Romans2 (and predestination)

[nobdysfool]

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

No, it is NOT. Seeing and entering are both by regeneration, leading to faith. One must be regenerated to see the Kingdom of God, to perceive it, to know it. One must also be regenerated to enter the kingdom of God, for no unregenerate can enter. Enter and see are two different actions, one passive, one active, both predicated on first being regenerated.

The view overturned is YOURS.

(BTW, who is "we"? Are you using the "royal" plural form of ' I '? )

Your theology is refuted utterly on this point.

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

It was I who said it, and it is the situation that stands, Your theology has been utterly refuted at this point. Accept it.

 

[cygnusx1]

God's nature forbids him from causing sin.

I said ordain . God's nature is in no way tainted by ordaining sin , nothing can come into existence without God's will , nothing can happen without God's will. God does not sleep. ... you have never commented on God sending out lying Spirits , I wonder why ?

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

remember allowing is an act of the will ... God allows sin , therefore God wills sin . Why ? So He can triumph over it!

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

I think heaven is mentioned quite a bit in scripture , and the condition of heaven is no sin!

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

Does ACTS 2 and ACTS 4 merely say God knew ?

No it doesn't!

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

That is only partly true ........ you are only talking about God's will of command.

...God is resistible...

God resists the proud !

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

Because sin deserves judgment.

He should hold that Judgment in Australia; where the Kangaroos roam...
But you don't deny that man has "free will", do you?

define Free-will!

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

Don't you?

every single event that takes place is within God's knowledge and decree , even the FREE acts of men.

God does not rely on the creature and what the creature will do for His knowledge , that would make God dependant upon sinners. God knows BECAUSE God has decreed.

If God can decide from all eternity when where and how often He will intervene in this world , then He must by sheer logic also decide when , where and how often NOT to intervene in this world ...... therefore all things are under God's will and decree., therefore God knows perfectly , and can predict even what Peter WILL do even though Peter is held accountable for denying Christ.

 

[nobdysfool]

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

Already answered in a separate post.

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

There is a rest we enter here, and the final rest we enter with Christ in Heaven.

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".

All of which are valid, but it is not an "either/or" situation. Because we are enjoined to do these things, does not mean that God does not have any part to play in them. You ignore and downplay God's help, and substitute our efforts, our work, our diligence, as being the ONLY thing that will ensure our salvation. That is extremely myopic and man-centered, and not balanced at all.

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

No, you take this and allow it to reshape your theology to accept this truth. I take it that this has rocked you quite a bit, because it's there in black and white. Ben, you cannot ignore this scripture, or the principle it teaches. Any more that you can ignore Joseph's statement regarding his brothers meaning what they did for evil, but god meaning it for good. It is exactly the same principle.

God ordains the sinful acts of men to achieve and bring about His Purpose. That is scriptural, and cannot be denied. Your theology needs to change.

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".

I have no idea what you're referring to, Ben, because so far, this book of yours is just so much 'vaporware".

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.

It has NOT been established, Ben. You rant on and on, but you've been refuted more times than I can count, and you expect us to accept your supposed refutations as final, while you will never, ever accept any refutations which we establish.

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

That is an act of desperation if I've ever seen or heard one! You want to set aside the clear words of scripture for some invention of men to explain away inconvenient scriptures. 1 Kings 22 says what it says, and your theology is deeply in opposition to God's own Word.

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

You have been told many times that you do not correctly understand causality. Your sentimental man-made view of God blinds you to the truth.

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

Your refusal to see does not make it false. And what I have said is that God ordains the free acts of men, in such a way that they freely choose that which He has before ordained should happen. God can do that and there is no contradiction. The problem you have is your God's too small.

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".

That description of love is directed toward men, not a rundown of God's nature. God always gets His way. There are myriad scriptures which say so.

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

All things are by Him, for Him, and to him. ALL things. What happens is exactly and precisely as He has ordained it to be. He knows your choices, but you still freely choose that which He not only knew you would, but arranged so that you would choose exactly that choice.

