Romans2 (and predestination)

[Ben johnson]

explained in full .... http://www.christianforums.com/showp...&postcount=162 ..... you must not splice scriptures or add your own words to them .. now repent.

You have done your usual TRICK ben , and I urge the reader to look into this carefully.

You are splicing different scriptures together in a most underhanded way.

I looked at your first post here concerning Judas , and noticed you quoted two scriptures from DIFFERENT parts of the Bible , then I look at this post and my suspicions were automatically aroused when I noticed you didn't even bother to reference what you said scripture said , and after going and looking I can see why!!!!!!!!

First John 15

16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

No mention of "GOOD" fruit ......... seems ben has added his bit to make it say what it doesn't say .

Do you really think that God ordains SIN?

And --- how can one for whom sin and unbelief is ordained, ask and receive in the Father's name???

How can "ordained-sin", make sense to you? God is incapable of ordaining sin; He causes no sin, nor does He tempt anyone.

Also you are ignoring context , who is the people he is talking to ? He calls them his friends , but there is a condition .........

v14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Exactly! "If you DO". Not "If I've sovereignly chosen".

This is the context , is Judas fulfilling this criteria ? Did Judas do whatever Christ commanded him ? Was Judas a friend while he was stealing from the common purse ? such questions don't need answering , they are self disclosing.

Where is the verse that said "Judas was stealing from the purse"?

NEXT ;

John 6

6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

The fact that 12 were chosen is niether here nor there , over a million people were "chosen " to leave Egypt , but few had faith and were saved , only a remnant (also chosen) are said to be saved by Grace.

Sorry, Cygnus --- the twelve chosen in Jn6:70, are the same twelve chosen in Jn15:16.

He chose all twelve, and He chose them to be Disciples and ordained them to bear fruit that remained; and whatever they asked of the Father in Jesus' name would be done.

the question is does this selection of Judas add up to Judas being a believer ..... you say yes , but scripture says NO!

Where does it say "Judas was never a believer"?

John 6

6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Have you checked the verb tenses in that verse? It says, "Jesus knew (had known) from the beginning who believe (present, 'ARE BELIEVING') not". There is nothing that indicates Judas never believed.

clearly you are guilty of splicing texts , ignoring context and making scripture say what it doesn't ... I would recommend you REPENT .

I am "guilty", if the "TWELVE" in Jn6:70, are different from the "TWELVE" in Jn15:16.

and may the reader keep a careful eye over ben's well worn techniques.

"A careful eye", over anyone's theology, is both desired and beneficial.

The Fruit of the Spirit is what believers have , the fruit of unbelievers is what Judas had.

Which God ordained --- right?

 

[cygnusx1]

Do you really think that God ordains SIN?

If God didn't ordain sin then God no longer REIGNS !

If God didn't ordain sin then He is as much subject to "what will be will be " more so than anyone ....

If God did not ordain sin , then heaven is not a place worth making our home in , it may all start again , and again and again !

If God did not foreordain sin , then Jesus died not as an act of the will but by accident!

If God did not foreordain sin then sin is more powerful than God and can spring up anytime !

etc etc etc ....... but there are scriptures that clearly show God did ordain all things , that even the CRUCIFIXION by "wicked hands" was absolutely ordained and determined by God Himself ...... Acts 2 and Acts 4.

all arguements against God ordaining sin stem from a misunderstanding of what that means , it most certainly doesn't mean God sins , and a fear that their idol , "FREE_WILL " will be exposed for what it is .

 

[nobdysfool]

Rom9, specifically verses 11-24, has as its theme, "Also Gentiles". In discussing Rom9, Calvinists don't want to discuss verses 31-32, and the connection with Heb3:18-19 and 4:11.

Rom 9:31-33 ESV but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. (32) Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (33) as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

Heb 3:18-19 ESV And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? (19) So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Heb 4:4-11 ESV For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." (5) And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest." (6) Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, (7) again he appoints a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." (8) For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. (9) So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, (10) for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. (11) Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

​

It's useful to quote the verses you cite, and I included the context, because you have a tendency to ignore context.

What I see here is that resting from works is a key element. The Law was pursued as if it were righteousness by (or through) works, and resulted in disobedience, because no one could keep it based on works. Those who understood that the Law was kept by faith, entered into rest. Yet there remains a further rest, which is when we enter into glory with Christ. It is final rest.

