Verses of single soteriological meaning; barrier to "Predestination"

[Ben johnson]

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.

The analogy states the CHRISTIAN is either pregnant (saved) or not; it is not talking about the possible OFFSPRING.

You seem to be asserting that Jn3:3 is using "see", to mean "understand" --- but it is good exegesis to link "see", with "enter/inherit" in passages like Matt18:3-4, and Matt7:21-23. And Lk13:3 also applies; all four of those verses assert "Unless ____, you won't go to Heaven".

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

The context says "lest he FALL". One cannot fall, if he has nothing to fall FROM. The idea of "falling from salvation", is clear; we are given opportunity to resist temptation; we can escape, or succumb --- our choice.

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 ..."

If a person has the choice TO sin, then he has the choice to sin again, and AGAIN. It is not the single sin that condemns us, but the PRACTICING of sin. Two extremens present:

1. Sinning constantly, therefore unbelief and unrepentance.
2. Occasionaly sin, remorse repentance and forgiveness; sincere striving (by the power of the Holy Spirit) NOT to sin.

ROm11 is clear, and ruins your platform....

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

The dynamic is made clear in passages like Rom6; we choose, either SIN, or CHRIST. Paul very plainly says "submit yourselves" in that passage, several times.

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.

The subject, is the entire opening phrase --- NASV footnotes "that", as "that salvation". By grace through faith have you been saved --- that's the subject...

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.

Robertson was a considerable Greek scholar; of this passage, he says "Grace is God's part, faith is ours"...

Works are properly placed after our creation in Christ Jesus.

"Faith" is not "our work"; per Jn8:27-29, "our faith is the work of God that we DO"...

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

And if we perish, did He stop loving us and desiring us to be saved?

No. He cries over our destruction...

"God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so repent and live."

 

[Ben johnson]

I think I've responded sufficiently for now, Mike; I've been clear and concise, and completely Scripturally supported. I've answered your charges that "I never deal with refutations" --- you made several, and I showed how they were not real refuations.

I look forward to hearing your response(s).

 

[Ben johnson]

"Faith" is not "our work"; per Jn8:27-29, "our faith is the work of God that we DO"...

See the parable in Matt7 of the "house-rock/house-sand"; it begins with "he who hears these words and ACTS on them...."

 

[cygnusx1]

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.


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?

It looks like ben couldn't stay by his PC anymore to answer this post Mikey , he fled for some unknown reason ???

 

[cygnusx1]

Why do you think that I'm saying "believe-savingly, without Jesus"? I'm not...
I don't think it is. Please confirm or deny the following:

You deny that man cannot have faith without the need for Divine intervention first!

1. Man is totally depraved, cannot seek God nor believe.

Yes , Romans 3!

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

More fundementally he cannot because he will not!

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".

Yes it's called the New Birth , John 3

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...)

Try reading about Sodom and Gommorah for a start!

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

I have , many times , but you are too "dim" to understand , it has nothing to do with your intellect by the way!

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

Others can clearly see that you are , proving that you are is easily done , it is done daily across these boards , but you cannot receive it.There is something fundementally missing in your approach.


"I know that Christ says, "No man can come unto me except the Father draw him," John, vi. 44. Howbeit some say he has a power, or he is mocked with a fruitless call. Christ says, "Without me ye can do nothing." Now, if we say that a man has power, and, out of charity to a fallen nature, boast of the rectitude of his will, the dignity of his nature, and praise his unbiassed reason, as some call it, and lead him to believe these lies; where is charity all this time? I cannot see that such a one has any charity either to Christ, the sinner, or himself He has none to Christ, because he gives him the lie in his word. He has none to the sinner, because, though he has led him to trust in himself, yet "he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" Isaiah, xliv. 20. Nor has he any love to himself, for his false testimony makes him one whom God hates: "Six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him; a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren," Prov. vi. 16, 19.

"That man who denies the sovereignty of the Almighty, calling his absolute decrees horrible, in order to establish his own free- agency; and cries down God's acts of discriminating grace to exalt free-will and power, acts worse than all the thousands of Babylon, and offers such indignity to the God of heaven as was never offered to Nebuchadnezzar for all the decrees he published. And what is this but laying violent hands on the sceptre of Christ, aiming at his throne, and invading his royal prerogative? And he who boasts of will or power to do any thing truly good, without God working in him both to will and to do of his own good pleasure, has quite forgotten by whom he subsists, and is aiming at the omnipotence of his Maker, Job, xl. 9, who says, "Without me ye can do nothing."


