You be the judge!

[frumanchu]

The Calvinist says: "Those in verse 15 are SAVED, by EVIDENCE of their PERSEVERANCE. And conversely the THIRTEENERS are UNSAVED by EVIDENCE of their 'falling-away'."

Saying that "their FALLING proves they WERE not saved", is to prove the ARGUMENT with the ASSUMPTION.

If you take issue with such reasoning, then you have a major problem in Scripture, Ben. 1 John 2:19 says PRECISELY THAT.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." - 1 John 2:19 (emph. added)

There are many examples of Christians who have lived their whole lives (or many years anyway) believing, worshipping God, with all the fruits and trappings of salvation; but then disbelieve.

First of all, in these examples do all of them persist in their unbelief to their death (and can you even know that)? Second, it is entirely possible for one to possess the outward appearance of faith, and for one to possess notitia and assensus without exercising fiducia. They may essentially have 'faith in faith' and trust in their acknowledgment of a doctrine (sola fide) to save them. And they may make a grand show of it, performing all manner of works of civic righteousness. But their failure to persevere will expose them, just as 1 John 2:19 set forth, as never having been "of us."

What is it about those of 2Pet2:20, who "escaped the defilements of the world through the EPIGNOSIS-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", what is it that makes you see their BELIEF, as DIFFERENT than the identically-described-ESCAPED-by-EPIGNOSIS of 2Pet1:2-4? (I mean, what is it that makes you see the ch2 escapees differently, OTHER THAN the prior belief of Calvinism?)

I've gone over this with you extensively, Ben. I see no need to continue to provide answers you refuse to accept. Anyone who is curious to know can visit [thread=86001]that thread[/thread] and see for themselves.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

Quote:

Eternal life with Christ is the only treassure worth having and all who have the gospel preached to them. Are having a treasure offered to them. This treasure is desirable to everyone,but some are affraid that it's to good to be true. That there is a catch 22 somewhere that will make them regret seeking this treasure. The catch 22's, ranges from what will I have to give up to what will people think of me.

I disagree. You've reduced man's rejection of the Gospel to mere social concerns. Unregenerate man's rejection of God runs far deeper than that.

Actually it is deeper than that. I believe the main reason men don't surrender to Christ is because of pride. It all boils down to pride and out right rebellion. A rejection of true authority.

Let me use a rough analogy to see if I can convey why. Assuming you have had children, you know that you have at times disciplined your children. You took no pleasure in the act of disciplining them, but in a larger sense you acted according to your desire to discipline your children having in mind the larger purpose of that discipline. In other words, if disciplining your children wasn't ultimately according to your good pleasure, your overall desire, then you would not do it. That doesn't mean that you take immediate pleasure in the act of disciplining your children.

Yes I have 3 children all grown and I have disaplined all of them at times but while I have taken a paddle to there back sides when they disobeyed I could never send them, to there death. Chastisement and eternal punishment are two different things.
When we reject Christ we are disowning Him as our father. We are telling Him that he is not who He said he was. I believe this Hurts our lord and once he has given up on drawing us to Him. He no longer considers us His children and turns them over to the darkness of there sin. I believe that man goes to hell because of his own rejection of Christ.

May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[Bulldog]

When you discipline your children, you discipine them by what they deserve, right?

 

[frumanchu]

Actually it is deeper than that. I believe the main reason men don't surrender to Christ is because of pride. It all boils down to pride and out right rebellion. A rejection of true authority.

I pretty much agree with you their.

Yes I have 3 children all grown and I have disaplined all of them at times but while I have taken a paddle to there back sides when they disobeyed I could never send them, to there death. Chastisement and eternal punishment are two different things.

I understand the difference...that's why I said "rough analogy." I wasn't trying to draw the comparison between chastisement of our offspring and the condemnation of the reprobate. The point was to show how one can do something according to their good pleasure while at the same time taking no pleasure in it. Do you see what I'm getting at?

When we reject Christ we are disowning Him as our father. We are telling Him that he is not who He said he was. I believe this Hurts our lord and once he has given up on drawing us to Him. He no longer considers us His children and turns them over to the darkness of there sin. I believe that man goes to hell because of his own rejection of Christ.

This is where we part ways, Ray. Man goes to hell because he is a sinner. He is not condemned only because he rejected Christ. I also disagree with the very first statement you made...that we disown Him as our Father. He is not our Father to begin with. He is not our Father until we are adopted as sons. Until such point we are of our father, the devil.

One of the worst theologies to come out of Europe in the past couple hundred years is the summarization of the Christian message as 'the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.' Nothing could be further from the truth. God is not the Father of devout Muslims. Mormons, as devout as they may be, are my neighbors, not my brothers.

We are NOT all God's children. We are by nature children of wrath. Only by the grace of our Lord through adoption can we cry out 'Abba, Father.'

 

[Received]

But where does it say that man by his very mode of existence deserves eternal torment? I only read that God rewards all men according to their deeds (Psalm 62:12), and that He will reward all men according to their deeds (Romans 2:6-10), the latter being participant of the day of wrath by nature of his obstinance in refusal to repent (v.5). For me, fru, this solves the puzzle quite easily. If God rewards all men according to their deeds on a perpetual and unyielding basis, men are also constantly reaping the rewards of their momentary sins -- their Hell is now, and until they stop their sinful nature; this is where Christ comes in. Only with one who refuses repentance can he be labeled worthy of the torment of God's wrath.

 

[Ben johnson]

It is ridiculous to say that if all men without exception are justly condemnable for their sin that God may only save all of them and not just some of them. Furthermore, the insistence that God is obligated or compelled by His very nature to do anything and everything He can to bring all men without exception is demonstrably false, and clearly set forth in Scripture as such.

God's nature is clearly spelled out in many verses --- first, the verses that say "He desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". Second, the verses that say "God does not tempt/decree/predestine any to perish". What you are unwilling to admit is that if ALL are "justly" condemned, and ONLY God's forceful interaction can save ANY, then His very ignoring of the UNELECT is identical and inseparable from His CONDEMNING them consciously.

I disagree. You've reduced man's rejection of the Gospel to mere social concerns. Unregenerate man's rejection of God runs far deeper than that.

The question is not "SOCIAL CONCERNS", but conscious CHOICE. PE founds on the premise that men are spiritual CORPSES, and UNCONSCIOUS; if that is so, then Jesus spends an awful lot of time berating them for NOT BELIEVING, all-the-while-secretly-KNOWING-that-they-CANNOT-believe.

Saying that "their FALLING proves they WERE not saved", is to prove the ARGUMENT with the ASSUMPTION.

