You be the judge!

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

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 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).

Ben, we have been through this time and time again, and you don't seem to grasp the point...The Periphrastic Perfect Middle-Passive form is NEVER, for ANY VERB, at ANY PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT rendered as a direct middle voice. It just simply does NOT exist in that form.

i don't know why you insist that if your unnamed Greek Professor disagrees with you that this issue is "a dispute among Greek scholars whether it is middle or not"...THERE IS NO SUCH DISPUTE! The form is invariably Passive in the New Testament. The Professor undoubtedly recognises that there is unaninimity among Greek Scholars on this issue.

i challenge you to point out ANY OTHER EXAMPLE of a Periphrastic Perfect, Middle-Passive form rendered as a direct middle.
Happy Hunting,

CDL

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, CDL! Not having a doctorate in Greek language myself, I am constrained to rely on others who do. In the link I provided, two members (Greek students, saying they have the endorsement of their degreed professor) assert that the verb is MIDDLE PASSIVE. The professor I consulted disagreed (agreeing with you on the TENSE). But what everyone I have consulted have, unanimously agreed on, is that the passage does NOT say that they were APPOINTED TO SALVATION or TO BELIEF.

So I am faced with a choice --- I can take the words of three or four Calvinistic members, or I can follow the Greek sources I have personally consulted. By doing the FORMER, I find conflict in CLEARLY understood other passages --- many of them. By following the LATTER, all fits together consistently.

If I say "I consulted a university professor, AND the minister of our local orthodox Greek church", someone accuses me of LYING and INVENTING a FICTITIOUS source. If I provide commentary by such as Robertson, I am told "he is INCOPMETANT and ERRORED and didn't have the LATEST RESOURCES." (As if the Greek has CHANGED in 2000 years). If I present OTHER PASSAGES that speak of "falling from salvation", I am told "OH they weren't really saved in the FIRST place", or "he didn't really MEAN what he WROTE".

I believe I (and several others of RG here) have presented concepts with Scripture and sound discussion. I believe that if such discussion was presented to US by Calvinists, of similar depth and cognizance, we would have believed in Calvinism.

If, just for the sake of argument, if it was POSSIBLE for Calvinism to be wrong, what would it take to convince a Calvinist?

Robertson says that the passage of Acts13:48 does NOT SOLVE the problem of 'DIVINE-DECREE-OF-ELECTION'; it does not say WHY (or by who/what) they were appointed. He says "there is no evidence that Luke thought God DECREED salvation" --- this is as strong against PREDESTINED-ELECTION" as one can get.

No one (that is, no one of "Calvinistic bent") has ever answered (beyond Mount's thoughtful and valued reply) my question on Galatians. If Acts 13:48 DID speak of "divine appointment", where does that leave the Galatians, who were BEGUN IN THE SPIRIT (3:3), OBEYING the TRUTH and RUNNING WELL (4:7), but returned again to slavery of law and are now SEVERED from CHRIST and FALLEN FROM GRACE? (5:1,4) How would the conflict (between DIVINE DECREE and the ONCE-SAVED-NOW-FALLEN) be resolved?

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

Indeed it does, Fru. I try to always convey respect even in the face of disagreement; I'm sure some have gotten frustrated with me, as I have gotten frustrated with others. But if we can maintain mature civility and pleasant discussion, this is far better than using the "report system" of the message board. There are many times when I could have filed reports (as when I have often been called "Pelagic" or "Heretic"), but I am "thick-skinned" and prefer to work towards love and understanding.

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.

First the JEWS judged THEMSELVES unworthy of eternal life (Acts13:46). How does this allow predestination? The Greek professor says "there is clear COINCIDENCE between the BELIEVE and APPOINT, but it does NOT say which preceeds the other". It is perfectly reasonable to view the concept of "REVEALED AS ELECT BY THE STAND THEY TOOK", as EQUAL to "APPOINTED BY THEIR BELIEF". If election is consequential to believing, then Robertson's words of "revealed as elect by the stand they took", are perfectly consistent with that idea.

Indeed, if election IS consequentail to belief, then that explains perfectly Peter's admonishment to "be CERTAIN about His calling AND ELECTION, ...that the gates of Heaven be ...provided" (2:1:10-11). Why would we be admonished to be certain of our election, if that election was DIVINE DECREE? Consistency throughout Scripture, Fru. "We desire that each one of you show the same diligence SO AS to realize the full assurance of hope UNTIL THE END." Heb6:11 +-None of the verses on "diligence" accomodate "Divine Decree"...

And I responded in kind with a LINK 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:

Fru, we only have two choices here. That they WERE APPOINTED, is indisputible --- they were "passive recipients". So either as you say "they were appointed by GOD", or "they were appointed by their belief" --- I don't really think there's another possibility. Robertson clearly says "Luke does NOT support ABSOLUTE DECREE" --- Robertson could NOT be clearer, appointment does NOT precede belief --- this leaves only the middle-understanding, that they themselves had something to do with their appointment. First I am told that 'Roberson DOES support DIVNE DECRETUM OF SALVATION (he plainly did not), then I am told "Robertson is INCOMPETANT and had not the best RESOURCES." (Did Robertson have the original Greek, or not?)

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

OK, here it is again --- everyone agrees that "the APPOINTMENT is COINCIDENT with the BELIEF"; but there is NOTHING in the context or structure that proves "appoint" PRECEEDS "belief".

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

If the writer viewed their BELIEF as a separate THING other than THEMSELVES, then that BELIEF could very feasibly have been the cause of their appointment. No contradiction, Fru.

And there is still the reality that this ONE VERSE does not stand in a vacuum --- there are many other verses that speak of "personal responsibility", and others that speak of "falling-from-salvation". (If GOD APPOINTS to salvation, then they CANNOT fall, Fru.)

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).

I see the "contextual support"; but, failing to convince you of it, I appeal to the "overall harmony". It is a fact that the GALATIANS were SAVED, and now they are NOT.

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.

And yet 1Jn2 makes EQUALLY clear that it is written as a WARNING that "they are trying to DECEIVE YOU" --- deceive as to what? Trying to steal HEAVENLY CROWNS, Fru? It clearly says "deceive you so that you NOT ABIDE IN JESUS; but we are TO ABIDE, so that we not shrink in SHAME at His COMING." Contextual support, overall harmony, warning us TO abide. And nearly word-for-word warning WITH John's second letter, verse 8, AND verse 9. Even to the words, "whoever denies the Son has not the Father, but he who confesses the Son has the Father also".

