Calvinism Refuted

[MamaZ]

We can read the full of the scriptures and they will bring us to the same conclusion that God is the caller.. God is the drawer.. God is the revealer. God is the Chooser and that God is the Author of our faith.. Isreal did not Choose God.. God choose Isreal. Men did not make the covenant with God but God made the covenant with Men.. We have the Old covenant and we have the New covenant.. Neither was made by the hands of men nor their free will choice.. One is either in Gods covenant or they are not. God is the chooser of this. For He is the almighty God creater of heaven and earth and controls all that has been and all that will be..

 

[cygnusx1]

And quite possibly the reason for this hermeneutical hopscotch from synergists is because the Lord Himself in the parable has implied election.

I have you to thank for re-awakening a "seed" given me by a dear close friend , a few years ago he was giving me what I now perceive , back then I was too dim , now I see the logic of the parable and the impossibility of the Amayraldian - Hypothetical redemption position dealt with many years ago by our Calvinist forebears.

for more info ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/Amyraut%20Universalism.htm

my next book

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=284


Solo Deo Gloria

 

[Benefactor]

salvation cannot be hypothetical (see the Amayraldian understanding on this subject) to God who knows all things .... the parable of the sower leaves no doubt many will be lost , this I am certain you will agree with.

.
Amyraldism (or sometimes Amyraldianism, the School of Saumur, hypothetical universalism,[1] or Post Redemptionism),[2] also known as "hypothetical universalism" or "four-point Calvinism", primarily refers to a modified form of Calvinist theology. It rejects one of the Five points of Calvinism, the doctrine of limited atonement, in favour of an unlimited atonement similar to that of Hugo Grotius. Simply stated, Amyraldism holds that God has provided Christ's atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the atonement. However, detractors like B. B. Warfield have termed it "an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism."[3]


Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyrauldian; 3.18.09

Not sure about today, but many who passed by way of Dallas Theological Seminary embraced this view. With some exception most of my teachers held to this view, a few 5PC and a few as I do neither Calvinistic or Arminian.

"offered to all" has two interpretations =

1. Every single person hears the Gospel and makes a choice , clearly false.

2. The Gospel is offered indiscriminately to both elect and reprobate , clearly true

.

Yes, I do under stand that you don't agree with number one and that number 2 is your firm conviction.

.

 

[Robert Pate]

We can read the full of the scriptures and they will bring us to the same conclusion that God is the caller.. God is the drawer.. God is the revealer. God is the Chooser and that God is the Author of our faith.. Isreal did not Choose God.. God choose Isreal. Men did not make the covenant with God but God made the covenant with Men.. We have the Old covenant and we have the New covenant.. Neither was made by the hands of men nor their free will choice.. One is either in Gods covenant or they are not. God is the chooser of this. For He is the almighty God creater of heaven and earth and controls all that has been and all that will be..

Salvation is by grace through faith. Always has been, always will be.

God chose Israel, prophets, Patriarchs, apostles, All for the purpose of bringing forth the savior of the world 1 John 2:2.

There are a multitude of scriptures that say, WHOSOEVER, THE WHOLE WORLD, ALL MEN. we must conclude that salvation has been provided for ALL. Not just some.

Romans 4:16 says, "Therfore it is of faith that it might be by grace: to the end the PROMISE might be sure to ALL THE SEED; not to that only which is of the law (the Jews) but to that also which is of the FAITH of Abraham; who is the FATHER OF US ALL."

 

[cygnusx1]

Equal opportunity ? think it through .....

If all have heard the Gospel then missionary work is in need of a massive recall . And the Apostles should have rested and remained fishers of FISH !

 

[cygnusx1]

Salvation is by grace through faith. Always has been, always will be.

God chose Israel, prophets, Patriarchs, apostles, All for the purpose of bringing forth the savior of the world 1 John 2:2.

There are a multitude of scriptures that say, WHOSOEVER, THE WHOLE WORLD, ALL MEN. we must conclude that salvation has been provided for ALL. Not just some.

