Repentance

[Sunbeam]

FTR, I only have one "unoffical warning", which was actually in my opinion justified, because I did start a thread out on a difficult subject without clarifiers, which was confusing, and I did apologize for that.

I've learned a few years ago, when I first heard of the arminian position as well, that I don't do well in trying to change people's minds on this. If their mind is set, then its set, and I have nothing else to say. I don't think its my strong point. What may be clear to me may be a strong point, but when someone repeatedly is telling me that I am not agreeing with what their church taught them, I don't have anything else to say. I can list scriptures till I am blue in the face. They have heard the same reasoning before though and refuted my words. I think if one is confused as I was with the calvinst mindset, and defending the arminian position or OSNAS position already without knowing they are, it is a different story. Most people that hold to a calvinst mindset are more relational oriented with others I have found. If their friends who are good people believe this, they will. That is my opinion, and before I say anything that is miscontrued, I will go back to reading and occasionally interjecting comments on things that I need clarified for myself to learn.

 

[Sunbeam]

Arminianism This is where I got those the five points.

 

[Ben johnson]

Do they mean "receiving" as in going over their entire life and seeing what is not pleasing to the commandments of the Bible specifically the New Testament and the Gospels that have the words of Jesus, and admitting each specific thing, and then making a plan to change this if a continuing problem and planning to say that way?

It is actually the "receiving Jesus" that they speak of. Many (if not most) Calvinists do understand about the "changed heart", specifically "Jesus indwelling us, and the Spirit indwelling us". Calvinism (Predestined-Election) has in common with "Eternal Security", the belief that the heart becomes too changed by God to EVER fall; it seems obvious to me that we DO sin, so that we still HAVE the will to RESIST God. And if we have the will to resist God, then that is the exact will to decide whether to REMAIN in sin, or to REPENT.

I've learned a few years ago, when I first heard of the arminian position as well, that I don't do well in trying to change people's minds on this. If their mind is set, then its set, and I have nothing else to say. I don't think its my strong point. What may be clear to me may be a strong point, but when someone repeatedly is telling me that I am not agreeing with what their church taught them, I don't have anything else to say. I can list scriptures till I am blue in the face.

I do not seem to do well either; the reality is that none can nor will change until they are READY to change; and then that change will be nothing of me, it will be between themselves and God.

They have heard the same reasoning before though and refuted my words

I don't think they have heard all of the reasoning before, that we do here. I post questions about the Galatians (3:1-3, 5:1-7), and those in 2Pet2:20-22. I point out that there MUST be some kind of understanding that the Calvinist has, to accomodate those --- and then I list all four possible understandings (that accomodate Predestination). And I show how each one is not credible. What I'm trying to do, is to gently back them against a wall, and force them to consider various Scriptures, analytically --- to realize that certain passages CANNOT accomodate to Predestined-Election. These sorts of posts are ignored --- frustrating, but not life-threatening for me.

My motivation for debating topics such as "OSAS", is for the maturing and edifying of my Christian brothers and sisters. I strive hard for gentleness and respect, out of love. It does not do at all to "WIN", if it comes at the expense of another's feelings. Understand that each of us, every one, has time and many words committed to one position or another; so if one position is shown to be Scripturally untenable, there must be an allowance for its previous-proponent to "save face". Maybe later will someone show that he or she has changed positions. But above all, love and respect must be maintained.

The question of "direction" in repentance --- does it come from God to us, or do WE repent to GOD --- is a critical one imho; it defines the essence of our salvation, and is therefore extremely worthwhile discussing. Worthwhile, as long as none "come to blows" over it, nor leave with a damaged faith. But --- if the "fellowship" aspect of salvation IS the truth, how can purveying the truth DAMAGE anyone? How can it do anything but STRENGTHEN their faith?