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

No, Ben, we are responsible to Him, and dependent on Him for everything. That is what reformed theology teaches. It is what Calvinism teaches.

 

[nobdysfool]

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

No, you haven't. 1 Kings 22 and Exodus 4:21 refute your theology on those points, and you have NOT answered them. I have refuted your theology on those points. Utterly.

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.

Nope. It is you who is trying to equate seeing and entering, when they are two different words, and obviously mean two different things. What ties them together is being born again, which is regeneration. One must be regenerated to see the Kingdom, and to enter it. Clear as a bell, Ben. That is exactly what those verse say. But seeing is not entering. You have overturned nothing but your own theology.

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

Well, well....even YOU are getting tired of it. Especially since you've been given some things to chew on, and it's not easy. I feel for ya. Been there.

 

[Ben johnson]

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?

Of course. But in my writing, I've found perfect harmony, throughout the entire Scripture. So many "predestination points" are refuted merely by reading the context; 1Cor2:14 by 1Cor2:12. 2Cor4:3-4 by 2Cor3:16. 1Jn2:19 by 1Jn2:26-28, and 2Jn1:7-9.

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.

There is no struggle, my friend; throughout all these discussions, I see the perfect clarity of Scripture, and (with sincere respect) the other side's imposing of "not really" time after time.

Your struggle is with being attached to what you've already done, which you are now seeing has some serious flaws.

I haven't seen any flaws, NBF.

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.

Every "hole", has been answered.

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....

I believe this book is God's desire to be published; but not because it overturns Antinomianism, Calvinism, and Eternal-Security; and overturns Pre-Trib-Rapture, and Universalism. Though the first and last topic mentioned are "salvation-busting doctrines", the others can be "unimportant" --- IF we agree on the essence.

The essence of salvation, "Christ in you", is an indwelt fellowship of love; few people who call themselves "Christian", spend the time with God necessary to cultivate true fellowship with Him. If two people disagree on "OSAS", and/or disagree on "rapture timing", what of it? The rapture will be before the Tribulation, or after; salvation can be forfeit, or not.

...if we agree on the essence, we will all be in the clouds with Jesus. Everyone wins.

Suppose salvation can be forfeit, and we will go through the greater part of the Tribulation; I seek to strengthen brothers and sisters, that we all endure. Where is the "lose"?

Suppose salvation can NOT be forfeit, and/or we will NOT go through the Tribulation. Have I caused any HARM, in stressing the "intimacy between Creator and creature, that IS salvation"?

No.

You see, even if wrong (and the more I learn of Scripture the more I see I'm not), the result of my text, and the discussions here, is to encourage people closer to God.

It is a "no-lose proposition".

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

They're saying "We saw this KID grow UP, who does He think He IS?!" And Jesus responds, saying "those who come to Me, are authorized (in their coming), by God."

It is absolutely "asserting His authority from the Father".

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.

The "simple truth", is that "Thine they were", precedes "and Thou gavest them to Me".

It becomes a question of "does 'Thine they were', denote BELIEF?"

It does. 1Jn3 is very clear on that; unbelievers, cannot be referred to as "Thine (Father's) they are".

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.

You would have to think "Thine they were", applies to "unsaved, unbelieving, sin-focused reprobates".

And that is the "logical contradiction".

As we've discussed, "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me", parallels verses like Jn8:42 ("If God were your Father, then you would love Me"), and Jn5:46 ("If you believed Moses, then you would believe Me").

There is no way that "Thine they were", doesn't mean "believing-in/belonging-to the Father".

Lydia is a classic example of this; "She was a worshipper of God (Thine they were), AND her heart was opened to Jesus (and Thou gavest them to Me)." Acts16.

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.

Several times the "repettitive narrative is used". Verse 3 says "unless born again, cannot see"; verse 5 says "unless born of the Spirit, cannot enter".

