Verses of single soteriological meaning; barrier to "Predestination"

[heymikey80]

Tying the rest of the loose ends.

The very existence of a difference in Jesus' eyes between "unseen faith", and "seen faith", is highly significant. What difference worth mentioning is there, if both are monergistically-gifted?

Every difference beyond and beside salvation. Such is God's sight of the adversity His children go through every day.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Mt 5:10-12
​

But to deal with what you said: we need to figure out what position the Spirit has, WHEN a person is regenerated. Your view asserts "bystander". My view asserts "INDWELLING". For support, I focus on the word "poured" in Titus3:5-6; "He saved US, by washing of regeneration through the Spirit, who WAS poured on us".

Hm, more words in my mouth. Your view of the Spirit seems to me to require some visible result every time you cite it. Is that accurate? Maybe not. Yet, my view instead requires some form of being born of the Spirit, which may not yet have been seen in some outpouring of the Spirit.

Yet New Birth doesn't make the one born a bystander.

Do you think Cornelius' action was not by the Spirit of God when he heard the Angel of God during prayer? The Gospel was public news at that time (Acts 10:37). Was the Spirit just waiting on an Apostle to tell him before the Spirit regenerated Cornelius? Or was this entire move ... something different? Is the public display of the Spirit in Cornelius' family for an entirely different purpose than soteriology? The Spirit of God is showing Peter, "no respect of persons". The Spirit of God is showing the Jerusalem Church, "no respect of persons." That's the outpouring. But the indwelling, that came before.

Do you have ANY verse/passage that hints at "regeneration BEFORE belief"? Nothing in Eph2 works ("while you were dead, He made you alive") --- the context plainly says "by grace THROUGH faith".

"And that not of yourselves". It's been discussed at length. At best you've argued that "oh, well faith is still of ourselves, but the rest of salvation, that's a gift of God." Ah. So faith is not part of salvation? For if salvation is "not of yourselves", and to you faith is entirely of yourselves, then faith must have no part of salvation.

Of course there're more.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 John 5:1
​

Also, passages like Col1:21-23 says that WHILE we were hostile/alien, He reconciled us to God in HIs fleshly body --- and that very reconcilliation conditions on "if indeed we CONTINUE in the faith firmly established and steadfast and not be moved away from JEsus".

Yes. I don't recognize where you're a rival to RT on the point of hostile/alien, in fact I would think RT has you beat on that point, for before faith we're ... hostile/alien.

And on the "not moved away from the hope of the Gospel", I would think your view of faith, no faith, faith, no faith -- is unreflective of Col 1:23, "not moved away".

Noooo --- it says nothing about hardship. It speaks of "SEEN faith", and "UNSEEN faith". Those who believe WITHOUT seeing, do not necessarily have greater hardship than Thomas did.

You're fully missing the dynamic of "You believe BECAUSE you see".

Because he saw, Mike; not because God decided.

He saw, he believed; but those who do NOT see and still believe, have greater faith. There is no way to impose "predestined faith" on either (or both) of those.

Yes. Faith isn't monergistic. But ... just to be sure ... you don't think God was required for the resurrected Jesus to appear to Thomas? And you do think Thomas was unsaved before this event? So the "I lost none of them except the one" really wasn't true, was it?

 

[cygnusx1]

What does Heb3:8 (and 12-13) say about "heart-hardening"? Who, or what, hardens men's hearts?

What's happening in Exodus 9:34 and 10:1? Who hardened Pharaoh's heart?

I have no problem whatsoever agreeing that men harden their own hearts , if you hadn't noticed that is not up for debate so quit hiding behind it.

Can you also not agree with scripture that God hardens men , yes or no ?

 

[Ben johnson]

I have no problem whatsoever agreeing that men harden their own hearts, if you hadn't noticed that is not up for debate so quit hiding behind it.

In Heb3, the concept of "hardening hearts", connects both to CHOICE ("do not..."), and SIN (which is also choice). If men harden their OWN hearts, then Reformed Theology is overturned, Cygnus.

Can you also not agree with scripture that God hardens men, yes or no ?

NO. Unequivocally, undeniably, irrefutibly, absolutely NOT.

"God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES".

You're trying to make it: "God is JUST and justifier of the one whom He REGENERATES, and the rest He HARDENS so they CANNOT believe, but that's JUST.