Teaching men to deny the final perseverance of a saint in the strength of the Lord, because of his infirmities, is weakening his confidence in the sufficient grace and long-suffering mercy of God. This doctrine is an enemy to faith, a nurse to unbelief, and a handmaid to the devil himself; because it makes us stagger at the immutable promises of God, and leaves a door for Satan, the accuser of the saints, to come in at.


William Huntington

 

[cygnusx1]

"He, who is taught to boast of free-will, is taught to reject the day of God's eternal power, Ps. cx. 3. He, who is taught to believe he is perfect in the flesh, makes the groaning petitions of the Holy Ghost, and the intercession of Jesus Christ, of none effect to him. The man that denies any plain truth, rejects the counsel of God; he, who appears so infallible as to alter it, is too proud to submit to the prophetic office of Christ; and he, who will not allow Christ to choose or refuse whom he please, in one sense, justifies the ancient saying of the rebels, and tells Christ he shall not reign over him. He, who makes the best of man's fall, lessens the benefit of the cross; and he, who can pay one mite to God, rejects the gospel surety: "He that is whole needs not the physician;" and he that is not wholly lost is never likely to be saved. All these are towering imaginations, that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God; a man drunk with such phantoms has lost his senses, and he that dies in them will certainly lose his soul.


If this be the human system of Arminian grace, and they preach final apostacy from this, they speak the truth; we agree with them. We are as sure that a building of hay, straw, and stubble, will suffer loss, as we are that the building of mercy shall reap everlasting gain; and we no more doubt of lies being established in hell, than we doubt of truth being settled in heaven.

Another crime committed by Universal Charity is her counterfeiting the graces of God's Spirit: but I suppose these labels are tied to the mouth of the sack, in order to vend the tares the better. O wretched delusion! I wish their souls had felt what mine has: they would then loathe themselves, and bless God for a crucified Saviour; for, when they have done and said what they please, there is no way to heaven but by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus.


They talk wonderfully about faith; but, finding they deny the doctrine of election, and fight against it, we readily conclude theirs is not the faith of God's elect: and, as their faith is allowed to fail, we know it is not the faith that Christ prayed for: because some honestly affirm, that, though their faith makes them children of God to-day, they may be children of the devil to-morrow. We know this is not that faith which leads from death to life, because such believers are never to come into condemnation, having everlasting life already. The faith of God's elect fights against, and overcomes, the world; but Arminian faith fights for the world, and tries to overcome the righteous.

If they talk of repentance, they are sure to set the cart before the horse: repentance, such as it is, comes first, and faith creeps along afterwards, to help this poor lame dog over the stile: and, when this faith has done its office, no righteousness is imputed to it, or to the possessor of it. Though God has promised an everlasting righteousness to faith, and faith is the hand to put that robe on: it is unto and upon all that believe. But the Arminian faith is not a hand, but a covering: so man's fancy stands as a rival to the spotless obedience of Christ, which alone makes righteous, Rom. v. 19.


William Huntington

 

[epistemaniac]

Be responds to

That seems pretty rhetorical, Ben. When it refers to God's actions justice is doing what's right, not what's wrong

.
by saying

How is it "just", to condemn men for what it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to avoid?

Is it possible for man to live a perfect sinless life? No. God knows this, this is the way He created all that is, and just because He created in such a way as to allow the fall, and regardless of one's belief on how the effects of the Fall were transmitted to all mankind, it is now manifestly the case that man cannot not sin, and guess what... God is still just in punishing man for sins He knows they will committ and cannot but help committing....

Rom 9:10-24 ESV And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, (11) though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- (12) she was told, "The older will serve the younger." (13) As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
(19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) 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?" (21) 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? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (24) even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[heymikey80]

No, my friend, they have not been answered; that is, not answered sustainably. Each answer in support of "predestinary doctrine", was refuted.

No, it wasn't. It was simply argued against. That much was so obvious as to be painful. You argued away the denotative meaning of the words.

You can do all you want of that in debate. But the reality continues to mock the argument, convincing as it may be to you.

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.

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

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?

Sure, but it's beside the point, Ben. As I said, Reformed theology is participationist. Why do you think that's any argument at all against Reformed theology?

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?

But you're saying God's dependent on what you entrust to Him in the absence of what God transforms in you. That is apparently your view of free will.

And in the absence of God, what good can come?

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.

Yes, certainly I see flaws in what you said.

God kills us faithfully? How is that remaining faithful, ie, trustworthy? That's what you're saying God is doing here. He's a terror to those who don't remain trustworthy.

So what if it's consistent with what you think? It's nowhere near the breadth of statement in this text.

if we are faithless, he remains faithful--for he cannot deny himself.
​

We are His people, indwelt by Him. You're saying he remains faithful by denying Christ in us -- the Hope of Glory.