If you take issue with such reasoning, then you have a major problem in Scripture, Ben. 1 John 2:19 says PRECISELY THAT.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." - 1 John 2:19

OK, once again, 1Jn2:19 speaks of "many antichrists" (who were never saved). Does this passage, written by John, establish that ALL who "go out from us were never WITH us"? Not according to John's second letter. In this short letter John warns against "deceivers/antichrists", and WARNS the believers to "WATCH YOURSELVES that you do not lose what has been WROUGHT". He continues in the NEXT verse, "Anyone who GOES TOO FAR (goes out from you) and DOES NOT ABIDE in Jesus' teachings, HAS NOT GOD." Here then is the ANSWER to 1Jn2:19.

1. Warns BELIEVERS
2. Warns against the DECEIVERS
3. Warns against LOSING WHAT WAS WROUGHT
4. Clearly states that it is POSSIBLE to GO TOO FAR and NOT-ABIDE

You see, Fru, it simply doesn't work to say "Oh he's only warning against losing HEAVENLY CROWNS, and then in the NEXT verse he JUMPS TRACK (changes subject) and talks of those who were NEVER saved --- but he doesn't really mean "GO TOO FAR" because they were ALWAYS TOO FAR and were NEVER ABIDING in Jesus' teachings." You cannot separate the WARNING ("watch yourselves") of verse 8, from the CONSEQUENCE ("go-too-far-leaving-God") of verse 9. Not credibly separate the two, that is...

BTW, here is another instance of the theme, "He doesn't really MEAN what he SAYS" --- did John mean "go too far" or not? If they were never SAVED, then they CANNOT "go-too-far", because they were ALWAYS too far; did he mean what he wrote or not?

First of all, in these examples do all of them persist in their unbelief to their death (and can you even know that)?

Can we discuss this? You seem to assert that "they will EVENTUALLY RETURN"... The verses are STATIC --- that is, they make NO CONSIDERATION for the future. If they can HAVE unbelief, then their FUTURE belief is irrelevant in the PRESENT. Are they UNBELIEVING NOW, or NOT?

Second, it is entirely possible for one to possess the outward appearance of faith, and for one to possess notitia and assensus without exercising fiducia. They may essentially have 'faith in faith' and trust in their acknowledgment of a doctrine (sola fide) to save them. And they may make a grand show of it, performing all manner of works of civic righteousness. But their failure to persevere will expose them, just as 1 John 2:19 set forth, as never having been "of us."

You have just embraced the focus of this thread --- their failure to PERSEVERE demonstrates they were NEVER SAVED --- yet they MADE A GRAND SHOW OF IT --- how then do we KNOW whether our salvation is REAL, or we're just making a GRAND SHOW OF IT?

Furthermore, can you please show me ANY verse that negates Jesus' words of Matt7, "No good tree can produce bad fruit, no bad tree can produce good; therefore you will KNOW them by their FRUITS"? You seem to be very clearly saying the UNSAVED, can produce GOOD FRUIT. How do you stand against John in 1:3:7-10 ("Do not be deceived, ...he who practices righteousness IS righteous ...he who does not practice righteousness IS NOT OF GOD!")?

In "making a grand show", they are either really practicing RIGHTEOSNESS (which means they are SAVED), or they are really practicing UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (which means they are LOST). How do you get "they APPEARED to be righteous but weren't REALLY ESCAPED the defilements" out of 2Pet2?

I've gone over this with you extensively, Ben. I see no need to continue to provide answers you refuse to accept. Anyone who is curious to know can visit that thread and see for themselves.

They will see the same thing that I saw, Fru; they will see that the FALSE never cease from sin (vs14), they are slaves to corruption (vs19), the FALSE seek to entice/tempt/corrupt the TRUE (vs18), and if the TRUE after having ESCAPED the defilements by the true-knowledge of Jesus, are again entangled and OVERCOME, they are worse than BEFORE THEY WERE SAVED".

They will see that your position is: "the TRUE weren't REALLY TRUE" (he didn't really MEAN what he said "ontos-apopheugo-truly-escaped" vs18), they were only PRETENDING, there is a way for the CORRUPT to APPEAR righteous ("do not be deceived, he who practices rightouesness IS RIGHTEOUS"), but he doesn't really mean they were ACTUALLY ESCAPED for they were STILL REALLY WALLOWING in mire/vomit (and therefore Peter doesn't really MEAN what he said that they RETURNED to mire/vomit for they didn't really LEAVE they only APPEARED to leave).

With complete respect, Fru, your position isn't even a little credible... How can I convince you that when one of the writers SAID something, he really meant what he SAID?

 

[frumanchu]

With complete respect, Fru, your position isn't even a little credible... How can I convince you that when one of the writers SAID something, he really meant what he SAID?

Before I address the rest of this post, I want to speak to this first. For you to challenge the credibility of my position, even to the extent that you claim it "isn't even a little credible," is laughable. I demonstrated CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the source you quoted in favor of a false rendering of the structure of Acts 13:48 not only DOES NOT AGREE with you, but COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS YOUR POSITION. The only thing more persistent than you propensity for hyphenation is you complete unwillingness to admit that you were DEAD WRONG about what Robertson was saying. That alone makes your challenges to my credibility themselves incredible.

God's nature is clearly spelled out in many verses --- first, the verses that say "He desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". Second, the verses that say "God does not tempt/decree/predestine any to perish".

There is only one verse that says "He desires ALL men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" and that's 1 Tim 2:4. There's only one verse that says "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" and that's 2 Peter 3:9. Both of these have been addressed before, Ben. Both are in a context that readily allows for an understanding of the verse as meaning men of all nations and peoples.

What you are unwilling to admit is that if ALL are "justly" condemned, and ONLY God's forceful interaction can save ANY, then His very ignoring of the UNELECT is identical and inseparable from His CONDEMNING them consciously.

Unwilling to admit?!? Where on earth did you get such a notion. I FULLY AFFIRM that God chooses not to save some men, thus CONSCIOUSLY AND JUSTLY leaving them in a state of condemnation. Implying that I am unwilling to admit something that I most certainly readily admit to is rediculous.

OK, once again, 1Jn2:19 speaks of "many antichrists" (who were never saved). Does this passage, written by John, establish that ALL who "go out from us were never WITH us"? Not according to John's second letter. In this short letter John warns against "deceivers/antichrists", and WARNS the believers to "WATCH YOURSELVES that you do not lose what has been WROUGHT". He continues in the NEXT verse, "Anyone who GOES TOO FAR (goes out from you) and DOES NOT ABIDE in Jesus' teachings, HAS NOT GOD." Here then is the ANSWER to 1Jn2:19.