Calvinism asserts that "God CHANGES the heart, which CAUSES belief". But it is my understanding that "man becomes convicted, which CAUSES belief, which receives Jesus and consequents in a changed heart". THUS --- all of us agree on the "CHANGED-HEART" issue; but disagree on the DYNAMICS. How can this not matter? It is a far different walk for the man who counts on God MAINTAINING his changed heart, than for the man who perceives his own responsibility in a FELLOWSHIP. So many verses speak of the latter --- like Jude21: "Building yourselves up in your holy faith, praying in the Spirit, KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life". How could that ever reflect "God-ordained-heart-change"? Seems squarely on the "responsibility" side to me...

The typed word lacks inflection and tone, and can be taken wrongly. Many people have gotten angry at me. I respond with respect, asking forgiveness where I have offended. That respect does not demand that everyone believes as I do --- indeed, if I claim to LOVE my brothers and sisters, then I shall not "seek my own way" as Paul wrote in 1Cor13.

So I guess I'll continue, as long as there is profit, as long as God is honored and glorified. If I can show someone that "their refutation itself does not stand", then my gift will have been teaching. And teachers do teach themselves; I have learned so much from everyone with whom I've spoken AND debated. As I see the world through others' eyes, my own horizons expand. The text that I've written (hoping to have published) refuting OSAS, has had much of it really written by the others in the debate; as they have offered verses in "proof" of OSAS, I have written each verse down; so (hopefully anyway) ALL of the verses they use, are included and addressed. I wish to dismantle their view WITH Scripture, explaining and refuting each that they use, and offering many verses that seem impossible for THEM to explain and refute.

Regardless of the debate, my deepest concern and love for each one of you, is that each of US grows in Jesus, that our lives will bring Him much glory and honor. TODAY --- this day --- is the first day of FOREVER. Let it begin now; and let it begin with me. Worshipping Him and basking in His presence; for an eternity. This is love, and salvation is love in which we abide.

 

[frumanchu]

It is actually the "receiving Jesus" that they speak of. Many (if not most) Calvinists do understand about the "changed heart", specifically "Jesus indwelling us, and the Spirit indwelling us". Calvinism (Predestined-Election) has in common with "Eternal Security", the belief that the heart becomes too changed by God to EVER fall; it seems obvious to me that we DO sin, so that we still HAVE the will to RESIST God. And if we have the will to resist God, then that is the exact will to decide whether to REMAIN in sin, or to REPENT.

No Calvinist has ever asserted that we cease to sin after conversion. I've put forth before the analogy of the diet, wherein the overarching desire, though occasionally losing the momentary battles, ultimately remains throughout and eventually wins the war. We also differentiate between the mechanics of salvation and the mechanics of sanctification, the former being monergistic and the latter being synergistic. Certainly we may 'frustrate' the Spirit as we battle daily with our flesh. Paul speaks extensively to this subject in Rom 7.

I do not seem to do well either; the reality is that none can nor will change until they are READY to change; and then that change will be nothing of me, it will be between themselves and God.

I've heard the assertion numerous times over that "nobody is gonna be converted in a web forum" or "nobody's going to change the fundamentals of their beliefs in an online forum." I know from personal experience that this is completely false. I've seen many people change their beliefs as a direct or indirect result of the discussions that take place here. I would also note that, though I have seen numerous people shift from an Arminian/Wesleyan view to a Calvinist view, I have yet to see a single person discard Calvinist beliefs in a similar manner.

I don't think they have heard all of the reasoning before, that we do here. I post questions about the Galatians (3:1-3, 5:1-7), and those in 2Pet2:20-22. I point out that there MUST be some kind of understanding that the Calvinist has, to accomodate those --- and then I list all four possible understandings (that accomodate Predestination). And I show how each one is not credible. What I'm trying to do, is to gently back them against a wall, and force them to consider various Scriptures, analytically --- to realize that certain passages CANNOT accomodate to Predestined-Election. These sorts of posts are ignored --- frustrating, but not life-threatening for me.