On the Day of Judgment He will judge everyone --- those who seek glory and immortality (by doing good) receive eternal life; but those who seek unrighteousness will perish. And as they're led away to be cast into the Lake of Fire, the condemned will say "God, we couldn't AVOID this, we had NO CHOICE! You hardened our hearts so we could not believe, you chose us TO perish, we're not responsible --- YOU ARE!"

...and God will say, "Yeah, tough luck, ain't it? Sure you couldn't choose anything else, but it's JUST because I SAY it is...



Is there anything else God could say at that time?

 

[cygnusx1]

In Heb3, the concept of "hardening hearts", connects both to CHOICE ("do not..."), and SIN (which is also choice). If men harden their OWN hearts, then Reformed Theology is overturned, Cygnus.
NO. Unequivocally, undeniably, irrefutibly, absolutely NOT.

"God is just and justifier of he who BELIEVES".

You're trying to make it: "God is JUST and justifier of the one whom He REGENERATES, and the rest He HARDENS so they CANNOT believe, but that's JUST.

On the Day of Judgment He will judge everyone --- those who seek glory and immortality (by doing good) receive eternal life; but those who seek unrighteousness will perish. And as they're led away to be cast into the Lake of Fire, the condemned will say "God, we couldn't AVOID this, we had NO CHOICE! You hardened our hearts so we could not believe, you chose us TO perish, we're not responsible --- YOU ARE!"

...and God will say, "Yeah, tough luck, ain't it? Sure you couldn't choose anything else, but it's JUST because I SAY it is...



Is there anything else God could say at that time?

and here we have demonstrated for all to see the foundation of all your errors ; RATIONALISM.

scripture says men harden themselves (everyone agrees it is so)
Scripture also says God hardens men , and ben refuses God's word , making it say the same thing as men harden themselves not God.

No wonder we seldom agree with this liberal attitude to sacred scripture.

"Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom. 9:20).

 

[Ben johnson]

and here we have demonstrated for all to see the foundation of all your errors ; RATIONALISM.

Sooooo --- you're saying I use my own RATIONAL REASON, in spite of clear Scripture? Everything I've said has been backed up with Scripture.

There is a Scriptural literary device, "semetic view" --- ascribing to God what men did themselves. Thus "Pharaoh hardened his OWN heart" (Ex9:34), and then "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" (Ez10:1). But it was PHARAOH'S own choice, Cygnus.

Never does God harden men's heart apart from (or before) unbelief!

scripture says men harden themselves (everyone agrees it is so)
Scripture also says God hardens men, and Ben refuses God's word, making it say the same thing as men harden themselves not God.

Who did the hardening in Ex9:34, and 10:1? It's the same event --- who DID it???

No wonder we seldom agree with this liberal attitude to sacred scripture.

Which of us ascribes to God evil action? I mean no disrespect, Cygnus. For God to DECIDE men will be sinful and non-regenerated, then to punish them FOR it, is "evil"...

"Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom. 9:20).

Misquote, Cygnus; that passage is "also Gentiles". "If God wants to also save the Gentiles, who are YOU to reply back to GOD?"

 

[cygnusx1]

Sooooo --- you're saying I use my own RATIONAL REASON, in spite of clear Scripture? Everything I've said has been backed up with Scripture.

I am saying that if scripture says one thing and you don't like it , you rationalise it away , God hardens men , even van accepts this , but you cannot accept God would harden anyone , so you say it is man doing it , and then you will quote those scriptures that show men harden their own hearts , whilst completely ignoring those scriptures that say God hardens men's hearts , then you will gloat "I quote scripture to support my view" ............ as if merely quoting scripture means understanding it , it doesn't ben.

 

[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?

I still think this post is a gem , no wonder ben couldn't answer your arguement bro!

 

[Ben johnson]

Tying the rest of the loose ends.

The very existence of a difference in Jesus' eyes between "unseen faith", and "seen faith", is highly significant. What difference worth mentioning is there, if both are monergistically-gifted?

Every difference beyond and beside salvation. Such is God's sight of the adversity His children go through every day.

It wasn't "adversity" Jesus was addressing --- it was belief itself. Jesus said, "You believe BECAUSE you see" --- that's why unseen belief is praised more than seen belief. You're missing the dynamic of "seeing-causing-belief". In John6:40, Jesus said: "The will (desire) of God is that all who SEE Me and believe, may have eternal life." The other half of that dynamic (that you refuse to acknowledge), is Jesus' rebuke to those who SAW and REFUSED to believe. Look at Matt11:21-24; He said, "Had Tyre and Sidon, and even SODOM seen what YOU have seen, they would have remained until this day. I tell you it will go better for THEM in the judgment, than for YOU!"

