Verses of single soteriological meaning; barrier to "Predestination"

[cygnusx1]

I disagree but this is not the thread to debate this

and because you disagree , you recognise that ben will continue in confusion , a confusion that is unnecessary , and makes his arguements look legitimate .


I can quite see why you don't want to debate this here!

tell me why is God patient , kind , and longsuffering (all attributes of LOVE , see ICor 13) with vessels for destruction ?


In Hyper/High Calvinism there is no point at all in God being patient with reprobates , for to what end is God being patient if "He just wants to damn them by hardening them arbitrarily"

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Mike. All sin is "willful"; but it is the "continue" that endangers us. After each sin, we are faced with the exact same choice --- to sin again, or to repent and run to our Lord.

So ... apparently you can be "a little pregnant" ... and your initial allegation falls.

Why do you say that? A "fully saved" person can continue to be saved, or can turn back to sin. Do you argue with what was happening in Paul's letter to the Galatians? They were "begun in the Spirit", "running well", "obeying the truth", "KNOWN by God". But in turning to weak/worthless things, AWAY from God, they are "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace".

In the "pregnancy" analogy, they WERE fully pregnant, but the pregnancy ended. Consider it a "miscarriage"...

What do you think "thinks he stands" means in verse 12??? (More rhetoric clearly on its way on this verse.)

Since you asked for my opinion, it seems remarkably parallel to Rom11, "Do not be conceited, but fear; if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God --- to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness, otherwise you will also be CUT OFF. And they, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in gain...."

I'm not missing the dynamic. Apparently you are, though, for you said '"saving-faith" is not "gifted by God", and that it precedess regeneration'. Salvation is through faith (Ep 2); yet to you God does not give faith. You do. So in your scheme salvation is through yourself?

I can't understand how you can ask that --- faith that receives His grace, is still "salvation by His sacrifice". I receive His grace by my faith; do I save myself? Certainly not --- I receive His salvation.

Is it "Ben's scheme", or is it Paul's, when he says "with the HEART man BELIEVES"? Rm10:10

What does "keep yourself in His love" mean to you?

And if I have no participation in my own salvation (by receiving His grace), why does the concept of "SAVE YOURSELF" exist in Scripture? 1Tim4:16

James 1:14-16 is clear. So is James 5:19-20. Aren't they?

No.

Why not? In James1, the passage is addressed to "beloved brethren". Clearly SAVED. He warns not to be deceived --- how? By allowing lust to tempt and overcome, and give birth to sin, which brings DEATH.

What kind of "death" do you see in that passage, Mike?

In ch5, again "brethren" are warned against "wandering away from the truth". The concept is of being "brought back", and having "sins covered". The idea of "back" only works if they had been there "before", so too "wander from truth". Concepts like "soul-death" and "uncovered-sins", can only mean "unsaved". What's not clear in Jame's words, Mike?

Look to the context of my statement, Ben. And quit twisting it out of that context. You're pulling each verse as if it speaks directly, explicitly to your cause.

But it doesn't.

Can you tell me why not?

You allege one set of verses implies something eternal. Yet it doesn't say so. So the new verses suffer the same contextual challenges as the old. When I propose verses that actually say "eternal destruction" and "eternal life", you appear to be counterarguing with statements -- at a minimum -- that are less clear.

There is no deficit of clarity. "Brethren, if any among you wander from the truth", means what it says --- at face value.

You're willing to stubbornly hold on to the contradiction rather than accept the simplicity of what was written.

1. Men are at enmity against God, hostile and full of hatred; they can only pursue sin.

2. SOME of those God-haters CAN embrace the truth, but only on a "professing-superficial" (non-saved) level. Per Lk8:13, some "God-hating, enmity-against-truth, ONLY-seeking-sin can receive the Word with JOY and BELIEVE --- but you insist it's a "superficial, UNSAVED belief, because they fall! (And you accuse me of "presumption"?)

3. And if those UNSAVED LURKERS wander from truth they never HAD, but then are brought back to where they never WERE (to REAL salvation), they will now be saved (when they were not BEFORE).

I do not understand why you see no contradiction between your platform and Scripture.

I'm merely showing the verses that speak explicitly.

But they don't speak "explicitly". Each verse offered, has been shown not to support "predestination".

You're picking over verses that are pushed into eternal or soteriological meaning by implication.

These verses you think are "secondary", are not; they do not contain eternal consequence by IMPLICATION, but by direct relation.

Might they refer to eternal issues? Sure.

No --- there is no way they do NOT.

Are they focused explicitly on those eternal issues? No.

Yes they are --- I hope you'll deal with what I just said about James5:19-20.

And as a result, to try to deduce a machinery of operation about eternal issues, from a glancing , possible reference to those issues, is not convincing to me. Let's start where Scripture is clear -- explicit, I believe? Let's build a view from clarity. Then let's look at statements less clear and apply what those explicit statements say.

Cite any statement you wish --- we'll discuss the context and meaning.

And where there is ambiguity in Scripture, then ambiguity remains.

