Romans2 (and predestination)

[Ben johnson]

Oh ... this is endless debate and I don't see point in this at all. What is it? To to compete who have purest doctrine? And how does this strength our faith in Christ and love to each other?

Hi! Welcome to the boards!

There is a time when it doesn't matter at all. If we agree on the essence of salvation, then you're right, it doesn't matter.

...but what if I was to think that "it was GOD'S place first to choose and save me, regenerate me then gift saving-faith to me, and now my perseverance is God's place. If salvation can be forfeited, and if there are many verses admonishing us to "diligence in faith and salvation", it becomes rather important, doesn't it?

In a few short years the Tribulation will begin; we will all look around us and realize it has begun. Most "OSAS" also believe in "Pre-Trib-Rapture" --- thinking that Jesus will secretly, quietly, come back and rescue us from the hard times. Truly, very many of those "OSAS/Pre-Trib" people will fall. (1Tim4:1)

So, yes my friend; the discussion does increase our strength in Christ, as it drives us deeper into Scripture, and (hopefully) closer to Him.

...and I pray, closer to each other.

 

[nobdysfool]

Why do you insist on measuring God by your own flawed, darkened understanding, and insist that He must be the way you think He must be?



As you want to interpret it. Somehow, you seem to think that your interpretation of scripture is above questioning, but ours is not.


That's not an answer, that's denial.



If Christ was predestined, (and He was) then all other things must be predestined as well,. simple logic.



Predestination and responsibility are not mutually exclusive, no matter how much you want them to be. Predestination and responsibility do not oppose each other at all. Your problem is a wrong view of God on the one hand, and a wrong view of the depth of depravity and magnitude of the Fall of Adam on the other hand. You have recast God in the image of man, and denied the full effect of sin on mankind.



You don't see the circular reasoning here. You interpret scripture, then insist that your interpretation is "how scripture is written", thereby equating your interpretation with scripture itself, as one and the same. That is faulty logic, and a clear indication of self-deception.



But your focus and emphasis is on what we must do, and an almost complete denial of what God has promised to do. You gloss over God's promises, to focus on what you think God expects from us, thereby creating an imbalanced and distorted view of salvation and the Christian walk.

And you refuse to let anyone correct you, or help you to a more balanced view. You want to be the "big kahuna" in these forums, setting the parameteres and tone of any and all debates about this subject, and completely marginalize and demonize any view that does not coincide with your own. Your attitude is one of "I'm not here to learn, but to teach".

bump for reply

 

[Markea]

Why do you insist on measuring God by your own flawed, darkened understanding, and insist that He must be the way you think He must be?

And who are you to imply that your understanding is beyond anothers..? Is it possible that your own understanding is flawed, and darkened.. or are you perfect in understanding everything that there is to understand..?

We all see through a glass, dimly.. yourself included..

 

[nobdysfool]

And who are you to imply that your understanding is beyond anothers..? Is it possible that your own understanding is flawed, and darkened.. or are you perfect in understanding everything that there is to understand..?

We all see through a glass, dimly.. yourself included..

I have never claimed otherwise. Please show me where I have claimed what you suggest. I have good reason to believe as I do, and rather than opposing that which you have shown you don't understand correctly, it might be wiser to watch and listen. We ALL understand only in part. But that doesn't mean we all are fuzzy on the same things.

However, if your only purpose here is to agitate Calvinists, use your free will and find another forum. No one is forcing you to stay here. I have tried to explain what I believe and why, and we appear to be talking past each other. Your bias against Calvinism, which you wrongly describe as being "robots" is neither correct, nor is it helpful. It is insulting, and inaccurate. If you knew Calvinism correctly, you wouldn't make such ridiculous assertions.

 

[Rick Otto]

it does not compute so I don't know how to respond!
...besides, I think my batteries are gettin' low...

 

[Markea]

I have never claimed otherwise.

And you can't even see the irony in your own comments to the person.. calling their understanding flawed and darkened.. when yours is the same thing..

But if you can't see that, then so be it.

Please show me where I have claimed what you suggest. I have good reason to believe as I do, and rather than opposing that which you have shown you don't understand correctly, it might be wiser to watch and listen. We ALL understand only in part. But that doesn't mean we all are fuzzy on the same things.

As mentioned.. you can't even see the flaw in your exalting your own opinion over that of another.. it would be fine to disagree.. but instead you say that they're flawed and darkened in their understanding.. as if you're not..