Strong's Greek Lexicon lists as its first definition,
"1) to see
....a) to perceive with the eyes"

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 there is no Scriptural conflict to understand "see-enter". The double-narrative is used AGAIN, when verse 5 says "born of water and the Spirit", and then in verse 6 where it says "born of flesh ...and born of the Spirit".

So "water", is "flesh".

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.

There is nothing in John3:3-6 that speaks of "regeneration"; the idea of "all things have become new", is expressed like in 2Cor5:17, where "in Christ" precedes "new creation".

You have done nothing to conflict the idea of "see=enter" in John3.

Click on the link to blueletterBible.org above, and see (uhm, perceive?) for yourself...

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

Crowin' like roosters? I was afraid it was just some guys goin' off "half-clucked". Har harrrrr...

What you have turned upside down, Ben, is a lot of what Reform Theology actually is. Not its justifications.

Can you please explain that? I've been told frequently that "Ben does not represent what RT actuallys is" --- here you said "you've turned it upside down". Are you agreeing with me?

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

Because understanding "falling away from the living God", and "we are partners IF we hold fast and persevere", seems to conflict "can't become unsaved", doesn't it?

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;

Speaking of "show context" --- doesn't verse 8 speak of the "undisciplined", NOT being God's sons? ANd verse 9 present a choice to BE subject to God (His discipline), AND live? Doesn't verse 25 warn us that "we cannot escape if we turn away from God"?

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...

Oh come now --- they were "begun in the Spirit" (3:3), they were "obeying the truth and running well" (5:7), they were "KNOWN by God". (4:11)

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,

Correct --- but notice how they WERE "known by God", "begun in the Spirit", "running well and obeying the truth". A bit problematic for the "truly saved cannot become unsaved" thought, isn't it?

through the righteousness of Christ; which was entirely set aside by their seeking to be instilled by the works of the law

Notice it says "AGAIN"; they forsook Law and received Grace, by believing in Jesus; and returned to Law AGAIN (forsaking Grace).

and from this they might be said to be fallen, who were on such a bottom.

Fallen from where? One must try to make it "never-really-saved" (Five-Way #1), or "not-really-fallen" (Five-Way #2); neither of which fits.

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.

Actually, the correct understanding would be to see that "condemnation came CONDITIONALLY". For men to BE condemned, they must SIN.

...and verse 12 says "all are condemned, because all (do!) sin"...

Likewise, justification also came CONDITIONALLY --- do all men meet that condition? Verse 17 says "those who receive the abundance of grace and who receive the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ".

Is there any denying that "reign-with-Christ", means "justified"?

So you see that "receiving/believing" meets the condition to "justification"; and there's nothing in there about God's choice FOR them.

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.
Your thoughts?

This is also repeated in verse 19. It is simply a re-statement of verses 17-18. "Many died", and "many made righteous" --- still exists the condition of sin to HAVE died, and the condition of belief to HAVE been made righteous. No conflict.

Notice the same exact equality expressed in verse 19: "SO AS (many made sinners), EVEN SO (many will be made righteous)."

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?

My comment, includes verse 12 (which says all men sin), and verse 17 (which says that those who receive grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ).

 

[nobdysfool]

Of course. But in my writing, I've found perfect harmony, throughout the entire Scripture. So many "predestination points" are refuted merely by reading the context; 1Cor2:14 by 1Cor2:12. 2Cor4:3-4 by 2Cor3:16. 1Jn2:19 by 1Jn2:26-28, and 2Jn1:7-9.

Ben, you still insist on tying everything we Calvinists say to predestination, and do not accept that we don't focus on predestination (although we teach it, where it is appropriate and clearly shown in scripture). You're missing the mark. You have totally missed what we're saying, because you have a wrong view of what we are saying. You define the terms differently, and you interpret what we say through those different definitions.

There is no struggle, my friend; throughout all these discussions, I see the perfect clarity of Scripture, and (with sincere respect) the other side's imposing of "not really" time after time.