The Stumbling Stone is Christ, because he fulfilled the law for us, so that as we are joined to him in faith, we are counted as having done the same. We are clothed the the righteousness of Christ, not our own righteousness. Our faith is a direct result of His Faithfulness. What we could not do, Christ did for us, so that we could enter into God's rest.

Now please tell me why this is a problem for Calvinists. I see nothing here that presents any problem whatsoever. you may fool some people with the huff and puff you promote, but you don't fool the Calvinists.

I haven't studied that one; but I'm sure it can be explained similarly to how "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Exodus10:1), when it was really Pharaoh himself who hardened his own heart. Exodus 9:34.

LOL! I "gotcha" on that one, didn't I? Try as you will, it cannot be explained away. It says what it says. And, to further show your lack of scriptural understanding, the first mention of Pharaoh's hardening of heart is in Exodus 4:21, where God says:

And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

​

Ben, it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, as He declared that He would. To say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart is only to confirm what God said before that He would do. There is such a thing as the "law of first mention" in the interpretation of scripture,. and that establishes that Pharaoh's hard heart was by God's decree.

To declare that it was really Pharaoh who hardened his own heart, is to call God a liar. God said HE would harden Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh did exactly as God said, because God decreed that it be so.

God is perfect --- He cannot ordain sin, nor does He tempt anyone.

Ben, scripture shows that God ordains the acts of men to achieve His Purposes. Your concept of the Perfection of God is not according to scripture. God IS Perfect, and He ordains the acts of men, even the sinful acts, without participating in or being chargeable for their sins. That is the way it is. That you don't understand or accept it does not change the Truth of scripture. God hardened Pharaoh's heart; God decreed a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets to cause Ahab to go and fall at Ramoth-gilead. Were both of those acts sins? Yes! And God decreed them. Scripture shows that you are wrong on this Ben, and it has devastating ramifications for your theology.

What do you suppose should change? I would say your theology needs an overhaul. Instead of looking for a way to explain away this truth to keep your theology intact, your theology needs to change in order to reflect this truth.

God allows men to freely do what they choose to do, and the acts of sinners are to will to sin. God doesn't have to make them sin, they will do so of their own accord. He directs those acts to achieve His Purpose, and to bring about His Will.

Something can be "God-ordained", or it can be "free"; but not both.

Oh, Ben, how little you understand of scripture, and the works of God! The Truth is, men freely do just as God has ordained and decreed. If God ordains and watches over the sparrows, and lilies of the field, and feeds them and clothes them (as scripture says He does), how much more does He watch over, and direct the affairs of men? If God knows the number of hairs on your head, does He not know every thought of your heart, and every choice you will make, before you make them? Scripture says God knows all of our days, before any of them have yet come to be. Everything is laid open in the sight of God.

It is no hard thing for Him to ordain the free acts of men to achieve in minute and exacting detail the Purpose and Will He has fore-ordained to happen. God calls the shots, and men do exactly as He has Purposed they do, in everything, down to the smallest detail. And men freely do as He has ordained and purposed them to do, in the smallest detail.

You may not like it, or understand it, but that's the way it is. So things are both God-ordained, and freely chosen.

 

[nobdysfool]

To assert Jesus chose them as Disciples BEFORE they believed, conflicts much of Jesus' words. Jesus detailed the principles of salvation, in parables like Matt22:2-14; everyone ended up being called ("many are called"), but only those who CAME and put on righteousness ("but few are chosen"), were chosen. Voluntary belief, and then selection as Disciples makes sense.

Completely wrong. When Jesus called the Disciples, He said "Come, follow Me." And they followed Him. He specifically chose specific individuals. He didn't check to see if they believed in Him, for none of them knew who He was at that time. The closest there is to any kind of profession prior to following Him is in the case of Simon Peter, who witnessed Jesus perform a miracle, and then fell on his knees and said, "depart from me for I am a sinful man." Jesus' reply was to say,. "Follow me, and I will make you a fisher of men." None of them knew that Jesus was the Messiah, or the Son of the Living God, at the time they were chosen and called.

Your theology is fallacious on this point, and decidedly so. You are assuming what you want scriptures to say, and then re-writing them to say those things. This is terrible theological interpretation, Ben. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You're re-writing scripture to fit your theology. That is dangerous, deceptive, and sinful.

In Judas' case, the future was already known; Jesus could have selected someone other than Judas --- but He selected Judas anyway, because the Prophecy had already forseen what Judas would do.

Jesus could have done a lot of things, but He did exactly as His Father directed Him to do. Choosing Judas was one of those things, because it was Judas who was fore-ordained to betray Jesus.