If God is going to condemn us as unsaved, then he's also denying he's saved us -- really denying the promise he's made to us. Which contradicts explicit verses to the contrary

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. Heb 6:17-18 This is an encouragement to hold fast to faith. It is not a demand for it.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:13-16

The promise came to Abraham's offspring. Was Abraham always faithful? Go ahead, look it up. Abe was not always faithful.

And the promise is given to those who share Abraham's faith -- a failing, weak faith in the all-powerful, all faithful God of the Universe.

 

[Ben johnson]

Sure, but it's beside the point, Ben. As I said, Reformed theology is participationist. Why do you think that's any argument at all against Reformed theology?

It's not a question of "participationist", but if "sequence". Do you believe we participate in our salvation because of regeneration? I think you do; and I believe we participate in our salvation by receiving the Spirit and therefore receiving His regeneration.

See the difference? One participates consequentially, the other causally.

But you're saying God's dependent on what you entrust to Him in the absence of what God transforms in you. That is apparently your view of free will.

The question is whether the transformation occurs outside of our will, or consequentially to it. If the transformation is BECAUSE of belief, then clearly the "abide in Him" verses (there are many) warn us against unbelief.

That's why I see all of the "deceiver" verses warning against "deception to unbelief". Do you know which verses I mean???

And in the absence of God, what good can come?

No one said "absent God"; if God sincerely calls us, and allows us to choose Him or REJECT Him, then we believe BY RECEIVING His power.

Look at the dynamic presented in Rom8:12-14; we are under obligation --- not to live by the flesh, for if we do we must die! But if BY THE SPIRIT we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

See the dynamic? Our decision, but His power. Make sense?

Yes, certainly I see flaws in what you said.

God kills us faithfully?

No, we choose death...

How is that remaining faithful, ie, trustworthy?

Look at Rom11:29 --- it says God's calling and gifts are irrevocable (without repentance by God). This affirms God's faithfulness --- but it says nothing about our ability to leave Him. In Jn6, Jesus says "I will lose nothing" --- but those who leave, He has not lost them, they chose it...

That's what you're saying God is doing here. He's a terror to those who don't remain trustworthy.

Do you know how close what you just said, mirrors Rom11:21-23? "Behold the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity; but to you, kindness, if you CONTINUE in His kindness (belief) else you too will be CUT OFF."

So what if it's consistent with what you think? It's nowhere near the breadth of statement in this text.
if we are faithless, he remains faithful--for he cannot deny himself.

But can we be faithlessly saved?

We cannot, Mike...

We are His people, indwelt by Him.

We are indwelt THROUGH faith. If we become faithless, He can no longer indwell us.

You're saying he remains faithful by denying Christ in us -- the Hope of Glory.

No --- if we are faithless, WE have denied HIM. (And He will then deny us before the Father).

If God is going to condemn us as unsaved, then he's also denying he's saved us -- really denying the promise he's made to us. Which contradicts explicit verses to the contrary

Which verses? Every promise He's made, founds on belief. That's why there are so many verses warning against "unbelief".

So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. Heb 6:17-18 This is an encouragement to hold fast to faith. It is not a demand for it.

Read the context --- Heb6:11-12: "We desire the same diligence in you, SO AS to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, THAT you may not be sluggish but be imitators of those who THROUGH FAITH and PERSEVERANCE inherit the promises."

....besides, the passage you just cited says "might have strong encouragement TO HOLD FAST the hope set before us." Why does he put forth ideas like "hold fast"?

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:13-16

It depends on faith, Mike. Our faith.

"Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls." 1Pet1:9

The promise came to Abraham's offspring. Was Abraham always faithful? Go ahead, look it up. Abe was not always faithful.

But he always repented, didn't he?

And the promise is given to those who share Abraham's faith -- a failing, weak faith in the all-powerful, all faithful God of the Universe.

Hence all the warnings to "abide in Him" and "abide in faith", and "guard yourselves against deceivers, watch that none take you captive by worldly philosophy and empty deception rather than according to Christ".

As Paul says, eloquent and concise, "I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve, YOUR minds should also be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ".

 

[heymikey80]

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".

Yeah, back up a chapter. This shows that Paul thinks he's speaking to a group of people. You keep thinking Paul must only be talking to saved or unsaved, that he knows for sure that "Oh, these Galatians are all saved: let's talk to them and upbraid them for being so tempted to Judaize", or "Oh, these Galatians are all unsaved: let's warn them that they're all outta here if they become circumcised."

