you SEE it as "circular reasoning", is because of "circular eisegesis" --- you insert "predestination" that wasn't there, to prove predestination...

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

QUOTE=Ben johnson Romans MERELY QUOTES Psalm14 & 53; exaggeration, NBF. Unless you deny Jeremiah 29:12-13?

jews that were called already and being disobeidant not brethren

DO YOU?

Or Matt7:7-8? Do you?

That is true if one has the H.S. leading 1 cor 2:10 if no leading they do not search for God.

"With the HEART man believes, resulting in righteousness; and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation." Rm10:10 Exegete, NBF; does it say "God INSTILLS salvic-belief/faith"? Or does it say "with the HEART man BELIEVES"? Exegete, don't eisegete. What does it SAY?

Lets look at other scripture to bring this together...

Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath hears to hear, let him hear. 10 and when He was alone they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him the parable. 11 And He said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without[EARS!], all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

WHO DOES THIS TO THEM? verse not your Ideas.....

Matt 11:20 Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not: 21 Woe unto thee, Chrazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works , which were done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of Judgement [HELL], than for you. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
[God knew what would have saved them but He chose not too!!!]
24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of Judgement than for thee.

Why does God speak parables?

Matt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given

Matt 13:35 That I might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have kept secret from the foundation of the world.




"For SALVIC-FAITH comes from hearing the word of God." Rom10:17 Exegete --- does faith come from HEARING, or instilled by GOD? What does it SAY?

reread Mark 4:9-12

"...sacred writings ...give wisdom that leads to faith to salvation through Jesus." 2Tim3:15 Exegete, NBF --- does salvic faith come from wisdom from sacred writings, or is it instilled by God? What does it SAY?

1 cor 2:10... Romans 3:10-11 you got to put the whole bible together not pick and chose verses Ben

O yeah did you read Mark 4:9-12

It is my faith that RECEIVES Jesus; it is Jesus in my heart that regenerates and saves. Each person has set before them a choice --- believe in Him, or not.
Salvic faith IS IDENTICALLY salvic belief; the same, interchangeable. To BELIEVE, is to have FAITH. Show me the words that FAITH is DIVINELY INSTILLED so that we CAN BELIEVE. Where are the words?
Where are the words,

Gal 5:20 faith thru Christ
2 tim 3:15 faith from Christ

1 cor 12:13 how one is put in Christ

Gal 3:23-24 before faith came

eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins hath made us alive together with Christ,(by grace ye are saved) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

GOD DOES EVERTHING FOR ARE SALVATION..... God's grace is so GOOD

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, there is a problem here. A problem that I cannot solve, but only you can. The problem? You are bombarding this forum with such a volume of words, the task of trying to respond is so daunting that very few can take the time. Why? Because you are trying to cover too much ground. Stick to one verse, or a couple at most, and thoroughly explore them. I have neither time or the inclination to respond in the volume that you seem to be so intent on doing. You are trying to win the day with a sheer volume of words, thinking to bury the opposition under a mountain of words. I'm not going to play that game. You seem to think that you, singlehandedly, are going to refute almost 600 years of Reformed Theology. Lots of Luck! You can't, and you won't, and you have not. The Reformed Christians on this forum are just shaking their heads, and laughing at you, as well they should.

I have uncovered your duplicity in the citing of your fictional Greek Scholar. You say you "might" be able to convince him to post a few posts here. Sorry, but I don't buy that. It will be you under a different name. You know what you have to do to solve that dilemna. You got yourself into it, now get yourself out. A name, or a citation of other written works by him supporting what you say he said. Nothing less will suffice. And, I still will go with the multitude of counselors, as I said before, and you and the prof ain't no multitude!