Act 2:22-24 ESV "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- (23) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (24) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

​

Who delivered Jesus up? Was it not Judas, who delivered Him to the authorities? Scripture states that it was by "the definite Plan and foreknowledge of God". It wasn't "a" plan, it was "THE" definite plan and foreknowledge of God. Judas wasn't just one of many who would "potentially" betray Jesus, he was the one ordained to do so.

Judas was not essential to God's plan; God didn't need to have a "betrayer"; without Judas, Jesus would still have been crucified.

And you know this, how? Scripture plainly states otherwise.

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

God's plan was definite, meaning that it was planned beforehand to happen when it did, how it did, and by whom it was carried out.

Judas' betrayal embodies the idea of "I chose all twelve of you, and ordained you to bear fruit --- but one of you betrays Me".

A classic example of you reading into scripture your own theology, and then citing that scripture as "proof " of your own theology. It is the logical fallacies of circular reasoning, and assuming your conclusion. Faulty logic leads to faulty theology, and deception.

There's no way that Jesus ordained Judas to sin. The only fruit Jesus could have ordained, is "good". So much for "sovereign irresistible ordination"...

I have shown you elsewhere by two examples (1 Kings 22:19-23, and Exodux 4:21) that God does in fact ordain the sins of men to achieve His Purposes and Will. He ordained Judas to betray Jesus, by the definite plan and foreknowledge of His Will, which He alone possesses.

Sovereign Irresistible Ordination stands. It has not been disproven, or undercut at all, because your theology is faulty, illogical and unscriptural, and I have shown you exactly and precisely why.

Your theology is refuted utterly on this point.

 

[nobdysfool]

Yes it does. Consider these points:
1. Eph1:4-5 says "we were predestined according to the kind intention of His will".
2. His will is clearly asserted in Jn6:40, "that all who see Jesus and believe may be saved".

A classic example of you connecting verses together solely on the basis of the same word being present in both of them, while totally ignoring the surrounding context, and trying to negate contextual principles which do not support your theology.

John 6:40 must be understood within the context of other statements by Jesus, that "All whom the Father gives me shall come to me, and he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.", and "No man can come to Me unless My Father draws Him", and "No man can come to Me except it is given him by My Father". John 6:40, " For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." must be understood along with :John 3:3 ESV Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see (perceive, understand, know) the kingdom of God."

You ignore that which is inconvenient, and try to focus on only those scriptures which you interpret as supporting your theology, even if you have to re-word them and make false connections to do so.

3. 1Pet1:20-21 says "JESUS was foreknown before the foundation of the world."

Which has a closer connection with Acts 2:23 than it does with these others.

4. In Eph1:4, the words "Chose us in Him before the foundation of the world", it's critical to understand that "in Him", is "by faith".

Being in Christ is indeed by faith, but that does not conflict at all with the Reformed understanding that Regeneration precedes faith, and is essential for man to believe and be joined to Christ. John 3:3 also supports this view, clearly and decisively.

As I said, had Jesus been born a few hundred years earlier, or later, He would never have been crucified.

Again, you know this, how? Acts 2:22-24. Jesus was predestined before the foundation of the world, and therefore His crucifixion, which was by the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, was also predestined before the foundation of the world, as well as the acts of the men which delivered him up (Judas, and others), and the men who actually nailed Him to the Cross. The sinful acts of wicked men were foreordained and predestined, to achieve the definite plan and Purpose of God, foreknown by Him from before the foundation of the world.

Ben, when you find yourself in a hole, as you are now, the prime advice is to STOP DIGGING!

 

[nobdysfool]

It appears that Mr. Johnson has left the building, perhaps to check out the Center of the Universe in Tulsa.

It also appears that since he has not answered to the last 3 posts of mine, that his faulty doctrines on these points have been refuted, completely and utterly. Since he claims that to not answer is to concede the points, it is only fair that it equally applies to him, as well.

It appears that Ben has conceded the points in this discussion.

 

[Rick Otto]

Only according to his own rules.

He might be simply regrouping.
But that part about God didn't realy harden his heart, has me gasping, since we get busted for that when we try to explain falling from grace ain't necessarily losing salvation, or that when "all" Jerusalem went out to John the Baptist, some of that "all" didn't.
He doesn't seem to be able to digest generalizations easily. Perhaps we should learn to chew his food a little more for him before we start forkin' it over.

 

[GLJCA]

However, you aren't looking at a big enough picture, here. Paul is actually saying that anyone who lives without sinning would receive glory, and those who sin would receive wrath. This applies to everyone.