However, if your only purpose here is to agitate Calvinists, use your free will and find another forum.

Why don't you find another forum.. is this your forum or something.. ? Are you always this highminded toward others..?

No one is forcing you to stay here. I have tried to explain what I believe and why, and we appear to be talking past each other.

So what else is new..? You call other opinions flawed and darkened and that's ok with you of course.. because you think so highly of your own opinion.. no one is forcing your high exalted opinion to stay here either.

Your bias against Calvinism, which you wrongly describe as being "robots" is neither correct, nor is it helpful. It is insulting, and inaccurate. If you knew Calvinism correctly, you wouldn't make such ridiculous assertions.

It's the bottom line in calvinism.. and perhaps you can't handle it.. but that's certainly what it comes down to.. because according to you calvinists.. a person cannot believe God unless He allows that to happen..

Deny it all day if you want.. it's not going to change the simple truth as to what it is in its exalted opinions of itself.

 

[nobdysfool]

(Edited by NBF}

You have no idea of the history between Ben Johnson and myself.

Now, can we get back to the subject, or do you want to take another shot at me personally?

 

[Markea]

You have no idea of the history between Ben Johnson and myself.

I don't need to know the history of people here on these boards to know that somethings drastically wrong when you call another persons' understanding, flawed and darkened.. lol..

But hey.. carry on with that...

 

[nobdysfool]

I don't need to know the history of people here on these boards to know that somethings drastically wrong when you call another persons' understanding, flawed and darkened.. lol..

But hey.. carry on with that...

Laugh all you want, but it was you yourself who said, "Is it possible that your own understanding is flawed, and darkened.. "

What does the Word say?

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
(1Co 13:12)


Sound familiar?

And then you attempt to take me to task for using biblical terminology in a post to another poster.

Who's got the problem? Not me.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi! Welcome to the boards!

There is a time when it doesn't matter at all. If we agree on the essence of salvation, then you're right, it doesn't matter.

...but what if I was to think that "it was GOD'S place first to choose and save me, regenerate me then gift saving-faith to me, and now my perseverance is God's place. If salvation can be forfeited, and if there are many verses admonishing us to "diligence in faith and salvation", it becomes rather important, doesn't it?

In a few short years the Tribulation will begin; we will all look around us and realize it has begun. Most "OSAS" also believe in "Pre-Trib-Rapture" --- thinking that Jesus will secretly, quietly, come back and rescue us from the hard times. Truly, very many of those "OSAS/Pre-Trib" people will fall. (1Tim4:1)

So, yes my friend; the discussion does increase our strength in Christ, as it drives us deeper into Scripture, and (hopefully) closer to Him.

...and I pray, closer to each other.

It isn't the OSAS/Pre-Trib people who will fall ............ it is the FREE-Willers and boasters , those who put there emphasis upon what they can do , what they can achieve and what they are capable of , even divorcing God! , these are they who have no faith in God holding onto them because they don't believe it. Self -Sufficiency always goes before a fall.if you only knew !

Ask me how I know Free-Willers fall-away........ I have seen it!

 

[nobdysfool]

Cygnusx1,

Amen, bro!

 

[Markea]

Laugh all you want, but it was you yourself who said, "Is it possible that your own understanding is flawed, and darkened.. "

What does the Word say?

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
(1Co 13:12)


Sound familiar?

Of course it sounds familiar... I quoted that same verse in my response to your comments concerning Ben's understanding being flawed and darkened... that's WHY I said it..

And then you attempt to take me to task for using biblical terminology in a post to another poster.

Who's got the problem? Not me.

Hey, I'm not the one who was telling another person that their understanding was flawed and darkened..

It was you.. remember..

But like I said.. if that's normal for you.. then you go ahead and carry on with that..

 

[nobdysfool]

Of course it sounds familiar... I quoted that same verse in my response to your comments concerning Ben's understanding being flawed and darkened... that's WHY I said it..



Hey, I'm not the one who was telling another person that their understanding was flawed and darkened..

It was you.. remember..

But like I said.. if that's normal for you.. then you go ahead and carry on with that..

Seeing that you did the very thing you accuse me of being wrong about, I'd say you have no room to talk Pot. Kettle. Black

Now, can we get back to the discussion?

 

[Markea]

Seeing that you did the very thing you accuse me of being wrong about, I'd say you have no room to talk Pot. Kettle. Black

Now, can we get back to the discussion?

