The Arminian game of semantics

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Onwingsas...


Whoever makes the best most biblically true argument wins, that would be Mr Johnson in this thread.
Paraphrased: "Whoever makes the argument which I declare to be true, wins".

And the proof that God doesn't want us to be vegatarians is that He made cows out of meat.

In other words, your logic is something like your theology, and you need to exchange your wings for a course in critical thinking.

 

[Ben johnson]

By "most-biblically-true", he recognizes that Mr. Johnson has established specific points with precise and detailed Scripture, citing corroborrating passages.

Unless those specific points are overturned with Scripture, they stand.

That is "theological debate".

 

[Van]

There is no need for God to implement a second stage of 'crediting' after we have come to Christ, for Christ is God.

So according to RTE, Paul once again got it wrong when He taught us that God credits our faith as righteousness. Romans 4:5. LOL

 

[nobdysfool]

By "most-biblically-true", he recognizes that Mr. Johnson has established specific points with precise and detailed Scripture, citing corroborrating passages.

Unless those specific points are overturned with Scripture, they stand.

That is "theological debate".

Let another sing your praises, and not your own lips. MR. Johnson

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Van:
Who decides it is "real belief." God does, Romans 4:5 for He credits our belief as righteousness, or not depending on whether He accepts our belief as "real belief." You want to bypass God's validation of "real belief" and simply assume it, then say God's validation is a rubber stamp. LOL

Next John 1:12-13 teaches we receive Christ before we are given the right to become children of God. That is how the verse reads, folks, just read it. ​

Excellent, Van.

Quote:
Next, before we are born again we can trust in God and then turn away, just like the folks who fell in the wilderness. They trusted in God to take them out of Egypt, but did not trust God to lead them to victory in the promised land. But under the new covenant, once a person is born again, (our) faith does not continue on as usual, as before we were born again, able to turn back.​

On what basis do you perceive that our faith changes? Faith can be deceived to unbelief; spoken in 2Tim2:11-13, more clear in Col2:6-8 and 2Pet3:17. Also in 1Tim4:1; warned in 1Jn2:26-28, 2Jn1:7-9, and many other places...

Quote:
No, after we are born again, our faith continues on with steadfastness by the power of God, for we are kept so that we will receive our inheritance.​

Jude says "Build yourselves in holy faith, keep yourselves in the love of God."

Let's look at 2Cor11:3: "I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, you also would be led astray from the purity and simplicity of devotion to Christ."

How do you perceive that, Van? Is this "hypothetical-can't-happen"? Or is it "led-astray, but still-saved"?

 

[Blood]

Is this "hypothetical-can't-happen"? Or is it "led-astray, but still-saved"?
You have confused yourself with your own confusing phraseology. You are a victim of your own confussion

Do you find it impossible to talk straight?

 

[Van]

Hi Ben, I did not say it changes, I said after we are born again, God prevents us from loss of faith. I base this on 1 Peter 1:3-5. God keeps us in a locked cell so that we will receive our inheritance. If the cell door was open, we would not be being kept. So the Arminian view redefines the meaning of kept, as in a jail cell.

Can our faith be deceived after salvation, after God has caused us to be born again?
You say this fiction is supported by 2 Timothy 2:11-13. No, it says just the opposite!
If we died with Him we shall live with Him. See any conditional, does it read, if we died with Him we might live with Him? Nope. So score one for Van. If we endure we shall reign with Him. A conditional concerning what. If we died with Him, we know we will endure. So if we endure, we died with Him. Works for me. If we deny Him, we did not endure so we did not ever die for Him. And so He will deny us. He will say on that day, Depart from me, I never knew you. He will not say Depart from me, I knew you once but I left the cell door open and you got separated from my love. Not how scripture reads.

Then it says If we are faithless, meaning we did not endure because we did not die with Him, He remains faithful to His promise, He will deny us, otherwise His word would not be true and He would deny Himself. Something He does not do.

So the support for your fiction is no where to be found in 2 Timothy 2:11-13.