Apparently neither is Paul looking at the so-called big picture, because he does not ever say that what he is telling God's people can also be applied to lost people.

You are trying to make a letter written to a specific people apply to everyone, which is leading you to grave error. The principles of Christ can not be applied to lost people.

Paul, speaking to the covenant people of God, is showing that some of them, as covenant people, have hardened and impentant hearts and are storing up wrath against the day of judgment. They are covenant people but that does not translate into eternal salvation, because there were many covenant people in the OT who did not receive eternal life.

Paul is speaking to covenant people from a position of a lack of knowledge. He does not know who is storing up wood, hay, and stubble or who is storing up gold, silver, and precious stones, therefore he is warning all of them and praising all of them and God fits the shoe to the person.

Are you saying that the Gentiles that Paul is speaking of in verse 14 and 15 are lost Gentiles?

Do lost Gentiles have the law of God written in their hearts?

Isn't having the law of God written in your heart a promise of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-35?

Those Gentiles who have the law written in their hearts have to already be in God's covenant, right?


Tell me do you think that the Old Testament can be applied to all people or is it only applied to the Covenant people of God?

GLJCA

 

[Rick Otto]

Where is the verse that said "Judas was stealing from the purse"?

Joh 12:6 - Show Context This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Follow The Money.

 

[nobdysfool]

Joh 12:6 - Show Context This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Follow The Money.

For someone who wants us to believe that he is a biblical scholar, lately he has been shown to not have much of a working knowledge of scripture, beyond cherry-picking that which he thinks or can twist into supporting his faulty doctrines. And now it appears he has left the building, rather than admit he is wrong on these points.

Funny how when he is refuted, all we hear is crickets, but when he claims he has refuted Calvinism, the Calvinists can and do prove him wrong....Apparently he believes that if he doesn't respond to being refuted, then it didn't happen.

 

[Ben johnson]

It also appears that since he has not answered to the last 3 posts of mine, that his faulty doctrines on these points have been refuted, completely and utterly. Since he claims that to not answer is to concede the points, it is only fair that it equally applies to him, as well.

It appears that Ben has conceded the points in this discussion.

What shall I do? Scrap years of study and writing, throw away my book? Let's look at your refutations...

What I see here is that resting from works is a key element. The Law was pursued as if it were righteousness by (or through) works, and resulted in disobedience, because no one could keep it based on works. Those who understood that the Law was kept by faith, entered into rest. Yet there remains a further rest, which is when we enter into glory with Christ. It is final rest.

"My rest", is "Heaven". Entering Heaven is paralleled with entering the Promised Land.

Now please tell me why this is a problem for Calvinists. I see nothing here that presents any problem whatsoever. you may fool some people with the huff and puff you promote, but you don't fool the Calvinists.

The context clearly says things like:
"Don't harden YOUR (own) hearts".
"Take care lest your heart be hardened"
"...to falling away from the living God".
"We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end".

LOL! I "gotcha" on that one, didn't I? Try as you will, it cannot be explained away. It says what it says. And, to further show your lack of scriptural understanding, the first mention of Pharaoh's hardening of heart is in Exodus 4:21, where God says:

And what of the rest of Scripture, that both of us have studied --- can we just "sweep it away"? No.

In my text is a chapter on "Univeralism" --- included because the same argument which overturns Calvinism, also overturns Universalism. There are a couple of "Universalist" verses that are difficult to explain; but it's easy to establish from other passages that "not everyone shall inherit the kingdom of God".

We've established "OSNAS", in many passages; before we go searching for a "proof-text", we need to deal with the rest of Scripture. There is no contradiction in Scripture.

Ben, it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, as He declared that He would. To say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart is only to confirm what God said before that He would do. There is such a thing as the "law of first mention" in the interpretation of scripture,. and that establishes that Pharaoh's hard heart was by God's decree.

To declare that it was really Pharaoh who hardened his own heart, is to call God a liar. God said HE would harden Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh did exactly as God said, because God decreed that it be so.

There is a "Semitic View", that ascribes to God things that men did themselves. This is well known in scholarly circles...

God allows men to freely do what they choose to do, and the acts of sinners are to will to sin. God doesn't have to make them sin, they will do so of their own accord. He directs those acts to achieve His Purpose, and to bring about His Will.

Nevertheless, by "predestination", God is ultimately prime cause in both faith, and sin.