Ok.. this is too funny..

I told you that you're no different than he is in your opinion precisely because of what you said to him.. I'm not sure if you're understanding that.. but it's what happened..

But hey.. by all means.. let the discussion go on.. even if our understanding is flawed and darkened..

 

[Ben johnson]

As you want to interpret it. Somehow, you seem to think that your interpretation of scripture is above questioning, but ours is not.

No one's position is above questioning; we question each other here, plenty. What matters, is the ANSWERS to those questions.

If Christ was predestined, (and He was) then all other things must be predestined as well, simple logic.

No --- Jesus was predestined to be born, to die, and to live again; that "all who believe, may be saved". The predestined means does not force the receiving of that means. Hope I said that right...

Predestination and responsibility are not mutually exclusive, no matter how much you want them to be. Predestination and responsibility do not oppose each other at all.

Actually, yes they do --- "Responsibility" is defined as "accountable as being the CAUSE of something". And you absolutely deny that "man is causal in his own salvation".

Your problem is a wrong view of God on the one hand...

I perceive that God's position is to receive man's faith. Not author it. In Acts10:34-35, Peter says "God is not partial, but whoever reveres Him and does right is WELCOME". God-welcoming-seekers, is set opposed to "partiality" --- therefore your position presents "God as PARTIAL", because it reverses God's position into HIM seeking US (rather than us seeking Him).

God is not partial --- He does not choose anyone, before any person reveres Him and seeks righteousness. That's what Paul was asserting in Rom2.

... and a wrong view of the depth of depravity and magnitude of the Fall of Adam on the other hand.

"Total depravity", does not mean men cannot believe. Every man is drawn to where he can believe, (Jn12:32), and belief is not a "good work we DO", it is the "work of God that we do". Jn6:27-29 is very clear on that.

You have recast God in the image of man, and denied the full effect of sin on mankind.

I have cast nothing; I have either embraced a Scriptural view, or I have perceived Scripture wrongly.

We work here to demonstrate which.

You don't see the circular reasoning here. You interpret scripture, then insist that your interpretation is "how scripture is written", thereby equating your interpretation with scripture itself, as one and the same. That is faulty logic, and a clear indication of self-deception.

I cite Scripture, and list all possible meanings; then I ask to discuss each meaning, to see which one is credible.

But your focus and emphasis is on what we must do...

Salvation is action, ours --- Jesus boldly declares that in Matt7:24-27. God receives our active faith, we are active; you perceive we are passive and God is active.

... and an almost complete denial of what God has promised to do.

He has promised "salvation to all WHO believe".

You gloss over God's promises, to focus on what you think God expects from us, thereby creating an imbalanced and distorted view of salvation and the Christian walk.

"Walk"? Look at this:

"As you have received Christ, so walk IN Him. SEE to it that no one takes you captive through empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ."[/color] This is what "God expects of us"; to "keep ourselves in the love of God, building ourselves in holy faith" (Jude:20-21), being diligent against deception by abiding in Christ.

Do you understand why it is so clear to me?

And you refuse to let anyone correct you, or help you to a more balanced view.

Because every post (and every position) of mine is replete with Scriptures, it seems that Responsible Grace is the "more balanced view". I would be willing to believe in Calvinism --- if successful refutation of "Responsible Grace" occurs. I haven't seen it, NBF.

You want to be the "big kahuna" in these forums, setting the parameteres and tone of any and all debates about this subject, and completely marginalize and demonize any view that does not coincide with your own. Your attitude is one of "I'm not here to learn, but to teach".

More than willing to learn; but we need good dialog, and reasons why "not really" isn't being imposed on what I consider clear passages.

 

[Ben johnson]

It isn't the OSAS/Pre-Trib people who will fall ............ it is the FREE-Willers and boasters...

I don't know anyone who "boasts in himself". And re "Free-Willers" --- I consider my Calvinist brothers, saved. Do you consider those who hold to "free will", also saved?

those who put their emphasis upon what they can do, what they can achieve and what they are capable of , even divorcing God!

Who does that?

these are they who have no faith in God holding onto them because they don't believe it.

Show me in Scripture where "God holds on to us". I can show you Heb3:14, Col1:23, 2Pet3:17, Jude21, Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Pet1:5-10, 1Tim4:16, 2Jn1:7-9, and many others that say "hold on to God".

Self -Sufficiency always goes before a fall. if you only knew!