Next passage that supposedly supports your fiction, Colossians 2:6-8. Here you make the unwarranted and unsupportable inference that to be taken captive refers to loss of faith in Christ. But what does it really refer to? Being led astray by false doctrine so that their ministry would be hindered. So no support found here either. I could plow through them all, there is no actual support for loss of salvation, but lots of support for loss of rewards or more accurately loss of the benefits of earning rewards.

 

[Eric_C]

By "most-biblically-true", he recognizes that Mr. Johnson has established specific points with precise and detailed Scripture, citing corroborrating passages.

Unless those specific points are overturned with Scripture, they stand.

That is "theological debate".

What? Are we now on the Petermen reality tour, "Jimmy makes the shot" and all that?

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Van,


There is no need for God to implement a second stage of 'crediting' after we have come to Christ, for Christ is God.
So according to RTE, Paul once again got it wrong when He taught us that God credits our faith as righteousness. Romans 4:5. LOL
Rather, your linguistic unlearnedness is showing.

The word is "count" not "credit". That is, God observes that our faith is itself righteousness (He 'counts up what He witnesses and comes to a total', so to speak), and does not, as you seem to think, implement a second stage of arbitrarily ascribing a value to it.

The actual relevant definition in the OED is "consider a thing to be (so & so)". That is, God's counting our faith as righteousness is His considering our faith to be itself righteousness, and not as you erroneously declare, His separately and arbitrarily ascribing a mark to such faith.

So it is not the ergative act of crediting, but the passive act of recognising.


And so you don't know what you are talking about. (You really have no idea.)

 

[Van]

I think this is the first redefinition I have see of this word. But the pattern continues, a verse demonstrates Calvinism is wrong and someone posts a redefinition. LOL

And then the post closes with, "you do not know what you are talking about." LOL

Folks, this is all they have. It is God's action, not ours that considers, reckons, credits, counts our faith as righteousness, not ours. Romans 4:5.

 

[onwingsaseagles]

If salvation was based on God's sovereign will alone then none would perish, but all would be saved.

2nd Peter 3:9 as well as 1st Timothy 2:4 both say it is God's will that all be saved.

Anyone that truly believes that God's true sovereign will is done are not calvinists they are universalists.

The truth is God want all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, but He has from His own sovereign decision given us the freedom to choose or reject the gift of salvation for ourselves.

None of you have even attempted to refute this truth.



“O, Calvinist, Calvinist, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told you your children the plain truth... and ye would not let them understand.”

 

[nobdysfool]

None of you have even attempted to refute this truth.



“O, Calvinist, Calvinist, thou that distortest the prophets and misinterpretest them that are sent unto thee; how often have I told you your children the plain truth... and ye would not let them understand.”

Give us time, we can't deal with everything at once. You're as bad as ben, demanding that people answer you on your time table as though you were the controller of debate.

I see you borrowed your sig from someone else. How original....

 

[onwingsaseagles]

Give us time, we can't deal with everything at once. You're as bad as ben, demanding that people answer you on your time table as though you were the controller of debate.

I see you borrowed your sig from someone else. How original....

I just use it in this forum, just for you.

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Isn't this a funny one. Your own theology would say that "oh they might be shut off NOW but if 'evangelized' they WILL enter at a future time evangelists humanly proclaim" --- making it "not-really-shut-off for the 'elect'."​

The point is that Jesus ascribes no time --- "shut off" means "shut off". Against the argument that "they MAY become saved in the future", Jesus said: "You make them TWICE a child of Hell than YOU are."

Excuse me: "shut off" is a massive statement for the future. Someone who is shut off from heaven is prevented from entering (which Jesus also says). You're saying the Pharisees have this power. So I guess humans don't have free will. Neither does God. Just the Pharisees.

Embrace Jesus' expression of outrage. But don't try to make it into some forensic soteriology. The Pharisees are simply opposing God. Jesus is describing what they're attempting in a manner that is accusatory, extreme, but not forensic, nor descriptive. Jesus is describing their intent.

This is flatly clear. You can't possibly assert that every Pharisee there has walked hundreds of miles for a convert. You can't possibly assert that every Pharisee has completely neglected weightier matters of the Law. And yet here, you assert Jesus is speaking like a mathematical textbook.