Oh, Ben, how little you understand of scripture, and the works of God! The Truth is, men freely do just as God has ordained and decreed. If God ordains and watches over the sparrows, and lilies of the field, and feeds them and clothes them (as scripture says He does), how much more does He watch over, and direct the affairs of men? If God knows the number of hairs on your head, does He not know every thought of your heart, and every choice you will make, before you make them? Scripture says God knows all of our days, before any of them have yet come to be. Everything is laid open in the sight of God.

It is no hard thing for Him to ordain the free acts of men to achieve in minute and exacting detail the Purpose and Will He has fore-ordained to happen. God calls the shots, and men do exactly as He has Purposed they do, in everything, down to the smallest detail. And men freely do as He has ordained and purposed them to do, in the smallest detail.

This is a difference between us; you see "God-decreed-acts" as "men's free choice"; I don't.

Some have used the word "robots", at which Calvinists become angry; yet if every act is sovereignly decreed, what would be different if we WERE mechanical automatons? God's essence is "love" --- per 1Cor13:5, "love does not demand its own way".

You may not like it, or understand it, but that's the way it is. So things are both God-ordained, and freely chosen.

"Free will" means "men choose"; if God ordained our choices, we do NOT "choose". He does. He did. From the beginning.

...we are "helpless and not responsible"...

 

[Ben johnson]

Completely wrong. When Jesus called the Disciples, He said "Come, follow Me." And they followed Him. He specifically chose specific individuals. He didn't check to see if they believed in Him, for none of them knew who He was at that time. The closest there is to any kind of profession prior to following Him is in the case of Simon Peter, who witnessed Jesus perform a miracle, and then fell on his knees and said, "depart from me for I am a sinful man." Jesus' reply was to say,. "Follow me, and I will make you a fisher of men." None of them knew that Jesus was the Messiah, or the Son of the Living God, at the time they were chosen and called.

Your theology is fallacious on this point, and decidedly so. You are assuming what you want scriptures to say, and then re-writing them to say those things. This is terrible theological interpretation, Ben. You should be ashamed of yourself.

He "chose all twelve, and ordained they would bear fruit, and their fruit would remain". Some here have claimed "God ordained SINFUL fruit" in Judas' case. Would you be willing to declare that out loud, outside, in a lightning storm?

And you know this, how? Scripture plainly states otherwise.

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

God's plan was definite, meaning that it was planned beforehand to happen when it did, how it did, and by whom it was carried out.

The "PLAN", was "Jesus-on-the-Cross". See 1Pet1:20-21. You're denying that Jesus said "Are YOU leaving too? One of you IS."

A classic example of you reading into scripture your own theology, and then citing that scripture as "proof " of your own theology. It is the logical fallacies of circular reasoning, and assuming your conclusion. Faulty logic leads to faulty theology, and deception.

Both passages say "I chose you". One says "twelve", the other is speaking to the twelve. It is circular reasoning to assert that "Judas was chosen differently than the rest".

I have shown you elsewhere by two examples (1 Kings 22:19-23, and Exodux 4:21) that God does in fact ordain the sins of men to achieve His Purposes and Will. He ordained Judas to betray Jesus, by the definite plan and foreknowledge of His Will, which He alone possesses.

God enticed Ahab through the prophets into being mortally wounded. It does not say that "God ordained sins". And I showed you where Pharaoh's heart-hardening was BOTH "Pharaoh himself", and "God". In the Semitic View God is ascribed with things that men did themselves --- it's a literary device.

God cannot sin, cannot tempt, and cannot cause or ordain sin. Period.

Sovereign Irresistible Ordination stands. It has not been disproven, or undercut at all, because your theology is faulty, illogical and unscriptural, and I have shown you exactly and precisely why.

I've backed everything I've said with many verses; and been accused of "burying the discussion in multiple citations". I've shown the connection between passages, and been told that "Jn15:16 speaks of a DIFFERENT appointment-of-the-twelve than does John6:70".

"Circular reasoning" is when a conclusion precedes the studying of Scriptures. I did not mean that insultingly.

 

[Ben johnson]

A classic example of you connecting verses together solely on the basis of the same word being present in both of them, while totally ignoring the surrounding context, and trying to negate contextual principles which do not support your theology.

John 6:40 must be understood within the context of other statements by Jesus, that "All whom the Father gives me shall come to me, and he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.", and "No man can come to Me unless My Father draws Him", and "No man can come to Me except it is given him by My Father". John 6:40, " For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

What do verses 41 & 42 say? Jesus is asserting His AUTHORITY --- not "predestination". You have not (cannot) denied the reality that John17:6 completely removes the "predestinary interpretation" of John6.