Yes, there is struggle, or you wouldn't be trying so hard to overturn that which you have proven that you do not understand correctly. You keep shooting at the wrong target.

Ben, how can you say you see "perfect clarity" of scripture, when time after time, we look at the same scriptures, and see huge holes of illogical thinking, and see you reword them to make them say other than what they say? And it's not just me, it's Frumanchu, Cygnusx1, Rick Otto, Heymikey80, Ryft, and others.

I haven't seen any flaws, NBF.

Too close to the forest to see the trees.

Every "hole", has been answered.

There's a difference between "an answer" and refutation. You often claim refutation where there is none, and expect us to accept your word as the final word, yet you do not extend the same courtesy to us. I can categorically state that you have refuted NONE of Calvinism, despite your huff and puff stating that you have, just because you say so. Your word does not equal scripture.

You have yet to give a credible response to 1 Kings 22, and to Exodus 4:21, and Genesis 50:20, which completely overturn your contention that God does not ordain the sinful acts of men. I have shown by 3 scriptures that He clearly does ordain the acts of sinful men for His own purposes, to bring about His own Will. In several places in scripture, it is established that things are proven by two or three witnesses. I have given you three, lest there be any doubt.

I have shown you clearly that Judas Iscariot was not saved, and was predestined to do what he did, according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. That is predestination on the half-shell. As has been pointed out to you, Judas was the "bagman" for the Disciples, and stole from that purse regularly. That is not the action of a saved man. I have shown you that the Disciples were not saved before Jesus called them.

I have repeatedly shown you that regeneration must precede faith in Christ, and You resist. Your "proof text" of Titus 3 does not say what you want it to say, and Frumanchu has several times shown you exactly why. You refuse to answer him.

The bottom line? Your theology needs to change to reflect these truths. And, it will have an affect on much of your theology.

I believe this book is God's desire to be published; but not because it overturns Antinomianism, Calvinism, and Eternal-Security; and overturns Pre-Trib-Rapture, and Universalism. Though the first and last topic mentioned are "salvation-busting doctrines", the others can be "unimportant" --- IF we agree on the essence.

Ben, we cannot agree when it is clear to even other non-Calvinists that you take liberties with scripture, and pick and choose and reword scriptures to make them say what you want. We have caught you doing that a multitude of times. It could be that God allows you to publish the book, and the rejection of it will serve to bring you to your senses. I can't help but think of the old saying, "you can do it the easy way, or the hard way".

The essence of salvation, "Christ in you", is an indwelt fellowship of love; few people who call themselves "Christian", spend the time with God necessary to cultivate true fellowship with Him. If two people disagree on "OSAS", and/or disagree on "rapture timing", what of it? The rapture will be before the Tribulation, or after; salvation can be forfeit, or not.

Ben, fellowship is only one aspect of salvation. The essence of salvation is that we cannot save ourselves, we cannot meet God's standard of Righteousness and Holiness from within our own abilities, or natures. Salvation is total reliance on Christ, who is our hope, and our reward. It is He that has saved us, and not we ourselves. God saved us, not because we deserved it, but because He loved us, with a special love He reserves for the Elect, who are Elect by the Will of God, and not of men. Those who come to faith in Christ are those given to Christ by the Father, so that they will be saved (believe), not because they already are saved (believe).

God does with His Creation as He Wills, saving some, and leaving the others to their just condemnation for their sins. Both serve to Glorify God, in the salvation of the Elect, and the damnation of sinners. God has ordered things in such a way that sin is shown to be utterly wrong, and that salvation is found only in Him. He has chosen not to save the angels who sinned (even though He could). You believe that all will be saved, or if they refuse, annihilated, and your sentimental, mushy view of God ignores the clear fact that He will punish eternally Satan and all the rebelling angels, as well as men who die in their sins. This is the vindication of His Holiness and Justice, as well as His Love and Mercy. Your view of "fairness" is that of men, not of God. Underlying your view is that men are not guilty unless they have been "given a chance" and reject it. You refuse to accept that there are varying degrees of punishment, even though scripture clearly states that there are.