Why, Mike? Why would it go better in the judgment than for Capernaum and Bethsiada and Chorazin? There's only one answer --- because of their willful unbelief.

...if you refuse to accept that, then you're espousing that "God gifts faith and regeneration to those whom He chooses, and then REBUKES (for unbelief) those whom He has NOT chosen TO believe!

Is that really credible to you?

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Mt 5:10-12

How do you connect this with what I just said? There is no connection.

Hm, more words in my mouth. Your view of the Spirit seems to me to require some visible result every time you cite it. Is that accurate? Maybe not. Yet, my view instead requires some form of being born of the Spirit, which may not yet have been seen in some outpouring of the Spirit.

How can "born of the Spirit", NOT have visible results? Can a person born of (and indwelt by) the Spirit still sin willfully, making the Spirit participant in iniquity?

Yet New Birth doesn't make the one born a bystander.

It certainly doesn't...

Do you think Cornelius' action was not by the Spirit of God when he heard the Angel of God during prayer? The Gospel was public news at that time (Acts 10:37). Was the Spirit just waiting on an Apostle to tell him before the Spirit regenerated Cornelius? Or was this entire move ... something different? Is the public display of the Spirit in Cornelius' family for an entirely different purpose than soteriology? The Spirit of God is showing Peter, "no respect of persons". The Spirit of God is showing the Jerusalem Church, "no respect of persons." That's the outpouring. But the indwelling, that came before.

And you flat deny the context of "no respecter" --- the context plainly says that God is NOT partial, but God WELCOMES those who do right and fear Him.

Your view asserts that "God gives faith/new-hearts to those with whom He has partiality" (and THEN they come to Him).
Scripture says that "God WELCOMES those who come and seek Him".

Which view should we believe, Mike?

"And that not of yourselves". It's been discussed at length.

Discussed at length? There's no discussion. "That" and "faith" are different genders (Greek would require a gender match had they been the same item), "through faith" is a prepositional phrase (therefore preventing elevation to any kind of subject). The subject is the entire opening phrase "by grace through faith have you been saved". Can we please deal with this, either agree with what I just said, or provide any kind of refutation. But just ignoring this paragraph and pretending "WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT WELL", isn't valid.

At best you've argued that "oh, well faith is still of ourselves...

Where does saving-faith come from in Rom10:10? Where does it come from in 2Tim3:15? Where does obedience come from in Rom6:17?

... but the rest of salvation, that's a gift of God." Ah. So faith is not part of salvation?

No, it's not; salvation is "all of God --- not of flesh nor of man's will" (Jn1:13). Do you agree that salvation was wrought in COMPLETENESS, by Jesus on the Cross? I certainly perceive that.

....now, with respect to John1:13, how begottenness is all of God and none of us --- what does John1:12 say about "becoming begotten"? How does it say that we become God's children?

For if salvation is "not of yourselves", and to you faith is entirely of yourselves, then faith must have no part of salvation.

No one said "faith is entirely of ourselves" --- that would deny His sincere calling, wouldn't it? But if He sincerely calls all, then each has the choice to answer or not, doesn't he? Isn't that the theme of the parable of Matt22:2-14?

"Many are called, but few are chosen". Why were the unchosen, not chosen? Did the King have anything to do with it?

Of course there're more.
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3.

Prove to me that "see" means "perceive" here, rather than "enter", like Matt18:3-4, Lk13:3, etcetera?

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 John 5:1

And how does that conflict the idea that "they WERE born of God, when they first believed"? What does 1Jn5:10 say about belief and unbelief, Mike?

Yes. I don't recognize where you're a rival to RT on the point of hostile/alien, in fact I would think RT has you beaten on that point, for before faith we're ... hostile/alien.

To the contrary --- we are reconciled through faith. And we STAY reconciled, if we CONTINUE in faith. That's what it says...

And on the "not moved away from the hope of the Gospel", I would think your view of faith, no faith, faith, no faith -- is unreflective of Col 1:23, "not moved away".

What is says, is that we can be "moved away from the Hope of the Gospel" --- that means "moved away from Jesus", Mike. Please see Heb10:35

Yes. Faith isn't monergistic.

It certainly is! In your view anyway. Is faith GIFTED to us, or NOT? Do you not take Philip1:29 says that "it is GIVEN for us TO believe", don't you?

But ... just to be sure ... you don't think God was required for the resurrected Jesus to appear to Thomas? And you do think Thomas was unsaved before this event?