IF I have time, I will try to answer some of the more egregious twisting of words and blatant mis-statements of Reformed doctrine you have posted in answer to my posts, but I'm not going to engage you ***-for-tat. I'm not getting into a war of attrition with you. If you want to be taken seriously, shorten up your posts and quit trying to cover the entire gamut of things every time you do post. It's a waste of bandwidth and time, and it discourages response from others. Of course, maybe that's your hope, that no one will respond, so you can claim that no one could refute your posts. Don't take silence as confirmation that you're right. It may be just the opposite.

nobdysfool

 

[Ben johnson]

I have uncovered your duplicity in the citing of your fictional Greek Scholar. You say you "might" be able to convince him to post a few posts here. Sorry, but I don't buy that. It will be you under a different name. You know what you have to do to solve that dilemna. You got yourself into it, now get yourself out. A name, or a citation of other written works by him supporting what you say he said. Nothing less will suffice. And, I still will go with the multitude of counselors, as I said before, and you and the prof ain't no multitude!

When he asked me not to name him, it obviously occurred to me that someone might accuse me of LYING; I did not think it would be you. The Greek stands by itself --- if I am LYING about spending TWO HOURS with a Greek scholar, then you would be able to PROVE me wrong WITH THE GREEK. But you cannot.

You are bombarding this forum with such a volume of words, the task of trying to respond is so daunting that very few can take the time. Why? Because you are trying to cover too much ground.

YOU set the length, NBF. My three posts were in RESPONSE to you. You issue the statements, I have refuted each one. My posts were ENTIRELY in response to you. If you want BREVITY, then BE brief. I merely went down your post , and refuted it POINT BY POINT.

I'm not sure what to do with this discussion; I cite "falling away from the living God", PE's say, "it's not REALLY falling away from God." I cite "fallen from grace and severed from Christ", PE's say "It's not REALLY fallen/severed." I cite "deceived to falling from steadfastness", PE's say "fallen-from-grace or fallen-from-steadfastmess doesn't say fallen-from-salvation."

I cite "justification CAME to all men, exactly as condemnation CAME to all men"; PE's say, "no, justification only came to the FEW."

And so on.

But PE's remain unconvinced by Scripture itself; how shall they be convinced by another PERSON?

I am at peace in my understanding of Acts 13:48; but PE's are not, and post as if it is the "smoking gun" against ALL OF THE OTHER SCRIPTURES I have SHOWN; I therefore call the college language department, she says: "YOu need to speak with Dr. so-n-so." I call him, and he GRACIOUSLY donates HOURS to talking with me; but is what he said, received? Rather, I am accused of either "asking leading questions"(as if the GREEK doesn't SAY what it SAYS), or inventing him altogether. What good would it do to have him post here? PE's would not believe him either. JESUS CHRIST Himself would not be believed, if He posted here and contradicted PE.

I have been here nearly since the start; I have posted on LBMB, exceeding 5000 posts. I have posted on the PizzaParlor since its start, and several other Christian message boards; have I EVER shown ANY deceit, lying, fraud? No. I am at once frustrated, because no matter how much I demonstrate RG from Scripture, it does not convice; and saddened that I am impugned. But I suppose I should be pleased, for the saying is true:
"Ridicule is sincere flattery --- it means there is no LOGICAL retort."

Of course, maybe that's your hope, that no one will respond, so you can claim that no one could refute your posts. Don't take silence as confirmation that you're right. It may be just the opposite.

It means what it means; if you COULD assert that "begin-in-the-Spirit/running-well" were NEVER saved, you WOULD. If you COULD assert that "severed from Christ and fallen from grace" is NOT severed-fallen, you WOULD. Silence is CONCESSION.

You seem to think that you, singlehandedly, are going to refute almost 600 years of Reformed Theology.

No, I don't think "I singlehandedly will". That's why I am NOT "singlehanded"; I have the words of Paul, of Jude, of James, of John, of Jesus. I intend to have the text published; if it is, it will join the other texts that stand against PE; along with Scripture.

 

[Ben johnson]

That is true if one has the H.S. leading 1 cor 2:10 if no leading they do not search for God.

Hello, ABIC. How does one GET the Holy Spirit? &#8220;After listening, having BELIEVED, you were sealed with the Spirit...&#8221; Eph1:13
&#8220;They received the Holy Spirit just as we did. God gave them the same gift He gave us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.&#8221; Acts10:47, 11:17

WHO DOES THIS TO THEM? verse not your Ideas.....