"So ABIDE IN HIM, let that (gospel) ABIDE IN YOU."

 

[frumanchu]

So I am faced with a choice --- I can take the words of three or four Calvinistic members, or I can follow the Greek sources I have personally consulted. By doing the FORMER, I find conflict in CLEARLY understood other passages --- many of them. By following the LATTER, all fits together consistently.

And what of the Greek scholars involved in EVERY MAJOR BIBLE TRANSLATION to date, ALL of whom rendered the verse as we now read it: "as many as were appointed/ordained unto eternal life believed."

And yet again, the appeal to "overall harmony" in the face of overwhelming contextual evidence against your position.

If I say "I consulted a university professor, AND the minister of our local orthodox Greek church", someone accuses me of LYING and INVENTING a FICTITIOUS source.

I don't know that you were ever accused of that. I believe the point was that you've cited an essentially anonymous source that is not subject to any scrutiny or criticism.

If I provide commentary by such as Robertson, I am told "he is INCOPMETANT and ERRORED and didn't have the LATEST RESOURCES." (As if the Greek has CHANGED in 2000 years).

Can you please link to the post where Robertson is claimed to be "incompetant?" I do agree that he erred, and evidence was provided in support of that assertion. That he did not have the latest tools available is also legitimate (the Greek hasn't changed in 2000 years, but our understanding of it, methodology, and tools with which we can futher study it HAVE).

If I present OTHER PASSAGES that speak of "falling from salvation", I am told "OH they weren't really saved in the FIRST place", or "he didn't really MEAN what he WROTE".

That is a gross and unfair generalization. Different passages have different explanations. None of your verses have said "falling from salvation." In every case you've presented you've assumed that a certain phrase is necessarily euphemistic for "falling from salvation" or "losing salvation" and proceeded from there. And unless you can provide a link to a post where ANY of us said "he didn't really mean what he wrote" I suggest you refrain because it is your characterization of our view and not what our view actually is.

I believe I (and several others of RG here) have presented concepts with Scripture and sound discussion. I believe that if such discussion was presented to US by Calvinists, of similar depth and cognizance, we would have believed in Calvinism.

LOL! Flattery will get you nowhere!!

If, just for the sake of argument, if it was POSSIBLE for Calvinism to be wrong, what would it take to convince a Calvinist?

Ask that question of yourself with respect to "responsible grace."

It would take nothing short of conviction by the Holy Spirit for me to deny the doctrines of grace.

Robertson says that the passage of Acts13:48 does NOT SOLVE the problem of 'DIVINE-DECREE-OF-ELECTION'; it does not say WHY (or by who/what) they were appointed. He says "there is no evidence that Luke thought God DECREED salvation" --- this is as strong against PREDESTINED-ELECTION" as one can get.

That is outrageous, Ben. That's "as strong against predestined election as one can get?" If Robertson had said "This verse clearly and explicitly denies predestined election" it would not have been stronger?

As was pointed out, a) Robertson's critique is not internally consistent, and b) neither is their evidence that they were NOT appointed through divine decree.

It's your twisting of words like this that has gotten you into this mess in the first place.

 

[frumanchu]

First the JEWS judged THEMSELVES unworthy of eternal life (Acts13:46). How does this allow predestination?

[post=1540482]This...has...been...answered...before[/post]:

The Geneva Bible has the following note regarding Acts 13:46: "By this your doing you pronounce as it were sentence upon yourselves, and judge yourselves."

Matthew Henry explores it further: "If men put the gospel from them, God justly takes it from them; why should manna be given to those that loathe it and call it light bread, or the privileges of the gospel forced on those that put them away, and say, We have no part in David? Herein they judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life. In one sense we must all judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, for there is nothing in us, nor done by us, by which we can pretend to merit it, and we must be made sensible of this; but here the meaning is, "You discover, or make it to appear, that you are not meet for eternal life; you throw away all your claims and give up your pretensions to it; since you will not take it from his hands, into whose hand the Father has given it, krinete, you do, in effect, pass this judgment upon yourselves, and out of your own mouth you shall be judged; you will not have it by Christ, by whom alone it is to be had, and so shall your doom be, you shall not have it at all." "

Were Acts 13:46 to use the same word or expression that Acts 13:48 did, you might have a case for using it as establishing precedent for order, but as it stands, and in light of the above, there is no compulsion whatsoever to establish or imply it.

The Greek professor says "there is clear COINCIDENCE between the BELIEVE and APPOINT, but it does NOT say which preceeds the other".

This too has been answered before (same post as above even). Your Greek professor is at odds with Robertson.

Greek prof: "there is clear COINCIDENCE between the BELIEVE and APPOINT, but it does NOT say which preceeds the other"

Robertson: "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"

Furthermore, your Greek professor is at odds with EVERY MAJOR BIBLE TRANSLATION, all of which without exception, place appointment before belief.

It is perfectly reasonable to view the concept of "REVEALED AS ELECT BY THE STAND THEY TOOK", as EQUAL to "APPOINTED BY THEIR BELIEF". If election is consequential to believing, then Robertson's words of "revealed as elect by the stand they took", are perfectly consistent with that idea.

See...you have to presume election is consequential to believing to even attempt to reconcile them. HOWEVER, if they are "revealed as elect by the stand they took" (their belief) then belief cannot be the causal factor of election. If it were, he would have said "they were elected by the stand they took." If belief is the revelation of election, then election MUST NECESSARILY precede belief.

Indeed, if election IS consequentail to belief, then that explains perfectly Peter's admonishment to "be CERTAIN about His calling AND ELECTION, ...that the gates of Heaven be ...provided" (2:1:10-11). Why would we be admonished to be certain of our election, if that election was DIVINE DECREE? Consistency throughout Scripture, Fru. "We desire that each one of you show the same diligence SO AS to realize the full assurance of hope UNTIL THE END." Heb6:11 +-None of the verses on "diligence" accomodate "Divine Decree"...