Define "unsaved" --- did not Paul say "if Christ not be raised from the dead, then your faith is in vain"?

Can we be "saved", if we do NOT believe Jesus was resurrected?

Thomas believed, BECAUSE he saw. Not because God monergistically did it to him....

So the "I lost none of them except the one" really wasn't true, was it

Did Jesus lose Judas, or not? Before you answer --- consider:

Jesus: "YOU aren't going to leave TO, are you!"
Peter: "Of course not; we know You're the Messiah."
Jesus: "Did I not choose all twelve, and one is a devil?"

Were the other eleven at the same risk of "loss", as Judas was? Did Jesus really believe PETER could fall from faith? In Lk22:31-32, what does the Greek word "epistrepho" mean?

 

[heymikey80]

It wasn't "adversity" Jesus was addressing --- it was belief itself. Jesus said, "You believe BECAUSE you see" --- that's why unseen belief is praised more than seen belief. You're missing the dynamic of "seeing-causing-belief". In John6:40, Jesus said: "The will (desire) of God is that all who SEE Me and believe, may have eternal life."

Gee. Now how could I miss a dynamic that's explicitly denied by the referenced Scripture? "Blessed are those not having seen, and having believed." Jn 20:29

Do I really need to go on? That which was calibrated to teach me something ends in self contradiction?

You miss the dynamic of the passage -- that faith is in all, the seen and the unseen. Thomas had a wealth of seeing. His walk from this point on was going to be easier than someone who has not seen it.

But you mention "seeing" in a metaphorical sense, seeing Christ in John 6. And we've referenced seeing the Kingdom of God, before -- it requires Spiritual birth to see the King of this Kingdom.

How does someone have faith in Christ without seeing Him this way, Ben? And what is a faith in Christ if it's not in sight of the Kingdom that is in Him?

And a question. Is faith the cause of salvation or not? You seem to keep hopping that line back & forth. Which is it?

 

[Ben johnson]

Gee. Now how could I miss a dynamic that's explicitly denied by the referenced Scripture? "Blessed are those not having seen, and having believed." Jn 20:29

Do I really need to go on? That which was calibrated to teach me something ends in self contradiction?

You miss the dynamic of the passage -- that faith is in all, the seen and the unseen. Thomas had a wealth of seeing. His walk from this point on was going to be easier than someone who has not seen it.

Two things --- first, Thomas believed BECAUSE he saw. That is as unpredestined as can get. Second --- Jesus often rebuked people for "seeing, but refusing TO believe" --- see Matt11:21-24

But you mention "seeing" in a metaphorical sense, seeing Christ in John 6.

It's not "metaphorical" --- "theoreo" really means "spectate/SEE". And you deny the two ideas connect; Thomas believed BECAUSE he saw, but UNSEEN belief is BETTER.

And we've referenced seeing the Kingdom of God, before -- it requires Spiritual birth to see the King of this Kingdom.

Adding words to Scripture, Mike; nowhere does it say "regeneration to be able to see the King".

How does someone have faith in Christ without seeing Him this way, Ben?

Please explain what happened in 2Tim3:16. You won't answer this one, will you?

And what is a faith in Christ if it's not in sight of the Kingdom that is in Him?

Thomas believed because he saw. We have the ability TO believe, or NOT. And regeneration is subbordinate to belief.

"Poured Spirit" in Titus 3:5-6 --- right?

And a question. Is faith the cause of salvation or not?

Jesus already answered that --- "you believe BECAUSE you see?"

Does faith cause us to become adopted-sons in John1:12, or not?

You seem to keep hopping that line back & forth. Which is it?

I look forward to your answers, Mike.

 

[Ben johnson]

To forestall another citation of Mark4:11-12, Matt13:15 says "they closed their OWN eyes and ears".

And against a citation of 2Cor4:3-4, verse 3:16 says "when a man turns to the Lord, (then!) the veil is removed from his eyes".

Scripture simply does not support "unresponsible, sovereignly predestined to righteousness and to reprobation"...

 

[cygnusx1]

To forestall another citation of Mark4:11-12, Matt13:15 says "they closed their OWN eyes and ears".

And against a citation of 2Cor4:3-4, verse 3:16 says "when a man turns to the Lord, (then!) the veil is removed from his eyes".

Scripture simply does not support "unresponsible, sovereignly predestined to righteousness and to reprobation"...

I think you are missing the point ben .

who here has said that men are not responsible for sin ?

Who here has said God hardens men without any consideration of it being a judgment for sin ?

