Calvinism Refuted

[LittleLambofJesus]

Once I give you some scripture are you going to interpret it as a faithful amillennialist?

Yes, I even agree that it is a rather "unscriptural" doctrine, which is what the RCs adhere to if I am not mistaken

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7348339&highlight=end-times

Originally Posted by MoNiCa4316

I see that on our profiles at CF, we get to choose our 'endtimes' views. Which one is Catholic? I'm having some trouble figuring it out...

I know that the Church teaches Amilleninialism - which I put in bold. What about the other ones? Is it... historic, preterist, or futurist? Pretribulation, midtribulationm, posttribulation? hmm...

aren't we partial preterists?? (but here they don't make the distinction between 'full' and 'partial')

what about the tribulation? Does the Church teach that we'll be here for that - no rapture.. right?

So many names LOL

"Choose options that best describes your beliefs regarding endtimes.
Historic
Preterist
Futurist

Amillennialism
Premillennialism
Postmillennialism

Pretribulation
Midtribulation
Posttribulation"

 

[heymikey80]

How many did Jesus say He would draw to Himself?

Unless John is wasting expensive parchment, Jesus is excluding people the Father does not draw.

According to Jesus, to how many is it granted to come to Jesus, and on what terms?

Again, Jesus is excluding people the Father does not give to come to Him.

Jesus is not saying nothing.

This pertains to the choice of Jacob instead of Esau to receive the birthright. It so states.

Paul is using this as an argument for the non-salvation of Israel. It states the following:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Rom 9:3
​

Paul is not so shallow that he wants Israel reinstated as God's earthly kingdom, and is willing to give up his relationship with Christ for it.

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. Rom 9:8
​

This is the point he's going to support with Isaac and Jacob as examples. His point is God's choice in salvation, illustrated by God's choice in other cases. But Paul's been over who these promised children are, before in this letter.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:16
​

Paul's theology hasn't changed in five chapters. This broad point is clear from Paul's examples, too. They're not all Hebrews that God hardens. Paul shows this is his point first with Pharaoh, and then with the nations in 9:24 and 9:30.

According to THIS SCRIPTURE, to how many is the calling offered?

ok, that's a wierd way of putting it. I'm being limited by this Scripture? It was to "us", essentially Timothy and Paul.

Romans 9:24 already points out people among the nations and among the Jewish nation are also called.

This, once again, speaks of Israel as God's covenant people, rather than salvation. It speaks of that calling. According to Paul in this chapter, what obstacles arose to the calling being carried out?

Paul declares the salvation of Israel in context and supports his assertion with the election of Israel:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Rom 10:25-32
​

Paul hasn't jumped to another subject in :28. He's nowhere near cinching his argument that "all Israel will be saved" with only that supporting verse I removed.

 

[heymikey80]

Once I give you some scripture are you going to interpret it as a faithful amillennialist?

The challenge is to provide exegetical Scriptural meaning that regeneration -- new birth -- precedes faith.

I did ask for Scripture -- and I don't do so pervasively here.

And I don't see what eschatology has to do with it (much less, relevance to Rev 20:4b). I didn't ask for systematics or integration. I'm asking for the Scripture itself.

 

[heymikey80]

'made us alive--by grace you have been saved through faith'

Very definitely the position Benefactor, myself, and many, many other Christians understand.

Well actually, Eph 2:5 states "made alive -- by grace you have been saved".

Only later does Paul say "by grace you have been saved through faith".

What're we trying to say? That grace doesn't make us alive, or that faith is required to make us alive? The coordination of the two would imply just about any relationship between the two.

As many Calvinists think the newborn spiritual life is the life that has faith though, the verses don't establish a reverse precedence either. In fact the coordination would offer a fair inference for this Calvinistic model.

 

[heymikey80]

Yes, I even agree that it is a rather "unscriptural" doctrine, which is what the RCs adhere to if I am not mistaken

An Amillenialist asserts one thing: that the Millenium in Rev 20:4 does not refer to a political national kingdom, but is itself in a vision.

If Benefactor'd read Vos' "The Pauline Eschatology" he would've discovered amils who are every bit as literal as he -- except we're even more literal, in interpreting John's vision as a vision.

Amillenialism is widely held in eastern orthodoxy.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

An Amillenialist asserts one thing: that the Millenium in Rev 20:4 does not refer to a political national kingdom, but is itself in a vision.

If Benefactor'd read Vos' "The Pauline Eschatology" he would've discovered amils who are every bit as literal as he -- except we're even more literal, in interpreting John's vision as a vision.

Amillenialism is widely held in eastern orthodoxy.

Interesting. I haven't really looked into their view of that yet. [I am still a "noob" in the Church ]

What are the Calvinists view of it?

 

[heymikey80]

I think that it would be good to first establish where in the Bible Scripture clearly teaches that Regeneration is prerequisite to repentance.

If we could do that then we can logically move to the next item.

So far all I can find is one must believe to be regenerated but perhaps I missed something.

A number of days before, we discussed this.