What if "ambiguity", is implied rather than extant?

Then follows in your postings the predictable voluminous attempts to argue a word into Scripture where it doesn't exist. That's the point of my complaint. How many words will it take you to insert a word where it doesn't exist?

WHO is doing the inserting, Mike? In your paradigm, "brethren any among you", becomes "any unsaved-only-professing-LURKING among you-SAVED". Do you deny it?

Aren't you revealing the fact that it doesn't exist, by the volume of words you're drawing into your argument? And aren't you also revealing the fact that you are injecting assumptions by the very existence of these volumes of posturing?

I'm trying to prove, by correlation with the rest of Scripture, what my colleagues are so stubborn to resist.

If we have to build by evaluating assumptions, well, there are infinite assumptions made about Scripture. That task is fruitless. Begin with Scripture, where Scripture addresses things directly. Then we can go from there.

Gosh --- I would love to.

Can we deal with the verses in the opening posts? Seems to me those Scriptures address things directly.

Why does Jesus praise "unseen belief" over "seen belief", if "saving-belief" is gifted to us by God?

Why does Jesus speak of "stumbling to falling into HELL", warning us that "not even our own BODY PARTS are worth risking destruction, if they would CAUSE us to perish"?

Why did Jesus state that the scribes and Pharisees were shutting off Heaven from those who WERE ENTERING? Can "were entering", be changed into "weren't really being saved"? Can "shut off from Heaven", be changed into "not really shut off"?

Isn't it a fact that Scripture is to interpret Scripture on controversial issues, to keep polemicizing from straying people from the truth?

Not sure what you're asking here. Scripture is used to interpret Scripture --- that is why when so may verses oppose "predestination", we must return to the verses THOUGHT to endorse it to seek the real intent of the writers.

Of course there is another understanding when the demand is that you argue at length for one in particular. That answer is quite simple. The argument you're proffering never establishes cause and effect -- and really couldn't.

So what's your understanding? WERE they in "saved-truth"? Or are they to be led "back to where they never WERE"?

I see you're quite convinced in your view. I think people can draw near to the Savior and then draw away from Him, without actually being saved.

Explain to me how depraved, God-hating (enmity) depraved unregenerates can DRAW NEAR to the Savior? Do you accept "total depravity", or not?

Yet for you, is that nearness being saved, and drawing away, being unsaved?

In James5:19-20, were they saved, or only near? Did they fall, or not?

In Matt23:13, were they entering or not? Did they become "shut off from Heaven" by the Pharisees, or not?

If it is, well, your opinion doesn't really qualify as Scripture.

And there's the question, isn't it? It is OPINION, or Scriptural fact? You have not proven "mere opinion".

If not, well, why would "wandering from salvation" imply anything about being saved in the first place?

How can one come BACK to where he never WAS?

 

[Ben johnson]

So your view that this is "being saved/being unsaved" is not demanded by Scripture. Your view is an opinion injected into Scripture.

Please tell me how "are entering" can mean anything other than "being saved". Can you?

Um, can't you see the inconsistency in your own view right here? If saving faith comes from wisdom by studying Scripture, wouldn't those who studied it the most have saving faith?

Yet they didn't (1 Cor 1).

Here you're still refusing to consider "VOLITION". Not everyone who studies Scripture, MUST believe. Jesus justly rebukes them for REFUSING to believe! That is as "opposite" to predestination as can be.

So there is a contrast between those who study, and BELIEVE (2Tim3:15), and those who study and WILL not come to Jesus (Jn5:39-40). And NONE of that fits "predestination".

1Cor1 also opposes "predestination". Can we discuss it?

No, Ben. Here's the problem, Ben. By your extensive argument you convinced yourself that your view is in the Scripture. And you're constantly tearing at other views with your own preconceptions as to how they work.

But it isn't.

OK, explain to me how "ARE ENTERING", does not mean "believing". Unless you can DO that, then YOUR view is the "presupposition", rather than "are-entering = believing".

At best yours is one view of many that these Scriptures will accept.

Wrong --- only if "are entering" can become anything BUT "truly Heaven-bound" (which must be consistent with the contextual opposite of "shut-off from Heaven"). Unless you can do that, then that verse fully refutes "predestination".

You've injected plenty of presuppositions into your view of the Scripture, and polemicized against the alternative.

But your view falls on the same sword. When you branch out, your view confronts verses that explicitly bring yours into question:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? Rom 9:18-21

And what presuppositions are you injecting, by thinking Rom9:18-21 is "predestinary"?

That passage is ONLY saying, "If God wants to also save the Gentiles, who are YOU to OBJECT?!" Or do you deny the anti predestinary meaning of verses 9:30-33?

Why did they fall short, Mike? BECAUSE they sought by works rather than by grace --- in your doctrine, that is a major "oops"....

No.

I say they first were enlightened by God to desire Him, and the others, they did not believe because they by their own wilful natures rejected God, and are responsible as all are responsible for their sins before God's justice.