I could make the same assertions of your evasiveness regarding critiques of logic and other verses that don't support your position. Quite frankly, for me personally, I got tired of such evasiveness and stopped jumping through the hoops. If you want to assume that a lack of response for certain posts means that they must be correct, you are free to do so..but recognize that the argument is quite easily reciprocated. Yes, at some point I chose to simply ignore certain of your posts, but rest assured it had nothing to do with the invincibility of your arguments.

My motivation for debating topics such as "OSAS", is for the maturing and edifying of my Christian brothers and sisters. I strive hard for gentleness and respect, out of love. It does not do at all to "WIN", if it comes at the expense of another's feelings. Understand that each of us, every one, has time and many words committed to one position or another; so if one position is shown to be Scripturally untenable, there must be an allowance for its previous-proponent to "save face". Maybe later will someone show that he or she has changed positions. But above all, love and respect must be maintained.

Love and respect are funny words here...because they carry the baggage of motivation and the complexity of perception. The truth also is that sometimes the truth when faithfully presented, no matter how much sugar coating, will offend and hurt feelings. There is no getting around it.

Calvinism asserts that "God CHANGES the heart, which CAUSES belief". But it is my understanding that "man becomes convicted, which CAUSES belief, which receives Jesus and consequents in a changed heart". THUS --- all of us agree on the "CHANGED-HEART" issue; but disagree on the DYNAMICS.

Actually, your assertion is not accurate. Calvinism asserts that God changes the heart, which leads invariably to conviction/repentance and belief. We believe that faith is the natural result of such a change in the heart...that having been set free it with great joy runs to the arms of the Savior. We do indeed agree on the regeneration of the heart, but the mechanics continue to separate us.

How can this not matter? It is a far different walk for the man who counts on God MAINTAINING his changed heart, than for the man who perceives his own responsibility in a FELLOWSHIP. So many verses speak of the latter --- like Jude21: "Building yourselves up in your holy faith, praying in the Spirit, KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life". How could that ever reflect "God-ordained-heart-change"? Seems squarely on the "responsibility" side to me...

As I said previously, salvation and sanctification work differently. There are rewards and consequences associated with our obedience. But the end result is assured...the full accomplishment of our santification and our glorification. He who has begun a good work in us will see it through to its completion.

The typed word lacks inflection and tone, and can be taken wrongly. Many people have gotten angry at me. I respond with respect, asking forgiveness where I have offended. That respect does not demand that everyone believes as I do --- indeed, if I claim to LOVE my brothers and sisters, then I shall not "seek my own way" as Paul wrote in 1Cor13.

So I guess I'll continue, as long as there is profit, as long as God is honored and glorified. If I can show someone that "their refutation itself does not stand", then my gift will have been teaching. And teachers do teach themselves; I have learned so much from everyone with whom I've spoken AND debated. As I see the world through others' eyes, my own horizons expand. The text that I've written (hoping to have published) refuting OSAS, has had much of it really written by the others in the debate; as they have offered verses in "proof" of OSAS, I have written each verse down; so (hopefully anyway) ALL of the verses they use, are included and addressed. I wish to dismantle their view WITH Scripture, explaining and refuting each that they use, and offering many verses that seem impossible for THEM to explain and refute.

You've taken the verses, but what have you done with the defenses. It's not like we just throw verses and say "Oh yeah, well what about THIS one?!?" and leave it at that. We defend our positions.