This is so obviously not the case, it's laughable to even think about. Paul didn't have ESP about who's saved and who's not. Paul's talking to a church here. A group of people drawn near to Christ's Person and His teaching, His Spirit and His power.

But Paul doesn't know where the Galatians are at.

my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. Gal 4:19-20
​

I'm sure some Judaized to the point of rejecting Paul (as some did elsewhere). I'm sure others recoiled from Judaizing at the decision point. And I'm even sure some who were circumcised, were jolted awake and turned to Christ on the heels of turning to circumcision.

What do I care that Paul isn't sure which he's talking to? And why would that obsess you so as any kind of argument?

I've mentioned this before. I've described the same situation in 2 Peter. Why do you keep bringing it back up? It makes no sense to resurrect the same old tired arguments week after week, expecting them to be true now. They're not. Sorry.

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.

There ya go again, pressing one set of words into another. The word is "known". Frankly, I'm non-committal (see above -- it matters not a bit which is true) whether 4:9 is talking about saved or unsaved.

But look a little closer at your words. What's "saved"? Isn't it something that's already happened to you? If you lose "saved", it is truly a fact that you were never "saved" in the first place. Maybe you "won't-be-saved" or maybe you will -- but it's a guarantee that if you're "not-now-saved", then you "haven't-been-saved"! Look at the meaning of the words you're using, Ben. And note again: the word "saved" is not in this context. You're applying a theology to press the words into a meaning you want the verse to have.

Let's look at the thing more in context, and maybe it'll make sense. At this point it's ripping itself right out of the First Century Galatian context and splattering itself on a 20th century argument.

Let's not make Paul say something he didn't say.

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

Actually, were that the case 1 John 5:1 would seal your fate, for it's in perfect tense, too. Again, if you're arguing the grammatical form makes your case -- your case collapsed in contradiction awhile ago.

Paul's in polemic here. The imagery is exactly that of "being circumcised" 5:3 -- "You're severed from Christ -- you're fallen from grace." 5:4 Promoting the imagery into a concrete assertion -- it proves too much. It's nonsense that anyone who's circumcised was automatically first saved, then unsaved just because Paul used this imagery. Plus: Paul was circumcised. Paul would thus be unsaved, severed from Christ.

There's obvious imagery here. Paul's transforming the imagery of circumcision, associating it into the separation from Christ that he knows happens for those who are Judaizing -- that is what it is to any who "seek to be justified by the law" (5:4). Any prior relationship with Christ and the Spirit are irrelevant when mixed with law-keeping. The person is separated from Christ, just as in circumcision his flesh is separated. What were they beforehand? Even Paul is looking for Christ to be formed in them (Gal 4:19-20) -- something of an indication where they're at, in Paul's eyes. He sees them in a pre-salvation condition.

Salvation is never of the law. Anyone who believed that was already cut off from God. It only remained for the reality to surface, for them to show that whatever relationship they had so far with Jesus Christ -- even including the Spirit of God, yes -- was cut off. And how was it shown in Paul's imagery?

Circumcision.

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"....

Not demonstrated. The Spirit of God knows everyone He works through, if that were even relevant once Paul said "I'm perplexed about you!" (4:20) The Spirit of God works through unsaved people as well as saved. He's in partnership with many who fall away.

But nothing can snatch us out of His hand.

 

[heymikey80]

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

A blatant lie.

"This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call" www.monergism.com
​

Sounds amazingly active, not passive.

Of course, you'll find translations of some great theologians talking about our human power to be passivity in comparison with the absolute activity of the Spirit -- GOD -- upon us and in us. But ... isn't that downright tautological?

If it weren't:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Rom 8:11
​

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

FOR THE THIRD TIME: Salvation is not monergistic. But elements of salvation definitely ARE monergistic.

I've told you that thrice now. Instead you're saying the same lie over and over again.

 

[heymikey80]

The analogy states the CHRISTIAN is either pregnant (saved) or not; it is not talking about the possible OFFSPRING.

It can't be. "Spirit gives birth to spirit." And "as for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins". Not much spirit in a dead guy.

You seem to be asserting that Jn3:3 is using "see", to mean "understand" --- but it is good exegesis to link "see", with "enter/inherit" in passages like Matt18:3-4, and Matt7:21-23. And Lk13:3 also applies; all four of those verses assert "Unless ____, you won't go to Heaven".

I thought you would've realized by now, I'm not a Gnostic.

Nothing of the sort. I didn't intend "understand". Without the Spirit you don't have entrance or sight of the Kingdom.

So what's your faith looking toward?

The context says "lest he FALL".

Ben: the context says, "thinks he stands"

One cannot fall, if he has nothing to fall FROM.