On the contrary, Ben...all of those verses have already been shown to "accomodate divine decree." You would simply rather pretend they were never put forth and continue to feign legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the lurkers. I'm sorry I must state it in those terms, but that is truly how I feel. I spent a great deal of time methodically refuting your positions, and now you come down with a case of Alzheimers and start presenting the same arguments over again to me after I've already answered them?!?

Fru, we only have two choices here. That they WERE APPOINTED, is indisputible --- they were "passive recipients". So either as you say "they were appointed by GOD", or "they were appointed by their belief" --- I don't really think there's another possibility. Robertson clearly says "Luke does NOT support ABSOLUTE DECREE" --- Robertson could NOT be clearer, appointment does NOT precede belief --- this leaves only the middle-understanding, that they themselves had something to do with their appointment.

NO. Robertson was explicit and direct in it, Ben. THE SUBJECT OF THE VERB BELIEVED IS THE RELATIVE CLAUSE AS MANY AS WERE APPOINTED UNTO ETERNAL LIFE.

Robertson did not say clearly "Luke does not support absolute decree." He says There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. He is saying the verse is silent with respect to sovereign election, NOT that it doesn't allow for it.

First I am told that 'Roberson DOES support DIVNE DECRETUM OF SALVATION (he plainly did not), then I am told "Robertson is INCOMPETANT and had not the best RESOURCES." (Did Robertson have the original Greek, or not?)

I just addressed this point. You were told that he erred and was inconsistent (and evidence was provided). You were NEVER told that he was incompetent. Quite the contrary, CDL recognized his outstanding scholarship.

OK, here it is again --- everyone agrees that "the APPOINTMENT is COINCIDENT with the BELIEF"; but there is NOTHING in the context or structure that proves "appoint" PRECEEDS "belief".

No, Ben. NOBODY BUT YOU AND YOUR GREEK PROF BELIEVE THAT IT IS COINCIDENT. Your 'Greek scholars' from the other thread argued from a direct middle, which is untenable. Meanwhile, Robertson, CDL, numerous commentators, and EVERY MAJOR BIBLE TRANSLATION put forth the same structure and rendering...APPOINTMENT PRECEDING BELIEF.

My question was in that light. Given overwhelming support for appointment preceding belief, what then is the basis for such appointment (to which the subjects were passive)?

If the writer viewed their BELIEF as a separate THING other than THEMSELVES, then that BELIEF could very feasibly have been the cause of their appointment. No contradiction, Fru.

So....my belief is a separate entity from myself. PLEASE tell me you're not going to go that far in trying to deny the plain truth of this verse.

And there is still the reality that this ONE VERSE does not stand in a vacuum --- there are many other verses that speak of "personal responsibility", and others that speak of "falling-from-salvation". (If GOD APPOINTS to salvation, then they CANNOT fall, Fru.)

Once again, your staple argument: 'Even though the immediate context and the original language give immense support to this position, it's just doesn't harmonize with what I think the rest of Scripture says.'

Several of these verses regarding "personal responsibility" and "falling from salvation" have already been addressed and shown to be completely consistent with the Reformed view.

I see the "contextual support"; but, failing to convince you of it, I appeal to the "overall harmony". It is a fact that the GALATIANS were SAVED, and now they are NOT.

Your supposed contextual support has been ripped to shreds, Ben. Galatians is your last retreat, ONLY because we haven't taken the time to address it yet. That will surely be remedied eventually.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Hi, CDL! Not having a doctorate in Greek language myself, I am constrained to rely on others who do. In the link I provided, two members (Greek students, saying they have the endorsement of their degreed professor) assert that the verb is MIDDLE PASSIVE. The professor I consulted disagreed (agreeing with you on the TENSE). But what everyone I have consulted have, unanimously agreed on, is that the passage does NOT say that they were APPOINTED TO SALVATION or TO BELIEF.

In that case Ben, the Challenge remains: Find ANY example of the Periphrastic Perfect middle-passive form in the New Testament that is rendered as a middle voice.. ~You won't~

Here is a brief lesson for you, the perfect system of the regular verb, as well as the present system have IDENTICAL forms for the middle voice and the passive voice. That is what is meant by Middle-Passive form. Some verbs, such as GINOMAI are what is called "deponent" missing an Active form, and the middle-passive is rendered active. In the New Testament Era, the Middle Voice was already passing away. It's function was being taken over by the verb in Active voice, combined with a reflexive pronoun. As a result there are very few examples of the Direct Middle in the New Testament at all There are NONE in the Periphrastic Perfect (a perfect participle combined with a form of the verb EIMI).

If the Greek professor disagreed with you, that is to say, AGREES WITH ME on Voice (not tense Ben, i don't think that you and i have a disagreement on tense, that is beyond dispute), then i would say that the argument is over, especially in light of the fact that there is total unanimity with my statements and the Greek Scholars, and the translators of the Majour English Versions of the New Testament.

So I am faced with a choice --- I can take the words of three or four Calvinistic members, or I can follow the Greek sources I have personally consulted. By doing the FORMER, I find conflict in CLEARLY understood other passages --- many of them. By following the LATTER, all fits together consistently.

You left out every majour translation of the New Testament as well as a multitude of bible commentators and scholars that this site doesn't have the bandwidth to name who happen to agree with me.

If I say "I consulted a university professor, AND the minister of our local orthodox Greek church", someone accuses me of LYING and INVENTING a FICTITIOUS source. If I provide commentary by such as Robertson, I am told "he is INCOPMETANT and ERRORED and didn't have the LATEST RESOURCES." (As if the Greek has CHANGED in 2000 years).

You are well aware that i have never accused A.J. Robertson, arguably the greatest Greek Scholar of the 19[sup]th[/sup] Century, of being "incompetant", that is just an ad homenim statement and you know it Ben. Had Robertson or Henry Joseph Thayer (a Unitarian) had access to the finds of the present age, such as computer data bases of the New Testament and Septuagent, and access to the Non Literary Paparii, who knows how far advanced Greek studies would be today?

If I present OTHER PASSAGES that speak of "falling from salvation", I am told "OH they weren't really saved in the FIRST place", or "he didn't really MEAN what he WROTE".