It's funny, were it not so sad. Listen to its being stated. Listen to the words. Hear what the words mean, what they communicate to their hearers, not what you think a computer might conclude about some 20th century soteriology from the grammar. Then apply that.

Otherwise your position is lost.

You're right that as long as a man is alive, there is a chance of him "returning to belief". But there is a world of difference between "shut off, but may CEASE being shut off if they believe", and "shut off but God ALWAYS PREDESTINED them to belief".

Jesus ascribes no time during which they might "CEASE being shut off".

Your arguments work well against you. That's the essence of a self-inconsistent argument.

One is "really shut off", the other is "not really shut off". How can a sovereign-predestined-person EVER be "shut off from Heaven"?

You equivocate this verse. It's a grammatical paradox. You can't but equivocate this verse. The person is "not really shut off" in your view. So by your own argument, your view is fallen.

God doesn't let people remain persuaded by the Pharisees, if they're predestined by Him to eternal life. Obviously, if "shut off" is temporary, then the sovereignly-predestined-person is temporarily "shut off from Heaven". It's no trouble the moment your answers are applied to the Calvinistic assertion. But sadly your bias prevents your seeing that as well. Of course the elect can be shut off from Heaven. They can undergo "God's withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light". But did you take that into account? No. You just stated another falsehood about Calvinism and hurtled on.

But this, this position is plastered to the wall by its own argument against Sovereign Grace. All it takes is a clear eye. It just can't see through the log in its own eye. The opposition is so far biased against others, it's inadvertently blitzed its own replacement.

This position doesn't hold consistently. Calvinism does.

Quote:
The reality is that your own theology even has a problem with your own complaint, Ben.​

In my understanding, there is a CHANCE for a "shut-off" person to be restored --- but the chance is severely lessened by Jesus' words, "twice-child-of-Hell".

And yet the words demand an impossibility. How do you read, "child of Hell"? Who's doing the birthing?

In YOUR understanding, ALL of those who "ARE ENTERING" will enter at a FUTURE time.

In actuality, YOU didn't even represent my view properly. It's been clearly demonstrated that you know nothing of Calvinistic thought, so it's readily concluded that your assertion is false. You've alleged falsehoods throughout these threads about Calvinism, and won't take them back. "You persist, 'We see!' Your sin remains."

But your assertion is that those who "prevent them from entering" ... aren't REALLY preventing them. Your argument continues to work well against your view.

An inconsistent argument is a false argument.

That's the problem with grammatical paradoxes. You will offend the wooden meaning of the words.

If one person who "was entering", is not restored, then in your view he was not really entering, was he?

A group of people "entering a coliseum" do not necessarily enter, all of them. The word defines a group of people presumed to be headed into the coliseum. There is no one point in time where they all assuredly enter. They're just "people entering". Some may leave the line in. They were still "people entering".

this is a persistent problem in your interpretation of the common use of language, Ben. Learn how language is used, and you'll find most of these attempts at teasing out a meaning that was never meant, evaporate in a puff of smoke.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Van:
Hi Ben, I did not say it changes, I said after we are born again, God prevents us from loss of faith. I base this on 1 Peter 1:3-5. God keeps us in a locked cell so that we will receive our inheritance. If the cell door was open, we would not be being kept. So the Arminian view redefines the meaning of kept, as in a jail cell.​

Hi, Van. Let's look at 1Pet1:3-4:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are pretected by the power of God THROUGH FAITH for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." The bold part is verse 5.

So Peter says the inheritance is impershable/undefiled/will-not-fade --- AND Peter says it is reserved in Heaven for us. Then Peter says we are protected by God's power, THROUGH FAITH. You and I agree that faith is causal to salvation --- Jesus died that all WHO believe, be saved. 100% of men CAN believe, God does not desire ANYONE to perish. "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, so repent and live." Ezk18:32

So if salvation begins by faith, then why can it not end by faith? Scripture says we are protected by His power, THROUGH faith. In Jude1:20-21, we are to "Build OURSELVES in holy faith, KEEP OURSELVES in His love".