You keep repeating that mantra. The context says "thinks he stands". "Thinking" isn't "being", Ben. Paul is addressing some who are not standing.

Some merely think they're standing, and are not.

The Greek is downright painful: "blepeto me pesae" -- "look not having fallen". The trouble isn't with what Paul said -- it's with the connotations you're pressing into the words.

So Paul is saying, "You think you're standing? Watch out for falling, then." His rhetoric is challenging: "If you're not looking out for a fall, you don't even think you're standing." But then -- thinking isn't standing. So falling doesn't even have to be a possibility.

Really, this gaffe doesn't even matter, as we'll see in the next point. He's not talking about falling from salvation.

The idea of "falling from salvation", is clear; we are given opportunity to resist temptation; we can escape, or succumb --- our choice.

Sorry, no. the idea is falling into sin. It is your pervasive attempt to vault from sin to salvation that is causing this -- it's not the text.

Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 1 Cor 10:9
​

The projection into loss of salvation is purely for the sake of this argument, 2000 years later. Find Paul talking about salvation. Then we'll talk.

If a person has the choice TO sin, then he has the choice to sin again, and AGAIN. It is not the single sin that condemns us, but the PRACTICING of sin. Two extremens present:

1. Sinning constantly, therefore unbelief and unrepentance.
2. Occasionaly sin, remorse repentance and forgiveness; sincere striving (by the power of the Holy Spirit) NOT to sin.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself am serving the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I am serving the law of sin. Rom 7:24-25
​

ROm11 is clear, and ruins your platform....

"And so all Israel shall be saved" 11:25, an amazing ruin. The salvation of the people who should be lost in your view: Paul says they shall be saved.

Once again, Paul is calling Gentiles to humble reliance on the Root. But it's clear that without this reliance, God will cut them off, too. Again, the Root supplies more than He saves -- that's the point of a remnant ecclesiology. But He saves those who rely on Him to the salvation of their souls.

 

[heymikey80]

It's not a question of "participationist", but if "sequence". Do you believe we participate in our salvation because of regeneration? I think you do; and I believe we participate in our salvation by receiving the Spirit and therefore receiving His regeneration.

Then quit alleging it's a question of participation. Bait & switch is revolting to your argument.

See the difference? One participates consequentially, the other causally.
The question is whether the transformation occurs outside of our will, or consequentially to it. If the transformation is BECAUSE of belief, then clearly the "abide in Him" verses (there are many) warn us against unbelief.

And if not, then they don't? So what you're saying is, "the question is whether I'm right or not." And your argument is not conclusive on that. "Gee, I must be right, so ... it must be consequential."

But the fact of the matter is, once again, you've misrepresented Reformed theology on this point as well. The question is not whether the transformation occurs outside our will. The Reformed answer is that the transformation occurs to our will. For if it does, a change to the will must come from outside it, and change it to desire what it did not desire. But the change occurs to our wills, and thus is not "outside of our will", but transforming it from the inside, out.

That's why I see all of the "deceiver" verses warning against "deception to unbelief". Do you know which verses I mean???

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Reformed theology says, "Sure, these have a purpose -- just not what you think." But you don't know what those purposes are, so ... just don't try to allege what they are unless you can quote someone significant.

No one said "absent God"; if God sincerely calls us, and allows us to choose Him or REJECT Him, then we believe BY RECEIVING His power.

ROFL! But in consequence of a will unaffected by God's goodness! And so ... absent God. We come to faith for ungodly causes. That is dead to rights what you just said: " The question is whether the transformation occurs outside of our will, or consequentially to it. " If it's consequent of our wills, and of our wills absent God (no regeneration, no work of the Spirit on us) -- then it's not from God. It's absent God.

Look at the dynamic presented in Rom8:12-14; we are under obligation --- not to live by the flesh, for if we do we must die! But if BY THE SPIRIT we are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, we will live."

See the dynamic? Our decision, but His power. Make sense?

To think those are a dichotomy makes no sense at all. "Hey, let's put God's power to use for our will's godless motives!"

Or ... maybe you don't remember: "no one seeks God". Paul says this explicitly of everyone.

Why is their evil will deciding the fate of all? Why in your view is evil deciding who lives and who dies, and then leveraging the power of God to do it?

 

[Ben johnson]

Yeah, back up a chapter. This shows that Paul thinks he's speaking to a group of people. You keep thinking Paul must only be talking to saved or unsaved, that he knows for sure that "Oh, these Galatians are all saved: let's talk to them and upbraid them for being so tempted to Judaize", or "Oh, these Galatians are all unsaved: let's warn them that they're all outta here if they become circumcised."