Why do they not have ears? You cannot write in what is not said; it does NOT say &#8220;Because He has not EQUIPPED them.&#8221; It says, &#8220;will not believe&#8221;, &#8220;don&#8217;t WANT to believe&#8221;, &#8220;pretend to follow God but NOT&#8221;, &#8220;pretend to follow Moses but NOT&#8221;.

for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
[God knew what would have saved them but He chose not too!!!

That&#8217;s not what Jesus is saying; Jesus is saying, &#8221;If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, THEY WOULD HAVE REPENTED; but YOU are HARD and WILL not repent!!! You
are WORSE than them!&#8221; This is as far from &#8220;predestined-election&#8221; as you can get.

Matt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given

It was given to Peter to know who Jesus was; but it was not given to the Jews to know His Messiahship, nor to understand all of the parables. Why? God-DICTATE? Or because of UNBELIEF?

Matt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given

You seem to believe that the HOLY SPIRIT is required TO believe in Jesus. Do you think the Spirit indwelt us BEFORE we believed? Does the Spirit ever indwell UNBELIEVERS?

1 cor 2:10... Romans 3:10-11 you got to put the whole bible together not pick and chose verses Ben

The verses themselves can be answered; what does the particular verse SAY?
1Cor2:9-10: &#8220;Things which eye has not seen and hear has not heard, which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM. For to us God revealed them through the Spirit...&#8221;
Tell me --- are these things revealed BEFORE they loved God? BEFORE they believed? No.

Gal 5:20 faith thru Christ

I cannot find those words in that verse (oops?). Meanwhile:
&#8221;The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE.&#8221; Rm3:22

2 tim 3:15 faith from Christ

Mine says &#8220;faith IN Christ&#8221;

1 cor 12:13 how one is put in Christ

By BELIEVING Jn1:12

Gal 3:23-24 before faith came

Actually, he is using &#8220;faith&#8221; here as a label for the New Covenant

eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins hath made us alive together with Christ,(by grace ye are saved) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
GOD DOES EVERTHING FOR OUR SALVATION..... God's grace is so GOOD

We are &#8220;made alive in Him&#8221;, THROUGH our belief. God does everything for our salvation; except impose it on unwilling hearts.&#8221;
&#8220;You are UNWILLING to come to Me, that you may have eternal life.&#8221; Jn5:40

 

[frumanchu]

The drawing was not their choice, but to yield or to resist certaintly was their decision to make. And you missed it again, they were drawn; still they had the option to resist. In order to overcome their resistence, their drawing had to be changed to irresistible force. At that point it is no longer drawing, they are being dragged, dragged means that they did not come or else there would not have been necessary to drag them..

At what point, when you draw water from a well, do you cease to draw it and begin to drag it? If these men were "seized" would it not have been more appropriate (according to your definitions) for the author to have used some word besides "draw?"

Can we not praise God for good ole' common sense. It is a gift of God also..

With regards to common sense, the only thing more heavily disputed here than what common sense is is who possesses it. I don't recall anyone here claiming not to, but in any case, I would hardly appeal to "common sense" as an objective source of knowledge

Most reformers use this passage to push efficacious grace. All men are drawn to God, many just like you just don't get it right. Every culture in the world worships a God of some kind or another. Only one God teaches men, men are the ones that get it wrong.

So you are saying that the various religions of the world are merely the failed attempts of men in responding to the evidence of God in creation and conscience?

That's the kind of double talk that lets me know that there is something wrong with reformed theology. The irresistible can be resisted. If it can be resisted, then one cannot be dragged in...

There is a simple example to explain. You and I will both die. It is inevitable...irresistable. And yet we do all manner of things to look after our health and to resist dying. Men will go to extraordinary lenghts to preserve their life as long as possible...and yet the mortality rate holds fast at 100%. The irresistable can be resisted to a degree, but ultimately it is what it is: irresistable. If it makes you feel better, the irresistibility is in the end result, not in the journey to it.

Was Christ crucified twice. Which time did he attone for the sins of man.