They belonged to God, and THEN they were given to Jesus. Faith preceded (caused) their being given. Inarguable.

must be understood along with John 3:3 ESV Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see (perceive, understand, know) the kingdom of God."

On what grounds can we presume that "see", means "perceive"?

You are absolutely denying the context. In verse 3, is "see".
In verse 5, is "ENTER".

See, is enter.

You ignore that which is inconvenient, and try to focus on only those scriptures which you interpret as supporting your theology, even if you have to re-word them and make false connections to do so.

ONE of us does.

 

[Ben johnson]

Being in Christ is indeed by faith, but that does not conflict at all with the Reformed understanding that Regeneration precedes faith, and is essential for man to believe and be joined to Christ. John 3:3 also supports this view, clearly and decisively.

We just overturned your view; by merely reading two verses later. "See" is "enter".

Your theology is refuted utterly on this point.

Wait --- did YOU say that, or did I?

 

[Ben johnson]

For someone who wants us to believe that he is a biblical scholar, lately he has been shown to not have much of a working knowledge of scripture...

Who has shown that? I've overturned every quote-unquote refutation given.

beyond cherry-picking that which he thinks or can twist into supporting his faulty doctrines.

In my post just above, I completely reversed what you said, and showed that you "cherry-pick" and "twist things". You tried to make "see" into "perceive"; but it means "enter". Clearly established.

And now it appears he has left the building, rather than admit he is wrong on these points.

Heh heh heh heh.

Funny how when he is refuted, all we hear is crickets, but when he claims he has refuted Calvinism, the Calvinists can and do prove him wrong....Apparently he believes that if he doesn't respond to being refuted, then it didn't happen.

Sometimes, the discussion just gets a little draining. We never seem to convince each other, it just goes round, and round, and round, and...

 

[Ben johnson]

Conceded, yes, but...

Only according to his own rules.

What rules? I overturned every statement --- and finally, conclusively.

He might be simply regrouping.

Or doin' staff stuff.

But that part about God didn't really harden his heart, has me gasping...

Heb3:8 says "Do not harden YOUR OWN heart". To "Falling away from the living God". Should we believe that, Rick, or not?

since we get busted for that when we try to explain falling from grace ain't necessarily losing salvation..

I would really like to hear that explanation again --- no offense intended.

"We are saved by grace, through faith; but we can fall from grace but not necessarily lose salvation."

How?

or that when "all" Jerusalem went out to John the Baptist, some of that "all" didn't.

Yet when Rom5 says "condemnation came to ALL MEN", you object to the contextual "justification came to ALL MEN".

Both verses, mean "all". Furthered by the exact equality, "SO THEN (condemnation-all), EVEN SO (justification-all)".

He doesn't seem to be able to digest generalizations easily. Perhaps we should learn to chew his food a little more for him before we start forkin' it over.

I confess you completely lost me on this one...

Joh 12:6 - Show Context This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Thank you --- I did a computer-search and couldn't find it.

Does this say "Judas was never a believer"? No.

Judas was "chosen, and ordained to bear fruit (HAD to be "good fruit"), and that fruit remain".

Conversely, in John6:67-70 Jesus is sayin' that any of the ELEVEN, that they could leave in the same way...

 

[Ben johnson]

If God didn't ordain sin then God no longer REIGNS !

God's nature forbids him from causing sin.

If God didn't ordain sin then He is as much subject to "what will be will be " more so than anyone ....

It is within His sovereign authority to allow men to believe, or refuse. Consequently, "unbelief" is condemned in places like 1Jn5:10.

If God did not ordain sin , then heaven is not a place worth making our home in , it may all start again , and again and again !

Our discussions are theological, and must be confined to Scripture.

If God did not foreordain sin , then Jesus died not as an act of the will but by accident!

Why? God knew that Jesus being born in that place and time, would result in Him being crucified.

...and He knew that before time itself began...

If God did not foreordain sin then sin is more powerful than God and can spring up anytime !

It's not that "sin is more powerful".

Consider --- do we, the saved, sin? Of course the answer is "yes". Does God WANT us to sin? Of course the answer is "no".

...God is resistible...

etc etc etc ....... but there are scriptures that clearly show God did ordain all things , that even the CRUCIFIXION by "wicked hands" was absolutely ordained and determined by God Himself ...... Acts 2 and Acts 4.