Ah, but isn't that "begging the question" Ben? Look, a bit of honesty here, you've been challenged on your assertions, and the hyperbole in your characterisations of that oppositon as saying those things you attribute to them above doesn't help matters. You were refuted from the TEXT itself by appeal to Grammar, syntax and context. i do have eyes (even if my arms aren't long enough for reading without glasses any more ) i saw your discussion with Frumanchu across several threads including this one. You were simply unable to argue with the contex of the passages you cite as representative of conditional security.

I believe I (and several others of RG here) have presented concepts with Scripture and sound discussion. I believe that if such discussion was presented to US by Calvinists, of similar depth and cognizance, we would have believed in Calvinism.

C'mon Ben, you know Calvinism better than that, at least you should by now...we Calvinists believe that it is God who gives enlightenment to men, It is the Holy Spirit who convicts and convinces, not argumentation. Your life isn't over yet, God has that in His hand, and there is always hope for you to recieve from Him, should He give you that enlightenment. i didn't become a Calvinist over night!

If, just for the sake of argument, if it was POSSIBLE for Calvinism to be wrong, what would it take to convince a Calvinist?

i don't deal much with Hypotheticals Ben, NT Greek is essentially a dead language, as is Latin, it doesn't change. As per Convincing, it would take God working through His word, same as it would for you to become a Calvinist. That was an easy answer.

Robertson says that the passage of Acts13:48 does NOT SOLVE the problem of 'DIVINE-DECREE-OF-ELECTION'; it does not say WHY (or by who/what) they were appointed. He says "there is no evidence that Luke thought God DECREED salvation" --- this is as strong against PREDESTINED-ELECTION" as one can get.

Being theologically conservative, i'd have to agree that "one verse does not a doctrine make". While God doesn't have to say something at all for it to be true (it's either true or it's not), we are left to His Word to discern the truth of a matter. That said, you CONSISTENTLY miss the point concerning Predestination and election, namely that EVERYBODY BELIEVES IN IT! It is the means of Predestiantion and Election that provides disagreement.

No one (that is, no one of "Calvinistic bent") has ever answered (beyond Mount's thoughtful and valued reply) my question on Galatians. If Acts 13:48 DID speak of "divine appointment", where does that leave the Galatians, who were BEGUN IN THE SPIRIT (3:3), OBEYING the TRUTH and RUNNING WELL (4:7), but returned again to slavery of law and are now SEVERED from CHRIST and FALLEN FROM GRACE? (5:1,4) How would the conflict (between DIVINE DECREE and the ONCE-SAVED-NOW-FALLEN) be resolved?

As i recall, nobody ever got there. It appeared that you had your hands full trying to refute Frumanchu on a lot of other points...not with a great deal of success from what i could see.

 

[Ben johnson]

I'm not sure how to respond, Gentlemen. Nothing I have to say has value to you. I cite 2Pet1:9, I am told that "an ungodly, uncontrolled, immoral, unkind, unloving, forgotten-purification-from-former-sins-person is STILL SAVED. I seem to lack the ability to convince you that Jesus' words of Matt7:16-20, Paul's of 1Cor6:9-11 & Gal5:19-21, and John's of 1:3:7-10 are absolute and without exception.

It appeared that you had your hands full trying to refute Frumanchu on a lot of other points...not with a great deal of success from what i could see.

No, not any success at all. And why is that?

I demonstrate that those in 2Pet1:1-4 are SAVED, and 2Pet2:20-22 uses the exact same word-for-Greek-word description, PLUS words like "having KNOWN [epiginosko] the way of righteousness but have TURNED-FROM-IT [epistrepho-ek]". Everyone admits the ch1 group are SAVED, but when I assert the ch2 escapees were JUST as saved, the response is Monty-Pythonian: "No they weren't --- they only APPEARED"...

I demonstrate that those of Galatians 3:1-3 & 5:1-7 are "RUNNING-WELL/OBEYING-TRUTH/BEGUN-IN-THE-SPIRIT", but now return to LAW rather than grace, they are "SEVERED FROM CHRIST, they are FALLEN FROM GRACE." Clearly they were saved, and became unsaved. You all say "we WILL DEAL with it soon" --- obviously by saying "they weren't REALLY saved, just like the 2Pet2:20-22 they only APPEARED escaped" (which of course violates the four passages quoted in this post, end of paragraph 1). OR somehow they were "severed-fallen-but-STILL-SAVED". How can anyone consider this "sound refutation"? It is not.

My exegesis "torn-to-shreds"? Isn't it ironic that I think Calvinistic interpretation is torn to shreds? Which of us is right? (I would tend to side with the one who cites Matt7:16-20 1Cor6:9-11 Gal5:19-21 & 1Jn:3:7-10 --- none of these were written with exceptions.)

Every major translation stands against me? No translation I've ever seen says "appointed BY GOD" in Acs13:48. (ALL translations say "appointed by God" in Rom13:1) NASV plainly writes in Heb6:4-6, "they won't repent WHILE they crucify Jesus anew to themselves with (conempt)" --- fully placing the onus of repentance WITH the former-believer.

I read the context of 1Jn2 (in response to your assertion of vs19), which warns against being DECEIVED towards NOT-ABIDING-IN-CHRIST, effectively word-for-word with 2Jn2:8-9; but my PE colleagues here do not see that "there ARE those who go out from us who WERE with us" --- instead it seems to them an application of "proven reprobate by non-perseverance".

I cite warning after warning after warning against "falling from grace/steadfastness/faith", but I'm told "it's only HYPOTHETICAL but not REAL", or that "one can be unfaithfully or unsteadfastly or fallenly or unfellowshippingly SAVED".

I quote James5:19-20, and am told "they weren't REALLY SAVED BRETHREN" or "thanatos doesn't really MEAN HELL"; if I understand Calvinists to be saying, "it doesn't mean what it says", then I am accused of misrepresenting Reformed Theology.

As long as it can be believed that "a SAVED-RIGHTEOUS-PERSON can be IMMORAL/UNGODLY/ UNCONTROLLED/UNREPENTANT/UNKIND/UNLOVING", the Reformed Theologian will never be convinced.

As long as it can be understood that a CORRUPT-SLAVE-TO-SIN person can APPEAR to be ESCAPED through the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Reformed Theologian will never be convinced.