I'm thinkin' I know. "Responsible Grace" does not promote "self-sufficiency"; it promotes "diligence, responsibility, IN faith, to continue IN Christ". It fully recognizes that it is by the Spirit's power, but accepts His power operates through our faith.

Make sense?

Ask me how I know Free-Willers fall-away........ I have seen it!

Sounds like a "catch 22"; many verses in Scripture that speak of "falling away", are taken by Calvinists to mean "of course they did --- falling demonstrates they were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place".

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't know anyone who "boasts in himself". And re "Free-Willers" --- I consider my Calvinist brothers, saved. Do you consider those who hold to "free will", also saved? Who does that? Show me in Scripture where "God holds on to us". I can show you Heb3:14, Col1:23, 2Pet3:17, Jude21, Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Pet1:5-10, 1Tim4:16, 2Jn1:7-9, and many others that say "hold on to God". I'm thinkin' I know. "Responsible Grace" does not promote "self-sufficiency"; it promotes "diligence, responsibility, IN faith, to continue IN Christ". It fully recognizes that it is by the Spirit's power, but accepts His power operates through our faith.

Make sense?
Sounds like a "catch 22"; many verses in Scripture that speak of "falling away", are taken by Calvinists to mean "of course they did --- falling demonstrates they were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place".

there are two types of fall ben ............ Peter fell (stumbled).....but Judas FELL

 

[Ben johnson]

there are two types of fall ben ............ Peter fell (stumbled).....but Judas FELL

Here's something intersting --- I wonder how you understand it?

In John15:16, Jesus said "I chose you (to be Disciples), and appointed you to bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."

Now, in John6:70, Jesus said "I chose you the twelve..."

Did Jesus choose all twelve, and appoint all twelve to bear fruit, and that their fruit remain???

There isn't any way to answer that "no", is there?

 

[cygnusx1]

Here's something intersting --- I wonder how you understand it?

In John15:16, Jesus said "I chose you (to be Disciples), and appointed you to bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain..."

Now, in John6:70, Jesus said "I chose you the twelve..."

Did Jesus choose all twelve, and appoint all twelve to bear fruit, and that their fruit remain???

There isn't any way to answer that "no", is there?

what is your problem ben ........ all men bear fruit , some good , some rotten .certainly Judas rotten fruit has remained , we see it very clearly and very often.

Judas was not chosen in an identical way as the others , the intention of Jesus was to fulfill scripture regarding this son of perdition , how many did Jesus cleanse? all except Judas !!

Jesus knew from the beginnning that Judas would betray him , have you never read , "the Son of man goes as it has been determined " .......... see , scripture does not say as it was forseen , but determined !

Judas bore exactly the fruit he was destined to bear , he had a place prepared on the other side for him , in hell. Acts 1

 

[Ben johnson]

what is your problem ben ........ all men bear fruit , some good , some rotten.

That's not what Jesus said --- He said, "I appointed ALL TWELVE of you to bear GOOD (remaining) fruit".

All twelve, Cygnus.

certainly Judas rotten fruit has remained , we see it very clearly and very often.

Yet Judas was appointed to bear GOOD fruit.

Judas was not chosen in an identical way as the others , the intention of Jesus was to fulfill scripture regarding this son of perdition , how many did Jesus cleanse? all except Judas !!

Prophecy states what WILL be. Jesus knew Judas would fall, but He appointed him anyway, that prophecy not be avoided.

Judas was appointed exactly the same as the others. In Jn6:67-70, Jesus is clearly asking "are the REST of you going to leave TOO? I chose all twelve of you, and ONE is a devil (one is leaving!!)".

Jesus knew from the beginnning that Judas would betray him , have you never read , "the Son of man goes as it has been determined " .......... see , scripture does not say as it was forseen , but determined !

Judas was a believer; as Judas fell, so could the rest of them have fallen. Disciples can fall --- so says Acts20:29-30.

Judas bore exactly the fruit he was destined to bear...

Wait --- please tell me how you change "I appointed all twelve to bear good fruit", into "I appointed ONE to bear ROTTEN fruit"???

How doya change what Jesus said, Cygnus?

he had a place prepared on the other side for him , in hell. Acts 1

Because of Jesus' decision? Or because he fell?

Please tell me how Jesus did not "appoint Judas (as one of the twelve) to bear good fruit". How didn't Judas violate Jesus' appointment?