Calvinism Refuted

[MamaZ]

Jesus was the firstborn of the Spirit of God through the virgin birth of Mary. For Jesus was not conceived out of man but of the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore those whom are born again not of the will of the flesh but of the Spirit of God have indeed incurred a new birth not of the will of man but out of the Holy Spirit.. This is why those whom have been predestined by God have also been justified by God for it is God who justifies.

 

[MamaZ]

Jesus took on a Human body but the Human body did not rule Him. He took this body and layed it down for Sheep.. He was bruised for His Sheeps iniquities.. Jesus raised Himself from the dead Just as He did Lazarus and rose up victorious.. Those whom are born again have been born again not of their own will but of the very Spirit of God that rose Christ up from the dead.. This is why We also read that Adam became a living Soul but Jesus was a life giving Spirit.. The whole context of the written scriptures testify of Christ the Messiah. Never focuses on men and free will.

 

[Hammster]

You really don't have any understanding of this, do you?



I am beginning to be forced to form some opinions based on some of the comments on this forum that I really don't like.

It seems to me that you have been pretty opinionated from the get go.

 

[MamaZ]

Opinion of men is just that an opinion..

 

[nobdysfool]

You really don't have any understanding of this, do you?

I am beginning to be forced to form some opinions based on some of the comments on this forum that I really don't like.

He has a better grasp of it than you do, JDS. And, just for the record, I doubt that he holds to your ridiculous heretical belief that Jesus died spiritually on the cross, and had to be born again.

As for forming opinions, who appointed you judge over us? Do those opinions give you the right to treat us with disdain and contempt? Which Fruit of the Spirit is that?

 

[archierieus]

εἴδω
properly to see (literally or figuratively); by implication (in the perfect only) to know: - be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) known (-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wist, wot.

This is not the perfect.

 

[archierieus]

now who was it who said to me about taking a word without looking at the context or the use of that word and it's varied meaning ...


do you really think Christ was speaking about physical sight , and not spiritual sight , insight , perception , understanding ? Does Christ mean to say that unless one is born again by the SPIRIT he cannot PHYSICALLY see the SPIRITUAL Kingdom ?


are there not numerous proofs where sight is emblamatic of understanding in scripture ?

Ideas about context cannot violate the text itself. This is the aorist, not the perfect. That does make a difference. In the aorist, the meaning is to see or to experience, in the 'aorist' sense. Three types of action in Gr. verb tenses, continuing which is perfect, progressive and aorist which is the occurrence of an event, as opposed to continuing action. This is NOT the indicative mood. Jesus repeated the statement to Nicodemus in v. 5, this time He spoke of not ENTERING the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and the Spirit. Once again, 'entering' is aorist, the happening of an event as opposed to a continuing action--to ENTER. See/experience/enter.

 

[JDS]

He has a better grasp of it than you do, JDS. And, just for the record, I doubt that he holds to your ridiculous heretical belief that Jesus died spiritually on the cross, and had to be born again.

As for forming opinions, who appointed you judge over us? Do those opinions give you the right to treat us with disdain and contempt? Which Fruit of the Spirit is that?

Maybe "fruit of the Spirit" does not actually mean fruit of the Spirit! Have you ever thought about that?

 

[MamaZ]

This is not the perfect.

This is the definition for the word.

 

[MamaZ]

Maybe "fruit of the Spirit" does not actually mean fruit of the Spirit! Have you ever thought about that?

 

[nobdysfool]

Maybe "fruit of the Spirit" does not actually mean fruit of the Spirit! Have you ever thought about that?

What, praytell, does it mean, then? The attitude shown here toward Calvinists is decidedly dismissive, harsh, and condemning. Not at all like what Paul said,

2Ti 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
​

If anti-Calvinists practiced what they claim to believe, their attitude would not be what it clearly is. I believe the word that fits here is hypocrisy.

Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
​

Eph 5:6-9 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (7) Be not ye therefore partakers with them. (8) For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (9) (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth
​

The Word of God condemns the anti-Calvinist attitude toward Calvinists, who are Believers as much as you are, if not more so. Of course, if they believe that Calvinists are not saved, that still would not excuse such attitude, because they should be trying to convert us. Their attitude is not conducive to that, at all. They'd rather rail against us, insult us, and tell everyone else how unchristian they think we are. Their hatred of Calvinism is what they hide behind and use to excuse the unchristian attitude toward us.

 

[Hammster]

Maybe "fruit of the Spirit" does not actually mean fruit of the Spirit! Have you ever thought about that?

I guess I will have to add that to my list.

 

[Hammster]

Ideas about context cannot violate the text itself. This is the aorist, not the perfect. That does make a difference. In the aorist, the meaning is to see or to experience, in the 'aorist' sense. Three types of action in Gr. verb tenses, continuing which is perfect, progressive and aorist which is the occurrence of an event, as opposed to continuing action. This is NOT the indicative mood. Jesus repeated the statement to Nicodemus in v. 5, this time He spoke of not ENTERING the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and the Spirit. Once again, 'entering' is aorist, the happening of an event as opposed to a continuing action--to ENTER. See/experience/enter.