You can't even accept the clear fact in scripture that God chose tiny Israel, and left the rest of the world in darkness and to die in their sins. This is a clear type and representation of God's dealing with men overall, that He Elects some to salvation, and the rest are damned. You argue that the American Indians, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Pacific Islanders, the Australian Aborigines, the Ancient Chinese, the Mongols, the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, all were able to be saved, based solely on the natural revelation of God, which is NOT the Gospel, and which can save no one. You advocate salvation by means other than the Gospel.

Shall I go on?

..if we agree on the essence, we will all be in the clouds with Jesus. Everyone wins.

I have no doubt that I will be with Jesus when I die. I have His witness inside me.

Suppose salvation can be forfeit, and we will go through the greater part of the Tribulation; I seek to strengthen brothers and sisters, that we all endure. Where is the "lose"?

Those who forfeit salvation never really had it to begin with. They knew "about" Jesus, but they didn't KNOW Him, and He didn't KNOW them. Jesus Himself makes that plain:

Mat 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (22) On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' (23) And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

​

I am not dispensationalist, so I don't buy into the "Left Behind" paradigm. I've read the books (all of them), and it makes for a good story, and decent fiction, but it isn't Bible. It's "escapism".

suppose salvation can NOT be forfeit, and/or we will NOT go through the Tribulation. Have I caused any HARM, in stressing the "intimacy between Creator and creature, that IS salvation"?No.

I'm concerned that you seem to think that accuracy is not important, that all can be justified by claiming that "I'm trying to bring people closer to God". Why not have both?

You see, even if wrong (and the more I learn of Scripture the more I see I'm not), the result of my text, and the discussions here, is to encourage people closer to God.

Ben, you are wrong on many things, and denial is not a good way to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. In fact, denial stops it cold. Job tried to justify himself before God, and God's answer to him was scathing and quite humbling.

It is a "no-lose proposition".

It's "settling" for the least common denominator. You can do better than that.

 

[nobdysfool]

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?

I would have absolutely no problem declaring it in a lightning storm because it is the Truth.

The fruit Judas bore was the fruit God had ordained.

Examine the passage carefully. Jesus said that he ordained them to bear fruit, and that their fruit remain. it does not say "good fruit" specifically, although in the case of the eleven (and the one chosen to replace Judas) it was good fruit. Judas' fruit was a little more complicated, What he did was a sin, yet it was according to the definite Plan and foreknowledge of God. That means it was predestined, including the acts of those who delivered Him up (Judas was a player in that), the actual crucifixion itself, and the actions of those who crucified Him. Judas was chosen to fulfill scripture, and prophecy. That was the fruit he was chosen to produce. While it was a sin, it produced that which God had foreordained to happen, namely the crucifixion of Christ, which was the basis of the redemption of His people. Keep in mind that Jesus said that He laid down His life willingly and voluntarily, that no man took it from Him. This speaks again to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, that the crucifixion of Christ was a predestined event, predestined before the foundation of the world, because Jesus is the slain lamb from the foundation of the world. It is the Covenant of Redemption, made between the Father and the Son, before creation.

The "PLAN", was "Jesus-on-the-Cross". See 1Pet1:20-21.

It was much more than that.

You're denying that Jesus said "Are YOU leaving too? One of you IS."

That's your reading of the verse, with additions to make it say what you want it to say. Stop twisting scripture into a pretzel, Ben. Jesus asked them if they were leaving too, not because He didn't know, but for their benefit. You forget we're not talking about just any man here, but the Son of God Himself.

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".

Again, you do not hear what is being said, you try to twist it to gain an advantage, because you can't stand to be found wrong. Jesus chose the Twelve, and each of them fulfilled the Purpose for which they were chosen. Do you deny this?