OK, that's not what 2Tim2:15 and Jn5:39-47 say. Is it? Every word of that is "external to the passage", isn't it?

(And nowhere in Scripture is that concept explicit, is it?)

It's interesting to me that you would pick these allegations as well. Dordt:
those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:

that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness
Your allegations are as offensive as they are false. People aren't reprobate simply because God didn't elect them. All people qualify as reprobate. God commits to rescuing some from an otherwise certain destruction.

And here Jesus is saying "You WILL not believe, BECAUSE you seek men's glory rather than God's, you even REFUSE to believe MOSES --- so HOW can you believe ME???

See any of "God first enlightening them so that they WILL believe"? Zero, Mike. You have to do to DORT to find it. It's not in Scripture...

But you don't see the difference, and no doubt will rattle on to decide they are equivalent because they result in the same thing.

I've demonstrated that the very thing you accuse me of (inserting ideas by presupposition), is the basis of "predestination". No offense meant, Mike.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but your theology and mine result in the same thing. We're describing the same reality. So on a reductionistic argument there must not be a difference between your theology and mine. The logic reaches a contradiction. You can't evaluate theology based on common results.

How are they the same?

It's just absurd to be blind to the failings of your own theology and expect another's to be rejected on its same failings.

You have yet to expose "failings" in Responsible Grace; I've shown many failings in "Reformed Theology". Unless you can answer the opening posts (and discussed in THIS post), then we'll consider "Responsible Grace" the theme of Scripture...

In short, this has become so predictable as to be absurd. This isn't even a debate. It's reduced to ridicule.

There is no ridicule here, Mike; I've been laboring against a considerable web of theology comprising "Reformed Theology". As I've often stated, it's simply imposition of one or more of the Five-Ways:

1. Subjects weren't really saved in the first place
2. Subjects didn't really fall
3. Two groups --- one UNSAVED lurking amongst the saved
4. Hypothetical --- either subjects or incident isn't real, "advice/means to keep us in line"
5. Dispensation --- applied to them back THEN but not to us here TODAY

Unless you can find a way to make it credible that "are entering", doesn't mean "are believing/being-saved", or that "wandered from the truth but are brought back" doesn't mean "that they were IN truth BEFORE", it will be proven that Reformed Theology is the suppositional and eisegetic doctrine...

 

[Ben johnson]

Great post HeyMikey80 !!! ^

Not really; "Reformed Theology" is crumbling, Cygnus. Actually, it always has been --- but I think it's becoming apparent in proponents eyes'....

But the final cause of their unbelief is their rejection by God.

Exactly. And that flat opposes the concept of "they will have no excuse".

Two possibilities:
1. The final cause of unbelief is GOD (perfect excuse)
2. The final cause of unbelief is VOLITION (no excuse)

The second rejection by God is because of sin , God judicially punishes , hardens , hands over to evil , and blinds men to the truth . Why ? Because they hated the truth!

He said it right, Cygnus --- it's either GOD'S choice, or MAN'S; no more "stridling the fence".

The problem of confusing these two causes is clearly seen by Arminians like Ben , and that is why Calvinists like heymikey80 are offended and do the clarifying.

He's clarified nothing; unless he can answer the questions I've asked (or you can), Responsible Grace will win the day. Every point of his post has been overturned by Scripture.

"Your allegations are as offensive as they are false. People aren't reprobate simply because God didn't elect them. All people qualify as reprobate. God commits to rescuing some from an otherwise certain destruction." heymikey80

Nevertheless, it is God's DESIRE that they perish, else He would SAVE them. And this opposes both the entire theme of Scripture, and God's very nature.

"God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE." Ezk18:24

 

[Ben johnson]

Debate with Ben is not possible, because his main plan of attack is to overwhelm people with such a volume of verbiage, that they can't keep up.

Ben has very precisely and methodically refuted every point, Scripturally. Ben has issued challenges to explain certain things in Scripture; challenges that can be ignored, but cannot be answered.

He must be the world's fastest typist, either that or he has a huge stockpile of boilerplate stuff he can cut and paste.

I typed every word of the previous posts, thank you.

Now watch, he will claim to be highly offended that someone would speak against his tactics this way.

Not at all --- I am aware of how "ridicule" is the last desperate gasp of those who have no logical response. I mean no offense; if there is logical response, we'll see...

But, I ask you, have I detailed what actually happens? Have I exaggerated or charged wrongly? And in all this I have not called into question Ben's standing before the Lord, because I believe him to be saved, the same as I do myself.

Thank you, Jim; you know that I know you're saved.

My objections are not to Ben as person, or as a Christian brother, but to his debate tactics and methods, and a sincere desire to see him learn the way of the Gospel more perfectly.

Hah hah! Translates, "embrace Predestined-Election". But each predestinary assertion has been refuted, and likely will continue to be.

Reformed Theology seems to be a sinking ship, my friend...

 

[cygnusx1]

Not really; "Reformed Theology" is crumbling, Cygnus. Actually, it always has been --- but I think it's becoming apparent in proponents eyes'....
Exactly. And that flat opposes the concept of "they will have no excuse".

