Ben johnson said:
I disagree; I was told "it establishes no sequence; either the APPOINT precedes BELIEF, or the BELIEF precedes APPOINT". Besides, this is ONE VERSE. I am accused of "JUMPING AROUND alot"; this is true, I DO. When I show that "a believer can FALL from GRACE" and am responded by "fallen-from-grace doesn't mean UNSAVED", then I realize that did not convince; so I try ANOTHER passage to convince. This from the idea that "they all harmonize"...
Yes, this is one verse, Ben. Your posts usually cite several verses in support of one point. HOWEVER, it is not necessary that I then attempt to refute those verses all at the same time. I understand the influence Shank has had on you in favoring overall context over immediate context. The problem is that if one applies an incorrect hermeneutical process to several verses, then points to a pattern, then turns around and uses that pattern to argue for the meaning of the individual verses, then you have a circular argument based on a faulty hermeneutical process. In order to address this, I must establish the pattern of inconsistent or incorrect hermeneutical process. If you have a 'wealth of verses' supporting a particular point, and I show an error in one, it doesn't seem to make much difference (unless of course it explicitly and directly contradicts that point). But if I systematically expose a majority of the verses to be likewise subjected to a poor hermeneutical process, then the pattern used to justify the hermeneutical process ('overall context' over 'immediate context') no longer holds. Certainly Scripture must be interpreted in light of other Scripture, but the pattern also holds that we examine complex Scripture in light of simple Scripture.
We are subject to the same hermeneutical scrutiny as you, Ben. There have been a fair number of instances to my recollection where your argument against our position on or interpretation of a verse was ultimately one of our position contradicting the 'overall harmony.' Would you not agree that if I can demonstrate systematically, verse by verse, that the 'overall harmony' you cite is based on faulty hermeneutics and exegesis, that such an argument against our position is no longer valid?
Robertson plainly states "Luke does NOT assert that their salvation is decreed" --- if Robertson viewed the passage as "appointed by GOD", he would not have said "LUKE ASSERTED NO DECRETUM"...
Ben, please don't use quotes in that manner when you are not actually quoting the source. This is only going to create confusion. May I suggest using single quotes when paraphrasing.
Robertson states that he believes the passage "
does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency." He says "
There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation." He also says that "
by no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed."" CLEARLY Robertson feels that the order IS clear and that the appointment DOES PRECEDE the belief. Robertson simply states that the verse does not speak to the issue of the basis of that appointment. It is not explicit in the verse that the appointment was the election of God, and thus Robertson sees no evidence that an "
absolutum decretum of personal salvation" is being viewed. NEITHER, as he points out in stating that it does not solve the problem of divine sovereignty vs free agency, does it rule it out. What he does state unequivocally is that the order is non-negotiable...belief followed (and was therefore not the basis of) the appointment. "
It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life."
Since your Greek professor indicates that the order ('those who were appointed believed' vs 'those who believed were appointed') is indeterminate, and Robertson is emphatic about the order being determinate ('those who were appointed believed'), I maintain that your sources are in conflict. And all the major translations side with Robertson when rendering it in the English.
The issue left open on this verse is this: What is the basis for this appointment which leads to faith in these men? Robertson maintains concretely that their belief is not what appointed them unto eternal life, for it followed the appointment. They were 'ranged on the side of eternal life' PRIOR TO their belief.
There is still an area of Calvinism that I do not understand; if their WILL necessarily invariably unavoidably follows their HEART, the heart that is EITHER regenerated by God OR left reprobate by God, how then is it still THEIR VOLITION?
Ben, can you provide me with an example of ANY decision you have made which was not according to your desire? I am willing to take the time to explain this if you are seeking to undertand it. I cannot MAKE you understand it, but perhaps I can clear up any misconceptions or logical difficulties you have.
I just don't see how "common" is "condemned". Nowhere does it say (and no Calvinist asserts) that God SHAPES anyone FOR CONDEMNATION. The PE view is that they are condemned by their OWN DEPRAVITY, it is NOT GOD'S FAULT.
To be blunt, just because God makes a bedpan doesn't mean He's the one who craps in it.