If He ordained sin and repentance, belief and faithlessness, why hold a Final Judgment, at all?

He should hold that Judgment in Australia; where the Kangaroos roam...

all arguments against God ordaining sin stem from a misunderstanding of what that means , it most certainly doesn't mean God sins , and a fear that their idol , "FREE_WILL " will be exposed for what it is .

But you don't deny that man has "free will", do you?

You just assert "man FREELY chooses just as God ORDAINED him to choose".

Don't you?

 

[nobdysfool]

What shall I do? Scrap years of study and writing, throw away my book?

Could it be that God has allowed you to do all that, only to then show you the Truth? Not to be mean, but to help you discover the hidden things of the heart? Like, are you willing to scrap all of that to embrace the Truth?

Would you? Could you?

Do you love the Truth enough to do that?

I perceive that you are at a crossroads, Ben. You are struggling with some of these things, because you've begun to see that we DO have a point or two. Your struggle is with being attached to what you've already done, which you are now seeing has some serious flaws.

You've tried to use us to 'work out the bugs" in your book, and in the process, we have poked some good-sized holes in your doctrine. You do seem to have a problem admitting it, though, which I believe is tied to being so invested in the amount of work you've done, you're having a hard time letting it go.

If Jesus said to you, "Ben, your book is full of errors, and I don't want you to publish it", would you listen to and obey Him in that, and burn the manuscript? Think before you answer....

 

[nobdysfool]

A classic example of you connecting verses together solely on the basis of the same word being present in both of them, while totally ignoring the surrounding context, and trying to negate contextual principles which do not support your theology.

John 6:40 must be understood within the context of other statements by Jesus, that "All whom the Father gives me shall come to me, and he that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.", and "No man can come to Me unless My Father draws Him", and "No man can come to Me except it is given him by My Father". John 6:40, " For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

What do verses 41 & 42 say? Jesus is asserting His AUTHORITY --- not "predestination". You have not (cannot) denied the reality that John17:6 completely removes the "predestinary interpretation" of John6.

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (Joh 6:41-42)

"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
(Joh 17:6)

​

All that is, is the grumbling of unbelief. Jesus goes on to make specific, clear statements, not about His authority, but about the people that come to Him. You don't like what He says, so you try to set it aside. Poor interpretation, done, with a preconceived idea of how it must be. Pretty common from you.

John 17:6 does not in any way set aside predestination. It fits perfectly with John 6, because in both passages, Jesus makes reference to those given Him by the Father. That precludes your false idea that they first seek God and believe, and THEN they are born again. The mental gymnastics and logical mis-starts that you employ prevent you from seeing the simple Truth.

They belonged to God, and THEN they were given to Jesus. Faith preceded (caused) their being given. Inarguable.

Inarguable? Hardly! There is not one shred of scripture which states this. You are inventing it, because scripture does not say such a thing. All men belong to God, because He created them all. Belonging to God does NOT denote faith in Him. God gives to Jesus those whom He has chosen to save, and only they come to Jesus, by the Will of the Father, because the Father is the One who gives them to Christ. Jesus saves them. The only ones saved are those the Father has given the Son. this completely removes salvation from the will of man, the choice of man, and the control of man.

must be understood along with John 3:3 ESV Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see (perceive, understand, know) the kingdom of God."

On what grounds can we presume that "see", means "perceive"?

You are absolutely denying the context. In verse 3, is "see".
In verse 5, is "ENTER".

See, is enter.

Another leap with out thought. Two different Greek words employed, which do not mean the same thing. One cannot see unless one is born again (regenerated), and one cannot enter unless one is born again (regenerated). Two different words, two different actions.

There is no presumption involved on my part, because eido does mean "to perceive". The word in verse 5, eiserchomai, means "to enter, to go in to".

And understand and get this into your noggin, Ben. Regeneration is the new birth, not the whole process. That is the definition I use, and have always used,. and you must begin to understand what I say by that definition. You have a different one, and if you filter what I say through your own definition, it's no wonder that you think I'm saying something I am not saying. I do not have to use your definition, because it is inaccurate to begin with, and I believe mine is better. So, you need to make the stretch to understand our statements in light of how we define the terms. It will save much needless wrangling and strife.

You ignore that which is inconvenient, and try to focus on only those scriptures which you interpret as supporting your theology, even if you have to re-word them and make false connections to do so.

ONE of us does.

Yes, Ben, you do.

 

[Rick Otto]

the familiar advertising phrase, "Free with purchase".
It isn't realy free, but it sure feels good to say & hear it.