As long as warning after warning is understood as "ONLY HYPOTHETICAL, fatherly advice to keep us in line but it can't REALLY happen, & our keeping-in-line is irreistible ANYWAY", the Reformed Theologian will never be convinced.

i don't deal much with Hypotheticals Ben,

Then please explain to me how James5:19-20, 2Pet3:14 & 17, Col2:8 & 1:21-23, 1Tim4:1&16 and many like them are just "hypotheticals"?

I point out verses that speak of ELECTION, warning us to "MAKE CERTAIN OF ...OUR ELECTION" and "you need diligence so that ...you'll receive the promise/realize full assurance of hope until the end" --- but still the Calvinist asserts "GOD perseveres US". Why would we need to "make certain" of election that is unilateral from God?

I cite verses that speak against our "FALLING SHORT OF GRACE" and "RESISTING GOD" and "REFUSING GOD", but again these are ALSO taken as MERE HYPOTHETICALS --- and I am told that is "sound refutation" and my understanding has been "TORN TO SHREDS".

I mean no offense to any of you, there is no "attack" here, no "ad-hominem", just listing of responses I have been given by Calvinists. I am --- discouraged. I lack the ability to communicate what is so clear in my heart and spirit from reading the Scripture and prayer. But at once, there is peace also in my heart; for there IS one Savior, and it's not my job to convince anyone. I must keep seeking Him, that my communication skills improve, and that my ability to make people mad lessens.

If each-of-you-Calvinists exhibits the traits spoken of in 2Pet1, and if each-of-us-non-Calvinists also exhibits those same traits, then doesn't the whole issue become (between US, anyway), non-issue? Can we not fellowship in love and peace?

I believe we can.

The only time the issue matters, is towards one who exhibits continual SIN. And even in that instance, ALL of us would agree that "his fruits expose an unsaved heart".

I guess we should lay aside the discussion for now, because what can be said, probably has been said. I strove to paint a clear picture in this post, through my eyes; there are those who will agree, and those who will not. My only concern, is that I truly and honestly seek my Lord with all that I am; and I have the same concern for each of you.

"Prophecy will end, tongues will cease; knowledge will be done away; when the Perfect comes, we shall know fully, even as we are fully known; but now abide faith hope and love, these three; but the greatest of all is love.

I truly love each one of you, both Calvinists and not.

 

[orthotomeo]

Don't know if this helps or not...I've borrowed it from Bob, a friend who has studied Greek for some years. I have placed one comment in bold because I strongly agree with it - it describes my own conversion experience while in college.

ACTS 13:48 - AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED

It is hard to read Acts 13:48 as a verse for predestination in the context of the thirteenth chapter. Luke is describing the dramatic events at Antioch which center around the rejection of the gospel by the Jews (45) and the acceptance of it by the Gentiles (46-48). The point of the passage is to castigate the Jews for rejecting Christ and praise Gentiles for accepting Him. For Luke to slip a predestinarian commentary in on this scene would work against the mood he is trying to create. “Oh, that’s why the Jews rejected the gospel and the Gentiles accepted it. They were predestined to do so. It really wasn’t their fault.” That’s the kind of conclusion we could make from this kind of interpretation. But Luke is trying to fault the Jews. This would work against his purpose for writing about this event.

We read in Acts 13:48, “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” The phrase, “had been appointed,” is the Greek periphrastic pluperfect, h\san tetagmevnoi. This can be either middle or passive in meaning since perfect participles only have one form to express the passive and the middle (reflexive) meaning.

I think it has a middle meaning here - when we see the word used in the aorist (which has different forms for the middle and passive) its normal use seems to be in the middle.

Acts 28:23 looks as though it would be active when you read the New King James translation, but when we look at the Greek, it’s a middle.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 16:15, the word is active in the Greek, but the meaning of the thought is definitely middle.

If we took the meaning of the clause in 1 Corinthians 16:15 and used it in Acts 13:48, we would have, “As many as had devoted themselves unto eternal life, believed.” This verb, tavssw, can have a number of meanings. Bauer’s second American edition and Moulton and Milligan give the following meanings: to classify, place or station something in a fixed spot, appoint to or establish in an office, to put someone in charge, assign, be classed among those possessing, devote, order, fix, determine, allot, pay, tell, arrange, or agree. I think 'dispose' fits just fine in the ideas related by all these words.

What word fits in the context of Acts thirteen without forcing anything? We find from verse 46 that the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. This is a reflexive middle idea. The statement we’re dealing with is the corresponding statement about the believers. They had devoted themselves, disposed themselves, arranged themselves, or classified themselves unto eternal life. Certainly "ordained," of the King James Version, is too strong. There is no reason to consider this a passive with the context of the previous middle (reflexive) concept of verse 46. Therefore, I believe this portion should be translated, “As many as had disposed themselves to eternal life, believed.”

But we don’t really need a middle or weak verb meaning here. We can accept the strong meaning of the New King James Version, “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Just as the Jews pushed the word of God away from themselves in verse 46, the Gentiles rejoice and are glad and believed, in verse 48. This could mean that the ones who believed were the ones who had been appointed (passive) to eternal life by their own continuance in the grace of God (43). This would account for the process implied by the pluperfect. They were not the ones who thrust eternal life from themselves. They were the ones who rejoiced in it. So, their own response to the gospel had the effect of ordaining them to eternal life.

Theologically speaking, this could show the divine/human aspects of conversion. Left to himself, no one would seek God. But a positive response to the gospel sets powerful forces in motion. The Holy Spirit continues to draw the person to Himself. As the person continues to yield (in contrast to those like the Jews of Luke 7:30), the Holy Spirit draws more powerfully. The person could always back out at this point, but God is on the move on the person. Therefore, to see this as passive activity is no problem as long as it includes an active yielding. Thus, the interpretation of the entire passage yields a theologically middle concept. So, verse 48 could be passive because it views the belief as more than simply the person’s response. God is at work, too.

This passage fits this theology without sacrificing the context, grammar, or language. This reading respects both context and language. Context is always the most important thing to consider when interpreting a small portion of scripture.

Any disagreements or comments, fine. Just don't aim 'em at me - direct them to Bob at www.biblicalanswers.com. Thanks.

 

[orthotomeo]

Also - Bob has put up the first five chapters of his book on Calvinism, and is inviting critiques of it:

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/BiblicalAnswers_Bible_Forums.htm

I look forward to reading your comments!

o.