Rom 2:29 a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
with
Rom 10:10 with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh

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

I've also found John Murray's point about 1 John 5:1 informative. He points out John is using the precedence of "born of God" in every other use of this term in 1 John:

everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him 2:29
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 3:9
whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 4:7
everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. 5:4
​

The difference, with 1 John 5:1? Nothing exegetical.

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

 

[heymikey80]

Interesting. I haven't really looked into their view of that yet. [I am still a "noob" in the Church ]

What are the Calvinists view of it?

Calvinists have no comment on the main eschatological positions per se. All have some adherents conforming to the main points of Scripture: tribulation, collapse, resurrection, judgment, Eternal State.

Some Calvinists -- conservative Presbyterians, actually -- are generally opposed to positions trying to apply dispensationalism and split the church up in the End Times into Israel and the nations. This is one view within Premillenialism, but it's not some disparagement of all premillenials.

Presbyterianism also has major issues with full-preterists -- but I'd assume most people do.

 

[student ad x]

Interesting. I haven't really looked into their view of that yet. [I am still a "noob" in the Church ]
What are the Calvinists view of it?

There are some variances in interpretation on eschatology (Reformed churches can hold Pre-Mil / AMil / or Post-Mil. So in regards to amillenialism (realized millenium) & for brevity, here's a snip from Wiki.

Amillennialism teaches that the Kingdom of God will not be physically established on earth throughout the "millennium", but rather

• that Jesus is presently reigning from heaven, seated at the right hand of God the Father,
• that Jesus also is and will remain with the church until the end of the world, as he promised at the Ascension,
• that at Pentecost, the millennium began, as is shown by Peter using the prophecies of Joel, about the coming of the kingdom, to explain what was happening,
• and that, therefore the church and its spread of the good news is Christ's kingdom.

Amillennialists cite scripture references to the kingdom not being a physical realm: Matthew 12:28, where Jesus cites his driving out of demons as evidence that the kingdom of God had come upon them; Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus warns that the coming of the kingdom of God can not be observed, and that it is among them; and Romans 14:17, where Paul speaks of the kingdom of God being in terms of the Christians' actions.
In particular, they regard the thousand year period as a figurative expression of Christ's reign being perfectly completed, as the "thousand hills" referred to in Psalm 50:10, the hills on which God owns the cattle, are all hills, and the "thousand generations" in 1 Chronicles 16:15, the generations for which God will be faithful, refer to all generations. (Some postmillennialists and nearly all premillennialists hold that the word millennium should be taken to refer to a literal thousand-year period.)
Amillennialism also teaches that the binding of Satan described in Revelation has already occurred; he has been prevented from "deceiving the nations" by preventing the spread of the gospel. This is the only binding he will suffer in history: the forces of Satan will not be gradually pushed back by the Kingdom of God as history progresses but will remain just as active as always up until the second coming of Christ, and therefore good and evil will remain mixed in strength throughout history and even in the church, according to the amillennial understanding of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares.
Amillennialism is sometimes associated with Idealism as both teach a symbolic interpretation of many of the prophecies of the Bible and especially the Book of Revelation. However, many amillennialists do believe in the literal fulfillment of Biblical prophecies; they simply disagree with Millennialists about how or when these prophecies will be fulfilled.

 

[archierieus]

IYour constant falling back to demanding further and more scriptural references is pusillanimous and clearly a dodge.

Please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks and insinuations.

You claim that repentance precedes regeneration.

Prove it,

Just stopped in for a few minutes. Upon reflection, I think terms should be clarified. The word 'regeneration' is used. I think Calvinists have a particular belief about what the word entails. In the Bible, I recall Paul using the word once or twice, and Jesus using the word in what appears to be a different context. Now then, what do you mean, or what do Calvinists mean by the word 'regeneration'? When I use the word, I am thinking of the new birth Jesus described in John 3.

As for careful exegesis and sound scholarship. I gave you that and you rejected it as the opinions of men.

You presented position papers and rhetoric, if you are referring to the links you provided. Sola Scriptura.

Clearly, you are not really interested in talking about this, only in setting 'em up and knocking 'em down.

Please stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks or judgments.

 

[heymikey80]

You presented position papers and rhetoric, if you are referring to the links you provided. Sola Scriptura.

I think I really need to point out something, archierieus. "Sola Scriptura" is actually very highly developed in Calvinism, and it doesn't mean in Calvinism (nor actually in the Reformation) what you appear to be stating. "Sola Scriptura" is a slogan that covers a topic of Scripture's handling in doctrine and life. Like "Change We Can Believe In", a slogan isn't generally or pervasively applicable as a doctrine.

The position is:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ... WCF 1.6
​

So Calvinists are providing sources that describe Scripturally what they think are good and necessary deductions from Scripture. While that's only one part of "Sola Scriptura", that seems to be the part that's sending Calvinists south when you call out, "Sola Scriptura".

I do appreciate your interest and willingness to work through the specific passages. I like that, and I agree any particular Scriptural issue forces me to study that extensively to reach a conclusion ... whether referencing other authors, or studying it myself.