This is so obviously not the case, it's laughable to even think about. Paul didn't have ESP about who's saved and who's not. Paul's talking to a church here. A group of people drawn near to Christ's Person and His teaching, His Spirit and His power.

We are limited to what Paul said. Paul wrote "movement" --- it's not "as if you're not YET saved", it's "you WERE known by God, but now you're turning BACK to weak/worthless things".

This makes the argument of "not really saved", untenable.

Galatians is but one letter, also; the rest also supports "possible falling". Hebrews and 2Pet are the "worst" for your platform...

I've mentioned this before. I've described the same situation in 2 Peter. Why do you keep bringing it back up? It makes no sense to resurrect the same old tired arguments week after week, expecting them to be true now. They're not. Sorry.

Which part of 2Pet do you wish to "re-visit"? Ch1 is speaking of "falling-from-salvation". Ch2 is speaking of "falling-from-salvation". Ch 3 is too.

There ya go again, pressing one set of words into another. The word is "known". Frankly, I'm non-committal (see above -- it matters not a bit which is true) whether 4:9 is talking about saved or unsaved.

The only reason I can think of to deny "KNOWN BY GOD" (especially in the context of "begun in the Spirit", "running well" and "obeying the truth") means "saved", is a stubborn prior doctrine. No offense meant, Mike. But there's nothing in the text to even hint at "not-really-saved".

But look a little closer at your words. What's "saved"? Isn't it something that's already happened to you? If you lose "saved", it is truly a fact that you were never "saved" in the first place.

Depends on how you define "saved". Scripture defines it as first, belief --- second receiving the Jesus as Savior and Lord (Master), third the indwelling Spirit regenerates the believer. FOURTH, we walk/abide IN Him.

If all founds on belief, then what happens if one is deceived to unbelief? Hint --- Rom11:21-23...

Maybe you "won't-be-saved" or maybe you will -- but it's a guarantee that if you're "not-now-saved", then you "haven't-been-saved"! Look at the meaning of the words you're using, Ben. And note again: the word "saved" is not in this context. You're applying a theology to press the words into a meaning you want the verse to have.

Hmmmm; never thought it was a "stretch" to consider "known by God", to be "saved".

Is there any unsaved person who is "known by God, begun in the Spirit, running well and obeying the truth"???

Let's look at the thing more in context, and maybe it'll make sense. At this point it's ripping itself right out of the First Century Galatian context and splattering itself on a 20th century argument.

No, it is (again with respect) ripping itself out of the prior doctrine of Predestined-Election...

Let's not make Paul say something he didn't say.

Welllll, he said --- "begun in the Spirit"; any unsaved person do that? He says "running well and obeying the truth". Does that work with an "unbeliever"? AND he says "known by God" --- does that mesh with Matt7:23?

Actually, were that the case 1 John 5:1 would seal your fate, for it's in perfect tense, too....

That verse says that all who ARE believing, WAS born of God. Does that contradict the idea of "were born WHEN they believed"? John1:13 says that the begottenness is all of God and nothing of us; but what does verse 12 say about how we BECOME "begotten"? Does it mention anything about "causal-belief" and "receiving Jesus"???

Conversely, do passages like Heb12:7 say anything about becoming illegitimate and NOT sons?

Again, if you're arguing the grammatical form makes your case -- your case collapsed in contradiction awhile ago.

I don't think it has, Mike.

Paul's in polemic here. The imagery is exactly that of "being circumcised" 5:3 -- "You're severed from Christ -- you're fallen from grace." 5:4 Promoting the imagery into a concrete assertion -- it proves too much. It's nonsense that anyone who's circumcised was automatically first saved, then unsaved just because Paul used this imagery. Plus: Paul was circumcised. Paul would thus be unsaved, severed from Christ.

You know very well he's using "circumcision" interchangeably with "doctrine of LAW rather than GRACE". So your argument is without merit; any who turn back SPIRITUALLY to circumcision, REJECTING Jesus' Gospel of grace, is "fallen/severed".

That's what some of 'em were doing...

There's obvious imagery here. Paul's transforming the imagery of circumcision, associating it into the separation from Christ that he knows happens for those who are Judaizing -- that is what it is to any who "seek to be justified by the law" (5:4). Any prior relationship with Christ and the Spirit are irrelevant when mixed with law-keeping. The person is separated from Christ, just as in circumcision his flesh is separated. What were they beforehand? Even Paul is looking for Christ to be formed in them (Gal 4:19-20) -- something of an indication where they're at, in Paul's eyes. He sees them in a pre-salvation condition.