What rules? I overturned every statement --- and finally, conclusively.

I thought I remember you claiming non-response as concession, maybe I'm wrong,... sorry. I figure we're havin' a bit of a chuckle with our own bombast here, crowin' like roosters, finely feathered kings of our little theological barnyard here.
What you have turned upside down, Ben, is a lot of what Reform Theology actualy is. Not its justifications.

Heb3:8 says "Do not harden YOUR OWN heart". To "Falling away from the living God". Should we believe that, Rick, or not?

I've never thought or suggested otherwise, why would you ask?

"We are saved by grace, through faith; but we can fall from grace but not necessarily lose salvation."

How?

The Explanation Requested:
Heb 12:15 - Show Context
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
John Gill's comments:
Lest any man fail of the grace of God;
not the free favour and love of God in Christ, which is everlasting, unchangeable, and from whence there is no separation; nor the grace of God implanted in the heart in regeneration, which is incorruptible, never failing, but always remains, as do faith, hope, and love; but either the whole doctrine of the Gospel, which is a declaration of the grace of God; or particularly the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, which men may receive in vain, and fall from, (2 Corinthians 6:1) (Galatians 5:4) to which these Hebrews might be prone: and such "fail" of it, who either come short of it, do not come up to it, receive and embrace it; or who having professed it, drop it and deny it: now such should be looked after, and such a case should be diligently looked into; because the glory of God, the honour of Christ, the good of souls, and the well being, and even the continuance of the church state are concerned:
(Galatians 1:6) (5:9,10) .
Ga 1:6 - Show Context I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:Ga 5:4 - Show Context Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. ye are fallen from grace;
that is, either from that grace which they professed to have; for there might be some in these churches, as in others, who were only nominal Christians, and formal professors; who had declared they saw themselves lost and undone sinners, destitute of a righteousness, and professed to believe in Christ alone for righteousness and strength, but now trusted in themselves, and in the works of the law: or from the scheme of grace in the whole of man's salvation, which will admit of no mixture of works; either it is one or the other, it cannot be both; wherefore by their taking on the side of works, they showed that they had entirely dropped the scheme of grace: or else from the Gospel of the grace of God, from whence they were removed, through the influence of false teachers; particularly the doctrine of free justification by the grace of God, through the righteousness of Christ; which was entirely set aside by their seeking to be instilled by the works of the law; and from this they might be said to be fallen, who were on such a bottom.

Yet when Rom5 says "condemnation came to ALL MEN", you object to the contextual "justification came to ALL MEN".

Ben, the context of "all" in this verse is "all who were IN (Adam &/or Christ)". All who were placed in Christ were in Adam, but not all who were in Adam were elected to be placed in Christ.
18: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
judgment came] upon all men to condemnation;
which word is used in a legal sense, and intends condemnation to eternal death, as appears from the antithesis in the text; for if "justification of life", means an adjudging to eternal life, as it certainly does, the judgment or guilt, which is unto condemnation, must design a condemnation to eternal death, the just wages of sin: and this sentence of condemnation comes upon all men, all the sons of Adam without exception, even upon the elect of God themselves; though it is not executed upon them, but on their surety, whereby they are delivered from it:
even so by the righteousness of one, [the free gift] came upon all
men to justification of life;
the righteousness of Christ being freely imputed without works, as it is to all the men that belong to the second Adam, to all his seed and offspring, is their justification of life, or what adjudges and entitles them to eternal life. The sentence of justification was conceived in the mind of God from eternity, when his elect were ordained unto eternal life, on the foot of his Son's righteousness; this passed on Christ at his resurrection from the dead, and on all his people as considered in him, when they, in consequence of it, were quickened together with him; and this passes upon the conscience of a sinner at believing, when he may, as he should, reckon himself alive unto God, and is what gives him a right and title to everlasting life and glory.

Rom 5 also says that the grace provided by Jesus abounded to many, not to all!
15: But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
You're thoughts?
Rom 5 points out right off the bat, we have peace, not all have peace...
1: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
This letter was not written to all mankind. "We" means believers.
Comment?

Does this say "Judas was never a believer"? No.

It is however, a strong indication, especialy in concert with:
Joh 6:70 - Show Context Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Judas was "chosen, and ordained to bear fruit (HAD to be "good fruit"), and that fruit remain".

Examine John6:70, & the legacy of Judas (what remains), & you may want to re-evaluate the supposed neccessity of assuming his fruit was produced, & that it was good.