You're going to have to clarify a little, because at face value that question makes no sense whatsoever in light of what I posted.

In verse 38, it appears that the son came only to do the will of the Father. Shall we shine the light of that passage upon 12:32 being that you are careful to evaluate scripture only in the light of scripture.

As I pointed out, however, the context of that verse is judgement, not salvation. All men will be judged. Not all men will be saved. (this still ignores that the verse can be translated as "all peoples" which does not necessitate the view of all individuals).

Not all men are elect because none were ever elected, God chose the criteria, not the person. Acts, Sirs, what must i do to be saved. Was the answer, you have to be elected, or was it believe....

You proceed from a false assumption that we believe election in and of itself saves. Election is UNTO salvation. If (hypothetically) one were elect from before the foundation of the world, but that person died before they came to faith in Christ, that person would be condemned. Faith is the instrumental means by which the decree of election is brought about. The elect are brought to faith, resulting in salvation. Their election does not save them instrumentally.

Draw, to provide a compelling yet resistible reason for one to move in one direction as opposed to another....

By the way, Chappie...if you look up the word "draw" in the dictionary, you might be interested to find the word DRAG in the definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=draw

"To cause to move after or toward one by applying continuous force; drag:"

In none of the defintions did I find any implication of ultimate resistibility being a stipulation for the definition to hold.

Honey, would you go to the store and pick me up a jar of honey. Same word, contextually worlds apart.

Yes, except you're dealing with a much more idiomatic connotation with the term "honey" as opposed to the quantitative term "all," especially in light of the fact that with Scripture we are dealing with a translation and not the original language.

Your line of reasoning works against the Arminian position with respect to such verses as 2 Peter 3:9 given the context.

Still when it means all the elect, should it not say so without you having to import the concept from where you imagined it....

Wait, I thought context was there to give us the indication....

 

[frumanchu]

Sorry it has taken so long to return to this, Ben. My mind was elsewhere this weekend.

Yesterday I was graciously offered two hours of time by a college professor of Greek. We discussed a dozen passages, primarily Acts13:48.

His initial response on the word, "tetagmenoi", is that it COULD mean "middle-passive". However, when he read from my Greek interlinear Bible, he leaned more towards your views, that it was PASSIVE only. He said, "I don't think the writer intended 'appointed themselves'.

He said, "the word, 'TASSO', does not mean 'ordain/appoint'; it is a military term, as in, 'a general ORDERS his troops'; or even better, 'POSITIONS his troops'.

OK. The professor indicated that he didn't "think the writer intended 'appointed themselves'." As such, the appointment must be from some other source. Given that the term is a military reference, he seems to agree that the troops were "ordered" by the divine general. The question becomes, what is the basis for this ordering. In other words, why did He order whom He did on the side of eternal life?

I commented on the "cause/effect" argument between "tasso" and "belief". He asked, "Is that important?" When I explained that it was the central issue separating us, he said:

"In the Greek there is a clear relationship between their being POSITIONED, and their BELIEVING. Undeniably the participle and the verb are COINCIDENT. But the Greek makes no distinction of SEQUENCE. So we can say:
'Those who were positioned for salvation, believed.'

But it would be equally valid to read:
'Those who believed, were positioned to salvation.'

At this point I must point out that there is complete disagreement between your professor and Robertson (whom you quoted). Robertson said specifically "By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." So you have conflict among your sources.

Also of note is the fact that, regardless of the origin of the term, the same two words are used in every major translation: 'appointed' and 'ordained.' So, you also now have conflict between your professor and the translators of all the various Scriptural translations.

There is nothing that forbids them being positioned for salvation by GOD; but there is nothing that requires that understanding, either. I don't think he meant to imply that 'they positioned themselves'; but he could have meant 'they were positioned by their belief', or 'they were positioned by the path their lives lead to it.'

In keeping with the military term, it is the general that orders his troops, not the troops' desire to be ordered. I believe it to be consistent to both the context and the word being used to hold the view that God 'positions' them for salvation. To say he implied that 'they were positioned by their belief' would again have the troops' desire to be ordered being the reason they were ordered rather than it being the general's doing.