In Heb3:6-8, we are to guard outselves against hardening our hearts, against being hardened by sin to falling away from God; we are parnters in Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.

This then is the difference between your understanding, and mine --- does man COME to God initially, BY faith? (You and I agree he does.) Does man WALK in Christ by the SAME faith? I perceive "yes", you perceive "God KEEPS believers IN faith".

Quote:
Can our faith be deceived after salvation, after God has caused us to be born again?
You say this fiction is supported by 2 Timothy 2:11-13. No, it says just the opposite!
If we died with Him we shall live with Him. See any conditional, does it read, if we died with Him we might live with Him? Nope. So score one for Van. If we endure we shall reign with Him. A conditional concerning what. If we died with Him, we know we will endure. So if we endure, we died with Him. Works for me. If we deny Him, we did not endure so we did not ever die for Him.​

Nooooo! It does not say "we did not EVER die" --- it says "WE" --- presenting two possible eventualities:

1. If we died/endure/abide in Him
2. If we deny/are-faithless

IOW, if we do NOT endure in Him, if we BECOME faithless!

Quote:
And so He will deny us. He will say on that day, Depart from me, I never knew you. He will not say Depart from me, I knew you once but I left the cell door open and you got separated from my love. Not how scripture reads. ​

Yes, that is exactly how it reads. Consider again the Galatians --- they BEGAN in the Spirit (3:3), they were RUNNING WELL and obeying the truth (5:7), they knew God and were known BY God (4:9); but by turning away from God and back to "Law" (works), they became "severed/separated from Christ" and "FALLEN from grace".

In no sense can these be cast as "never-really-were-saved" --- they were known by God. And in no sense can they be described as "still-saved", they were severed/separated/FALLEN. Turned away from Christ. AND, in no sense can this be viewed as "Oh it's a HYPOTHETICAL, can't REALLY happen, just a fatherly warning designed to KEEP us saved."

Quote:'
Then it says If we are faithless, meaning we did not endure because we did not die with Him, He remains faithful to His promise, He will deny us, otherwise His word would not be true and He would deny Himself. Something He does not do.​

You're imposing "never-were-died". But it's the same "we". If WE died with Him, WE will live; if WE endure, WE will reign. (But) if WE deny Him and WE are faithless --- that's a possible position, Van.

Quote:
So the support for your fiction is no where to be found in 2 Timothy 2:11-13.​

He says "WE" --- not "we-saved, along with WE-UNSAVED". Paul could not have meant that.

Quote:
Next passage that supposedly supports your fiction, Colossians 2:6-8. Here you make the unwarranted and unsupportable inference that to be taken captive refers to loss of faith in Christ. But what does it really refer to? Being led astray by false doctrine so that their ministry would be hindered. So no support found here either.​

"False doctrine"? Exactly what does that mean? Worldly philosophy always denies that Jesus is the CHRIST, Van.

Exactly WHAT is it that men are deceived TO, that is still SAVED? Paul clearly says "rather than according to Christ". But you see some sort of "fence-straddling-position", that is deceived/world-philosophy/men-tradition but STILL UNITED WITH CHRIST! Jesus Himself said "He who is not FOR Me, is AGAINST ME." There is no "middle-place"!

Quote:
I could plow through them all, there is no actual support for loss of salvation, but lots of support for loss of rewards or more accurately loss of the benefits of earning rewards.​

Let's look at 2Jn1:7-9.
"Many deceivers have gone into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (Gnostics, "worldly philosophy" and "empty deception") --- this is the deceiver and the antichrist. WATCH YOURSELVES (against those deceivers!) that you not lose what we (you) have accomplished/wrought, but that you may receive a full reward; anyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, HAS NOT GOD. He who abides, has the Father and the Son."

In any sense can "not-abide-in-CHrist's-teachings", be considered "still-saved"? No. The deceived position is therefore:

1. Lose full reward
2. Lose what was wrought
3. NOT HAVE CHRIST

Deception is ALWAYS meant to lead us away from Christ and away from salvation.

What's the point of "deception", if not "from salvation itself"? Why would the devil care how many CROWNS we have in Heaven?