Sorry, Ben. This also has been dealt with extensively.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." - 1 John 2:19

This passage is clear. IF they had been of us, THEN they would have continued (persevered). Their failure to persevere is the MANIFESTATION that they were NOT OF THEM. Are we to somehow assume that there are "special rules of faith" for antichrists? What YOU "are unwilling to admit" is that this verse sets clear and unambiguous precedent for lack of perseverance being a sign of false faith.

Your attempt to support this notion with 2 John 7-11 has also been dealt with before. You are pulling verse 9 out of its surroundings to make your point. The amusing part is that previously you tried to set these two epistles against each other when I pointed out that 1 John 2:19 set clear precedent for lack of perseverance being a manifestation of false faith.

"7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8Look to yourselves, that we[2] do not lose those things we worked for, but that we[3] may receive a full reward.
9Whoever transgresses[4] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." - 2 John 7-11

If you want to argue that 1 John 2:19 applies only to "certain people in certain circumstances" and doesn't set a precedent applicable to all cases, then you can't turn around and argue that 2 John 9 sets a precedent applicable to all believers of departure from a once-true faith.

Verse 7: many deceivers have gone out into the world
Verse 8: look to yourselves to make sure you don't lose the things you've worked for, but rather receive a full reward
Verse 9: whoever transgresses/goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (hmmm...and what does 1 John 2:19 say to that point?) and whoever abides has both the Father and the Son
Verse 10: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (which doctrine? The doctrine of Christ. If they do not abide in this doctrine, what do we know of them? They are deceivers, antichrists...and though they were with us they were NEVER OF US.) do not let them into your house or even greet them.
Verse 11: for if you show such hospitality to them you share in their evil deeds.

You join the two passages when it suits you, and set them against each other when need be. Hardly consistent or responsible, IMO.

BTW, here is another instance of the theme, "He doesn't really MEAN what he SAYS" --- did John mean "go too far" or not? If they were never SAVED, then they CANNOT "go-too-far", because they were ALWAYS too far; did he mean what he wrote or not?

Yes, an instance built purely of fiction. Time and again you've levied this accusation against me...of things 'not really meaning what they say.' And every time I've given an answer and exposed the faulty logic and poor hermeneutics that are required to support your assertion.

You have just embraced the focus of this thread --- their failure to PERSEVERE demonstrates they were NEVER SAVED --- yet they MADE A GRAND SHOW OF IT --- how then do we KNOW whether our salvation is REAL, or we're just making a GRAND SHOW OF IT?

Oh, but Ben...there is a marked difference between having assurance of someone else's salvation and having assurance of your own salvation. According to your theology, we NEVER have assurance of our own salvation beyond the present. There is no promise that God will preserve or keep us. We can only hope that in times of trial we will be able to hold on, because when it comes right down to it we're on our own.

I've answered all of these objections several times. You're just making show for the lurkers, but they can [thread=86001]read for themselves[/thread] how these verses are "dealt with."

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

This is where we part ways, Ray. Man goes to hell because he is a sinner. He is not condemned only because he rejected Christ. I also disagree with the very first statement you made...that we disown Him as our Father. He is not our Father to begin with. He is not our Father until we are adopted as sons. Until such point we are of our father, the devil.

I see where your comming from, You do believe you were elected before creation don't you? If so, then you must agree. If you were predestined and foreknown then you have been his since before the beginning, just like the Jews. You can't be elected and lost at the same time can you? Maybe what your saying is that, your not in acceptance of this until regeneration. The problem is, that if this is so, you're not elected until your regenerated. This is where confussion creeps in on me, where Calvinism is concerned. The way I see it is that if I'm elected to be regenerated before time, then I was saved before the world was. It means I have always been saved If I'm wrong maybe you could explain why this isn't so,because it was all predestined.Please read all I've said before you respond.

I've had several Calvinist tell me that if I'm saved it's because I was elected to be so. If I was predestined to be the Christian I am today then everything must have been secure from the beginning. If God is sovereign as Calvinist have described then His will cannot be broken.
I hope you can see where things are a bit of confusion for me here. I'm trying to understand which is which and what is what. If Calvinism is true then all of it's doctrines should at least be in harmony.

He is not our Father to begin with. He is not our Father until we are adopted as sons. Until such point we are of our father, the devil.

Maybe you were trying to say something else. Would you rephrase this with election and predestination in mind. From my point of view this would seem to be correct , although it doesn't line up very well with Calvinism. I've had Calvinist tell me that His sheep know His voice which is why the elect respond to His effective call.
I feel that all, are His children to begin with simply because He died for the sins of the world. Now the Calvinist will say that this world means the elect only but, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that "Kosmos" means a certain preselect group with in. Oh I know we can dragg out the dictionaries to prove me wrong, but the truth of the matter is that before there were dictionaries people had to go by the words root meanings. There is no Kosmos group of elect,unless everyone is elected. If Christ died for the sins of the whole world then we are all His children until we reject Him. Therefore we go to hell for rejecting Christ. By our rejection we are disowning Him .
I agree that adoption takes place, but even then if we are predestined to be saved we were saved in the beginning and regeneration is just a formality.

Not all of these statements are what I believe, but what I think you believe as well. If I have confused the two please forgive me.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Calvinist say this verse clearly tells us we are chosen by him; How ever I believe he is speaking of the Jews

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Calvinist say this verse clearly tell us we are predestinated and calvinist use these two verses to prove there doctrines. So if we are chosen to be saved for eternity and it is God's will as Calvinist say we are, then we are set aside as his before the beginning. Since the Calvinist explaination of Sovereignty we will be saved as directed so we were saved from the beginning long before our first breath. Do you see How I arrived at this conclusion?. At least as far as I can tell this is the only way that the Doctrines of grace as they are called could possibly be in Harmony. I respect your belief in Christ and accept you as brother because you believe in Christ. I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree.
May God Bless You;

Romanbear

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Bulldog;

When you discipline your children, you discipine them by what they deserve, right?

The disapline I dished out was not always fair. I have to admit that the nature of each offense didn't always determine a paddling.Please remember that I make no claim to being the perfect disciplinarian. My first child was a girl and I just had no idea of how to administer punishment to a girl. At first she had me wrapped around her little finger and she knew it. I did learn that girls can be just as onery as any boy which is when I first used a paddle. The best thing for a child is to teach them about Jesus somehow once this is done you just don't have that many problems. Well at least I didn't.
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[Bulldog]

Calvinist say this verse clearly tells us we are chosen by him; How ever I believe he is speaking of the Jews

But Paul wrote this to Ephasus, a gentile church.