God enticed Ahab through the prophets into being mortally wounded. It does not say that "God ordained sins".

If a prophet speaks that which is not true, by the influence of a lying spirit, is that not sin? God commanded the spirit who volunteered to be a lying spirit to go and do so. Obviously, it wasn't His Holy Spirit, but a fallen spirit who caused the prophets to sin, by speaking falsehoods in order that Ahab be killed, as God decreed.

God ordained both the result (Ahab's death), and the means (lying spirits in the mouths of Ahab's prophets). This passage is crystal clear on that point, and it overturns your theology completely on this point.

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.

A "literary device" which sets aside the clear words of scripture? That can't be anything but a lame excuse, to avoid the implications of the Word of God. Exodus 4:21 states that it is God who hardens Pharaoh's heart, and sets the precedent for the subsequent actions. Pharaoh hardening his heart was by God's decree. Pharaoh did exactly as God declared that He would cause to happen. Pharaoh did willingly what God had decreed that he do, in order to show forth God's Glory in the great liberation of His People.

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

God's ordination and decrees of the sinful acts of men does not devolve to a charge of sin against God. God is Sovereign over the affairs of men, and that means all men. God does not sin Himself, and He does not tempt men to sin by overt action, but He does ordain and decree the acts of sinful men, as well as righteous men, to cause all things to work as He has fore-ordained and decreed.

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".

You're not listening, Ben. You have decided that your interpretation equals scripture itself, and will not listen to those who point out the flaws in your interpretation. You try to equate any attack on your position with an attack on scripture itself, and your ears and eyes are closed to any and all evidence which shows your view to be wrong. And then you complain when we don't let up, but insist that you examine the evidence again. Truth is not established solely by the number of verses cited, but by rightly dividing the Word of truth.

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

Good thing, because you'd be insulting yourself.

"Circular reasoning" is another term for "assuming your conclusion in your premise". It is a LOGICAL FALLACY, meaning it is false, because it is illogical. You cannot lay forth a premise, where you include in your premise the thing you want the premise to conclude, or lead to. You have been shown to do this on a disturbingly regular basis.

It's like the comedian who says, "I read this today", and then explains, "I wrote it down, and then I read it. I believe everything I read..."

 

[nobdysfool]

Once again it appears that Ben has left the building....

 

[nobdysfool]

Crowin' like roosters? I was afraid it was just some guys goin' off "half-clucked". Har harrrrr...

Everybody's a comedian....

Can you please explain that? I've been told frequently that "Ben does not represent what RT actuallys is" --- here you said "you've turned it upside down". Are you agreeing with me?

No,. he's telling you in a different way that you are in fact horribly misrepresenting Reformed Theology. A fact which you refuse to believe or to correct.

Because understanding "falling away from the living God", and "we are partners IF we hold fast and persevere", seems to conflict "can't become unsaved", doesn't it?

How many times have you been tempted in your life, Ben, to give up your faith and quit the struggle? Do these verses offer encouragement to you in such times? I would hope so.

Speaking of "show context" --- doesn't verse 8 speak of the "undisciplined", NOT being God's sons?

If they're not sons, they're not saved. Seems pretty simple to me.

ANd verse 9 present a choice to BE subject to God (His discipline), AND live? Doesn't verse 25 warn us that "we cannot escape if we turn away from God"?

The understood part of that is that those who are undergoing the discipline need to realize that they are doing so because they are sons, and to not resist and complain about it, but accept it and be perfected by it. He's saying that there is "no way out", which would allow one to be a son, yet not undergo discipline..

Oh come now --- they were "begun in the Spirit" (3:3), they were "obeying the truth and running well" (5:7), they were "KNOWN by God". (4:11)

Ben obviously doesn't believe that there are such things as "nominal Christians", who profess with the mouth but their hearts are not converted. For Ben, it's all black, or all white, no shades of gray or such a thing as a person calling themselves a Christian when they are not truly converted. Scripture proves you wrong, Ben.