Who here has said that Predestination to righteousness is irresponsible ?

who here , has said men are destined to wrath on a whim ?


you see the real problem between us is you are so hostile to the truth that even when Christians agree with you , you argue against a position no one even holds!!!

there must be a serious underlying problem that makes you act thus .

 

[heymikey80]

Two things --- first, Thomas believed BECAUSE he saw. That is as unpredestined as can get. Second --- Jesus often rebuked people for "seeing, but refusing TO believe" --- see Matt11:21-24

Clearly it's not "unpredestined", as God was the One Who appeared.

You must realize by now, that predestination is not the bare and unqualified monergism of the person. I've said it now six times. Apparently you're not realizing that one is not the other -- that predestination is not regeneration is not faith. They are distinct things. They are related things, but they are distinct.

John 20:29 still skewers the idea that seeing Jesus with the eyes is necessary in order to gain faith. So the dynamic you're talking about is neither necessary, nor even necessarily causative. Thomas' seeing Jesus has some impact over whether he believes in Jesus' resurrection (20:25). Evidence has an impact on faith.

But who made the evidence, Ben? Who created everything that went into that event?

It's not "metaphorical" --- "theoreo" really means "spectate/SEE". And you deny the two ideas connect; Thomas believed BECAUSE he saw, but UNSEEN belief is BETTER. Adding words to Scripture, Mike; nowhere does it say "regeneration to be able to see the King".

So you think Christ can be seen as the King of a Kingdom the person can't see ...? I'm baffled why you think John 6:40 has to be physical and not metaphorical.

Please explain what happened in 2Tim3:16. You won't answer this one, will you?

I already have, again & again.

 

[heymikey80]

Jesus already answered that --- "you believe BECAUSE you see?"

So the answer to "Does belief cause salvation?" for you, is "Yes"? I'm not sure how you got that from this short phrase, but that's beside the point. If that's what you believe, then surely you realize that reattributing "that not of yourselves" of Ep 2:8-10 to salvation instead of faith, forces the same logic. If faith caused salvation, then faith must also be "not of yourselves, a gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast."

For what's a gift of God can't be of yourselves.

Does faith cause us to become adopted-sons in John1:12, or not? I look forward to your answers, Mike.

"To those who believed on his name he gave the right to become children of God ..." Well, let's see. He says that the same people who have the right, believe. Where's the cause-effect, Ben?


Might it be at 1:13?

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.​

Merry Christmas!

 

[cygnusx1]

Originally Posted by heymikey80
.........................



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?

now here's a post that keeps coming back !

 

[Ben johnson]

Clearly it's not "unpredestined", as God was the One Who appeared.

Jesus was predestined, 1Pet1:20-21; our faith in Him was not.

You must realize by now, that predestination is not the bare and unqualified monergism of the person. I've said it now six times. Apparently you're not realizing that one is not the other -- that predestination is not regeneration is not faith. They are distinct things. They are related things, but they are distinct.

Does one occur without the other (in your doctrine)?

No.

John 20:29 still skewers the idea that seeing Jesus with the eyes is necessary in order to gain faith. So the dynamic you're talking about is neither necessary, nor even necessarily causative. Thomas' seeing Jesus has some impact over whether he believes in Jesus' resurrection (20:25). Evidence has an impact on faith.

Please answer the following questions --- preferably "yes" or "no":
1. Is it possible to be a Christian without believing in Jesus' resurrection? 1Cor15:14
2. Would "doubting Thomas" have believed in Jesus without having seen?
3. Is faith gifted to us by God?
4. Can faith be affected/impacted by what we see?

Please understand that #3 and #4 cannot both be answered the same way --- if you do, there will be contradiction.

But who made the evidence, Ben? Who created everything that went into that event?

The question, is "what made people believe the evidence?"

So you think Christ can be seen as the King of a Kingdom the person can't see ...? I'm baffled why you think John 6:40 has to be physical and not metaphorical.

Jesus was speaking contemporarily, to people who were going to see His death and resurrection. Jesus condemned many for seeing and REFUSING to believe (Matt11:21-24). So, the Crucifixion being a future event, Jesus told the people THERE, that "all who see Me and believe will be saved." AND the connection between that, and His words to Thomas, plainly state that UNSEEN belief is GREATER than seen belief.

There is no way "unseen is better than seen", if faith is a monergistic gift. Is there? All who see Jesus, His death and resurrection, and believe, will be saved. But all who believe WITHOUT seeing, will be saved by better faith than those who saw...

Please explain what happened in 2Tim3:16. You won't answer this one, will you?