I'm pretty sure after reading a number of postings, what you're looking for is indications explicitly exegetically, or in direct contextual deduction from Scripture concerning the order of New Birth and saving faith. Is that accurately what you're looking for?

Benefactor has been referencing other sources as well. So that can dilute what you're requesting, as posters aren't always talking to just one person.

 

[Hammster]

Can we choose to ask God to change our nature? Steps as I understand the process:



1) Awareness of a better way;

2) Desire for a better way;

3) Repentance;

4) Acceptance of Christ and Born Again.



We cannot be born again until we have died to the old life. That entails repentance, and repentance follows awareness, desire and choice. Awareness can come through a variety of channels. Desire is awakened by God. Repentance is in response to the work of the Holy Spirit, and involves a choice by the individual. Acceptance is accomplished throuh the influence of the Spirit, but requires a choice. Dying to self involves a decision on the part of the individuual. The Birth is accomplished by God.



Dave

Instead of playing this game again like you did when I asked about faith/belief, how about we use YOUR statement as a starting point and you can defend it. With Scripture. Please.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

NM......no post......

 

[archierieus]

I think I really need to point out something, archierieus. "Sola Scriptura" is actually very highly developed in Calvinism, and it doesn't mean in Calvinism (nor actually in the Reformation) what you appear to be stating. "Sola Scriptura" is a slogan that covers a topic of Scripture's handling in doctrine and life. Like "Change We Can Believe In", a slogan isn't generally or pervasively applicable as a doctrine.

The position is:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ... WCF 1.6 ​

There's the rub. Therein lies the opportunity for man's teaching to adulterate Scripture. It is a generation or more removed from the pure Word of God.
​

I'm pretty sure after reading a number of postings, what you're looking for is indications explicitly exegetically, or in direct contextual deduction from Scripture concerning the order of New Birth and saving faith. Is that accurately what you're looking for?

Precisely. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Hammster]

Why not address the topic instead of attacking the poster.....

this whole thread looks like one big game to me

With all due respect, I did. I went through this before about asking him what he meant by using faith and belief interchangeably. Then he wanted me to define the terms that I was asking him about. I wanted to know why he was using the terms the way he did, and he kept insisting that I define the terms. So we are back at it again. I posed HIS quote on the subject and am asking him to defend his statement.

And I still haven't gotten an answer, but that is okay.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

With all due respect, I did. I went through this before about asking him what he meant by using faith and belief interchangeably. Then he wanted me to define the terms that I was asking him about. I wanted to know why he was using the terms the way he did, and he kept insisting that I define the terms. So we are back at it again. I posed HIS quote on the subject and am asking him to defend his statement.

And I still haven't gotten an answer, but that is okay.

I thought I had deleted my post before someone could post it.
In any case, continue on.........

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

There's the rub. Therein lies the opportunity for man's teaching to adulterate Scripture. It is a generation or more removed from the pure Word of God.

But don't you realize that this is what you do every time you interpret Scripture?

You read it and you process it and you say, "this is what it means".

That is all I am doing.

But I received some conviction today about this.

I believe that man's state prior to the work of God in regenerating him is such that he is at enmity with God, dead in trespasses and sins and a child of wrath. I believe that this means, among other things, that he cannot turn to God and believe or repent without God first addressing him graciously. I believe that God does so in the Gospel.

I am not going to go through the bible for proof texts of this because I believe it to be taught from the text both by inference and by the whole tenor and weight of God's dealing with His people as we see it in Scripture.

So, if you want Scripture to prove this, I can only refer you to the whole counsel of God. The truth of His grace, which is really grace, which saves sinners who are really sinners, root and branch is written on every page.

I don't believe in proof-texting.

Proof-texting is how we get differing opinions.

When we allow the Word of God to "sit on us" and we take all of it into account, then we begin to see as God sees.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

For the rest, Archie, I humbly beg your pardon if I was insulting or offensive to you, I can only cite frustration as the cause.


But no, I won't be giving you text by text "proofs" of anything. You'll have to deal with the argument as a whole.

 

[MamaZ]

Isn't God's foreknowledge wonderful? So you agree that God knew that the older would not believe and upon that basis God makes a choice and makes it know as He has in these verses? This is what you are saying correct?



If God had made the choice after birth then it would not be on the basis of His foreknowledge.

You may want to read deeper into the scripture that was given.. Notice that works is out.. No works are in there meaning that refutes that fact that God chose them because He knew what they would Do.. Lets read it again shall we..
Rom 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,

So if it is not of works therefore it is not Gods foreknowldeg of what men will do. IT is because of HIM who Calls.. It is to God purpose according to HIS choice would stand..

 

[MamaZ]

In scripture we do not read that the foreknowledge of God is of our works or choice.. This has been added. God chooses to know and recognise people not according to their works but according to His choice. For His purpose. It is a knowing of the person. Not of their works this is why Scripture shows us we are saved by grace through Faith and not of works lest any man can boast.. no man can boast it was their free will choice that they were saved. For man cannot do one thing to save themselves for salvation is not of man but of the Lord..