That God SHAPES the "honor", says to me that they are SUBMITTED to Him to BE shaped; and the SAME LUMP OF CLAY (how can the same lump be both saved AND unsaved?), is also shaped for common --- is not the common ALSO submitted on His Potter's wheel?
They are 'SUBMITTING to Him to BE shaped??' Can you cite any precedent for this interpretation beyond your own personal view?
"By what right can God lay the blame for their sins on those He has hardened against Himself? Paul answers partially in terms of human experience (vv. 20, 21). It is unreasonable and irreverent for anyone to question the rightness of Gods ways. Potters have every right to do as they please with the clay (Is. 64:8). All belong to the same lump (cf. vv. 1013) of fallen humanity in Adam (5:1214); all actively sin even before God hardens them in sinning (1:1828). That God should show mercy to any from the Adamic lump and create vessels of honor from it is the kindness of grace; that others should become vessels for lesser use is a matter of His sovereign prerogative and is itself a display of perfect justice towards them."
New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (Ro 9:19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
He spends the whole chapter speaking of FALLING FROM SALVATION, then makes a POSITIVE AFFIRMATION (as an ENCOURAGEMENT rather than DICTATE). Identical to Heb6:11. And Philip1:6 (which is FOLLOWED by vs9, a prayer for them to CONTINUE in salvation --- "SO THAT you may approve.... IN ORDER TO BE sincere and blameless until the day of Christ Jesus". How is that NOT a "prayer to continue in salvation"?)
No, Ben. He does NOT spend the whole chapter (Heb 10) speaking of "FALLING FROM SALVATION." He speaks of the insufficiency of animal sacrifices (vv1-4), the fulfilling of God's will in Christ's sacrifice (vv5-10), and how Christ's death perfects the sanctified (vv11-18). The author then pastorally sets forth to encourage them in their confession (vv19-25) and show them the greater value of the new covenant over the old by juxtaposing (in a hypothetical manner - "do you suppose") failure to keep the old covenant of works with failing to keep the new covenant of grace and faith (vv26-31). He then from vv32 to the end of the chapter by reminding them of their past perseverance, that confidence in the confession is important and carries with it reward, and that they are "not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul."
So your assertion that the "whole chapter" talks of falling from salvation is not accurate.
Because of the context of ALL of Hebrews; chapter 6 warns against apostasy; ch3 warns against "falling away from the living God"; ch12 warns against "falling short of grace" and "refusing Him who warns from Heaven". Ch10 says "if after having received EPIGNOSIS-KNOWLEDGE of the truth" --- this does not imply UNSAVED KNOWLEDGE; I showed you all the verses where "epignosis" means "SAVED"...
Chapter 6 (specifically 6:4-8) once again is conveyed as an exhortation for believers to prove their faith by their perseverance. The author again (just as in Heb 10), expresses confidence of "better things" concerning them.
In Chapter 12 the author speaks of our lives in faith as a long race in which we may at times become weary or discouraged, weighed down by the sin which so easily ensnares us. Moreover, we must be aware that we WILL be chastened, and that it is for a purpose. Those who are not chastened show themselves to be illegitimate and "not sons." The author then encourages them to renew their spiritual vitality and pursue peace and holiness (v14), the understanding of which is expounded upon in vv15-17. They are to be on their guard against those who receive the Gospel in vain (2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 4:1), roots of bitterness who spreads doubt and disloyalty toward the Lord among the covenant people (see Deut 29:18), fornicators, and those who exchange the truth for lies and like Esau give up the blessings presented to them for earthly things.
This THREAD is "predestination", Fru; and that Eph2:8 verse is one of the "big ones" used to assert that "salvic-faith is NOT of us but FROM GOD".
This will take us right back the idea of causality, which we've discussed before. I don't think I said that I don't affirm the notion that Eph 2:8 indicates faith being a gift from God, only that
at the most this verse would simply be seen as inconsequential. The doctrines of "Calvinism" are not built on one or two verses.
Fine, then if you remain unconvinced on those particular passages, perhaps we can come to agreement in other areas of Scripture (this if it's "OK" for me to "jump around" a bit...)
As I explained above, there is method to my madness. Let us reason together.