 

[frumanchu]

I'm not sure how to respond, Gentlemen. Nothing I have to say has value to you. I cite 2Pet1:9, I am told that "an ungodly, uncontrolled, immoral, unkind, unloving, forgotten-purification-from-former-sins-person is STILL SAVED. I seem to lack the ability to convince you that Jesus' words of Matt7:16-20, Paul's of 1Cor6:9-11 & Gal5:19-21, and John's of 1:3:7-10 are absolute and without exception.
No, not any success at all. And why is that?

Because we've shown you time and again that you are forcing your interpretation upon these verses, often contrary to the immediate context of the verse. If we have sound and reasonable explanations for these verses, why would we be compelled at all to acquiesce to your interpretation?

I demonstrate that those in 2Pet1:1-4 are SAVED, and 2Pet2:20-22 uses the exact same word-for-Greek-word description, PLUS words like "having KNOWN [epiginosko] the way of righteousness but have TURNED-FROM-IT [epistrepho-ek]". Everyone admits the ch1 group are SAVED, but when I assert the ch2 escapees were JUST as saved, the response is Monty-Pythonian: "No they weren't --- they only APPEARED"...

But it is the exact same word in a different context, and you rely upon the notion that that word necessarily implies salvation when in fact it does not. We went over this.

I demonstrate that those of Galatians 3:1-3 & 5:1-7 are "RUNNING-WELL/OBEYING-TRUTH/BEGUN-IN-THE-SPIRIT", but now return to LAW rather than grace, they are "SEVERED FROM CHRIST, they are FALLEN FROM GRACE." Clearly they were saved, and became unsaved. You all say "we WILL DEAL with it soon" --- obviously by saying "they weren't REALLY saved, just like the 2Pet2:20-22 they only APPEARED escaped" (which of course violates the four passages quoted in this post, end of paragraph 1). OR somehow they were "severed-fallen-but-STILL-SAVED". How can anyone consider this "sound refutation"? It is not.

I would trust that you would have the integrity to withhold judgement on an argument I have not even given yet.

Every major translation stands against me? No translation I've ever seen says "appointed BY GOD" in Acs13:48.

Your argument has been that belief precedes or is the basis for appointment. You're trying to argue for 'coincidence' of the actions, but it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Robertson disagrees...he doesn't see any possibility whatsoever of switching the order, and EVERY MAJOR TRANSLATION choose to render it in the same order, with appointment PRECEDING belief. I don't know what evidence it would take to further convince you.

I read the context of 1Jn2 (in response to your assertion of vs19), which warns against being DECEIVED towards NOT-ABIDING-IN-CHRIST, effectively word-for-word with 2Jn2:8-9; but my PE colleagues here do not see that "there ARE those who go out from us who WERE with us" --- instead it seems to them an application of "proven reprobate by non-perseverance".

Wrong. We do affirm that "there ARE those who go out from us who WERE with us" because that is precisely what the verse says. Moreover, those who were with us and depart from us show that they were NEVER OF us. Their departure is manifestation of that fact. You've set two positions at odds there that are not. Those who were with us who go out from us prove themselves reprobate by their non-perseverance, showing that they were never OF us.

I cite warning after warning after warning against "falling from grace/steadfastness/faith", but I'm told "it's only HYPOTHETICAL but not REAL", or that "one can be unfaithfully or unsteadfastly or fallenly or unfellowshippingly SAVED".

That speaks to a much deeper problem with your doctrine of sanctification. The Reformed position is that men may fall into sin, but never to the point of persistence unto death or loss of salvation:

I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

- Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch XVII (see http://www.crta.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ for footnotes & proofs)

I quote James5:19-20, and am told "they weren't REALLY SAVED BRETHREN" or "thanatos doesn't really MEAN HELL"; if I understand Calvinists to be saying, "it doesn't mean what it says", then I am accused of misrepresenting Reformed Theology.

There's the key...you 'understand Calvinists to be saying' that things don't mean what they say. You're making an assertion, a judgement call, on our position and then putting it forth as though we knowingly say such a thing.

I point out verses that speak of ELECTION, warning us to "MAKE CERTAIN OF ...OUR ELECTION" and "you need diligence so that ...you'll receive the promise/realize full assurance of hope until the end" --- but still the Calvinist asserts "GOD perseveres US". Why would we need to "make certain" of election that is unilateral from God?

For your own personal assurance? Again, this speaks to a larger issue...your doctrine of sanctification.

I cite verses that speak against our "FALLING SHORT OF GRACE" and "RESISTING GOD" and "REFUSING GOD", but again these are ALSO taken as MERE HYPOTHETICALS --- and I am told that is "sound refutation" and my understanding has been "TORN TO SHREDS".

You cite verses, and we GIVE your refutation, but you reject it and then claim that no sound refutation was given. I leave it to the readers to decide, and if the feedback I've gotten is any indication, I stand by my assertions.

I mean no offense to any of you, there is no "attack" here, no "ad-hominem", just listing of responses I have been given by Calvinists. I am --- discouraged. I lack the ability to communicate what is so clear in my heart and spirit from reading the Scripture and prayer. But at once, there is peace also in my heart; for there IS one Savior, and it's not my job to convince anyone. I must keep seeking Him, that my communication skills improve, and that my ability to make people mad lessens.

I seek no such thing, for I know that the truth divides, that my words don't have the power of themselves to convince, and that the measure of my faithfulness does not rest in how many people I make mad.

I can only take you at your word that you are not intentionally attacking me. I cannot speak to your intentions, all I can do is point out what I do see in your methodology, consistency and logic. I do not wish you any ill will.

If each-of-you-Calvinists exhibits the traits spoken of in 2Pet1, and if each-of-us-non-Calvinists also exhibits those same traits, then doesn't the whole issue become (between US, anyway), non-issue? Can we not fellowship in love and peace?

I believe we can.

Can we fellowship in love and peace? Yes...but not in this medium If each of us is not only firmly convinced in his own mind of the truth of his position, but also convinced that it is extremely important (if not essential) to the spiritual well-being of the believer, then how can we help but continue to debate, hoping if not to convince our adversary (I use that merely in the context of debate) then at least to convince those who observe?