Sure he does:
• Begun in the Spirit
• Running well
• OBEYING the truth (uhm, somehow could still be "LAW"???)
• KNOWN by God

...and Paul's REALLY saying "But you're not REALLY saved YET"...

Why is that credible to you?

Salvation is never of the law. Anyone who believed that was already cut off from God.

Seems they EMBRACED "Grace", but turned BACK. You still can't make "Five-Way #1", work ("were never REALLY saved in the FIRST place").

It only remained for the reality to surface, for them to show that whatever relationship they had so far with Jesus Christ -- even including the Spirit of God, yes -- was cut off. And how was it shown in Paul's imagery?

Better question --- how do you change Paul's words into "never REALLY known, not REALLY begun in the Spirit, were never REALLY running well NOR obeying the truth"?

That's quite an accomplishment, isn't it?

Not demonstrated. The Spirit of God knows everyone He works through, if that were even relevant once Paul said "I'm perplexed about you!" (4:20) The Spirit of God works through unsaved people as well as saved. He's in partnership with many who fall away.

How do you fall away from somewhere you've never BEEN? You're proposing that all those descripters applied to the NEVER-WERE-SAVED.

If people can be "begun by the Spirit", and "running well" and "obeying the truth" and "known by God", all WITHOUT salvation, then what's the difference between "saved", and "unsaved"?

But nothing can snatch us out of His hand.

You do understand that "harpazo" in Jn10:29 means "seize/remove forcibly"? What does the warning mean in Heb4:11? Please keep that in context with Heb3:18-20 (and the principle in Heb3:10-14), and the related passage Rom9:30-33.

 

[Ben johnson]

Sounds amazingly active, not passive.

Of course, you'll find translations of some great theologians talking about our human passivity in comparison with the absolute activity of the Spirit -- GOD -- upon us and in us. But ... isn't that downright tautological?

The question is whether all this "activity" is CAUSAL to salvation, rather than consequential TO it. Do we do anything BEFORE regeneration? Your doctrine says "no"....

FOR THE THIRD TIME: Salvation is not monergistic. But elements of salvation definitely ARE monergistic.

I've told you that thrice now. Instead you're saying the same lie over and over again.

In your doctrine the cause of salvation is monergistic; belief becomes the mere consequence of His sovereign choice.

...Scripture says people are condemned FOR unbelief, and saved BY belief...

 

[Ben johnson]

It can't be. "Spirit gives birth to spirit." And "as for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins". Not much spirit in a dead guy.

But "saving-belief" happens WHILE we are "dead in sins". As 1Cor1:21 says, "God is pleased to save those who believe THROUGH the foolishness". It is belief that changes it from "foolish", to "power"...

I thought you would've realized by now, I'm not a Gnostic.

Nothing of the sort. I didn't intend "understand". Without the Spirit you don't have entrance or sight of the Kingdom.

So what's your faith looking toward?

It remains for you to prove that "see" in JN3:3, is "understand", rather than "see-firsthand" (enter). Is there any premise that prevents recognition of the identical structure between Jn3:3, Lk13:3, Matt18:3-4 and Matt7:21? Yes or no, Mike.

Ben: the context says, "thinks he stands"

Correct --- it conveys the fact that "standing, requires diligence".

You keep repeating that mantra. The context says "thinks he stands". "Thinking" isn't "being", Ben. Paul is addressing some who are not standing.

Some merely think they're standing, and are not.

Wait-wait-wait --- he's warning the UNSAVED, not to fall to SIN, because we-saved don't have to SWEAT IT? For the umpteenth time, why is that credible to you?

Sorry, no. the idea is falling into sin. It is your pervasive attempt to vault from sin to salvation that is causing this -- it's not the text.
Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 1 Cor 10:9

I see --- we can "fall into sin, but salvation is never at risk". We certainly will not "continue sinning willfully, (resulting in) no longer His sacrifice for sins but terrifying expectation of judgment and fury of fire which consumes the adversaries". We cannot be "deceived by sin to a hard heart that falls away from the living God".

Do you believe that?

The projection into loss of salvation is purely for the sake of this argument, 2000 years later. Find Paul talking about salvation. Then we'll talk.

What does 2Cor11:3 says to you?

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself am serving the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I am serving the law of sin. Rom 7:24-25

What does Rom8:12-14 say to you? Anything about "if WE walk by the flesh, rather than by the Spirit putting to death the flesh, WE must die"?

"And so all Israel shall be saved" 11:25, an amazing ruin. The salvation of the people who should be lost in your view: Paul says they shall be saved.

Once again, Paul is calling Gentiles to humble reliance on the Root. But it's clear that without this reliance, God will cut them off, too. Again, the Root supplies more than He saves -- that's the point of a remnant ecclesiology. But He saves those who rely on Him to the salvation of their souls.