Mat 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (22) On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' (23) And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

​

Correct --- but notice how they WERE "known by God", "begun in the Spirit", "running well and obeying the truth". A bit problematic for the "truly saved cannot become unsaved" thought, isn't it?

Not at all, because Paul wasn't saying that they had already lost, he was warning them of the potential for loss should they continue down the same road. You can view this as God's Grace being applied to the Galatians through Paul to correct them, to halt their slide to falling from grace.

Notice it says "AGAIN"; they forsook Law and received Grace, by believing in Jesus; and returned to Law AGAIN (forsaking Grace). Fallen from where? One must try to make it "never-really-saved" (Five-Way #1), or "not-really-fallen" (Five-Way #2); neither of which fits.

You and your bogus "five-way" baloney....You have no understanding of the forbearance of Grace, and how Grace bridges the gap between sinning and repentance. The Galatians were in danger, but they had not apostatized, and your theology requires you to believe that the Galatians were already apostate when Paul wrote to them. If they were already apostate, Paul wouldn't have wasted his time, nor would the Holy Spirit.

Actually, the correct understanding would be to see that "condemnation came CONDITIONALLY". For men to BE condemned, they must SIN.

Well, no man is free form sin, except for Jesus, so they are already condemned.

...and verse 12 says "all are condemned, because all (do!) sin"...

Stating the obvious, aren't we?

Likewise, justification also came CONDITIONALLY --- do all men meet that condition? Verse 17 says "those who receive the abundance of grace and who receive the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ".

Those who are in Christ, because they have been born of the spirit, are those who are justified. You make "receive" into an active verb, when scripture teaches that it is "not by the man who wills, or the man who runs, but by God who shows mercy". Who is active in salvation? It is God first.

Is there any denying that "reign-with-Christ", means "justified"?

Again, stating the obvious, as though it were some huge revelation.

So you see that "receiving/believing" meets the condition to "justification"; and there's nothing in there about God's choice FOR them.

You demand that God must spell it out in just so many words, or it isn't true. One cannot receive or believe until they are born again (regenerated). Notice, Ben, that I define born again as regeneration. You MUST understand how I define the words if you are to truly understand what I say.

This is also repeated in verse 19. It is simply a re-statement of verses 17-18. "Many died", and "many made righteous" --- still exists the condition of sin to HAVE died, and the condition of belief to HAVE been made righteous. No conflict.

The point isn't addressing how they believe, only that they do believe to receive and be justified. That does not defeat my view, nor does it establish your view regarding how one believes, and who does the action. The conflicting views aren't being addressed here.

Notice the same exact equality expressed in verse 19: "SO AS (many made sinners), EVEN SO (many will be made righteous)."
My comment, includes verse 12 (which says all men sin), and verse 17 (which says that those who receive grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ).

But you cannot escape the fact that while all were made sinners, not all will be made righteous. So it's not an equation, but a comparison, which does not require balance on both sides.

 

[Rick Otto]

yeah, that's what I meant by upside down.
"Many" is not a word of exactitude, but the exactly part is where "in" is applied.
All mankind were physicaly in Adam (except Christ), and were effected by his actions.
All who go to heaven were spiritualy placed "in" Christ by God's determinate council & foreknowlege, and affected by His actions.

 

[nobdysfool]

yeah, that's what I meant by upside down.
"Many" is not a word of exactitude, but the exactly part is where "in" is applied.

"All" isn't a word of exactitude either. Not in the way the anti-'s want it to be.

All mankind were physicaly in Adam (except Christ), and were effected by his actions.

Exactly! That should be obvious.

All who go to heaven were spiritualy placed "in" Christ by God's determinate council & foreknowlege, and affected by His actions.

Again, exactly! The issue is "who are you in?" All in Adam die. All in Christ are made alive. What's the difference? "who are you in?"