I will say this cautiously, but our doctrine does not save us. Our faith in Jesus Christ saves us. Nevertheless, we earnestly contend for the faith.

I guess we should lay aside the discussion for now, because what can be said, probably has been said. I strove to paint a clear picture in this post, through my eyes; there are those who will agree, and those who will not. My only concern, is that I truly and honestly seek my Lord with all that I am; and I have the same concern for each of you.

We've 'laid aside the discussion' before. But when we post in the same thread and I see you making the same points and arguments that I believe I've already refuted, how can I simply stand aside as though they are unchallengable? Indeed, is not your presentation of these points just that...putting forth your points to challenge what I have said?

 

[frumanchu]

Don't know if this helps or not...I've borrowed it from Bob, a friend who has studied Greek for some years. I have placed one comment in bold because I strongly agree with it - it describes my own conversion experience while in college.

Any disagreements or comments, fine. Just don't aim 'em at me - direct them to Bob at www.biblicalanswers.com. Thanks.

Interesting, but I do believe he's wrong simply on the grounds that there is absolutely no support for translating this as a direct middle at all. Thank you for posting it though.

 

[frumanchu]

Also - Bob has put up the first five chapters of his book on Calvinism, and is inviting critiques of it:

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/BiblicalAnswers_Bible_Forums.htm

I look forward to reading your comments!

o.

I will check it out if/when I get a chance, if for no other reason than to find out who Bob is

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

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.

That's true but this does not address the theory of being regenerated before being able to understand God's word. I would not expect that the lost would ever be allowed to see the beauty of the Kingdom. When I was saved and until this day I have never seen the Kingdom. Neither have you, but we both know the path. We both know Jesus Christ and we will both see it someday.

No, you misunderstood what I said. Repentance is not the basis of our justification, faith is. NEVERTHELESS, such faith WILL produce repentance.

Yes but repentance has to be there or there is no Justification. We cannot be justified with us still carrying our sins. We have to repent in order for forgiveness to be given.

just like there will NEVER be an occurance of true saving faith that is not accompanied by genuinely good works

Works have nothing to do with believing;
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

This above describes the man who does no work but His faith is counted for righteousness.
James opinion of faith without works is dead is only for appearance. He cannot prove or is not known for his faith. There is faith with out works this verse proves that. it also proves that faith is not a work that we can use to save our selves because we do not save our selves Christ does that when He see's our faith.
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[orthotomeo]

If this scenario was real and you didn't trust him you'd be insane IMHO.

Hi Romanbear,

I have to wonder if you read the scenario? The key point (one of them, anyway) was that the guy with the key never, ever intended to let the guy in the cage go free, so it wouldn't have mattered if the captive trusted him or not - his fate was sealed. That's why I deliberately left out all mention of the captive's response or non-response. It's irrelevant.

This is my next-to-last post, btw.

o.

 

[Ben johnson]

We've 'laid aside the discussion' before. But when we post in the same thread and I see you making the same points and arguments that I believe I've already refuted, how can I simply stand aside as though they are unchallengable? Indeed, is not your presentation of these points just that...putting forth your points to challenge what I have said?

I suppose that is true. And I am compelled to respond when I see positions that conflict Scripture. Maybe the debate is unavoidable...

Because we've shown you time and again that you are forcing your interpretation upon these verses, often contrary to the immediate context of the verse. If we have sound and reasonable explanations for these verses, why would we be compelled at all to acquiesce to your interpretation?

Sound and reasonable interpretation? Contrary to context? I do not call "sound and reasonable" to say that the FALSE did not REALLY escape but only APPEARED to escape in 2Pet2:20-22; the context says "the false NEVER CEASE FROM SIN and are SLAVES TO CORRUPTION" --- but the REFUTATION says that the FALSE can APPEAR to escape. This inserts the word "APPEAR" where it was not WRITTEN. It conflicts Jesus' words that "no bad tree can PRODUCE GOOD FRUIT". It denies John's words of "do not be deceived, he who PRACTICES righteousness IS righteous, he who practices unrightouesness is not of God" --- but the REFUTATION asserts that those of the DEVIL can APPEAR RIGHTEOUS. This is "sound and reasonable"?

You offer 1Jn2:19 as proof that "whoever LEAVES were never SAVED" --- and reject my offer of 2Jn1:7-9 --- saying that the "ANTICHRISTS seek to pilfer heavenly CROWNS, John makes a SUBJECT CHANGE in verse 9 so the NON-ABIDING were ALWAYS-NON-ABIDING itsnotshowingtheconsequenceatALL." Yet when we read the context of 1Jn2, it's nearly word-for-word with 2Jn1:7-9: in 1:2:26 the FALSE are TRYING to DECEIVE YOU. What is the GOAL of their deceit? To NOT-ABIDE-IN-JESUS 1:2:27. John admonishes us TO abide, "so that we will NOT SHRINK IN SHAME AT HIS COMING!" 1:2:28 Forcing my interpretation? Denying the context? Deceivers out to steal CROWNS but not cause UNSALVATION is the SOUND AND REASONABLE REFUTATION?

But it is the exact same word in a different context, and you rely upon the notion that that word necessarily implies salvation when in fact it does not. We went over this.

Then let's go over it again. For the FALSE to APPEAR righteous, they must DO righteous things (and not unrighteous things). Jesus says "NO". Paul says "NO". John says "NO". Peter says "if after ESCAPING, they are AGAIN ENTANGLED and OVERCOME" --- again entangled, Fru, that means there was a time when they were NOT ENTANGLED. They "epistrepho-ek" the holy commandment --- that means, "spiritually turned AWAY" They "KNEW THE WAY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS", epignosis experiential. There is no context in chapter 2 that asserts a different meaning of the same words as chapter 1; with respect, the "different meaning" is only required to assert the "a-priori" stance of "predestination". If the words of 2Pet2 are read at FACE VALUE, IE that the true who are being enticed/tempted by the false (vs19, there is no refutation for vs19), then here is a passage that speaks of FALLING-FROM-SALVATION.

I would trust that you would have the integrity to withhold judgement on an argument I have not even given yet.