Have you ever given me your understanding of Rom11:21-23? Which "Five-Way" do you use on that --- #5, "dispensation"?

 

[heymikey80]

We are limited to what Paul said. Paul wrote "movement" --- it's not "as if you're not YET saved", it's "you WERE known by God, but now you're turning BACK to weak/worthless things".

This makes the argument of "not really saved", untenable.

We've already argued at length about Gnosis.

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Cor 13:2
​

=snip=

If people can be "begun by the Spirit", and "running well" and "obeying the truth" and "known by God", all WITHOUT salvation, then what's the difference between "saved", and "unsaved"?

You think about that, if you don't know the difference between "saved" and "unsaved".

You do understand that "harpazo" in Jn10:29 means "seize/remove forcibly"? What does the warning mean in Heb4:11? Please keep that in context with Heb3:18-20 (and the principle in Heb3:10-14), and the related passage Rom9:30-33.

Yes, I'm aware that there's no amount of force that can sieze you from Christ.

More bait & switch. Hebrews 3? You can pick and waltz through passages, and I can't?

It's stupid to discuss anything with someone saying you can discuss their points, but they won't allow you to bring up your own.

 

[Ben johnson]

We've already argued at length about Gnosis.
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Cor 13:2

Hi, Mike. I'm trying to understand your meaning here; are you using "gnosis", to indicate "mere head-knowledge, but not saving-knowledge"?

Help me to understand how all those descriptors can "tag" unbelievers-not-really-saved? How can one "run well, obey the truth, have begun in the Spirit, know and be known BY God", without ever really-having-been-saved? It doesn't "fly" to say "He's talking to BOTH saved AND unsaved, saying 'if YOU-SAVED have begun in the Spirit, but if you UNSAVED are still in LAW" --- there seems to be only one group, and the context clearly indicates "MOVEMENT".

Not "static both saved and unsaved", but movement from "begun in the Spirit, known by God", towards "turning back to Law"...

You think about that, if you don't know the difference between "saved" and "unsaved".

I know how I understand it. I'm asking how you understand it, so that these descriptions can fit those who are "not saved".

Yes, I'm aware that there's no amount of force that can sieze you from Christ.

The sense of His words, is that "no ONE can FORCE you from His hand."

...this does not oppose voluntary leaving, by unbelief. This is why all of the "guard-against-deceit/unbelief" verses are such serious warnings to me...

More bait & switch. Hebrews 3? You can pick and waltz through passages, and I can't?

What passage did I say anything against? Cite anything you want.

It's stupid to discuss anything with someone saying you can discuss their points, but they won't allow you to bring up your own.

OK, I'll listen to your passages. Well, READ them, I have the sound turned off on this thing...

 

[heymikey80]

Hi, Mike. I'm trying to understand your meaning here; are you using "gnosis", to indicate "mere head-knowledge, but not saving-knowledge"?

Help me to understand how all those descriptors can "tag" unbelievers-not-really-saved? How can one "run well, obey the truth, have begun in the Spirit, know and be known BY God", without ever really-having-been-saved? It doesn't "fly" to say "He's talking to BOTH saved AND unsaved, saying 'if YOU-SAVED have begun in the Spirit, but if you UNSAVED are still in LAW" --- there seems to be only one group, and the context clearly indicates "MOVEMENT".

No one's denied movement. Reformed though denies entrance into "saved" and then exit.

"They went out from us to show they were not truly of us."

Not "static both saved and unsaved", but movement from "begun in the Spirit, known by God", towards "turning back to Law"...

Not static, but not recipients of salvation.

I know how I understand it. I'm asking how you understand it, so that these descriptions can fit those who are "not saved".

Saved is a passive tense. People receive salvation. People receive salvation to eternal life. Faith is an instrument the Spirit uses to declare a person justified in God's sight. Salvation is accomplished by God for a person, and given to that person.

Things which can be associated directly to conclude salvation: new creation; eternal life; resurrection to life; peace with God; justification by God, born of the Spirit; regeneration by the Spirit.

The sense of His words, is that "no ONE can FORCE you from His hand."

...this does not oppose voluntary leaving, by unbelief. This is why all of the "guard-against-deceit/unbelief" verses are such serious warnings to me...

Jesus already mentioned,

When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers. John 10:4-5
​

The idea that a sheep can leave its ownership without the shepherd's notice doesn't even make sense in the imagery provided. But where Paul speaks directly in Romans 8, it's clear that nothing separates me from Him -- not my continued living, not my dying, nor any created thing.