Two possibilities:
1. The final cause of unbelief is GOD (perfect excuse)
2. The final cause of unbelief is VOLITION (no excuse)
He said it right, Cygnus --- it's either GOD'S choice, or MAN'S; no more "stridling the fence".
He's clarified nothing; unless he can answer the questions I've asked (or you can), Responsible Grace will win the day. Every point of his post has been overturned by Scripture.
Nevertheless, it is God's DESIRE that they perish, else He would SAVE them. And this opposes both the entire theme of Scripture, and God's very nature.

"God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE." Ezk18:24

that post of yours is complete bluff and blunder ben.

The only position that is crumbling is your own , you have been turned over hundreds of times not just with scripture but with false arguemnents about Hypers , remember!


why do you do that ben ?

I clarified the Reformed position and you merely wish to declarify it again!

man is fully responsible for his own condemnation , God calls all men to repent .

As for your simply proof texting with EZK 18 , does it EVER occur to you that God's will is varied ?


It is not merely a question of God not willing any to perish , that is far too simple and ignores all the relevant scriptures.

What is needed is balance .

You state God wishes none to perish , but men still perish , AV11 says God wishes all except the elect to perish because God hates everyone who is not elect ........


you are both wrong!

And the reason you are both wrong is that you have failed to look at every scripture and draw a balance.

You will quote scriptures that appeal to your position and ignore (or supress) scriptures that speak of reprobation. AV11 will do just the same as you but from the opposite end of the arguement , ie, he will quote scriptures that teach reprobation , and reprobation , God hardening and blinding sinners , and God taking delight when sinners are destroyed are all in the sacred scriptures , it is unavoidable , unless someone has a pentient for twisting and hacking and hewing at the text.


and no I don't stride the fence , you wish that Reformed Confessional Calvinism was the same as that "brand" pushed by AV11 and the sort pushed by Hypers , that would make your arguement appear to have weight , but it isn't and your arguement against Confessional Calvinism carries no weight at all. So cease from quoting me and AV11 in the same breath , and confuting two positions together as if they are the same ....... otherwise I will quote you along with a bunch of liberals , and that might get your attention!


One more thing ben , if AV11 said it right , then why are you not accepting his position ben ?

God is LOVE!

 

[Ben johnson]

an is fully responsible for his own condemnation , God calls all men to repent .

Please tell me how man is responsible for what he CANNOT avoid, and how God calls man to repentance when he has NO INTENT for them TO repent (indeed He intends they NOT repent)?

How is a call to repentance, really a call, if He doesn't WANT them to savingly-repent?

 

[cygnusx1]

Please tell me how man is responsible for what he CANNOT avoid, and how God calls man to repentance when he has NO INTENT for them TO repent (indeed He intends they NOT repent)?

How is a call to repentance, really a call, if He doesn't WANT them to savingly-repent?

I have told you the answer many times ben , but you cannot "hear" it ...... so you use simple logic that man can do whatever God commands , which is error.

 

[Ben johnson]

I have told you the answer many times ben , but you cannot "hear" it

Yes --- the "general call", and the "effective call". But the question remains, what kind of "general call" it is that men are INCAPABLE of answering?

It is as though a deaf and legless child is playing out in the sandbox; his mom goes to the door and cries, "Timmy! Lunch! Come on in for lunch! Timmy, come! Tiiiiimmmmmmmyyyyy!" And then she turns back and closes the door.

Has she really called him at all?

...... so you use simple logic that man can do whatever God commands , which is error.

What kind of attitude could God have to be commanding something He knows man is incapable of doing?

For instance --- God commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts17:30) Throughout Scripture repentance is charged to each, personally, it is not something "God grants TO us". Do you really see God standing at the door as we play in the sandbox, calling us to repentance but knowing that we cannot hear nor obey?

My posts are not founded on "simple logic"; I've backed everything I've said with Scriptures, haven't I? True you and I understand the same Scriptures differently; but the goal of "theology" is to investigate additional Scriptures to see which understanding is validated and which is violated.

...it seems to me that "Responsible Grace" is winning, hands-down...

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes --- the "general call", and the "effective call". But the question remains, what kind of "general call" it is that men are INCAPABLE of answering?

The same one that says "without me you can do nothing" Jesus said that.

It is as though a deaf and legless child is playing out in the sandbox; his mom goes to the door and cries, "Timmy! Lunch! Come on in for lunch! Timmy, come! Tiiiiimmmmmmmyyyyy!" And then she turns back and closes the door.

your anaolgy is severely flawed as I have shown you at least half a dozen times already!

Has she really called him at all?
What kind of attitude could God have to be commanding something He knows man is incapable of doing?

Loving , next!

For instance --- God commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts17:30) Throughout Scripture repentance is charged to each, personally, it is not something "God grants TO us". Do you really see God standing at the door as we play in the sandbox, calling us to repentance but knowing that we cannot hear nor obey?

false , and your arguement will remain false as long as you wish to only submit to some scripture and not all.