 

[frumanchu]

I see where your comming from, You do believe you were elected before creation don't you? If so, then you must agree. If you were predestined and foreknown then you have been his since before the beginning, just like the Jews. You can't be elected and lost at the same time can you? Maybe what your saying is that, your not in acceptance of this until regeneration. The problem is, that if this is so, you're not elected until your regenerated. This is where confussion creeps in on me, where Calvinism is concerned. The way I see it is that if I'm elected to be regenerated before time, then I was saved before the world was. It means I have always been saved If I'm wrong maybe you could explain why this isn't so,because it was all predestined.Please read all I've said before you respond.
I've had several Calvinist tell me that if I'm saved it's because I was elected to be so. If I was predestined to be the Christian I am today then everything must have been secure from the beginning. If God is sovereign as Calvinist have described then His will cannot be broken.
I hope you can see where things are a bit of confusion for me here. I'm trying to understand which is which and what is what. If Calvinism is true then all of it's doctrines should at least be in harmony.

I think I see what you're getting at. Someone else had brought up a similar point awhile back, stating that it was impossible for there to be an "elect unbeliever."

First of all, you must understand that election occurs in the context of fallen man. If election is unto salvation, then there must be the need for salvation to begin with. God looked at men as a fallen race...each and every individual was guilty and justly condemnable. He choose according to His grace to save a certain number of men to present to the Son as a gift. That choice was election. Election in and of itself saves nobody. If the Father were to elect men but the Son never became flesh and died, the elect would not be saved. God would have to sacrifice and compromise His own justice and holiness (which He cannot do).

You are correct in understanding and stating that "If [you were] predestined to be the Christian [you are] today then everything must have been secure from the beginning. If God is sovereign as Calvinist have described then His will cannot be broken." I think what you're asking is that if your salvation was assured and secured from before time, why is it that you spent time as a sinner prior to your conversion. Is this correct? The answer is as I said above: election occurs in the context of the need for salvation. If one were not a sinner to begin with, one would not need salvation (and thus not need election) in order to enjoy fellowship with God. The elect are brought to faith at the time of God's choosing. Certainly you believe as I do that God has appointed the day of your death before you are even born. That does not mean you must "be dead your entire life" in order for God's will to be unbroken

Maybe you were trying to say something else. Would you rephrase this with election and predestination in mind. From my point of view this would seem to be correct , although it doesn't line up very well with Calvinism. I've had Calvinist tell me that His sheep know His voice which is why the elect respond to His effective call.

We are by nature children of wrath. Scripture repeatedly makes statements to the effect of our status as "children of God" coinciding with our salvation and belief. There is no need to adopt a child that is already yours

I feel that all, are His children to begin with simply because He died for the sins of the world. Now the Calvinist will say that this world means the elect only but, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that "Kosmos" means a certain preselect group with in. Oh I know we can dragg out the dictionaries to prove me wrong, but the truth of the matter is that before there were dictionaries people had to go by the words root meanings. There is no Kosmos group of elect,unless everyone is elected. If Christ died for the sins of the whole world then we are all His children until we reject Him. Therefore we go to hell for rejecting Christ. By our rejection we are disowning Him .

I disagree. Just because Christ made an atonement sufficient in quality to atone for all sins of all men for all time does not mean that a) that atonement is applied to all sins of all men for all time, or b) that all men without exception are children of God.

If you believe that all sins were actually atoned for, then you have a terrible paradox to deal with.

- we are saved by faith in Christ (Acts 16:31)
- that which is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23)
- therefore, rejection of Christ is a sin
- all sin was atoned for on the Cross
- therefore, rejection of Christ was atoned for

The atonement was sufficient for all, but is efficient only for the elect.

I agree that adoption takes place, but even then if we are predestined to be saved we were saved in the beginning and regeneration is just a formality.

I would say it's more than just a formality. The Cross was much more than "just a formality." The elect are not actually justified until the point of faith. There are indeed at this moment men and women who are elect but are yet to be regenerated, justified and saved. In theory (I say this because it simply will not happen), if one of the elect were to die before being regenerated and brought to faith, they would still go to hell because they did not believe. But the Lord is not slack concerning His promise, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish but that all of us should come to repentance. We will not see the consumation of the Kingdom until ever last one of the elect are brought to faith. God will see His decree through to its fulfillment.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Calvinist say this verse clearly tells us we are chosen by him; How ever I believe he is speaking of the Jews

Honestly, Ray, I don't see a single bit of support for that understanding in the context.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Calvinist say this verse clearly tell us we are predestinated and calvinist use these two verses to prove there doctrines. So if we are chosen to be saved for eternity and it is God's will as Calvinist say we are, then we are set aside as his before the beginning. Since the Calvinist explaination of Sovereignty we will be saved as directed so we were saved from the beginning long before our first breath. Do you see How I arrived at this conclusion?. At least as far as I can tell this is the only way that the Doctrines of grace as they are called could possibly be in Harmony. I respect your belief in Christ and accept you as brother because you believe in Christ. I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree.

I see what you're saying, and I think I addressed it above.

We speak of those who are believers as being 'saved.' Saved from what? Ultimately, our salvation is from the judgement that will come. So while we say we are saved right now, in actuality our salvation is not fully realized until judgement. We speak of it as though it has already happened because it rests on the very integrity and trustworthiness of God. The same sense is true with respect to election. For all intents and purpose, the elect can be considered 'saved' from the start, NOT because they are justified from birth, but because God is faithful and WILL bring about that which He has decreed. Does that make it clearer for you?

BTW, I want to thank you for your civil and pleasant tone. I know we've had our heated disagreements in the past, and clearly we still do not see eye-to-eye on many things, but such a disposition certainly makes it easier to discuss these doctrines and positions.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

A Point in fact;To be predestined means that we are appointed to a destiny and it's unalterable. If I understand the Calvinist position on predestination correctly.

In Your own defintion how do you define election. Are we elected to receive the gospel?. Or are we elected to salvation?.

If we are chosen or elected to receive and understand the gospel. Then if we fail to accept it as truth we would trully desever hell. How ever Calvinist believe we can't hear or understand the gospel unless we have been regenerated. Being regenerated is a requirement for understanding in Calvinism,but it also is being saved. It is for all intents and purposes being born again Do you feel this is right?

If being regenerated means we are born in the spirit can we die again spiritually if we do not believe? I've ask something simular to this before and have always been told that we are then made to believe.

If we are pre-elected and pre-destined and we have no choice in our own Salvation then I would have to say that we were saved from the beginning. This leads to a dis-harmony in what you have expressed to me.