I am not sure of the distinction you are asserting and the difference it makes. What would be the difference between understand or experience?

You seem to be wanting see and enter to be the same thing. You see means experience, and since entering IS an experience, you make them to be the same.

Either way, you can't enter, see, smell taste or touch until the Holy Spirit does something. And there is nothing in the text that would indicate that you have to do something. Rather, something is being done to you.

 

[Hammster]

You really don't have any understanding of this, do you?



I am beginning to be forced to form some opinions based on some of the comments on this forum that I really don't like.

To JDS, the firstborn among theologians.

Exodus 4:22 and Psalm 89:27 both speak of firstborn. In Exodus , it speaks of Israel. Is Israel the first nation, or the one God found preeminent?

In Psalm 89, it is talking about David, and foreshadows Christ. Is David firstborn? Not only was he not the first king, hewlett wasn't even the firstborn son.

 

[Hammster]

Death means separation, not inability and numbness. Get this definition right and many things will begin to clear up for you.

Get a modern translation that translates thing correctly and many things will begin to clear up for you.







(remember when you asked me about all the words that were translated "dead"? Case in point)



Or at least a concordance.

 

[JDS]

What, praytell, does it mean, then? The attitude shown here toward Calvinists is decidedly dismissive, harsh, and condemning. Not at all like what Paul said,

2Ti 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, (25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
​

If anti-Calvinists practiced what they claim to believe, their attitude would not be what it clearly is. I believe the word that fits here is hypocrisy.

Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
​

Eph 5:6-9 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. (7) Be not ye therefore partakers with them. (8) For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (9) (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth
​

The Word of God condemns the anti-Calvinist attitude toward Calvinists, who are Believers as much as you are, if not more so. Of course, if they believe that Calvinists are not saved, that still would not excuse such attitude, because they should be trying to convert us. Their attitude is not conducive to that, at all. They'd rather rail against us, insult us, and tell everyone else how unchristian they think we are. Their hatred of Calvinism is what they hide behind and use to excuse the unchristian attitude toward us.

I am sorry. I should have let you folks know that I was being sarcastic. I just thought it was obvious. My bad!


Ps 119:128 Therefore I esteem all [thy] precepts [concerning] all [things to be] right; [and] I hate every false way.

Pr 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

A religion or a movement that finds it necessary to substitute new meanings for terms or read their own theology into passages and ignore and reject context in the process are embarking on a false way. If you must pigeonhole a term like "firstborn" into the very narrow definition of preeminience, when in Jewish thought the firstborn in a family is the preeminient one, you are guilty of this very thing.

The Lord chose to use the word firstborn because the context in Romans leading up to V 29 was the "sons of God", who were born of the Spirit of Christ into the family of God. The word firstborn indicates preeminence but if he would have used the word "preeminence", it would not have necessarily conveyed the thought of "firstborn" which the context demands.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ is the firstborn son of God from the dead at the resurrection of his body. You must deny this plain statement from scriptures several more times than just in Ro 8:29 to reach your position that God did not intend to convey the thought that he was actually the firstborn son of God from the dead.

To accept Jesus Christ as being the firstborn from the dead like the scriptures say would be to admit that you are mistaken and in error on several of your doctrines like ecclesiology and Pneumatology and other things. It would cause you to approach the scriptures in a whole different way than with your rigid presuppositions and allow it to teach you with the words that are used instead of with concepts and ideas that you are approaching it with now.

The whole issue of our disagreement is over the person and work of Jesus Christ so it does not surprise me to find us disagreeing on his position in the family of God as the firstborn son of the Father. It had been said that he would become flesh and dwell among us, give his life's blood for the world and give authority to anyone who would receive him by simply believing on him to be the sons of God. The birth as sons would not be according to the fleshly birth; it would not be by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by God. Jesus Christ was the first man who participated in this birth. His body lay in the tomb, lifeless, until the Spirit of God, who is life entered into it and raised it from the dead. It was a different kind of birth than his fleshly birth when he recieved his physical body from Mary, but, according to God, it was a birth.

Jesus Christ said to Nicodemas; "except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ was in every point a man and I have already quoted verses where God says it. He had been preaching the kingdom of God was at hand. His resurrection was the beginning of that kingdom.

The preeminient doctrine in scripture is Jesus Christ. It is not pre-election. One could hope that some of you could be rescued from these errors.

 

[drstevej]

Not only was he not the first king, hewlett wasn't even the firstborn son.

He was the seventh son and we know that is a lucky®HTML clipboard number.



lucky® is a trademarked Arminian term.

 

[drstevej]

A religion or a movement that finds it necessary to substitute new meanings for terms or read their own theology into passages and ignore and reject context in the process are embarking on a false way.

 

[Robert Pate]

What is this????

Is this an attempt to hi-jack the thread and divert it away from "Calvinism Refuted?"

 

[drstevej]

Nope it asks the poster to look at himself before criticizing others.

It is precisely this kind of judgmental self serving general statement that derails.

Now, back to Calvinism, which is still un-refuted. Lots of shots at strawman Calvinism, but the real McCoy still stands.