My posts are not founded on "simple logic"; I've backed everything I've said with Scriptures, haven't I? True you and I understand the same Scriptures differently; but the goal of "theology" is to investigate additional Scriptures to see which understanding is validated and which is violated.

yes , I am afraid they are founded , and do founder on the very simplest of human logic .

...it seems to me that "Responsible Grace" is winning, hands-down...

of course it does , such is the power of self deception ben.

 

[heymikey80]

Ben has very precisely and methodically refuted every point, Scripturally. Ben has issued challenges to explain certain things in Scripture; challenges that can be ignored, but cannot be answered.

Ben, they have been answered, many at length, but you want them to be answered again and again and again and again.

I typed every word of the previous posts, thank you.

So what? I can type a number of pages of run-on text asking the same questions again and again and again. I can even seem to question your assertions in so doing. But it doesn't make sense.

Why do you say that? A "fully saved" person can continue to be saved, or can turn back to sin. Do you argue with what was happening in Paul's letter to the Galatians? They were "begun in the Spirit", "running well", "obeying the truth", "KNOWN by God". But in turning to weak/worthless things, AWAY from God, they are "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace".

In the "pregnancy" analogy, they WERE fully pregnant, but the pregnancy ended. Consider it a "miscarriage"...

So your view is that God doesn't keep Christians safe for the day of salvation. That He aborts those who go astray. How many chances does the aborted child get to climb back in the Spirit's womb?

While mine, "If we are faithless, He will remain faithful. He cannot deny Himself."

Meanwhile you quote away at statements Reformed theology has no qualms embracing, all the while implying they don't fit. Of course people can be "running well" according to every observation of a human being. Of course people can "begin in the Spirit," especially as a group, and then turn astray from that beginning. Beginning is one thing. Persevering is another.

Salvation is through faith (Ep 2); yet to you God does not give faith. You do. So in your scheme salvation is through yourself?

I can't understand how you can ask that --- faith that receives His grace, is still "salvation by His sacrifice". I receive His grace by my faith; do I save myself? Certainly not --- I receive His salvation.

Then you can't understand why Scripture would challenge you at that:

But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. Ac 15:11
​

I asked what you were saved through, and you said through your faith. Essentially you're still pressing on the accelerator of the "salvation truck", compelling God to save you through your faith.

In the Reformed view we're saved through faith, but that faith is through the grace of Christ, Who has given us New Birth to believe.

Do you think a sinfully-motivated faith will save? Can I be saved because I know it's my only excuse to commit grievous sin? How does Paul's response in Rom 6 even deal with that? It doesn't -- because then such people haven't died to sin.

Paul's reasoning doesn't even work, then. So a sinner can continue happily in sin, all the while believing -- in full knowledge -- that Christ came to save him.

And if I have no participation in my own salvation (by receiving His grace), why does the concept of "SAVE YOURSELF" exist in Scripture? 1Tim4:16

Why would you even ask that, knowing (as you must) that Reformed theology asserts nothing even remotely like nonparticipation? HM?

You just talked about your own view "receiving salvation", too. I guess Peter shouldn't have been converting people by actually saying those forbidden words -- "SAVE YOURSELVES from this corrupt generation!"

The only problem with a Pelagian system of works and faith is straightforward -- it isn't Scriptural.

Wouldn't such an implication that Reformed theology is nonparticipationist, embedded in this kind of response, isn't that ... bearing false witness? And isn't that a sin?

Your overloaded volume of responses really only dumps huge quantities of thoughts into your own misconceptions about the theology. It is impossibly tedious to hear someone back up the dumptruck and say they represent Reformed theology properly -- only to make simple, utterly primary-school errors about the theology.

I don't doubt that you're complaining about some theology. And maybe on occasion it calls itself "Reformed" theology. But it's vacuously simple to demonstrate that what you're attacking isn't what you're labelling it as.

Tell you what. I challenge you on the entirety of your prior postings. I challenge you to prove that Reformed theology embraces every allegation you're asserting. Quote a Reformed theologian to the effect of what you're asserting. Links will be fine. Then we'll talk.

Without it, I allege that you're accusing that which you do not know.

 

[heymikey80]

Why do you say that? A "fully saved" person can continue to be saved, or can turn back to sin. Do you argue with what was happening in Paul's letter to the Galatians? They were "begun in the Spirit", "running well", "obeying the truth", "KNOWN by God". But in turning to weak/worthless things, AWAY from God, they are "severed from Christ" and "fallen from grace".

In the "pregnancy" analogy, they WERE fully pregnant, but the pregnancy ended. Consider it a "miscarriage"...

Taking the pregnancy analogy Scripturally, it requires having been born to see, much less enter, the Kingdom of God. Absorb the perfect tense for this occasion.
What do you think "thinks he stands" means in verse 12??? (More rhetoric clearly on its way on this verse.)

Since you asked for my opinion, it seems remarkably parallel to Rom11, "Do not be conceited, but fear; if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God --- to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness, otherwise you will also be CUT OFF. And they, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in gain...."