Romans 4:16 says, "Therfore it is of faith that it might be by grace: to the end the PROMISE might be sure to ALL THE SEED; not to that only which is of the law (the Jews) but to that also which is of the FAITH of Abraham; who is the FATHER OF US ALL."

"Concerning the possible usage of kosmos to mean all mankind without exception in the redemptive context of I John 2:2, let the reader observe that kosmos is used differently at least 21 out of 23 times elsewhere in the epistle. As a matter of fact, the identical term "whole world" is used in I John 5:19 where it cannot possibly mean all mankind absolutely. John writes: "we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (in the wicked one)." Can this be true of the believer who is in Christ? Let the reader judge."
G Long

 

[Benefactor]

And He came unto His own and His own received Him not.. Then when we read further we find out why they believed Him not. Because God had shut their eyes and ears so that they could not believe Him. If God wants a person to believe in Him He is pretty effective in how He goes about it. Look at Saul now we know Him as Paul..

You left out some verses:

Negtive
11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

Positive
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name,


13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Please not the following:

Here is a Hebrew Parallelism using a negative and positive remarks

A1. Righteousness brings one to life​

B1. Pursuit of evil brings one to his death​

B2. a twisted heart is an abomination of YHWH
A2. a mature path is his pleasure ​

We find this genre all through out the Bible. So our understanding is form a Normal Literal Interpretation of the Word. Many of His own, the Jews, believed. So if we take your position no Jew would have believed. I think somewhere you stated you believe the Bible as a whole should be used as determining the truth. I think if we start with not leaving out contextual completeness that would be a first step in achieving the goal of a sound Biblical theology.

 

[student ad x]

And quite possibly the reason for this hermeneutical hopscotch from synergists is because the Lord Himself in the parable has implied election.

I have you to thank for re-awakening a "seed" given me by a dear close friend , a few years ago he was giving me what I now perceive , back then I was too dim , now I see the logic of the parable and the impossibility of the Amayraldian - Hypothetical redemption position dealt with many years ago by our Calvinist forebears.

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=284

Solo Deo Gloria

You are too kind. I spend a great deal of time reading and studying the thoughts of the Reformation saints. I have spent many hours going through Flynns site, reading Manton, Shedd etc. and your link has brought a smile to my face.

We want again Luthers, Calvins, Bunyans, Whitefields, men fit to mark eras, whose names breathe terror in our [foes'] ears. We have dire need of such. Whence will they come to us? They are the gifts of Jesus Christ to the Church, and will come in due time. He has power to give us back again a golden age of preachers, a time as fertile of great divines and mighty ministers as was the Puritan age, and when the good old truth is once more preached by men whose lips are touched as with a live coal from off the altar, this shall be the instrument in the hand of the Spirit for bringing about a great and thorough revival of religion in the land.
Mr. Spurgeon

Solo Deo Gloria

 

[student ad x]

"Concerning the possible usage of kosmos to mean all mankind without exception in the redemptive context of I John 2:2, let the reader observe that kosmos is used differently at least 21 out of 23 times elsewhere in the epistle. As a matter of fact, the identical term "whole world" is used in I John 5:19 where it cannot possibly mean all mankind absolutely. John writes: "we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness (in the wicked one)." Can this be true of the believer who is in Christ? Let the reader judge."
G Long

Maybe somewhat obtuse, but when the argument of 'all mankind exclusively' comes up I can't help but think world as including creation as a whole:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:18-21

Do you reckon this 'holds water'?

 

[Benefactor]

Maybe somewhat obtuse, but when the argument of 'all mankind exclusively' comes up I can't help but think world as including creation as a whole:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:18-21

Do you reckon this 'holds water'?

I like that. Yes it does hold water.

 

[archierieus]

Okay, I will try one time. In post 462 I asked if someone had their spiritual eyes open if that was the same as being saved.

In post 463 you responded that the blind needed FAITH to have their eyes opened.

In post 464 I said that wasn't the question.

In post 465 you said it was the same thing and quoted John 3:16 which uses the word BELIEVES.