If we believe we are predestined then all the elect will be saved. There are no elect in hell because the elect are predestined to be regenerated and God controls all this in the Calvinist view. If so then a person who is elect and predestined who winds up in hell is there because of God's lack of power to presever those whom He has set aside or chosen. Bottom line; Can the elect go to hell? if not then they were saved from the beginning. There is no inbetween.

Certainly you believe as I do that God has appointed the day of your death before you are even born. That does not mean you must "be dead your entire life" in order for God's will to be unbroken

I believe we are all appointed once to die, but I have never read that we are apointted a spefic day in which we will die. The Bible says that our days can be long on the earth if we obey and respect our parents. It's true we can't add to our days but the Lord certainly can. How long we live is not predestined but is conditional on how long the lord wants us to live.

There are too many times in my life in which I have narrowly escaped death to think there is any day when man's number is up. I don't believe in fate.

There are indeed at this moment men and women who are elect but are yet to be regenerated, justified and saved. In theory (I say this because it simply will not happen), if one of the elect were to die before being regenerated and brought to faith, they would still go to hell because they did not believe.

It seems then you admit that the elect have to make that choice to have faith or not. Otherwise you have regenerated reborn spirits who may or may not be justified. Justification is by faith and Calvinist have told me that faith is a work. If we aren't saved until we are justified by faith then we are saved by works according to the Calvinist belief that faith is a work.
I don't believe faith is a work because of this verse;
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

So how can one not work but believe and have faith and it still be a work?. Seems to me you either work at faith or it is something that comes from hearing the gospel. If it comes by hearing then it is the work of the one who vocalized the gospel and not the work of the one who receives faith from hearing it.

But the Lord is not slack concerning His promise, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish but that all of us should come to repentance. We will not see the consumation of the Kingdom until ever last one of the elect are brought to faith. God will see His decree through to its fulfillment.

Then here is where harmony leaves again. How can they be brought to justification if predestination is alterable on the basis of there faith? If man doesn't have a decision to make and it's all done for him. Then why does God have to be longsuffering?. What's He waiting for? Why is He so meciful to wait on us if it's up to Him? If He is not willing that we perrish but all should come to repentance,and it's His decision, it doesn't make sence for Him to wait on Him self. since a thought on His part only takes a second He must be waiting for the man to do something. That something is surrender and repentance. A decision not a work that is automatic because he believes.

If you believe that all sins were actually atoned for, then you have a terrible paradox to deal with.

- we are saved by faith in Christ (Acts 16:31)
- that which is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23)
- therefore, rejection of Christ is a sin
- all sin was atoned for on the Cross
- therefore, rejection of Christ was atoned for

QUOTE]
Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

If you look closely at 31 you will notice that Paul didn't say you must be regenerated before you can believe. You will also notice that these who asked of Paul and Silas were desperately seeking a means in which they could have eternal life and Paul and Silas gave a swift answer it was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" True Salvation is as simple as that. It is summed up in one phrase. In order for the Atonement to have any value for the recipent he must believe ...

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Even after Salvation men still sin and are still forgiven those sins. The difference is we regret what we have done and bring our sins to the light to be seen by the Lord in confession. We then repent sometimes many times for the same sins over and over. What happens if we forget to repent of one sin? We are still forgiven, because of the price that Christ Paid. He paid a priceless price for the undesevering world. It was all taken care of right there and then. If it wasn't no one would be saved.

You're right rejection is sin, but it is also the results of that decision that has placed most men on there way to hell. When we accept something as truth we are believing it is true. When you believed in Christ Jesus as your savior you accepted Him as true. A decision of faith that came to you from hearing the gospel. A decision of Faith that is not a work for your Salvation otherwise Romans 4:5 is a lie.
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[Ben johnson]

Before I address the rest of this post, I want to speak to this first. For you to challenge the credibility of my position, even to the extent that you claim it "isn't even a little credible," is laughable. I demonstrated CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the source you quoted in favor of a false rendering of the structure of Acts 13:48 not only DOES NOT AGREE with you, but COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS YOUR POSITION. The only thing more persistent than you propensity for hyphenation is you complete unwillingness to admit that you were DEAD WRONG about what Robertson was saying. That alone makes your challenges to my credibility themselves incredible.

To the other readers here: this is a reference to a quote from "Robertson's Word Pictures", which is asserted contradicts my position. The contradiction being "clear presentation of sequence --- the APPOINTING (presumably by God) precedes their BELIEVING".

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/

But Robertson says: "The Jews had voluntarily rejected God; why these Gentiles RANGED THEMSELVES on God's side as opposed to the Jews, LUKE DOES NOT TELL US. This verse does NOT SOLVE the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is NO EVICENCE that Luke had in mind an ABSOLUTUM-DECRETUM of personal salvation (flat opposed to Calvinism). Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push Him away. Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuw. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed"....

Fru asserts that Robertson affirms sequence, saying "it CANNOT be made to mean that BELIEF PRECEDED APPOINTMENT." Yet this understanding clearly conflicts what Robertson said --- for if APPOINTMENT PRECEDED BELIEF, then it would absolutely have BEEN a "decree of salvation". The only POSSIBLE understanding of Robertson's words, contextually, is: "By no manner of trickery can it be understood that those who BELIEVE (present tense), were appointed (past tense)." The appointment, according to Robertson, either to BELIEF or SALVATION, does not PRECEED the belief...

Thus Robertson does NOT "completely contradict Ben's position", but rather "completely contradicts predestination"...

 

[frumanchu]

Hi Fru;

A Point in fact;To be predestined means that we are appointed to a destiny and it's unalterable. If I understand the Calvinist position on predestination correctly.

In Your own defintion how do you define election. Are we elected to receive the gospel?. Or are we elected to salvation?.

If we are chosen or elected to receive and understand the gospel. Then if we fail to accept it as truth we would trully desever hell. How ever Calvinist believe we can't hear or understand the gospel unless we have been regenerated. Being regenerated is a requirement for understanding in Calvinism,but it also is being saved. It is for all intents and purposes being born again Do you feel this is right?

If being regenerated means we are born in the spirit can we die again spiritually if we do not believe? I've ask something simular to this before and have always been told that we are then made to believe.

If we are pre-elected and pre-destined and we have no choice in our own Salvation then I would have to say that we were saved from the beginning. This leads to a dis-harmony in what you have expressed to me.

If we believe we are predestined then all the elect will be saved. There are no elect in hell because the elect are predestined to be regenerated and God controls all this in the Calvinist view. If so then a person who is elect and predestined who winds up in hell is there because of God's lack of power to presever those whom He has set aside or chosen. Bottom line; Can the elect go to hell? if not then they were saved from the beginning. There is no inbetween.

