Calvinism Refuted

[Robert Pate]

Where has all of the earlier enthusiasm to refute Calvinism gone?

Refuting Calvinism is like swating flies, you never win.

Watch for my new article "Justification by Faith verses Predestinationism"

I will post it when I work up enough energy.

 

[DD2008]

Refuting Calvinism is like swating flies, you never win.

Watch for my new article "Justification by Faith verses Predestinationism"

I will post it when I work up enough energy.

Actually refuting Calvinism is like trying ot lift a rock to big for you to move. It can't be done because it's true.

What is called Calvinism is simply a systematic way of explaining what the bible says.

So it is more correct to call it biblical theology instead of Calvinism.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

"Predestinationism" exists only in the minds of anti-calvinists.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Robert,

I am new here.

Have you had some really bad experiences with individual Calvinists on this board?

 

[Benefactor]

Where has all of the earlier enthusiasm to refute Calvinism gone?

It is there just taking a rest.

 

[student ad x]

Robert,

I am new here.

Have you had some really bad experiences with individual Calvinists on this board?

Brother, he goes from forum to forum posting his same OP's dredging up the hatred by declaring most protestant orthodoxy including classical theism anti-christ. Here's his book.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Brother, he goes from forum to forum posting his same OP's dredging up the hatred by declaring most protestant orthodoxy including classical theism anti-christ. Here's his book.

Oh, I see.

 

[JDS]

It is available, are you able to use it?

I am sorry Steve, but I would like for you to read the posts between the time you made this comment and I am making mine and tell me if there is agreement among the so called Greek scholars. They are arguing about tenses and there is no agreement unless they hold to the same theology system. How in the world does one think the Greek language is going to help resolve doctrinal differences that are as fundamental to the Christian faith as the difference between faith in the English words of the KJV and Calvinism which seems to not be bound by the standard rules of grammar.

If every Greek scholar here would suddenly agree on the phrase "they could not believe", who would be naive enough to think that the argument would not go on about who can be saved and how they are saved and the order of salvation and every other fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. But don't worry, the study of the Greek is not going to bring them any closer to consensus than the English!

As for me, I think Calvinism has been refuted but I think that Calvinist on here do not know the scriptures well enough to realize it. It does take some knowledge of the bible for the truth to make sense. Further, I think that most of the reformed here, but not all, practice a Calvinism that is far more over the top than anything the original reformers would adhere to. I think scholarship and education among the comtemporary calvinists has replaced the evangelistic fervor of men like those I have mentioned before.

One can forgive some heresy if there is some passion to win the lost. That subject doesn't come up often as a thread title.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Further, I think that most of the reformed here, but not all, practice a Calvinism that is far more over the top than anything the original reformers would adhere to. I think scholarship and education among the comtemporary calvinists has replaced the evangelistic fervor of men like those I have mentioned before.

Example? (from the non-hypers only, please.)

 

[archierieus]

It shows as middle because it is morphologically middle, but it's not syntactically middle. It's deponant. That's when a verb is middle in form, active in meaning. Dunamai, the lexical form, is middle in form but active in meaning.

Yes, I understand that and am aware of the distinction. Or where it is a passive verb ending but active in meaning.

It means "I am able," not "I able myself."

Yes and no. The history of the middle voice is interesting, and if I recall correctly, without checking, it was in the process of phasing out at the time John's gospel was written. As a middle, it would not be PURELY active in operation. I also think it goes along with the imperfect tense here, which as well matches the description of what these guys did. I do recognize that this whole issue may bore many to tears, but personally at least I find it fascinating.

 

[JDS]

Example? (from the non-hypers only, please.)

I have debated calvinists for a long time now. I have personal contact with several Calvinists in my social realm, and I have several years experience watching Christiandom around me and I have never observed any evanagelistic efforts by any reformed churches, be they Baptist or Presby or any other.

Indeed, of all the testimonies I have ever heard from men who hold Calvinistic views, and I have heard many, I can recall only one who testified that he was converted by the efforts of the reformed. All others come to faith though evangelistic efforts of others and then converted later to Calvinism. When they do this, they immediately begin using terminolgy like synergists and all the suspect terms without me having to call them out.

What was Spurgeon and Whitefield and Kerry famous for? Debate? Calvinism? Writing books? No! Evangelism. They were responsible for winning many souls only because they gave it much effort and preached the right gospel to the lost. That Jesus Christ died to save sinners and whosoever will may come and be saved. The crowd today does not do that for the most part.

Here is an end time scenario that fits perfectly with modern Calvinism.

2 Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[Epiphoskei]

It's not the activeness I'm concerned about, it's the passiveness. By the time of Biblical Greek, the middle is mainly deponant or reflexive. Reflexivity doesn't work for an intransitive verb, there's nothing transitive to turn back on the subject.

But more to the point, dunamai is still a deponant verb throughout it's paradigms, so when we find a middle form, we should take it as active.

 

[archierieus]

Well, I suppose that's what I would expect from someone dead in their sins...more rebellion.

Indeed. And that is what is so fascinating, to this student at least, aboutthe grammar. Note that the IMPERFECT is used. Intriguing. Continuing action in the past, a course of action, just as described in the next verse and in Isaiah. And NOT the pluperfect, which is COMPLETED continuing past action. Absolutely intriguing, and an accurate representation of both their actions and their condition. I do wish English were as precise as Greek.