(Not exact quotes because I can't copy/paste with my cell phone, but the gist is correct.)

So, I am wondering what YOU meant when you used two terse to define what in your view is essentially the same thing.

Here is my answer: Whatever the Greek word is. What is it in Jn. 3:16? What is it when Jesus says, 'according to your faith be it unto you'? Dont' have time to look it up right now, but can do it later.

 

[archierieus]

If all can believe then all might believe , clearly suggesting the impossibility of the parable of the sower .

Please explain.

The parable of the sower premises THE FACT that all will NOT believe , therefore all CANNOT believe , FACT !

That is a non-sequitur.

“For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they ... John 12 : 1-50

You apparently are attempting to apply Jn. 12 to the parable of the sower. You have not supported that exegetically. In addition to which, John is a different author, with a different aim, presenting a different discourse to a different intended audience, at a different time.

Your, or anyone's statement of "Fact" does not make it a fact. The data make something a fact. You have already stated that the passage John quoted from does not matter to you, nor does the Greek, the verb, the grammar. The verb is imperfect middle voice. That means the cause of their unbelief originates from within themselves. Do you understand that? Or are you determined to build your case on one or two English words which you have assigned your own meaning to? IOW forget about the data, the starting point is your desired belief, look for words here and there which you think support that belief, and go for it?

Nor have you provided supporting data. Nor have you addressed the cause of their hearts being hardened, nor have you even been willing to examine the passage John quoted. IOW you do not appear to be looking at all the evidence, but selecting one or two particular ENGLISH words, 'could not,' standing alone, assigning your own meaning to, in order to build your case. That is not accurate.

don't need to , the statement of inability to believe stands , FACT !

IOW don't examine or analyze the words or the passage, just take those one or two English words and apply the meaning you choose to them. That is not a 'fact.' But the FACTS of the words, the passage, and the Isaiah passage quoted from, show something different from what you have aserted.

makes no difference to the FACT .

You have presented your assertion, your opinion. You have not so far presented a 'fact.' In fact, what you have presented so far is contrary to the facts.

it's a place where the truth ought to be spoken in love

Demo that and you'll have no objection from me.

 

[Hammster]

Please explain.







That is a non-sequitur.







You apparently are attempting to apply Jn. 12 to the parable of the sower. You have not supported that exegetically. In addition to which, John is a different author, with a different aim, presenting a different discourse to a different intended audience, at a different time.



Your, or anyone's statement of "Fact" does not make it a fact. The data make something a fact. You have already stated that the passage John quoted from does not matter to you, nor does the Greek, the verb, the grammar. The verb is imperfect middle voice. That means the cause of their unbelief originates from within themselves. Do you understand that? Or are you determined to build your case on one or two English words which you have assigned your own meaning to? IOW forget about the data, the starting point is your desired belief, look for words here and there which you think support that belief, and go for it?



Nor have you provided supporting data. Nor have you addressed the cause of their hearts being hardened, nor have you even been willing to examine the passage John quoted. IOW you do not appear to be looking at all the evidence, but selecting one or two particular ENGLISH words, 'could not,' standing alone, assigning your own meaning to, in order to build your case. That is not accurate.







IOW don't examine or analyze the words or the passage, just take those one or two English words and apply the meaning you choose to them. That is not a 'fact.' But the FACTS of the words, the passage, and the Isaiah passage quoted from, show something different from what you have aserted.







You have presented your assertion, your opinion. You have not so far presented a 'fact.' In fact, what you have presented so far is contrary to the facts.







Demo that and you'll have no objection from me.

You had stated to HeyMikey that you wouldn't comment on his reference to the Canons of Dordt because they were man's teachings and you stick to scriptures.

I know that this is off subject, but it does lead to two questions.

1. Why respond to any of us as that is all we are doing?

2. Why listen to you, since that is all that you are doing?

Bonus question. Aren't you violating your own principles by both posting here, and trying to teach Greek (unless you're Greek and have a Greek keyboard. If that is the case, then I apologize or the Greek comment)?

 

[Benefactor]

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6. There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8. He was not the Light, but {he came} to testify about the Light. 9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.