 

[Rick Otto]

It wasn't obvious to me until about 7 yrs ago.
I was so bound up in the confusion of thinking Jesus only made salvation possible for those with whatever mysterious ingredients it took in oneself to hear, understand, and obey, & not ever being able to be sure I wasn't going to lose everything I WORKED for next Saturday night... Christianity was a drag until I found the 5 points (TULIP).

 

[nobdysfool]

It wasn't obvious to me until about 7 yrs ago.
I was so bound up in the confusion of thinking Jesus only made salvation possible for those with whatever mysterious ingredients it took in oneself to hear, understand, and obey, & not ever being able to be sure I wasn't going to lose everything I WORKED for next Saturday night... Christianity was a drag until I found the 5 points (TULIP).

Amen, Bro! Those who rely on themselves to maintain their salvation are chasing their tails, because the prize is always just out of reach.

It's not "me in Christ, the hope of glory", it's "Christ in me, the hope of glory"

That's what they can't reconcile, and the question they can't answer:

Why do some believe, and others reject the Gospel?

Is it something within themselves?

Or could it be, God is the one who makes the difference, via regeneration and effectual calling??

 

[nobdysfool]

I notice Ben has studiously avoided this thread recently. I guess he has no answer for the errors that have been unearthed in his theology....

 

[Markea]

I was so bound up in the confusion of thinking Jesus only made salvation possible for those with whatever mysterious ingredients it took in oneself to hear, understand, and obey, & not ever being able to be sure I wasn't going to lose everything I WORKED for next Saturday night... Christianity was a drag until I found the 5 points (TULIP).

For a different perspective..

I always thought that the bible did a very good job of explaining that salvation is a free gift which is offered unto all, and which comes upon all those that believe.

I didn't need tulip to settle these things in my mind, especially in order to know that I wasn't going to lose that which I could not earn in the first place.

 

[Rick Otto]

I always thought that the bible did a very good job of explaining that salvation is a free gift which is offered unto all, and which comes upon all those that believe.

That's what I used to think, too, but it is a gift, it isn't an "offer" at all. And it's given to all kinds as oposed to just Jews (OT).
"Those that believe" - I didn't realize that belief is a gift, & so is repentance.
Predestination is implicit in an omniscient, omnipotent Creator.

I didn't need tulip to settle these things in my mind, especially in order to know that I wasn't going to lose that which I could not earn in the first place.

I did. I had works-based salvation preachers & believers surrounding me, putting a heavy yoke on me.

 

[Markea]

That's what I used to think, too, but it is a gift, it isn't an "offer" at all. And it's given to all kinds as oposed to just Jews (OT).

Here's the verse which I was referring to..

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God...

"Those that believe" - I didn't realize that belief is a gift, & so is repentance.

Even our existence is a gift from God.. that's obvious.. although it doesn't mean that His creation has no capacity to embrace His promises.. because that's what faith actually is.. embracing the promises of God..

Predestination is implicit in an omniscient, omnipotent Creator.

In my estimation.. calvinists have a distorted view of what predestination is.. because the main thrust of what pre-destination means is that God decided from before the foundation of the world that we could be adopted as sons (and daughters) of God through Jesus Christ.. although for some reason, people tend to erroneously read specific individuals into that...

I did. I had works-based salvation preachers & believers surrounding me, putting a heavy yoke on me.

That's the point basically.. it has nothing to do with tulip.. that sort of thing happens all the time.. I know tons of folks who preach a works based salvation and many have no idea what reformed thinking is..

 

[Rick Otto]

TULIP disallows works-based salvation, which is free-will dependant.
All of them that believe are individuals whose identities would not be undisclosed to the omniscient Creator of both those individuals & the future(s) they inhabit.
If He knows the number of hairs on our heads & when a sparrow falls, He knows who He created & the future He created them for. How could He not?

The only reason we can't embrace His promises is our fallen nature. It is the very reason we need divine intervention in exactly the area of our volition.

Thanks for your input, Markea.