 

[Sunbeam]

It is actually the "receiving Jesus" that they speak of. Many (if not most) Calvinists do understand about the "changed heart", specifically "Jesus indwelling us, and the Spirit indwelling us". Calvinism (Predestined-Election) has in common with "Eternal Security", the belief that the heart becomes too changed by God to EVER fall; it seems obvious to me that we DO sin, so that we still HAVE the will to RESIST God. And if we have the will to resist God, then that is the exact will to decide whether to REMAIN in sin, or to REPENT

I do really love conservative calvinsts as poeple, and I don't think they are going to hell for a different doctrinal label. My anger shown is from offense that I should bear without adding the anger to it which is always a choice in my opinion. It is within my control to do so. And it is my bad. I had a bunch of christian calvinst women (friends) gang up on me before; some telling me to commit suicide with others high-fiving the comments. I developed a complex for a while even though it was an online message board. Any resentment on my part, is my responsibility to clean it out with prayer and purposeful activity which works. I didn't realize it was still bothering me. That's to my shame. I'm glad this has been brought to my attention. I believe calvinists are serious christians but I will say I do not understand their mindset when they explain it. I have read the bible on my own for several years. I read what is plainly written. I am not reading alot of commentary. I don't believe in Word of Faith theology or in taking things out of their context either. I don't try to figure out Revelation as to specifics. It's just clear about us needing to stay repentant. The OT shows how many times people turned their backs on God and how God turned their backs on them as well in response. We aren't under Levitical Law, but this situation does not have to do with L. Law. They stopped believing in God, and God stopped helping them. Many instances are shown of this cause-and-effect relationship with God. Yes, it seems obvious to me too that we do sin of freewill and we can change of freewill which would be God's glory working in us.

I do not seem to do well either; the reality is that none can nor will change until they are READY to change; and then that change will be nothing of me, it will be between themselves and God.

It is between them and God.

I don't think they have heard all of the reasoning before, that we do here. I post questions about the Galatians (3:1-3, 5:1-7), and those in 2Pet2:20-22. I point out that there MUST be some kind of understanding that the Calvinist has, to accomodate those --- and then I list all four possible understandings (that accomodate Predestination). And I show how each one is not credible. What I'm trying to do, is to gently back them against a wall, and force them to consider various Scriptures, analytically --- to realize that certain passages CANNOT accomodate to Predestined-Election. These sorts of posts are ignored --- frustrating, but not life-threatening for me.

You are right: I don't think many people have heard all the reasoning before like what is done in these soteriology threads. Those are excellent questions posed, they are read by them if not answered, and the feeling of their conclusion of why they don't answer does register in them on some level as unresolved I think.

My motivation for debating topics such as "OSAS", is for the maturing and edifying of my Christian brothers and sisters. I strive hard for gentleness and respect, out of love. It does not do at all to "WIN", if it comes at the expense of another's feelings. Understand that each of us, every one, has time and many words committed to one position or another; so if one position is shown to be Scripturally untenable, there must be an allowance for its previous-proponent to "save face". Maybe later will someone show that he or she has changed positions. But above all, love and respect must be maintained

I enjoy reading your posts because that motivation is clearly seen.

The question of "direction" in repentance --- does it come from God to us, or do WE repent to GOD --- is a critical one imho; it defines the essence of our salvation, and is therefore extremely worthwhile discussing. Worthwhile, as long as none "come to blows" over it, nor leave with a damaged faith. But --- if the "fellowship" aspect of salvation IS the truth, how can purveying the truth DAMAGE anyone? How can it do anything but STRENGTHEN their faith?

I believe its extremely critical to understand the level and place of responsibility in actions as well as prayer. Many people ask God to do things they should be doing, and do not ask for things that they should ask for. This issue of what a changed heart means is a key for alot of other issues that come down to daily decisions. It should strengthen understanding or lead to questions that help critical thought which is a big part of christianity IMO as much as sensitivity to emotional awareness and responses to such.

Calvinism asserts that "God CHANGES the heart, which CAUSES belief". But it is my understanding that "man becomes convicted, which CAUSES belief, which receives Jesus and consequents in a changed heart". THUS --- all of us agree on the "CHANGED-HEART" issue; but disagree on the DYNAMICS. How can this not matter? It is a far different walk for the man who counts on God MAINTAINING his changed heart, than for the man who perceives his own responsibility in a FELLOWSHIP. So many verses speak of the latter --- like Jude21: "Building yourselves up in your holy faith, praying in the Spirit, KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life". How could that ever reflect "God-ordained-heart-change"? Seems squarely on the "responsibility" side to me...