I certainly did ask your opinion -- and you shifted from the exegesis. If Paul meant "Let he who stands take heed" why didn't he say so? By saying what he said Paul demands that some who don't stand, actually fall.

Why would your vault to Romans 11 be parallel? It's only parallel for one reason: you're mistaking soteriology for Christian walk. God isn't ticking off this person,'Owp, now he's sinned, he's not saved any ... owp, now he's repented, he's my son an ... dawg, sinned again, poor guy, if only he had Me in him, you'd think he could have more staying power ..."

But this is demonstrated a scant verse away, that God has not abandoned someone in this situation -- and neither had He abandoned His people Israel, either:

"God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." 1 Cor 10:13
​

The really, really obvious conclusion here: God's way is more than salvation. Throwing the kitchen sink into soteriology obliterates Christian salvation. It makes everything dependent on salvation. "Gee will God save me if I wash the plate this way instead of that way?" It commits the same error as legalism of old.

Salvation is "not out of works". Salvation is "unto works." Works after faith, faith after new birth, new birth out of the Spirit of God, byt the love of God.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." Jn 3:5-8


But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Ep 2:4-10
​

The fact of the matter with the "that not of yourselves, gift of God" phrase in Ep 2 is that not only doesn't faith fit -- no noun in the sentence fits. Paul applies "that" to whatever he's been talking about. It's utterly tautological that grace is the gift of God, and by it we've been saved. To try to pull faith back into it as my responsibility, is a smokescreen. Works are properly placed after our creation in Christ Jesus. If you think that's a pregnancy that can be aborted, Paul has something radically different to say:

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:38-39
​

Nothing , including our life, our future, our rulers, or supernatural powers, physical distance, or anything else created will separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Now if you find something outside your life, your future, your government, supernatural powers, your physical distance, or anything else that's created, let me know and we'll talk about whether that will separate you. But I think that "anything created" just about covers it.

Is it "Ben's scheme", or is it Paul's, when he says "with the HEART man BELIEVES"? Rm10:10

You've previously alleged that "full knowledge" is salvation -- yet this is the heart, not the head, Ben.

When you allege that Reformed theology rejects this statement, you show you don't know much about Reformed theology at this point.

because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Rom 5:5
​

God doesn't leave the heart to its own devices, but pours His love into it by His grace. Now how might He do this?

you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2 Cor 3:3

I will put my laws into their minds,and write them on their hearts,and I will be their God,and they shall be my people. Heb 8:10
​

God changes hearts.

 

[heymikey80]

Can you tell me why not?

Can I tell you why it doesn't speak explicitly to your case?

Because nothing you allege about the verse is explicit in it. As you roll on through your implicit extractions, that is most assuredly the case.


"It's not explicitly there."
"Can you tell me why not?"
"Because it's not explicitly there."

Now, you find a verse that actually says the words we've been talking about, and we'll talk. But no, "sin yielding death" is not an explicit reference to the loss of eternal life.

through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- Rom 5:12
​

Eternal death, Ben? Or physical death? Will we never get a chance to meet the likes of Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses?

Or does sin yield death here?

 

[heymikey80]

But they don't speak "explicitly". Each verse offered, has been shown not to support "predestination".

They do speak explicitly, Ben. You've argued against what they say explicitly, but they still say what they said before you wrote your first word.

That's another problem here. Sure, you can twist an tie verses 'til the words mean something you want to accept. But taking the words as explicit when they're explicit, and trying to build from explicit to unstated, that doesn't seem to be what you're doing with Scripture.

Take "predestine". It flatly means, to "designate beforehand." Yet there's no predestination in your view of people "predestined in Christ". There is only, solely, purely, conditional designation. There is no "pre". No one's been designated beforehand -- with the possible exception of Christ, if that fits your theology.

But it's never the people who have been predestined.

And that's explicitly who Paul is talking about "you have been predestined" (Ep 1:4). Sure, it's "in Him". But in your interpretation, it's not "predestined" that Paul states. In fact, it contradicts the word Paul used to say what you're saying. To you the meaning is "you are designated, as long as you're in him." The word Paul would use for this is "oriso", not "pro-oriso".

Well, it's not what Paul said. And Paul said it in so many words. So I don't believe your twist on Paul. I believe Paul.

 

[heymikey80]

Wrong --- only if "are entering" can become anything BUT "truly Heaven-bound" (which must be consistent with the contextual opposite of "shut-off from Heaven"). Unless you can do that, then that verse fully refutes "predestination".

Bait & switch, Ben. You hadn't so much as mentioned the verses about this. My answer was to your initial allegation, not your follow-on.

This shows a serious departure from the truth, Ben. You are alleging falsehoods.

You alleged some things about Reformed theology that were flat-out wrong, and then you pull this?

Ben, quit it. You've lost all credibility in my eyes for doing this. Back up what you say, and refer to your postings if you allege anything like this. Now that I've seen the posting I responded to -- I won't consider anything you say to be anything but intentional lying without it.

