Calvinism Refuted

[cygnusx1]

Someone explain to me, without Bible verses, how God + predestination = love.

sure ... without predestination there would be no salvation = no demonstrable love. (men cannot save themselves )

"The FALL" means something !

 

[Hammster]

That doesn't answer the question. The verse you are referring to does not specify a more effective call from God as the cause of justification. The writer DOES discuss justification and how a person is justified, in ch. 3 and onward. That would be the place to look to study up on justification.







Once again, the fact is that in the passage you are relying on, a more effective call is not stated as the basis for justification. Justification is not described in this passage, therefore one needs to go back to where this author discusses justification, to find out how the process works. See for example ch. 3.







And therein lies an important clue to help resolve some of these questions. How does justification work? Where in Paul's writings does he discuss justification? Not in ch. 8.

So in your reasoning of this passage, Paul could have just as easily said that those who are called are not justified, since a specific group isn't mentioned.

 

[archierieus]

So in your reasoning of this passage, Paul could have just as easily said that those who are called are not justified, since a specific group isn't mentioned.

Incorrect. He specifices those whom God foreknew, He predestined, called, justified. The post you responded to addressed the fact that the 'call' is not stated as the CAUSE of the justification. Justification is described earlier in the letter.

 

[Hammster]

Incorrect. He specifices those whom God foreknew, He predestined, called, justified. The post you responded to addressed the fact that the 'call' is not stated as the CAUSE of the justification. Justification is described earlier in the letter.

It isn't incorrect. Your whole argument has been that the called aren't a specific group; that everyone is called. You say that there is no effectual call. So Paul could just as easily said that those who are predestined are called along with everyone else, and those He called He didn't justify all of them.

 

[heymikey80]

I expected something like that. It does explain a good bit.

No, it simply explains a good bit about your intent.

I decided that pointing out a few short, straightforward statements from relatively well-respected grammars might prompt a reasoned discussion.

Instead of an ad hominem attack.

My library is not in my garage. Enough.

Very general statements. But as they read, they do not appear to mandate your treatment of the verse.

No, the statements simply upended your treatment of the verse. That leaves the plain meaning intact.

Present participle, okay that's a good start. I thought I read in one of your posts where you called it an aorist????? Apparently I misread that. And the rest of the morphology?

ROFL! Good luck finding that.

With no good faith effort on your part to actually represent the positions of your garage box library -- I see no call to be attacked by you.

Your garage boxes don't appear to be informing your position.

Once again, I understand now where you are coming come. This helps explain it. I do suggest you shelve the outdated grammars and work with something more current.

I've read later grammars, and they're not that much more enlightening. I've cited grammars that help put Koine Greek quickly into its developmental context. If you have a problem with a Greek grammar, say what your problem is. But don't sit there and criticize someone's learning as, "Ah, that explains it". It makes you sound like you're arguing against something you really can't deal with technically.

Resorting to attacks normally means to me that you have nothing more to say about the argument itself.

It makes me wonder what other flashy new things that must be integrated into this 2000 year old faith just to keep it from being deprecated as "old".

It's Greek grammar. The sentence structure hasn't changed. Meanings are transferred in Greek through conventional means. And your dislike for it doesn't mean a thing.

Although, the paragraph you have cited does not even on its face appear to support your conclusion about 1 Jn. 5:1.

Of course it does. The sentence is communicating something about the subject.

You're saying it doesn't, really.

I'm saying it does: really.

In addition, you have gone far beyond your brief cites in your exposition. The balance of the material I therefore assign to your own opinions about grammar, and would recommend that you publish and seek peer review. Would be interested to see that, if you do so.

Look again. Integrated, compact.

And it's a well-represented position among others, because it's not trying to backpedal the grammar. There's no reason to publish it. It's too obviously extracted from the grammar. In fact, so obvious, that modern translations are realizing they're having trouble keeping "is" in the translation ... because English readers too often misread the translated text and inject "is then" into it, when in reality, "is already been" is probably the closest you can come to it in English.

I'm interested to see a position come closer than books in garage boxes: actually consulted, checked, and confirmed as to where it comes from.

The problem is that the grammatical basis of 1 John 5:1 is subverted by denying it says what it says. There's no reason for John to conclude what he concludes -- unless he's right about what he says in the first place.

The most you can do is deflect what he writes. In fact I'd agree this isn't his primary focus. It's foundational; it's not John's point. You just can't avoid the fact that he wrote it this way. Because he did.

 

[Robert Pate]

Is that really all you have?

Show us hoe Romans 8:32, in context of the passage, refutes Calvinism. This is one of your prooftexts from the OP, so explain it to us.

The problem is that you want to build a whole doctrine of theology on a hand full of scriptures.

Besides the "whosoever" verses listed in the opening post there are another 21 scriptures that say salvation is for ALL MEN or FOR ALL. There are three scrpitures that say salvation has been provided for the whole world. And then there is 2 Peter 3:9 that says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance."