It is a different walk. One person is thinking what they must do and keeps thinking along those lines trying different things in all different areas of their life and another does not understand why this person is even trying but says "trust God, you think, and worry too much". It isn't a question of thinking and worrying too much. It's part of life to do things and try things and believe that you need to do them part of what God commands. I feel honestly demotivated in calvinst churches, and it is not the fact they lack "the Holy Spirit" as the charismatics/pentocostals claim. It is about this issue of calvinism/arminianism. I beleive they do have the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is not tongues in general that they need to have. I've always thought of the latter as sort of an insult to the Spirit who is intererested in our motivation, love, fruits of the Spirit. I love the old hymnals sung in these calvinist churches. I wish more pentocostal churches would do this.

The typed word lacks inflection and tone, and can be taken wrongly. Many people have gotten angry at me. I respond with respect, asking forgiveness where I have offended. That respect does not demand that everyone believes as I do --- indeed, if I claim to LOVE my brothers and sisters, then I shall not "seek my own way" as Paul wrote in 1Cor13.

That's a perfect attitude to me.

So I guess I'll continue, as long as there is profit, as long as God is honored and glorified. If I can show someone that "their refutation itself does not stand", then my gift will have been teaching. And teachers do teach themselves; I have learned so much from everyone with whom I've spoken AND debated. As I see the world through others' eyes, my own horizons expand. The text that I've written (hoping to have published) refuting OSAS, has had much of it really written by the others in the debate; as they have offered verses in "proof" of OSAS, I have written each verse down; so (hopefully anyway) ALL of the verses they use, are included and addressed. I wish to dismantle their view WITH Scripture, explaining and refuting each that they use, and offering many verses that seem impossible for THEM to explain and refute

I can see how this would help write your book. These debates here are much more reasonable than what I have seen in the past, and the Calvinsts are using theology that is standard rather than just emotional responses. That theology can be penetrated and outreasoned. I have learned something from how the calvinsts think here, and I do see genuineness. Much arminian-theology churches are mixed with pentocostal theology which I do think honestly is another issue that is hard to deal with for some. There are pentocostal churches that do have gifts in the church without any fruit. There are so many of them that lack reverence. Although there are many that do have reverence as well. But if you listen to the AM dial of the radio and hear most of the pentocostal groups they aren't a good representation emotionally in some cases. I think that is another wall. The Church of Christ doesn't believe in gifts as an arminian church though. And the Nazarene church and a few others don't have group public tonuges or a possibly disorderly atmosphere. But this is another subject, but one I have peace with.

Regardless of the debate, my deepest concern and love for each one of you, is that each of US grows in Jesus, that our lives will bring Him much glory and honor. TODAY --- this day --- is the first day of FOREVER. Let it begin now; and let it begin with me. Worshipping Him and basking in His presence; for an eternity. This is love, and salvation is love in which we abide.

This "Let it begin with me" is true. It is something that we each really could keep in mind as christians. That we are initiators of what we know as right even if others are not. That is a beautiful paragraph. You write so well, honestly.

 

[Sunbeam]

[QUOTE-Fru]I've heard the assertion numerous times over that "nobody is gonna be converted in a web forum" or "nobody's going to change the fundamentals of their beliefs in an online forum." I know from personal experience that this is completely false. I've seen many people change their beliefs as a direct or indirect result of the discussions that take place here. I would also note that, though I have seen numerous people shift from an Arminian/Wesleyan view to a Calvinist view, I have yet to see a single person discard Calvinist beliefs in a similar manner.
[/QUOTE]
These discussions do affect people deeply I agree. People do not easily change to a Arminian/Wesley viewpoint either. It's a road of responsibility though. That's the main reason.