 

[archierieus]

They are arguing about tenses and there is no agreement unless they hold to the same theology system.

What EVER are you talking about????? I have no idea what Epiphoskei's doctrinal orientation is. That is not the issue, for me. For me, doctrine does NOT drive exegesis, exegesis should drive doctrine. Tense? No disagreement about the tense, or about the morphology. The question is simply the significance of the middle voice here. And that is how students arrive at the truth, by lively discussion and peer review. I certainly make no claim to infallibility, I hope others here do not, and by bouncing things back and forth we can reach a better understanding of the issues. God help us all if everyone agrees on everything!!! Talking about one mega-blind spot in that case.

 

[Hammster]

Indeed. And that is what is so fascinating, to this student at least, aboutthe grammar. Note that the IMPERFECT is used. Intriguing. Continuing action in the past, a course of action, just as described in the next verse and in Isaiah. And NOT the pluperfect, which is COMPLETED continuing past action. Absolutely intriguing, and an accurate representation of both their actions and their condition. I do wish English were as precise as Greek.

So that we can get past this really exciting Greek stuff, let's say that your right (I am just that kind of guy). How does your view dispute Calvinism?

 

[JDS]

What EVER are you talking about????? I have no idea what Epiphoskei's doctrinal orientation is. That is not the issue, for me. For me, doctrine does NOT drive exegesis, exegesis should drive doctrine. Tense? No disagreement about the tense, or about the morphology. The question is simply the significance of the middle voice here. And that is how students arrive at the truth, by lively discussion and peer review. I certainly make no claim to infallibility, I hope others here do not, and by bouncing things back and forth we can reach a better understanding of the issues. God help us all if everyone agrees on everything!!! Talking about one mega-blind spot in that case.

Sorry to rattle your cage but I was using the discussion among the Greek students to make the case most of us have been dealing with here, "Calvinism Refuted". You have been challenged on your understanding by others but it makes no difference to me other than the example. I was not addressing you, I was addressing someone else. That is what I am talking about if you really want to know. I think I am on topic here but I am not sure you are!

 

[archierieus]

So that we can get past this really exciting Greek stuff, let's say that your right (I am just that kind of guy). How does your view dispute Calvinism?

More to the point, how does this dispute some of the things which seem to have been presented on this thread? (since there seemes to be some disagreement about what Calvinists actually believe or teach)

The issue which this pertains to is the assertion that God, by His predetermined will and plan, made it impossible for the group described in Jn. 12:39 to believe. That is, they were unable to believe because God decided they would not be given the ability to believe. The verse and its grammar dispute that. Their inability to believe arose from their persistent rejection of the light from God, from shutting their eyes against it, and in doing so their hearts were hardened (imperfect tense, continuing action in the past but not completed action in the past) against the light, against all the evidence presented to them.

 

[Hammster]

More to the point, how does this dispute some of the things which seem to have been presented on this thread? (since there seemes to be some disagreement about what Calvinists actually believe or teach)



The issue which this pertains to is the assertion that God, by His predetermined will and plan, made it impossible for the group described in Jn. 12:39 to believe. That is, they were unable to believe because God decided they would not be given the ability to believe. The verse and its grammar dispute that. Their inability to believe arose from their persistent rejection of the light from God, from shutting their eyes against it, and in doing so their hearts were hardened (imperfect tense, continuing action in the past but not completed action in the past) against the light, against all the evidence presented to them.

So you are saying that they couldn't believe (their inability) because of their rejection (wouldn't believe). It would seem to me, then, that these men who are dead in their sins would need some sort of work by the Holy Spirit to be able to believe.

 

[archierieus]

So you are saying that they couldn't believe (their inability) because of their rejection (wouldn't believe). It would seem to me, then, that these men who are dead in their sins would need some sort of work by the Holy Spirit to be able to believe.

STEP 1, the Holy Spirit bringing them light, evidence.
STEP 2, their persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's light resulted in their eyes being blinded (Jn. 9) and their hearts being hardened. (Isaiah)'

Work of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit HAD been working with them, sending them light. They had persistently rejected the light from that Spirit. What more could God do? "Behold, your house is left to you desolate." But fortunately, it is expressed in Jn. 12 in the imperfect tense, not the pluperfect. Apparently, at a later time 'a great company' did accept the light, after Christ's resurrection.

 

[Hammster]

STEP 1, the Holy Spirit bringing them light, evidence.

STEP 2, their persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's light resulted in their eyes being blinded (Jn. 9) and their hearts being hardened. (Isaiah)'



Work of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit HAD been working with them, sending them light. They had persistently rejected the light from that Spirit. What more could God do? "Behold, your house is left to you desolate." But fortunately, it is expressed in Jn. 12 in the imperfect tense, not the pluperfect. Apparently, at a later time 'a great company' did accept the light, after Christ's resurrection.

Hold on a sec. You said that Calvinists use this passage to prove that God predestines some to believe and other cannot. And that may be true. But it isn't the only place we get our doctrine from. We started with those passage because it is where you wanted to start from. Fair enough because in this thread, you bear the burden of proof.

So we went with it, and I even accepted (for discussion's sake) you interpretation. Then when I show that the state you described sounds like a man in need of the Holy Spirit to believe, you introduce all of this other stuff.

So the question is, are we going to discuss the passage, or are we going to discuss doctrine? Either is fine with me, but you should make it clear so that both sides are on the same level.