If I'm understanding you correctly, the issue you have is that one must hear the gospel and believe to be saved, and Calvinism teaches that one must be regenerate to hear the gospel and believe, and regenerate=saved, therefore one would be saved (regenerate) before they are saved (believe in Christ). I think we had this discussion once before. You must understand that the Reformed position is that 'regeneration' and 'justification' (or salvation) are two distinct and separate (although inextricably linked) things. Regeneration is the quickening of the spirit...the breathing of life into the spiritual corpse of unregenerate man. It is a monergistic event...a function of God's operative (not co-operative) grace. So long as man is spiritually dead and unable to discern spiritual truths, he will never exercise saving faith (fiducia) in the Gospel message/Jesus Christ. He may acknowledge it, and even understand it intellectually, but he will continue to reject his need for it and be absent of any desire for it.

So, when we say that we are predestined to salvation, it is understood that all the necessary elements of salvation must come to pass: regeneration, the hearing of the Gospel, saving faith leading to justification, sanctification, and ultimately glorification. We as Calvinists consider it not only a duty but a priviledge to preach the Gospel because we know we are being used as instruments of God to bring the elect to salvation. It is not by our own persuasive words, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, that they are brought to faith. It puts Rom 10:14-15 in a whole new light!

There are too many times in my life in which I have narrowly escaped death to think there is any day when man's number is up. I don't believe in fate.

What you experienced is the tender mercy of God. He did not call you home because He has other plans for you. When it is your time, he will call you home.

It seems then you admit that the elect have to make that choice to have faith or not. Otherwise you have regenerated reborn spirits who may or may not be justified. Justification is by faith and Calvinist have told me that faith is a work. If we aren't saved until we are justified by faith then we are saved by works according to the Calvinist belief that faith is a work.
I don't believe faith is a work because of this verse;
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. So how can one not work but believe and have faith and it still be a work?. Seems to me you either work at faith or it is something that comes from hearing the gospel. If it comes by hearing then it is the work of the one who vocalized the gospel and not the work of the one who receives faith from hearing it.

I'm not sure in what context you were told that faith is a work. I would have ot know to comment or clarify.

Then here is where harmony leaves again. How can they be brought to justification if predestination is alterable on the basis of there faith? If man doesn't have a decision to make and it's all done for him. Then why does God have to be longsuffering?. What's He waiting for? Why is He so meciful to wait on us if it's up to Him? If He is not willing that we perrish but all should come to repentance,and it's His decision, it doesn't make sence for Him to wait on Him self. since a thought on His part only takes a second He must be waiting for the man to do something. That something is surrender and repentance. A decision not a work that is automatic because he believes.

I think you misunderstand. Predestination is not alterable on the basis of faith. Predestination is a decree to an end (salvation) that encompasses several steps along the way, one of which is man's faith. The fact that men will 100% without exception believe in Christ once regenerated and presented with the Gospel does not mean they were forced to do so. Faith is regenerate man's natural, uncoerced response to the Gospel.

Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

If you look closely at 31 you will notice that Paul didn't say you must be regenerated before you can believe. You will also notice that these who asked of Paul and Silas were desperately seeking a means in which they could have eternal life and Paul and Silas gave a swift answer it was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" True Salvation is as simple as that. It is summed up in one phrase. In order for the Atonement to have any value for the recipent he must believe ...

Paul didn't say he must be regenerated before he could believe because regeneration is not a work of the man. It is the monergistic, operative work of the Holy Spirit. The answer fit the question. The fact that only the unregenerate would actually proceed to compy with the condition of Acts 16:31 need not be stated. As far as the spiritual condition of the jailer, Scripture does not (and need not) explicitly state at what point the jailer was regenerated. To point to that as proof against regeneration-unto-salvation would be arguing from silence.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Even after Salvation men still sin and are still forgiven those sins. The difference is we regret what we have done and bring our sins to the light to be seen by the Lord in confession. We then repent sometimes many times for the same sins over and over. What happens if we forget to repent of one sin? We are still forgiven, because of the price that Christ Paid. He paid a priceless price for the undesevering world. It was all taken care of right there and then. If it wasn't no one would be saved.

Repentance is a manifestation of saving faith, NOT an actual requirement for continuing justification.

You're right rejection is sin, but it is also the results of that decision that has placed most men on there way to hell. When we accept something as truth we are believing it is true. When you believed in Christ Jesus as your savior you accepted Him as true. A decision of faith that came to you from hearing the gospel. A decision of Faith that is not a work for your Salvation otherwise Romans 4:5 is a lie.

I disagree, Ray.

Let me explain to you three different types of belief/faith:

Notitia means knowledge. One must hear of Jesus Christ before he will ever be saved. Faith cannot come before "hearing" (Rom 10:17). Heb 11:13 describes the saints as "having seen them afar off," i.e., the promises which told of salvation. Obviously, no one can believe if they do not know that salvation is available.
Assensus means to give assent to something or agree. After one hears the message, he may or may not agree as to its validity. Many have never believed that the gospel story is actually true. Heb 11:13 (in KJV & TR) reads, "and were persuaded." Rev 1:3 has, "Blessed is he that readeth (notitia) and they that hear (assensus). In 1 Cor 14:25 Paul said that prophecy was better than tongues because then someone can interpret and give the meaning so that a visitor may be "convinced of all" that is said.

Fiducia is trust or what Strong calls the "voluntary element." Heb 11:13 says that they "embraced" the message of salvation which they had "seen" and were "persuaded of." J.O. Buswell, in his Systematic Theology, stresses at length what he calls this "cognitive element" of faith.6 This is not just a hearing of the gospel and is more than just admitting that the gospel story is true. It is to realize that Jesus Christ can be your Savior and for you to want that more than anything else. (Note: This is where repentance comes in this progression. Paul, in 1 Cor 14:25, says that at this point the man will "fall down on his face." The Thessalonians, in 1 Th 1:9, "turned to God from idols.") Sproul speaks of this moment as a change in "perceived value."7 Now, for the first time, the sinner sees Christ as something to be desired and to grasp with his whole heart.

Saving faith in Christ requires more than just knowing of Him (notitia) and agreeing with what He did (assensus). It requires exercising trust in the Gospel, embracing it, desiring it, and relying upon it. Only one who is regenerate, who has a spiritual understanding of the Gospel and desires Christ more than himself, will ever exersize this level of faith.

 

[frumanchu]

To the other readers here: this is a reference to a quote from "Robertson's Word Pictures", which is asserted contradicts my position. The contradiction being "clear presentation of sequence --- the APPOINTING (presumably by God) precedes their BELIEVING".