As I said previously, salvation and sanctification work differently. There are rewards and consequences associated with our obedience. But the end result is assured...the full accomplishment of our santification and our glorification. He who has begun a good work in us will see it through to its completion.

When I read, "He who begun a good work in us will complete it". I know that I still need to be obedient to God for Him to complete it. I believe that God's good work in me is cojoined with my obedience, so He will complete that and reward me. God rewards our faith (faith with action).It is not all about God beginning the work, and God doing it, and completing without our cooperation.

Actually, your assertion is not accurate. Calvinism asserts that God changes the heart, which leads invariably to conviction/repentance and belief. We believe that faith is the natural result of such a change in the heart...that having been set free it with great joy runs to the arms of the Savior. We do indeed agree on the regeneration of the heart, but the mechanics continue to separate us.

A strong emotional feeling in the heart is not equal with "a changed heart", because the latter really refers to a changed personality, actions, etc. This feeling in the heart is an emotional component of thinking and understanding. This happens with alot things. Its a knowing sense. It doesn't represent I am changed as a person.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben: But above all, love and respect must be maintained
Sunbeam: I enjoy reading your posts because that motivation is clearly seen.

Sunbeam, you are such a blessing to me, and to everyone here! You always post with thoughtfulness and love; I have not seen the anger you spoke of --- looks like you've mastered it. I always worry that my posts will be seen as respectful; I love each person here in Christ, and desire with all my heart to only ENCOURAGE, and never to harm in any way. You encourage me greatly by saying that you see love in what I write.

ALL of us here, Calvinist, Arminian, INBETWEEN, Charismatic, Baptist, Presbyterian, COC, Catholic --- we have the same goal. Each of us desires to grow close to God, "to the mature man (or woman), to the measure and stature of the fullness of Christ." Eph4:13 Each of us desires to encourage the other towards maturity; for in so doing, the encouragement returns to us many-fold. The beginning of conversation between us, should be the ending of conversation between us; it should be love.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben: Calvinism asserts that "God CHANGES the heart, which CAUSES belief".

Fru: Calvinism asserts that God changes the heart, which leads invariably to conviction/repentance and belief.

I see no difference between the two; yet often I am told "I misrepresent Calvinism".

I could make the same assertions of your evasiveness regarding critiques of logic and other verses that don't support your position. Quite frankly, for me personally, I got tired of such evasiveness and stopped jumping through the hoops. If you want to assume that a lack of response for certain posts means that they must be correct, you are free to do so..but recognize that the argument is quite easily reciprocated.

I am not aware I have shown any evasiveness. You once accused me of avoiding the issue, and kindly gave me many links; I reviewed each and every link, and tried to respond comprehensively.

Sometimes I am frustrated when someone thinks they have refuted what I said, but I think they have not. For instance, I quote 2Pet3:17 and Col1:21-23, and some say "you can be UNSTEADFAST but still SAVED". Or I cite 2Tim2:11-13, and am told "one can be FAITHLESS but SAVED". Then I cite Gal5:1-7 (w/ 3:1-3), and am told "one can be FALLEN FROM GRACE but still SAVED". This is not refutation. I need to understand how these concepts can co-exist:

1. We are saved by grace through faith.
2. We can be FALLEN FROM GRACE, and/or FAITHLESS, but still saved.

How can both be true?

There are rewards and consequences associated with our obedience. But the end result is assured...the full accomplishment of our santification and our glorification.