"I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, YOU would ALSO be led astray from the purity and simplicity of devotion to Christ." 2Cor11:3

That is aslo not a "deceived-SAVED" position --- "deceived", is NOT saved.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Van,


It is God's action, not ours that considers, reckons, credits, counts our faith as righteousness, not ours. Romans 4:5.
To consider something as righteous, entails no addition to the thing itself: the thing being considered possesses its own merit, which is then recognised by God for what it is.

So your idea that there is a second act of God which arbitrarily credits our coming to Christ as righteousness, is wrong.

The Christian's faith is recognised by God as righteous of itself. Hence "count", and never "credit".

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

NOTE TO FELLOW 5-POINTERS.

I have started this thread to specifically deal with the false dichotomies and false fusions the Arminian employs. The thread is specifically designed to deal with semantics.

Poster Johnson, among others, has as usual seen this thread as opportunity to do his usual cut and paste jobs. Most of you should realise that he doesn't type responses afresh, but edits his past writings and recombines them to make it look like he is responding to what you are saying. This saves him a lot of time.

You need to understand that poster Johnson talks about the same things no matter what the thread is about. That is, he strings you along with the full spectrum of his doctrine, and does not confine it to the thread topic.

So on every thread he will argue about the security of the Christian, faith, predestination, man's responsibility to have faith, election, being born again....etc. It matters not what the thread is about: he will argue about every aspect on every thread.

This sort of tactic is similar in method to what some law firms do when they conceal documents necessary for the opposition to win its case by assigning their own peculiar numbering system to their archives, burying the information while at the same time complying with the letter of the law.

Poster Johnson buries you continually in a plethora of tabloid 'theology', which is simply continual rearrangement of bible verses.


You need to be aware also of his tactics which begin like this:

"have you noticed this verse, and how it links with this verse....while you're at it, look over here at this...yes this here...see it?....what do you think about it?.....yes over here.....look....see?....yes you see it don't you......have you noticed how it links with this.....?.........so let me ask you a question:"........?".......I look forward to your explanation of this verse.....".


Fellow 5-pointers. Learn the art of debate.

1. Only deal with the thread topic.
2. Do not respond to a response which takes you away from the thread topic (do not deal with tangents)
3. Always be concise.
4. Never proof text.
5. Unless you are very experienced, do not deal with any more than 2 points at a time.
6. Never move to another point unless your opponent has responded fully to the existing points.
7. NEVER assume your opponent is born again. NEVER.


Please discipline yourselves to only deal with the thread topics. You need to be as wise as serpents, but are at present too easily led.

 

[Eric_C]

"have you noticed this verse, and how it links with this verse....while you're at it, look over here at this...yes this here...see it?....what do you think about it?.....yes over here.....look....see?....yes you see it don't you......have you noticed how it links with this.....?.........so let me ask you a question:"........?".......I look forward to your explanation of this verse.....".

Yes he does do this. It appears more like this to me, in rapid succession.

"What about this?" "Look at that" "What about that?" "Look at this" "Over here there is this and over there, there is that, and if this is that, and that is this, then how can this be this"

I don't engage him because I know that he will do this in an attempt to bury any point I have to make. An other thing that I've noticed is that the threads he participates in usually end up being over 500 posts long. I don't think that many of the silent onlookers/readers ever read through the threads that are that long. And unless they have been following along from the beginning; they're not likely to see that he has been refuted over and over and over and over again.

I try to stay away from those long threads because of this. It would probably be a good idea for this sub forum to adopt a post-per-thread limit, it would require poster's to be more concise in their arguments--just a thought.

Note to Ben: I mean no disrespect to your person.

Fellow 5-pointers. Learn the art of debate.
1. Only deal with the thread topic.
2. Do not respond to a response which takes you away from the thread topic (do not deal with tangents)
3. Always be concise.
4. Never proof text.
5. Unless you are very experienced, do not deal with any more than 2 points at a time.
6. Never move to another point unless your opponent has responded fully to the existing points.
7. NEVER assume your opponent is born again. NEVER.