That passage is ONLY saying, "If God wants to also save the Gentiles, who are YOU to OBJECT?!" Or do you deny the anti predestinary meaning of verses 9:30-33?

The predestinary meaning? Where'd I bring that up? Oh, you brought it up. I didn't even propose to mention its predestinarian components, and yet it's so clear to you that you brought it up?

I don't have to embrace predestination to show how your view is upset by this passage. Let's just start with your last interpretation.

It says "God hardens whom he wants." Care to back away now from "That passage is ONLY saying ..."?

Or what's God's hardening to do ONLY with saving Gentiles?

Why would Paul ask the hypothetical question: "So why does God still find fault?" if "That passage is ONLY saying ..."? What's the point of this hypothetical question? Is Paul straying from "That passage is ONLY saying ..."? What does God's faultfinding have to do ONLY with saving Gentiles?

Why would Paul answer the question as he did, "What if God bore with great patience, vessels prepped for destruction?" Hm?
Is Paul straying from "That passage is ONLY saying ..."? What do those to be destroyed, have to do ONLY with saving Gentiles?

But let's get back to the "faith comes from the person" idea. Why didn't Paul answer with your answer when he posed exactly the hypothetical question you're answering: "So why does God still find fault? For who resists his will?"

Why does Paul pick a (horrors) entirely Reformed answer to this question? "Who are you to lash back at God? Can't God make what he wants?" Why isn't Paul's answer, "Well, you've got responsibility for this faith, see, and so it's not God's problem -- it's yours." Why is Paul's answer almost belligerently Reformed -- "Doesn't the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for honorable use and another for base use? What if Godendured vessels prepped for destruction for the sake of vessels prepped beforehand for glory?" Ignore the predestinarian thought so pregnant (and not just a little bit pregnant) in this view -- why would Paul do backflips to avoid your argument, and present mine?

 

[Ben johnson]

The same one that says "without me you can do nothing" Jesus said that.

Why do you think that I'm saying "believe-savingly, without Jesus"? I'm not...

your anaolgy is severely flawed as I have shown you at least half a dozen times already!

I don't think it is. Please confirm or deny the following:

1. Man is totally depraved, cannot seek God nor believe.
2. God issues a general call to salvation, which man cannnot answer because he is at enmity against God and his nature WILLS to disbelieve
3. God also issues a SPECIFIC call, to those whom He has chosen; in this, He regenerates the person, so that the will CHANGES and his nature is now to "believe".

false , and your arguement will remain false as long as you wish to only submit to some scripture and not all.

Show me any place that not everyone is "called to salvation". (Hint --- you'll hafta do better than Mark4:11-12, the predestinary presumption of that has been refuted; and another hint, you would do well to discuss Matt22:2-14...)

yes , I am afraid they are founded , and do founder on the very simplest of human logic .

It remains for you to demonstrate that Ben is arguing from "human logic", rather than from Scripture.

of course it does , such is the power of self deception ben.

And it remains for you to prove that I am "deceived"....

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, they have been answered, many at length, but you want them to be answered again and again and again and again.

No, my friend, they have not been answered; that is, not answered sustainably. Each answer in support of "predestinary doctrine", was refuted. And if you happen to provide the same answers as we've received before, I'll be happy to show you why they are not credible; I'll show that with Scripture.

So what? I can type a number of pages of run-on text asking the same questions again and again and again. I can even seem to question your assertions in so doing. But it doesn't make sense.

He accused me of "cut and paste", I stated that I hand typed every word.

So your view is that God doesn't keep Christians safe for the day of salvation. That He aborts those who go astray. How many chances does the aborted child get to climb back in the Spirit's womb?

Two things, Mike --- first, God is ABLE to "keep us from stumbling, and to make you stand in God's presence blameless and with great joy". That's in Jude24. But --- does God's ability, operate in absence of our will? The BALANCE to verse 24, is verse 20-21: "BUILD YOURSELVES in holy faith, KEEP YOURSELVES in His love..." I see voluntary participation in that --- don't you?

The dynamic I just presented, is mirrored exactly, and eloquently, in 2Tim1:12-14: "I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him; now, guard, by the Holy Spirit, the treasure entrusted to you."

God guards what I entrust to Him;
I guard the treasure (eternal life!) that He has entrusted to me.

Simple and clear, isn't it?

While mine, "If we are faithless, He will remain faithful. He cannot deny Himself."

OK --- this is "one of those answers that you accuse me of ignoring". I'm going to respond exactly as I've responded on the same issue in the past....

You are citing 2Tim2:11-13 --- here is the whole passage:
"If we died with Him, we shall also live with Him.
If we endure, we shall also live with Him.
If we deny Him, He will also deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

I see two completely different perspectives here:

1. Died-with-Him, endure; reign-with-Him, live (eternally)
2. Denying-Him (HE denies US before God! Matt10:32-33), not-reigning/living with Him, faithless and PERISHING (even THOUGH He remains faithful!)

To deny that the second perspective is "unsaved", is to claim that we can be "faithlessly-saved", or to claim that Paul did not MEAN "we could be faithless".