I don't see it as ASSURED at all. How can the conditionals be misunderstood?
"He will present you before God holy and blameless and beyond reproach, IF INDEED you CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and NOT BE MOVED AWAY FROM (Jesus)." Col1:21-23
"For we have become partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." Heb3:14

How is it that SALVATION is by FAITH and OBEDIENCE, but if we are FAITHLESS and DISOBEDIENT we risk only rewards and not salvation itself? In the passage from 2Jn:
"Many deceivers have gone into the world. WATCH YOURSELVES that you not lose what you have accomplished, but that you may receive full reward. Anyone who GOES TOO FAR and does not abide in Jesus' teachings, HAS NOT GOD." How is that understood as "lose-heavenly-CROWNS but not SALVATION"? Why do Calvinists assert a SUBJECT CHANGE between vs8 and 9, denying that "goes too far" is the THING that we have to watch out FOR? (that "not-abiding" is identically "lose-what-accomplished)

How can verses like Col2:8:
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, ...rather than according to Christ" --- not indicate that we CAN be captived away from Christ? How is the "end result assured", if we have to "see that we are not taken away from Jesus"?

He who has begun a good work in us will see it through to its completion.

I'm not sure if you've ever responded to a question I asked earlier; Paul says:
"I am CONFIDENT that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus". Philip1:6 If Paul's confidence is not in their ENDURANCE, and if Paul doesn't WORRY about their endurance, then why verse 9:
"And this I pray that your love may abound more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, SO THAT you may approve the things that are excellent, IN ORDER TO BE sincere and blameless until the day of Christ".

You see, merely saying, "those people in 2Pet2 weren't REALLY SAVED", or saying that those in Gal5 "didn't really FALL", or saying that Paul's prayer in Philip1:9 "doesn't really WORRY about them REMAINING saved", doesn't make it so. We need to understand HOW you work it out in your philosophy. Paul says, "I pray that your love/knowledge/discernment ABOUND, in order to be sincere and blameless". How is "NOT-GROWING and NOT-BEING-SINCERE/BLAMELESS" absent from Paul's consideration?

Many times I have been told, "Those verses have already been dealt with". Though I do enjoy "Mony Python", I really want a deeper discusion than just:

"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it DOES."
"....no it doesn't."

You've taken the verses, but what have you done with the defenses. It's not like we just throw verses and say "Oh yeah, well what about THIS one?!?" and leave it at that. We defend our positions.

I would like to believe that you do. But only Mounts answered the question about Gal5 and 2Pet2. There remain only four possible understandings for ANY "osas" view:
1. They were NEVER SAVED.
2. They never FELL.
3. It's not REAL, only hyperbole; a kind of hypothetical BUGBEAR to "keep us straight" (don't you believe that our "straightness", is predestined anyway?)
4. There is a way to IGNORE the whole letter; it's written to another DISPENSATION, or it's to JEWS and not US (see Gal3:28), or some reason to throw out James, 1-2Peter, Hebrews, Colossians, 2Jn, Jude, Romans, etc...

Again, simply saying "fallen-from-grace is SAVED", requires explanation. Saying "they only APPEARED to escape" must accomodate Matt6:24 & Rom6:16. And so on...

And using another verse to clarify the SCRUTINIZED verse, is perfect theological function. How can we deny that the parable of Matt22:2-14, says "ALL were called, the CHOSEN are they who ANSWERED the call"?

It seems that the main difference between what I understand, and Calvinism, is that I see "faith" as RESPONSE to hearing the Gospel. In Luke 8:15, the GOOD ground (in which the seed grew) is CALLED good because they "hear with honest/good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance". I see NONE of "God-bestowed" and ALL of "their-response". Mk4:20 says "the GOOD ground hear and ACCEPT it and BEAR FRUIT". The BAD ground did NOT persevere; the allowed temptation to turn them, or riches to derail them, or unbelief to allow evil to steal the seed away. Again, nothing of ELECTION and everything of RESPONSE.

Matthew 7:24-27 says "he who hears My words, and DOES them, is like a man building house on rock". But "he who DOES NOT DO My words, is like a FOOLISH man..." Again, all of RESPONSE and none of ELECTION!

To return to the topic of this thread: REPENTANCE --- is it our RESPONSE, or is it of/from GOD? All the verses _I_ read, show our repentance to be our RESPONSE.

So, true refutation does not happen, without explanation...