There is a total of 39 scriptures that clearly refute Calvinism. False doctrine is taught by taking the minor and making it the major.

 

[Hammster]

The problem is that you want to build a whole doctrine of theology on a hand full of scriptures.



Besides the "whosoever" verses listed in the opening post there are another 21 scriptures that say salvation is for ALL MEN or FOR ALL. There are three scrpitures that say salvation has been provided for the whole world. And then there is 2 Peter 3:9 that says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance."



There is a total of 39 scriptures that clearly refute Calvinism. False doctrine is taught by taking the minor and making it the major.

If you are going to quote me, then please respond to the post.

I have to conclude that you can't, so you have to deflect. Makes your argument look weak.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So, under the theology of Calvinism does God choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

 

[heymikey80]

So, under the theology of Calvinism does God choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

Under the theology of Calvinism there's no way to avoid God choosing everything that happens, everywhere, whenever.

Created people are secondary actors in what God knew completely and entirely, before He created, and intentionally built the way it is playing out.

 

[Hammster]

So, under the theology of Calvinism does God choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?

Yes.


I would think under most people's theology God chooses who goes to heaven and hell.

 

[heymikey80]

Besides the "whosoever" verses listed in the opening post

We've pointed out plenty of times that "whosoever" doesn't oppose Calvinism. It's not like someone is going to behave unpredictably to God.

there are another 21 scriptures that say salvation is for ALL MEN or FOR ALL.

"all" isn't specific when it's in common usage. All over all people realize all this isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It's meant generally, not pervasively comprehensive. Mark 1:5 doesn't mean that Judea and Jerusalem were abandoned for one side of the Jordan river, either.

There are three scrpitures that say salvation has been provided for the whole world.

And of course there're places where people say, "the whole world has gone after Jesus". Again, not pervasively comprehensive.

But generally, this is a fact. Jesus is going to re-create the whole world. That contains more than you & me. We're just one day of creation outta six.

Jesus is going to change the whole world in a New Creation. That doesn't bode well for everyone. But it's still true. And it's still good -- perfect, in fact.

And then there is 2 Peter 3:9 that says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance."

There is a total of 39 scriptures that clearly refute Calvinism. False doctrine is taught by taking the minor and making it the major.

2 Peter 3:9 is spoken toward us, not to every human being. That's "all" of us that Peter's talking to. any of us. all of us.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yes.


I would think under most people's theology God chooses who goes to heaven and he'll.

I meant choose as in does he choose from when he first creates people.

That is, does humanity have free will?

 

[Robert Pate]

If you are going to quote me, then please respond to the post.

I have to conclude that you can't, so you have to deflect. Makes your argument look weak.

What! Romans 8:32 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up FOR US ALL, how shall he not give us all things freely?"

This is the same as the "whosoever" scriptures or the "All men" or "For all" scriptures. Romans 8:32 clearly means that Christ was delivered for all of humanity. The big tip off here is where it says.."FOR US ALL" It does not say for the elect, or for any special group it says.."FOR US ALL" or like 1 John 2:2 For the whole world.

 

[drstevej]

What! Romans 8:32 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up FOR US ALL, how shall he not give us all things freely?"

This is the same as the "whosoever" scriptures or the "All men" or "For all" scriptures. Romans 8:32 clearly means that Christ was delivered for all of humanity. The big tip off here is where it says.."FOR US ALL" It does not say for the elect, or for any special group it says.."FOR US ALL" or like 1 John 2:2 For the whole world.

And the second all makes you a universalist. Congrats

 

[Hammster]

What! Romans 8:32 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up FOR US ALL, how shall he not give us all things freely?"



This is the same as the "whosoever" scriptures or the "All men" or "For all" scriptures. Romans 8:32 clearly means that Christ was delivered for all of humanity. The big tip off here is where it says.."FOR US ALL" It does not say for the elect, or for any special group it says.."FOR US ALL" or like 1 John 2:2 For the whole world.

Since you refuse to exposit the verse in context, maybe you'll explain who the "us" is in the verse, and why you think so.

 

[Hammster]

I meant choose as in does he choose from when he first creates people.



That is, does humanity have free will?

Two different questions. One, God chose whom He would save BEFORE He created us.

Two, we have limited free will. IOW, we can decide what socks to wear, but we can't will ourselves a million dollars.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Two different questions. One, God chose whom He would save BEFORE He created us.

Ok. That was the answer I was looking for.

So, how does this not make God into a sadistic guy who throws people into Hell just because he can?

 

[Hammster]

Ok. That was the answer I was looking for.



So, how does this not make God into a sadistic guy who throws people into Hell just because he can?

Sadism is causing pain for fun.

Justice is punishing wrongdoing.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Sadism is causing pain for fun.

Justice is punishing wrongdoing.

But God created those people (those who would go to hell) with the intention of them going to hell because they'd be punished for "injust acts." Is that right?

 

[Zoness]

I have the same question.