I already have, again & again.

Then humor me, and answer it again:
"Since childhood you've read the sacred Scriptures, which are able to lead you to wisdom that leads to saving faith through Christ Jesus."

Where does "saving-faith" come from in that passage? Monergistic gift-from-God? Or from studying Scriptures? When Jesus condemns the Jews for "studying the Scriptures but being UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life (BECAUSE you seek men's glory rather than God's)", what is the difference between the audience in Jn5:39-47, and the audience in 2Tim3:15? Is the difference something God decided, or did they?

Jesus already answered that --- "you believe BECAUSE you see?"

So the answer to "Does belief cause salvation?" for you, is "Yes"? I'm not sure how you got that from this short phrase, but that's beside the point.

"Because", has as its root, "cause". Webster's defines it as "for the reason that". There is no credibility in asserting that "because", does not mean "causal".

If that's what you believe, then surely you realize that reattributing "that not of yourselves" of Ep 2:8-10 to salvation instead of faith, forces the same logic. If faith caused salvation, then faith must also be "not of yourselves, a gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast."

You seem to be stuck in thinking that "faith of ourselves, is boastable". First --- where does saving-faith come from in Rom10:10? From our hearts --- plain and undeniable. Second --- faith that receives Him, comes from brokenness and humility; from the realization of our own depravity, and condemnation without Him --- it is a far from boasting as light from dark, fire from frost, love from indifference.

For what's a gift of God can't be of yourselves.

Correct --- and if faith is NOT "gifted by God", then the faith that RECEIVES His gift is of us; the gift remains of Him.

"To those who believed on his name he gave the right to become children of God ..." Well, let's see. He says that the same people who have the right, believe. Where's the cause-effect, Ben?

Because (there's that word again!) He says that "gave-right", went to BELIEVERS.

Might it be at 1:13?
12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

What you're refusing to accept is that verse 13 casts the "BEGOTTENNESS" as "all of Him and none of us" --- but verse 12 plainly says that "begottenness" (becoming adopted children) is to those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE Him.

That places "believe/receive", as preceding (and causal to) begottenness.

Doesn't it?

Merry Christmas!

And to you also, my friend; hope it was blessed and joyful, and that your New Year will be happy and prosperous.

 

[heymikey80]

Jesus was predestined, 1Pet1:20-21; our faith in Him was not.

Heh. Injected that last bit as your own personal opinion, I see.

Does one occur without the other (in your doctrine)?

No.

Should one think about adding something to monergism, one would discover that adding something that's not monergistic, to something that is monergistic, makes the combination -- not monergistic!

Please answer the following questions --- preferably "yes" or "no":
1. Is it possible to be a Christian without believing in Jesus' resurrection? 1Cor15:14

Well, you'd better hope so. In your interpretation Paul is assuming everybody in Corinth is a believer; yet in 1 Cor 15 he addresses people who don't believe Jesus is really resurrected. What a contradiction in terms if Paul doesn't think they're Christians, and yet calls them such.
But of course in my understanding Paul is addressing people in general, he's not supernaturally aware that they're all saved.

To my understanding ol' Abe was also ... a Christian.

So the larger answer? "Yes".

2. Would "doubting Thomas" have believed in Jesus without having seen?

I think Thomas already believed in Jesus. It was the fact of the Resurrection that he was skeptical of.

3. Is faith gifted to us by God?

Faith is gifted/granted to us by God. Pp 1:29.

4. Can faith be affected/impacted by what we see?

Faith can be affected by what we see. Faith cannot be effected by what we see.

Please understand that #3 and #4 cannot both be answered the same way --- if you do, there will be contradiction.

Only to your mind. To demonstrate: it matters not how much you train a slug, it will never walk. Yet a child can walk inherently. However, that child's walking can be affected/impacted by other people. They can trip him up. They can tie his shoes together. They can throw him in the mud, or in water. All these things affect walking. But they do not prevent the child from walking.

The question, is "what made people believe the evidence?"

Yes.

Jesus was speaking contemporarily, to people who were going to see His death and resurrection. Jesus condemned many for seeing and REFUSING to believe (Matt11:21-24). So, the Crucifixion being a future event, Jesus told the people THERE, that "all who see Me and believe will be saved." AND the connection between that, and His words to Thomas, plainly state that UNSEEN belief is GREATER than seen belief.

There is no way "unseen is better than seen", if faith is a monergistic gift. Is there? All who see Jesus, His death and resurrection, and believe, will be saved. But all who believe WITHOUT seeing, will be saved by better faith than those who saw...