Do you see any flaw in what I said? Please be specific. My answer, is how I answered it before; I did not ignore, I refuted the predestinary view.

 

[Ben johnson]

Meanwhile you quote away at statements Reformed theology has no qualms embracing, all the while implying they don't fit. Of course people can be "running well" according to every observation of a human being. Of course people can "begin in the Spirit," especially as a group, and then turn astray from that beginning. Beginning is one thing. Persevering is another.

Problem is, it doesn't just say "running well". It says, "obeying the truth" (Gal5:7), and it absolutely says "KNOWN by God"! (Gal4:9)

Then --- verse 4:9 ALSO says "but you turn BACK to weak worthless things"! That means, "turn away from GOD". As verse 5:1 says, "you seek to be enslaved all over again".

Then --- verse 5:4 clearly says "fallen from grace, and severed from Christ".

You can't make it "they-never-were-saved"; known by God, prevents that.

You can't make it "didn't-really-fall"; severed (apo-katergeo) and fallen from grace (ekpipto-charis) prevents that.

The only OTHER choice you have (other than accept the Responsible Grace view), is to assert "this is only hypothetical, it didn't REALLY HAPPEN".

Looks to me like it did....



You began this point (quote at the start of this post) asserting that "running well" didn't really mean "saved"; I've shown you that it DID. Unless you can find some way to change "known by God", into "not REALLY known"....

 

[Ben johnson]

Then you can't understand why Scripture would challenge you at that:

But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. Ac 15:11​

I asked what you were saved through, and you said through your faith. Essentially you're still pressing on the accelerator of the "salvation truck", compelling God to save you through your faith.

Do you deny Paul's words in Gal2, that we are "saved by grace through faith"?

In the Reformed view we're saved through faith, but that faith is through the grace of Christ,

I understand that; in your view, "saving-faith" is but a second dispensation of grace. Making it, "by grace THROUGH GRACE have you been saved".

I see that as a change...

...Who has given us New Birth to believe.

And there's the problem. New birth is BY belief, not BEFORE...

Do you think a sinfully-motivated faith will save?

Wrong presumption; what is the motivation to "saving-belief", in 2Tim3:15? Wisdom from studying Scripture? Is that wisdom/conviction, "sinfully-motivated"? No.

Can I be saved because I know it's my only excuse to commit grievous sin? How does Paul's response in Rom 6 even deal with that? It doesn't -- because then such people haven't died to sin.

You've read Rom6? It says to me that we can CHOOSE --- either to "submit ourselves to God, alive to Him and dead to sin, or we can present our members as alive to sin (and dead to God). See verse 11....

Paul's reasoning doesn't even work, then. So a sinner can continue happily in sin, all the while believing -- in full knowledge -- that Christ came to save him.

No; true belief, change heart, because it receives the Spirit and His regeneration.

One who continues in sin IS not saved. Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-21, 1Jn3:7-10, Heb10:26-29, 1Cor6:9-11, etcetera... (Especially the 1Jn3 one...)

 

[Ben johnson]

Why would you even ask that, knowing (as you must) that Reformed theology asserts nothing even remotely like nonparticipation? HM?

Do you, or do you not, assert that "we have NO participation in salvation, it is FULLY monergistic (one-sided) by God's predestination"?

You just talked about your own view "receiving salvation", too. I guess Peter shouldn't have been converting people by actually saying those forbidden words -- "SAVE YOURSELVES from this corrupt generation!"

They're not forbidden to me; but Reformed Theology conflicts that, by asserting "God monergistically CHOOSES and then REGENERATES the person; he has no participation, he is saved ONLY and UNILATERALLY by God."

....while Scripture says "we are saved ONLY by God, but it is through our own faith which receives His gracious gift."

The only problem with a Pelagian system of works and faith is straightforward -- it isn't Scriptural.

Isn't it a good thing that there aren't any Pelagians here???

Wouldn't such an implication that Reformed theology is nonparticipationist, embedded in this kind of response, isn't that ... bearing false witness? And isn't that a sin?

Please answer my question, above. Is salvation "monergistic", or do we "participate by supplying faith to receive His gift"?

Your overloaded volume of responses really only dumps huge quantities of thoughts into your own misconceptions about the theology. It is impossibly tedious to hear someone back up the dumptruck and say they represent Reformed theology properly -- only to make simple, utterly primary-school errors about the theology.

I'm being very systematic and short-posted here. I look forward to your responses...

I don't doubt that you're complaining about some theology. And maybe on occasion it calls itself "Reformed" theology. But it's vacuously simple to demonstrate that what you're attacking isn't what you're labelling it as.

Tell you what. I challenge you on the entirety of your prior postings. I challenge you to prove that Reformed theology embraces every allegation you're asserting. Quote a Reformed theologian to the effect of what you're asserting. Links will be fine. Then we'll talk.

Let's see how you answer the questions I've raised, about the points you've made. Your points are exemplary of what has been discussed before; are your points refuted, or not?