Would you mind defining the term proof text? I've seen that used an awful lot in these debates and its meaning is unclear to me. That is, I haven't been able to figure out its meaning based on the different ways I've seen it used.

In Peace and God bless
Eric_C

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RTE:
NOTE TO FELLOW 5-POINTERS.

I have started this thread to specifically deal with the false dichotomies and false fusions the Arminian employs. The thread is specifically designed to deal with semantics.​

Who defines those "semantics"? I showed you several verses that are defined by Calvinists with "non-credible semantics". You have not overturned Scriptural absolutes presented here.

Quote:
Poster Johnson, among others, has as usual seen this thread as opportunity to do his usual cut and paste jobs. Most of you should realise that he doesn't type responses afresh, but edits his past writings and recombines them to make it look like he is responding to what you are saying. This saves him a lot of time.​

A baseless charge --- every letter is HAND-TYPED. True I can type very fast, exceeded 80 wpm in my high school typing class; but I've devoted considerable time and effort here.

Quote:
You need to understand that poster Johnson talks about the same things no matter what the thread is about. That is, he strings you along with the full spectrum of his doctrine, and does not confine it to the thread topic.​

Your "confine-to-subect", is a narrow dictate intended to prove "Predestination". My posts have overturned that premise. That you do not like those refutations, does not mean what I've posted is "false" or "off-topic".

Quote:
So on every thread he will argue about the security of the Christian, faith, predestination, man's responsibility to have faith, election, being born again....etc. It matters not what the thread is about: he will argue about every aspect on every thread.​

I showed how the semantics are "redefined" based on preconceived positions. How "Predestination" does the EXACT THING this thread accuses others of, and I've shown how the supposed erred semantics of "Responsible Grace", are not erred.

QUote:
This sort of tactic is similar in method to what some law firms do when they conceal documents necessary for the opposition to win its case by assigning their own peculiar numbering system to their archives, burying the information while at the same time complying with the letter of the law.​

Let's translate this into plain English:

What Poster Johnson has done, is establish Scriptural dictate that DENIES any form of "eternal security", INCLUDING "predestination". Thus, the PREMISE of this thread (that "Predestination" uses good semantics, and "Responsible Grace" uses bad) is overturned.

Quote:
Poster Johnson buries you continually in a plethora of tabloid 'theology', which is simply continual rearrangement of bible verses.​

And if you would respond to those verses, we'd see that "predestination is overturned.

Quote:
You need to be aware also of his tactics which begin like this:

"have you noticed this verse, and how it links with this verse....while you're at it, look over here at this...yes this here...see it?....what do you think about it?.....yes over here.....look....see?....yes you see it don't you......have you noticed how it links with this.....?.........so let me ask you a question:"........?".......I look forward to your explanation of this verse.....".


Fellow 5-pointers. Learn the art of debate.

1. Only deal with the thread topic.
2. Do not respond to a response which takes you away from the thread topic (do not deal with tangents)
3. Always be concise.
4. Never proof text.
5. Unless you are very experienced, do not deal with any more than 2 points at a time.
6. Never move to another point unless your opponent has responded fully to the existing points.
7. NEVER assume your opponent is born again. NEVER.


Please discipline yourselves to only deal with the thread topics. You need to be as wise as serpents, but are at present too easily led.​

In short (and I mean this respectfully), "Do not respond to positions that you cannot defend, ONLY answer Scripture that you CAN defend in a 'predestinary' view."[/b]

Again with respect, unless you answer the precise and detailed Scripture assertions, we will consider your position "refuted".

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Eric_C:
Note to Ben: I mean no disrespect to your person.​

I appreciate that.

If you could do me a favor --- pick a post of mine on this thread (perhaps #27, or even #2) --- and tell me how it's "burying under a plethora of tabloid theology".

Quote:
And unless they have been following along from the beginning; they're not likely to see that he has been refuted over and over and over and over again.
​

Here's your chance --- a short thread, where you can respond to one or two posts (#2, and #27). Refute with Scripture what I've said. Unless that refutation is advanced, we'll assume what I've said (and supported with Scripture), stands.