Of course there is, just as the one who walks in the dark is different from one who walks in broad daylight. But the light doesn't cause the walking, it just makes it easy. The darkness doesn't prevent the walking, it just makes it hard.

Then humor me, and answer it again:
"Since childhood you've read the sacred Scriptures, which are able to lead you to wisdom that leads to saving faith through Christ Jesus."

Where does "saving-faith" come from in that passage? Monergistic gift-from-God? Or from studying Scriptures? When Jesus condemns the Jews for "studying the Scriptures but being UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life (BECAUSE you seek men's glory rather than God's)", what is the difference between the audience in Jn5:39-47, and the audience in 2Tim3:15? Is the difference something God decided, or did they?

Look again. Both had the Scriptures. So it's not caused by the Scriptures what's critical here. In 2 Timothy Paul is addressing one person in particular -- someone he already knows is a believer. (In fact, it's just a little bit odd Paul would say "that leads to saving faith" ... if Timothy already believed and "was saved" at the time ... isn't it. So there's something odd about the translation you're preferring. Either Timothy believes or he doesn't. Paul is addressing "you, Timothy." To write in such a manner would be superfluous at least -- and it seems to me, contradictory if it were pressed into the context of the letter.)

As to the unwillingness of the Judeans, "you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. " Jn 5:38 This thing about Scriptures causing faith ... where's it in the context, again? This seems to be saying it backward.

"Because", has as its root, "cause".

That would be a good answer if you were proving that seeing caused belief. But you were asserting that belief caused salvation -- another thing entirely.

It's called, "Bait & Switch". And it's clear. Why persist in this excursion to where I have to openly expose the problem?

You seem to be stuck in thinking that "faith of ourselves, is boastable". First --- where does saving-faith come from in Rom10:10? From our hearts --- plain and undeniable. Second --- faith that receives Him, comes from brokenness and humility; from the realization of our own depravity, and condemnation without Him --- it is a far from boasting as light from dark, fire from frost, love from indifference.

Ah. So James was just blowing smoke in chapter 2. "You have works; I have faith." James doesn't seem to follow your line of reasoning.

Correct --- and if faith is NOT "gifted by God", then the faith that RECEIVES His gift is of us; the gift remains of Him.Because (there's that word again!) He says that "gave-right", went to BELIEVERS.

Paul says "not of yourselves." You're making it quite clear, in your view a "faith of yourselves" is the critical point in an individual's salvation.

What you're refusing to accept is that verse 13 casts the "BEGOTTENNESS" as "all of Him and none of us" --- but verse 12 plainly says that "begottenness" (becoming adopted children) is to those who BELIEVE and RECEIVE Him.

That places "believe/receive", as preceding (and causal to) begottenness.

Doesn't it?

Well, not really. But you realize, this isn't a critical tipping point in Reformed theology either way. There are people who assert that sonship is itself a multistep process, it is not a point-event.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:12-13
​

So let's look. "who were born" could readily be prior to belief. There's nothing in the context that demands "1. receive- 2. believe- 3. born- 4. adoption." What is demanded by the context is that those who did receive and believe, were born of God; and that those same people God gave the right to become (or legally to be treated as) children of God.

They are correspondences. They aren't causal links. The absence of "because" here is an indicator that cause isn't explicit.

In fact, what is explicit here is a word, translated "as many as". It's essentially an explicit word that means what I'm describing: that the people who received are the people who have the right; that the people who received are the people who were born of God.

So John didn't say something causal here. But he is saying something about each individual. Each one who believed was given the right; each one who believed was born of God.

So, can someone be unborn of God? Or in the words of John 10, can someone given "eternal life and never perish" ... die?

 

[Ben johnson]

Heh. Injected that last bit as your own personal opinion, I see.

Show me one verse, any verse, that asserts "predestined-faith". On Eph2:8, A.T.Robertson says "Grace is God's part, faith is ours."

I showed you Heb11:6; saving faith comes TO God, not FROM God. He rewards those who SEEK Him, not "they seek whom He has rewarded".

predestination is not regeneration is not faith. They are distinct things. They are related things, but they are distinct.

Does one occur without the other (in your doctrine)?

No.

Should one think about adding something to monergism, one would discover that adding something that's not monergistic, to something that is monergistic, makes the combination -- not monergistic!