 

[Sunbeam]

Sunbeam, you are such a blessing to me, and to everyone here! You always post with thoughtfulness and love; I have not seen the anger you spoke of --- looks like you've mastered it. I always worry that my posts will be seen as respectful; I love each person here in Christ, and desire with all my heart to only ENCOURAGE, and never to harm in any way. You encourage me greatly by saying that you see love in what I write.

I see love, a whole lot of love......

 

[Sunbeam]

Sunbeam, you are such a blessing to me, and to everyone here! You always post with thoughtfulness and love; I have not seen the anger you spoke of --- looks like you've mastered it. I always worry that my posts will be seen as respectful; I love each person here in Christ, and desire with all my heart to only ENCOURAGE, and never to harm in any way. You encourage me greatly by saying that you see love in what I write.

I'm glad I'm a blessing here to you. Ben, your posts are always very respectful and informative. I like seeing how the greek meanings coincide with intutive contextual understanding within the conditional salvation viewpoints.

When those women ganged up on me, I had just started learning what the OSNAS, arminian, conditional security viewpoints were during the course of that "discussion", so that was new, and they hurt my feelings. The temporary "complex" consisted seeing that calvinists consisted of quite a large number in the chiristian world, and that many of them also only befriended each other in a close way. That was a sad thing to learn. I wasn't put off or discouraged by those various harsh comments though, but it did register sadly how far some are willing to go. I don't see that specific kind of tone in these forums, and I think they would be pulled without any reporting needed on my part if it was shown here.

I do enjoy the fellowship with all christians, however I am not budging my beliefs on these issues. They explain much about why and how the christian world in general seems to be somewhat irresponsible. It gives me mental peace and spiritual direction. It is a key point in many issues that would be confusing otherwise.

The beginning of conversation between us, should be the ending of conversation between us; it should be love.

yep

 

[reformedfan]

Read Romans 2:4, God's goodness leads you to repent.

 

[Ben johnson]

Read Romans 2:4, God's goodness leads you to repent.

It's supPOSED to; but he's blastin' HYPOCRITES, who condemn others but do the very thing they condemn. Check out verse 4ff: "Do you not know that the kindness of God leads to REPENTANCE? But YOU, stubborn and UNREPENTANT, you are storing up WRATH for yourself for the day of ...judgment!"

Paul is rebuking one who WILL not repent, saying "You're makin' God MAD!!!" This verse ruins the idea that "repentance is BESTOWED on us by God" (it reads here as a CHOICE), and it also ruins "predestination". Paul would not have wasted words on this kind of a rebuke, if the person's regeneration was unilateral from God.

This is a WARNING, it is REAL, and Paul rebukes towards REPENTANCE.

 

[Received]

And if these verses reveal a God who is mad for something the human beings cannot do in their own power according to Calvinistic standings, this leads inexorably to the conclusion that God is demanding men to do something they cannot do in their own power -- in other words, God is making a fool of Himself.

 

[seebs]

And if these verses reveal a God who is mad for something the human beings cannot do in their own power according to Calvinistic standings, this leads inexorably to the conclusion that God is demanding men to do something they cannot do in their own power -- in other words, God is making a fool of Himself.

It's a cross between a sadistic puppet show and mere incoherence. Hard to reconcile with the rest of what we believe about God.

 

[Received]

If I had space to record all the former nonsense beliefs I had about God now forgotten...I would have quite a long book.

Perhaps the most magnanimous of believers is the one who, when confronted with evidence his reason cannot deny, still holds to that sense of wrong that only his heart can admit -- and exclaims without shame that there is simply something incoherent about this whole modernistic approach in perceiving God.

Or, as C.S. Lewis would have it:

"Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our freet. We shall see that there never was any problem.... And, more than once, that impression which I can't describe except by saying that it's like the sound of a chuckle in the darkness. The sense that some shattering and disarming simplicity is the real answer."