In Smyth's Greek dictionary, "tasso" carries MANY understandings; even including OPPOSITION. In other words, "they were positioned to salvation, BUT they believed (anyway)." But there would need to be good reason (contextually) to consider the "oppositional understanding" --- it cannot just be asserted without a good reason."

Obviously this doesn't apply here as I think we can both agree that such would be a rediculous assertion since belief and salvation are not diametrically opposed

I showed him Acts13:46, where Paul says: "You Jews JUDGE YOURSELVES unworthy of eternal life". In this instance, their "JUDGING THEMSELVES" is undeniably the action DONE TO THEMSELVES. [color=#f7005]The context is that the JEWS judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, so the Apostles were TURNING TO THE GENTILES; and the Gentiles, ON HEARING this, began rejoicing and glorifying the word of God."[/color]

The professor said, You're right, the context does shift credibility to your understanding; if the Jews JUDGED THEMSELVES UNWORTHY of eternal life, they undeniably are not being judged so by God, and then the Gentiles are receiving God.

No, I don't believe you are right in that regard. That they "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life" is a figure of speech, not a literal truth with respect to their salvation. It is Christ who ultimately is the judge, not they themselves. Were men actually the judge of themselves, who would be condemned?

Do you not judge yourself unworthy of eternal life? I certainly do. Were I to judge myself otherwise I would do violence to any notion of grace on God's part in my salvation. I have judged myself unworthy of eternal life in ACCEPTING the Word of God whereas they have 'judged themselves unworthy of eternal life' in rejecting the Word of God.

The Geneva Bible has the following note regarding Acts 13:46: "By this your doing you pronounce as it were sentence upon yourselves, and judge yourselves."

Matthew Henry explores it further: "If men put the gospel from them, God justly takes it from them; why should manna be given to those that loathe it and call it light bread, or the privileges of the gospel forced on those that put them away, and say, We have no part in David? Herein they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life. In one sense we must all judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, for there is nothing in us, nor done by us, by which we can pretend to merit it, and we must be made sensible of this; but here the meaning is, "You discover, or make it to appear, that you are not meet for eternal life; you throw away all your claims and give up your pretensions to it; since you will not take it from his hands, into whose hand the Father has given it, krinete, you do, in effect, pass this judgment upon yourselves, and out of your own mouth you shall be judged; you will not have it by Christ, by whom alone it is to be had, and so shall your doom be, you shall not have it at all." "

Were Acts 13:46 to use the same word or expression that Acts 13:48 did, you might have a case for using it as establishing precedent for order, but as it stands, and in light of the above, there is no compulsion whatsoever to establish or imply it.

I took him to Romans 13:1, where "tasso" reflects the feminine gender of "souls"; he said: "It may be indeterminate in Acts13:48 who did the ordaining or positioning, but here it is clear; God, taking the genitive case, is the orchestrator." (Clearly it says, "by God".) Similarly in 1Cor16

And we now begin to add consistency to the case...

I asked him about Rom9:22. He said: In the Acts passage, they were PEOPLE; in this verse they are VESSELS, inanimate objects. I don't think the vessels prepared themselves for destruction, because vessels cannot do anything, they aren't people. But here too there is nothing that indicates WHAT prepared them for destruction; it could have been they were prepared by their destructive lives.

This demonstrates a remarkable and glaring inconsistency, Ben. He took the time to distinguish between the people in Acts and the vessels in Rom 9 as the latter being INANIMATE, that they don't "[prepare] themselves for destruction, because vessels cannot do anything, they aren't people." But then he turns around and speculates that they could have been prepared "by their destructive lives" which most certainly denotes animation. This doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY in light of the verse immediately preceding it ("Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" -Rom 9:21, NKJV). In this verse, the vessels are cleary made BY THE POTTER with a specific purpose or destiny in mind. This eradicates any notion of the vessels themselves having anything to do with their ultimate use from a formal standpoint.