I have no choice in this, Fru. NO ONE outside of Mounts has ANSWERED. It's a simple question, asked MONTHS ago. He replied that "they were never truly saved". That's choice #1; there are only two other options for OSAS, #2 they didn't REALLY FALL, and #3 it's not a REAL INCIDENT but only HYPOTHETICAL. I'm sorry to say this, for it will probably anger someone again, but it looks like there is a reason why it has not been answered, that it cannot be answered. Forgive the insult if anyone feels insulted.

Your argument has been that belief precedes or is the basis for appointment. You're trying to argue for 'coincidence' of the actions, but it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Robertson disagrees...he doesn't see any possibility whatsoever of switching the order, and EVERY MAJOR TRANSLATION choose to render it in the same order, with appointment PRECEDING belief. I don't know what evidence it would take to further convince you

I await with great anticipation the Calvinists' answers to what Orthotomeo has eloquently cited --- 100% aligned with what I have been saying. Verse 46 is MIDDLE, the entire passage is MIDDLE, for Luke to suddenly assert PASSIVE (God PREDESTINED) breaks the context. Here is a clear statement by a Greek speaker that the context is middle.

Those who were with us who go out from us prove themselves reprobate by their non-perseverance, showing that they were never OF us.

The context of 1Jn2 stands against you, Fru. The ANTICHRISTS seek to DECEIVE YOU (26), to NOT-ABIDE-IN-JESUS (27,28,29). Perfect mirror of 2Jn1:7-9, and COUNTERS the assertion that [color=tea["John changes SUBJECTS in 2:1:9 and is talking about those who were ALWAYS GONE TOO FAR."[/color] 1Jn2 is a warning against NOT-ABIDING (falling), 2Jn1 is a warning against NOT-ABIDING (going too far and falling). Contextually, undeniably, not everyone who GOES OUT FROM us, was never OF us.

That speaks to a much deeper problem with your doctrine of sanctification. The Reformed position is that men may fall into sin, but never to the point of persistence unto death or loss of salvation:

Let's discuss "FALL INTO SIN". Of the three views of OSAS, the first is readily refuted with Scripture --- Antinomianism. No one believes that we can "sin willfully and remain saved". Yet the other two views ("Predestined-Election" and "Eternal Security") often assert the idea of "BACKSLID-BUT-STILL-SAVED". This denies James' words that "SIN BRINGS SPIRITUAL DEATH" (1:15). Can one be "FALLEN-INTO-SIN" but STILL SAVED? I say "NO"; what do you say? Was John wrong in 1:3:7-10, "do not be deceived he who practices unrighteousness IS NOT OF GOD"? What is the "exclusion" or the "exception"???

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]

Please allow me to copy one of my posts from another thread:

If it is GOD who perseveres US, then how does that accommodate Scriptures like:

"You have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise". Heb10:36

"Pay close attention to yourself and your teaching, persevere in these things; for as you do, you will save yourself and those who hear you." 1Tim4:16

"Therefore be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and election of you; for as long as you practice these things you will never PTAIO-STUMBLE-BECOME-WRETCHED; in THIS way the EISODOS-GATES of Heaven will be abundantly provided to you." 2Pet1:10-11

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent TO BE FOUND by Him spotless and blameless... be on your guard, lest being carried away by the error of unprincipled men you FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS." 2Pet3:14,17

"By YOUR endurace YOU will save YOUR souls." Luke 21:19

How do these verses support, "God perseveres US"?

There's the key...you 'understand Calvinists to be saying' that things don't mean what they say. You're making an assertion, a judgement call, on our position and then putting it forth as though we knowingly say such a thing.

No, it's simply what has been said to me. Specirically, "Peter doesn't really MEAN 'escaped' in 2:2:20, doesn't really MEAN unsaved in 2:3:17, Paul doesn't really MEAN unsaved in Col1:23 or 2:8", etcetera...

I can only take you at your word that you are not intentionally attacking me. I cannot speak to your intentions, all I can do is point out what I do see in your methodology, consistency and logic. I do not wish you any ill will.

Can we fellowship in love and peace? Yes...but not in this medium If each of us is not only firmly convinced in his own mind of the truth of his position, but also convinced that it is extremely important (if not essential) to the spiritual well-being of the believer, then how can we help but continue to debate, hoping if not to convince our adversary (I use that merely in the context of debate) then at least to convince those who observe?

This is true. As often as I would like to leave it behind (because of weariness), I find myself posting to contend for the faith and refute those who contradict.

I will say this cautiously, but our doctrine does not save us. Our faith in Jesus Christ saves us. Nevertheless, we earnestly contend for the faith.

Very true.

We've 'laid aside the discussion' before. But when we post in the same thread and I see you making the same points and arguments that I believe I've already refuted, how can I simply stand aside as though they are unchallengable? Indeed, is not your presentation of these points just that...putting forth your points to challenge what I have said?

Hope you will look at what I've said about "refutations" in this post. It is not enough to SAY that "something has been refuted" --- it must be truly refuted in harmony with Scripture. If any one of us interprets a passage as "they were never REALLY SAVED", or "they didn't really FALL", or "it's not real it's just hypothetical", there must be a convincing reason to ACCEPT that. If I was to say to you "I've refuted you" without giving sound refutation, then I would be justly confronted to PROVE that refutation to you.

 

[frumanchu]

Ben, I have neither the time nor the inclination right now to answer all of this. Ortho simply posted an excerpt from an article. The author has no grounds with which to interpret that form as a direct middle when there is NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE in the New Testament of that verb (or any other verb) in that form being translated as a direct middle. NOT ONE. I don't need to answer any further. The grammar of the original Greek does not allow for it. Period.

The rest is the same garbage you've been posting for months now, reworking what we've said in a light that's favorable to you. If I have time, I will answer them (again). I remain confident that the answers already provided are more than sufficient.

BTW, Ben. Can you name for me a Calvinist that has renounced the Reformed view as a direct result of this forum (or another)?

 

[Ben johnson]

The rest is the same you've been posting for months now. If I have time, I will answer them (again). I remain confident that the answers already provided are more than sufficient.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Ben johnson,

I see you're an adminstrator now. Congrats.

Michelle

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;

Are you through with the disscussion we were having ?
May God Bless You;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

Not necessarily. I'm just busy. Had a job interview out of town today, and I have a lot of stuff to do.