This is a "shell game", Mike; it's the same perspective as saying that "men have free will; it's just that UNregenerated men always WILL to rebel, and regenerated men always WILL to believe/follow God." And I respond "if a man's will is predicated on God's decision, then the man's will is dictated by God's decision --- it isn't free".

Those whom God predestines (in your doctrine), He regenerates --- thus, regeneration is predestined. To those whom He regenerates, He gifts faith. It is predestined that they believe.

You're objecting and trying to make a distinction because you realize there is a conflict...

Well, you'd better hope so. In your interpretation Paul is assuming everybody in Corinth is a believer; yet in 1 Cor 15 he addresses people who don't believe Jesus is really resurrected. What a contradiction in terms if Paul doesn't think they're Christians, and yet calls them such.
But of course in my understanding Paul is addressing people in general, he's not supernaturally aware that they're all saved.

To my understanding ol' Abe was also ... a Christian.

So the larger answer? "Yes".

Paul wrote to a body of believers --- some of whom, were NOT believing. Thus Paul's admonishment to BELIEVE and BE SAVED.

In Eph4, Paul admonishes US to "not walk as the heathen do, excluded from the life of God".

In 1Tim4, Paul admonishes us to "be diligent about persevering in our teaching; as we DO we will SAVE OURSELVES...

In Col2:6-8 we are admonished to "WALK in Jesus; guard ourselves against deceit, against being taken CAPTIVE by empty philosophies and worldly traditions rather than by Christ!"

In 2Cor11:3 Paul worries that, just as EVE was deceived, WE can be deceived away from Christ!


I think the concept of "guard your SALVATION", is well established. We can cite more verses if you wish; there are lots of 'em...

 

[Ben johnson]

I think Thomas already believed in Jesus. It was the fact of the Resurrection that he was skeptical of.

Can't be, Mike. Jesus' sole purpose of being born was to die, and live again. By rejecting the Resurrection, one rejects JESUS.

Either Jesus was resurrected, OR the New Covenant didn't exist, Jesus was a liar, Christian faith is in vain. THAT is what Thomas was struggling with; and it's why He said "My Lord and my God!" Jesus would NOT have been his Lord and God had Jesus not been resurrected.

Faith is gifted/granted to us by God. Pp 1:29.

In the second place, you have a contradiction --- if man has "free will", then faith must be freely chosen. In your doctrine --- as we just discussed --- faith flows freely FROM the heart, either faithlessness if unelect, OR faithfulness if elect. But here you also say that "faith is gifted to us by God". AND you claim "faith is not monergistic".

How can God's sovereign gift of faith, not be monergistic? How can "gifted faith", be "freely chosen"?

Conflict, Mike.

SECOND --- the verse you quoted, Philip2:29, says "it has been granted to you not only to believe, but to suffer" --- there is no way that "granted" means "imposed" --- the provision is what's granted; we can CHOOSE to believe, AND to suffer.

 

[Ben johnson]

Faith can be affected by what we see. Faith cannot be effected by what we see.

How can that be? Is God's sovereign "granting", insufficient? Has He not the power to gift faith that persists?

Against what you understand, Thomas said "My LORD and my GOD" --- that certainly is being effected.

Only to your mind. To demonstrate: it matters not how much you train a slug, it will never walk. Yet a child can walk inherently. However, that child's walking can be affected/impacted by other people. They can trip him up. They can tie his shoes together. They can throw him in the mud, or in water. All these things affect walking. But they do not prevent the child from walking.

How many kinds of "saving-faith" are there? If more than one, then faith can be affected (changing into different, but saved, forms). But if there is only ONE "saved-faith", which "abide in Jesus, submitting to Him as Lord and Savior", then faith cannot be affected (if sovereignly gifted).

Saving faith is rather like being pregnant; you either HAVE it, or NOT...

Ben johnson
The question, is "what made people believe the evidence?"

Yes.

You evade the point --- do you understand why?

Of course there is, just as the one who walks in the dark is different from one who walks in broad daylight. But the light doesn't cause the walking, it just makes it easy. The darkness doesn't prevent the walking, it just makes it hard.

Here you are asserting "walking-in-darkness-SAVED".

"If we say we have fellowship with Him, but walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He Himself is in the light, then ...the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness."

I see no provision for "cleansed-from-unrighteousness, WALKING-IN-DARKNESS". You are crossing into a different facet of "OSAS", called Antinomianism...

As Paul said, "How shall we who have DIED to sin, still live IN it?" There is no "live-in-sin, walk-in-darkness, SAVED". Jesus indwells a heart, or it is not saved. Pregnant or not, Mike --- no "in between"...