I asked him about Hebrews10:29, specifically "regarded unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" --- one or two of you were asserting that it REALLY meant, "He trampled Jesus, scorned the blood by which JESUS had been sanctified, and insulted the Spirit". He disagreed with this; "Jesus is mentioned just before, but in a subordinate manner; and cannot be resurrected for the subject of the sanctification. It reads to me as the one who trampled Jesus, is the one who was sanctified once."

I personally agree with you and the professor. However, I disagree with what you take the word sanctified to mean in this context. The word translated 'sanctified' does not always mean "purified" but also can mean "set apart."

2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
a) consecrate things to God
b) dedicate people to God

The context of the verse is the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Anyone who rejects the old covenant (law of Moses) is easily condemned on the testimony of witnesses. How much worse will it be for someone who has rejected the the blood of Christ and trampled it underfoot, insulting the Spirit of grace?

What I'm saying here is that it does not of necessity mean, either by the word used or by the context, that one could actually be purified by the blood of Christ and then turn around and reject it. I find this as the case for many of the verses you have used to support the "responsible grace" position of 'once saved, not always saved.'

Consider Gill, who examines several possibilities, all in line with the Calvinist position:

"putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it (vnlkd Kya) , "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. "

I asked him about Eph2:8; he affirmed that "faith" and "that" differed in gender (female and neutral); I told him that the NASV translation footnoted "that" with "that salvation" (I considered there to be FIVE modifiers, of which "dia pistis by faith" was only a prepositional phrase); he agreed. I told him how the Predestinationist takes "that" to be "that faith". He agreed with me, and said: "I would say, "THAT FACT".

At best, in agreeing with you both, we would have to consider this verse as uncertain. Salvation by grace through faith (which I assume he is referring to as "THAT FACT") is by no means at odds with the Reformed position any more than with yours. The point of contention is not whether or not salvation is by grace (formally) through faith (instrumentally), but rather how one comes to faith in the first place. I believe John 1:13, Acts 13:48 and Phil 1:29 among others speak more directly to how such faith comes about.

I think what he told me was identical to what Robertson wrote; the Acts13:48 passage does not indicate sequence, or WHO (what) positioned them to salvation; but Robertson denied that it was their "positioning by God that caused their belief" --- though it appears I was wrong about the "middle-passive", the contextual meaning IS that they were positioned not by God, but by either their lives, their hearts, their choices, etcetera. If the Jews "JUDGED THEMSELVES UNWORTHY OF ETERNAL LIFE", then it is no stretch to assign the Gentiles' acceptance, TO THEIR OWN CHOICE.

I disagree completely, Ben. Robertson DID NOT deny that their positioning by God caused their belief. What he DID deny vehemently was that their belief positioned them. They were clearly "positioned for eternal life" BY God. Further, it IS a stretch to assign the Gentiles' acceptance to their own choice because a) it is inconsistent with what I just demonstrated regarding positioning PRECEDING belief, and b) the fact that different words and expressions are used between the two verses (as I spoke to earlier).

I discussed John6 briefly, about the ONE GROUP who are "to be lifted up"; and there are several descriptions: "those who believe", "those whom God gives to Jesus", "those God draws", "those in communion"; he agreed that they could be PARALLEL, and not expressing sequence (I have been saying that they are not given to Jesus BEFORE they believe...)

We will have to explore this further later. I can accept on the surface the notion of a Greek professor being somewhat credible in issues relating to the Greek language, but unless you specifically examined the Greek in John 6 it really doesn't make much difference to me what he thinks the verses "could" mean.

I asked him one last question: "May I credit you by name in the forums?" He unfortunately declined; he was afraid that he would be "pestered" by many people calling and wanting to talk. He said, "You don't need an authority to prove anything; the Greek speaks for itself. Anyone with a grasp of basic Greek will agree with what I have said."

I don't have any problem with that for now, but if you consistently cite him as an authoritative source he should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other source.

I applaud you for admitting that Acts 13:48 does not say what you were asserting originally (that men were 'ordaining themselves'), but I think your position of 'neither for nor against' is still not viable. At this point your sources are in conflict, and I don't believe you have made a sufficient case to dismiss or downplay centuries of translation and interpretation.