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/

But Robertson says: "The Jews had voluntarily rejected God; why these Gentiles RANGED THEMSELVES on God's side as opposed to the Jews, LUKE DOES NOT TELL US. This verse does NOT SOLVE the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is NO EVICENCE that Luke had in mind an ABSOLUTUM-DECRETUM of personal salvation (flat opposed to Calvinism). Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push Him away. Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuw. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed"....

Fru asserts that Robertson affirms sequence, saying "it CANNOT be made to mean that BELIEF PRECEDED APPOINTMENT." Yet this understanding clearly conflicts what Robertson said --- for if APPOINTMENT PRECEDED BELIEF, then it would absolutely have BEEN a "decree of salvation". The only POSSIBLE understanding of Robertson's words, contextually, is: "By no manner of trickery can it be understood that those who BELIEVE (present tense), were appointed (past tense)." The appointment, according to Robertson, either to BELIEF or SALVATION, does not PRECEED the belief...

Thus Robertson does NOT "completely contradict Ben's position", but rather "completely contradicts predestination"...

Nice try, Ben. You conveniently forgot (again) to post the rest of the commentary:

Believed (episteusan). "Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuw. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God. "

Let me repeat that. It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were thus revealed...by the stand they took.

Your original position on this verse was grossly inaccurate, trying to translate it as a direct middle. Calvinist_Dark_Lord took you to task on this before, and I will re-iterate [post=1498865]what has already been said[/post]:

~(osoi hsan tetagmenoi eiß zwhn aiwnion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tassw, a military term to place in orderly arrangement.~

It just makes our point (as Calvinist_Dark_Lord pointed out), that it is not to be translated as a direct middle.
​

It was saving faith that was exercised​

​

onlyby those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.
​

Note that this is all Passive action.
​

Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation.
​

Note that there is no evidence that he did​

​

not have an absolutum decretum of personal salvation either.
​

Robertson is not the pope, and is not God. An argument from silence is not an argument at all. Robertson also leaves room for the rest of scripture to answer that question.
​

Note that Robertson Has contradicted himself here.
​

1.​

​

First he admits that TASSO here is passive
​

2.​

​

Yet he is rendering an admittedly passive voiced verbal structure as a direct middle.
​

3.​

​

By virtue of the fact that the structure is admittedly passive, the Subject recieves the action performed, and does not initiate the action
​

4.​

​

Q.E.D. Robertson has contradicted himself in this analysis
​

5.​

​

Apparently NONE of the English translators of the New Testament, many Post Robertson and still alive, have accepted Robertson's argument as valid. Examples would include J. Gresham Machen, Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace, Julian Manty, D.A. Carson, William D. Mounce, and others.
​

6.​

​

While Robertson did some revolutionary work on the significance of the Direct Article, including early formulations of what is today called Colwell's Rule, he was not infallible as evidenced by this example of shoddy logic and scholarship.
​

7.​

​

Robertson was a 19th Century scholar, and while brilliant, did not have the best resources available to him, including computer compillations of every Grammatical structure in the New Testament (Grammcord), and the most recent archiaological discoveries (the non-literary papyrii). He was limited by what he had available to him.​

​

Your position that men appointed themselves to eternal life by their belief is NOT SUPPORTED by this verse. After repeated and extensive demonstration of this, I've asked you numerous times to give me any explanation for the basis of this appointment and have yet to receive an answer.

You can try to exploit the fact that not all who post here followed our previous descussion and continue to feign scholarly support for your position, but at every point I see this gross distortion of the Word I will expose it for what it is.

 

[Ben johnson]

Unwilling to admit?!? Where on earth did you get such a notion. I FULLY AFFIRM that God chooses not to save some men, thus CONSCIOUSLY AND JUSTLY leaving them in a state of condemnation. Implying that I am unwilling to admit something that I most certainly readily admit to is rediculous.

If all men (without divine interference) will go to Hell, how is it JUST to interfere and save the FEW, but consciously ignore the MOST? I said that "you are unwilling to admit that His IGNORING them, is equivalent to His REPROBATING them."

If you want to argue that 1 John 2:19 applies only to "certain people in certain circumstances" and doesn't set a precedent applicable to all cases, then you can't turn around and argue that 2 John 9 sets a precedent applicable to all believers of departure from a once-true faith.

Verse 7: many deceivers have gone out into the world
Verse 8: look to yourselves to make sure you don't lose the things you've worked for, but rather receive a full reward
Verse 9: whoever transgresses/goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (hmmm...and what does 1 John 2:19 say to that point?) and whoever abides has both the Father and the Son
Verse 10: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (which doctrine? The doctrine of Christ. If they do not abide in this doctrine, what do we know of them? They are deceivers, antichrists...and though they were with us they were NEVER OF US.) do not let them into your house or even greet them.
Verse 11: for if you show such hospitality to them you share in their evil deeds.

You join the two passages when it suits you, and set them against each other when need be. Hardly consistent or responsible, IMO.

There's still nothing that asserts "whoever GOES OUT FROM us was NEVER WITH us". 2Jn is only one of DOZENS of verses that speak of "true-brethren forsaking the faith"...

If John really meant that "WHOEVER goes FROM you was NEVER SAVED", why does he follow 2:19 with 2:23ff?

"Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. As for YOU (the brethren), let that abide in you which you have heard from the beginning (a CHOICE?!?!). IF what you heard from the beginning abides in you, (THEN [implied]) you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. This is the promise which He Himself has made to us, ETERNAL LIFE. These things I have written to you concerning THOSE who are TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU. As for you, the annointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but His annointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it was taught you, ABIDE IN HIM. And now, little children, ABIDE IN HIM, SO THAT when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming..."

Hmmm --- seems all about admonishing us TO abide in Jesus, doesn't it? The DECEIVING is to NOT-ABIDE. So much for "if you were TRULY saved then you WOULD abide --- here John labors long and hard WARNING us TO persevere.

This passage of 1Jn2 does NOT oppose the idea that we should "watch ourselves against deceivers that we not forsake Jesus' teachings and LOSE SALVATION", instead it mirrors it perfectly, Fru.

Yes, an instance built purely of fiction. Time and again you've levied this accusation against me...of things 'not really meaning what they say.' And every time I've given an answer and exposed the faulty logic and poor hermeneutics that are required to support your assertion.

But my "faulty hermeneutics" has just clearly shown that instead of ASSURING us of our PERSEVERANCE, 1Jn2 is WARNING us TO persevere.

According to your theology, we NEVER have assurance of our own salvation beyond the present. There is no promise that God will preserve or keep us. We can only hope that in times of trial we will be able to hold on, because when it comes right down to it we're on our own.

On our own? Nay, we are "in Christ". It is not that we "persevere oursevles", but rather we "persevere in Him". Thus it is not by EFFORT and STRONG RESOLVE and MUSCLE and SINEW --- it is by FAITH in HIM. Scripture asserts that "saving-faith" is born from the heart, rather than from divine instillation; so too is perseverance, which is nothing more than continuance IN that faith.

It appears to me that Calvinism is the doctrine that offers no assurance. Only by "PERSEVERANCE UNTIL DEATH" can a believer be fully assured that his FAITH was REAL. If one "persevers for seventy years in faith", but then at the last DISBELIEVES, well then (per Calvinism) that faith was never REAL and he wasn't really SAVED...

 

[Ben johnson]

Your position that men appointed themselves to eternal life by their belief is NOT SUPPORTED by this verse. After repeated and extensive demonstration of this, I've asked you numerous times to give me any explanation for the basis of this appointment and have yet to receive an answer.

I gave you the LINK where our resident Greek scholars asserted "MIDDLE-PASSIVE". I recognized that the college professor I visited did not SHARE the "middle" view. So there is a dispute among Greek scholars whether it is middle or not; nevertheless, the agreement is universal that the passage does not assert a DECREE OF SALVATION by God (see Robertson's quote, my previous post). The Greek professor said that the passage was consistent (did not deny the understanding of) with "they were appointed by their belief". Recognize that the JEWS judged THEMSELVES unworthy of eternal life" in Acts13:46.

3. By virtue of the fact that the structure is admittedly passive, the Subject recieves the action performed, and does not initiate the action

And the college professor agreed that "they could be APPO)INTED by their BELIEF". Which produces no conflict in them being the RECIPIENTS of the ACTION (appointment); the only dispute is the CAUSE of the action (divine decree or personal conviction).

Keeping with the context of the discussions here, the context of 1Jn2 verly clearly warns us against DECEIVERS that can CAUSE us to NOT-ABIDE-IN-HIM (nearly word-for-word with 2Jn1:8-9). The only POSSIBLE harmony with all of Scripture and Acts 13:48, is that their APPOINTMENT was NOT a divine decree.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

Paul didn't say he must be regenerated before he could believe because regeneration is not a work of the man. It is the monergistic, operative work of the Holy Spirit. The answer fit the question. The fact that only the unregenerate would actually proceed to compy with the condition of Acts 16:31 need not be stated. As far as the spiritual condition of the jailer, Scripture does not (and need not) explicitly state at what point the jailer was regenerated. To point to that as proof against regeneration-unto-salvation would be arguing from silence.

Then regeneration is dependant on silence, because the Bible never says one must be regenerated before he can understand the gospel.These two verses below do not say we will understand once we are born again

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

It only says he can't enter the kingdom of God. Where does the Bible say we can't hear or understand the gospel or believe until we are regenerated?

Repentance is a manifestation of saving faith, NOT an actual requirement for continuing justification.

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Repentance is the dying daily that Paul speaks of.

1Co 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Dying to sin is turning from it without repentance how can we be forgiven or for that matter justified or clean of sin without repentance?...
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

I gave you the LINK where our resident Greek scholars asserted "MIDDLE-PASSIVE". I recognized that the college professor I visited did not SHARE the "middle" view. So there is a dispute among Greek scholars whether it is middle or not; nevertheless, the agreement is universal that the passage does not assert a DECREE OF SALVATION by God (see Robertson's quote, my previous post). The Greek professor said that the passage was consistent (did not deny the understanding of) with "they were appointed by their belief". Recognize that the JEWS judged THEMSELVES unworthy of eternal life" in Acts13:46.

And I responded in kind with a [post=1390778]LINK[/post] from the another thread in which someone (Calvinist Dark Lord) pretty much dismantled your "Greek scholars." Your pals stand against centuries of Greek Biblical scholarship, as well as the scholars responsible for EVERY MAJOR BIBLE TRANSLATION, in trying to change the meaning of this verse. You're waffling back and forth between the point you're trying to make, just like you did last time. Robertson, as well as EVERY GROUP OF BIBLE TRANSLATORS, acknowledges that grammatically appointment PRECEDES belief and is NOT the result of belief. Robertson could not be clearer: "The subject of this verb (believed) is the relative clause (as many as were appointed to eternal life). By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed."" (parentheses added for clarification). That second sentence, the very sentence you quoted originally in support of your assertion that the order was interchangeable and that it could mean "as many as believed appointed themselves unto eternal life," STRONGLY CONDEMNS your position that belief was the basis of the appointment.

You have yet to provide any rational or Scriptural explanation for the basis of that appointment which lead to their belief.

And the college professor agreed that "they could be APPO)INTED by their BELIEF". Which produces no conflict in them being the RECIPIENTS of the ACTION (appointment); the only dispute is the CAUSE of the action (divine decree or personal conviction).

No, Ben. The grammar and language is crystal clear. They did not appoint themselves. They were appointed.

Keeping with the context of the discussions here, the context of 1Jn2 verly clearly warns us against DECEIVERS that can CAUSE us to NOT-ABIDE-IN-HIM (nearly word-for-word with 2Jn1:8-9). The only POSSIBLE harmony with all of Scripture and Acts 13:48, is that their APPOINTMENT was NOT a divine decree.

As always, the fatal flaw in your theological construct is the appeal to 'overall harmony' in the absence of immediate contextual support (and often in the face of contextual contradiction). 1 John 2 makes abundantly clear that the deceivers were NEVER OF THEM...they were Christians by confession only, and that was made manifest by their departure.

 

[frumanchu]

Then regeneration is dependant on silence, because the Bible never says one must be regenerated before he can understand the gospel. These two verses below do not say we will understand once we are born again

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

It only says he can't enter the kingdom of God. Where does the Bible say we can't hear or understand the gospel or believe until we are regenerated?

Ahh, but you forget just two verses earlier. John 3:3 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only can one not enter, one cannot even SEE the kingdom of God.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom 8:7
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Repentance is the dying daily that Paul speaks of.

1Co 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Dying to sin is turning from it without repentance how can we be forgiven or for that matter justified or clean of sin without repentance?...

No, you misunderstood what I said. Repentance is not the basis of our justification, faith is. NEVERTHELESS, such faith WILL produce repentance. In the same manner as James speaks of faith and works, a faith without repentance is not a living and genuine faith. There will NEVER be an occurance of true saving faith that is not accompanied by genuine repentance, just like there will NEVER be an occurance of true saving faith that is not accompanied by genuinely good works (I hold an exception in the case of infants, but that is an entirely different conversation altogether).