1. Jesus cane into the world. What world
2. He cane into the world he created verses 3 and 10.
3. There men coming into this world and they are enlightened by the Light. It says every man that comes into this world. No way around that.
4. He was, Jesus was in the world he created and it was made through Him
5. Now the world did not know Him. Strange! What does this mean?

Test number one: Calvinist, not all, love to shove this down the throats of their beloved fellow God fearing brothers and sisters who accept the Bible correctly. World does not mean all of mankind because elsewhere X number of times it used it differently so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Is that so!

I'll show you a thing or two

Now let's take the notion that the world is not the world completely. (Is this not some kind of replacement theology - or it could be called "Situational Theology")

1. The world that did not know him is a smaller area. In that Jesus came to earth in Israel perhaps it means Israel only. OK let’s go with that. It can’t mean the world as a whole of it so it means a part of it. So these or the one "world" did not know him. If this is people is it one people or all the people in the limited world of Israel?

2. What about the every man coming into the local world could this only mean all the Jews in Israel?

3. Is this the only world that Jesus created - a local world that He came into?

4. Are you beginning to see the unusual application of such a theology that twist and twist to force something into nothing and then nothing into something? Situational theology

As we move down into the other portions of chapter one we find verse 12. If the elect are in a world that is created partially by Jesus and that this partial world is has some people in or on it then some of them will receive Christ. Now we have a problem because His own, the Jews did not receive Him

Remember we can not have a real complete world physically or peoplelly so we are in deep trouble with this notion that God elects a few "kind" out of all "classes" of mankind because they can not exist in this text using that reasoning.

There are some real problems with this understanding. All it is doing is replacing the normal use of language with invented twist and new definitions to prop up a dead theology, well almost dead, the tail still wiggles.

 

[nobdysfool]

The rumors of Calvinism's demise are greatly exaggerated....

 

[Hammster]

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6. There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8. He was not the Light, but {he came} to testify about the Light. 9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.





1. Jesus cane into the world. What world

2. He cane into the world he created verses 3 and 10.

3. There men coming into this world and they are enlightened by the Light. It says every man that comes into this world. No way around that.

4. He was, Jesus was in the world he created and it was made through Him

5. Now the world did not know Him. Strange! What does this mean?



Test number one: Calvinist, not all, love to shove this down the throats of their beloved fellow God fearing brothers and sisters who accept the Bible correctly. World does not mean all of mankind because elsewhere X number of times it used it differently so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.



Is that so!



I'll show you a thing or two



Now let's take the notion that the world is not the world completely. (Is this not some kind of replacement theology - or it could be called "Situational Theology")



1. The world that did not know him is a smaller area. In that Jesus came to earth in Israel perhaps it means Israel only. OK let’s go with that. It can’t mean the world as a whole of it so it means a part of it. So these or the one "world" did not know him. If this is people is it one people or all the people in the limited world of Israel?



2. What about the every man coming into the local world could this only mean all the Jews in Israel?



3. Is this the only world that Jesus created - a local world that He came into?



4. Are you beginning to see the unusual application of such a theology that twist and twist to force something into nothing and then nothing into something? Situational theology



As we move down into the other portions of chapter one we find verse 12. If the elect are in a world that is created partially by Jesus and that this partial world is has some people in or on it then some of them will receive Christ. Now we have a problem because His own, the Jews did not receive Him



Remember we can not have a real complete world physically or peoplelly so we are in deep trouble with this notion that God elects a few "kind" out of all "classes" of mankind because they can not exist in this text using that reasoning.



There are some real problems with this understanding. All it is doing is replacing the normal use of language with invented twist and new definitions to prop up a dead theology, well almost dead, the tail still wiggles.

Okay, let's say that you are right and a word always means what it appears to mean, ie. world means world. Are you prepared to stick with that idea, or is it possible that an author, or speaker, could have something else in mind when he speaks things?

 

[cygnusx1]

the lengnths some will go in order to defend a mistake , either all can believe or they cannot , “For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they ... John 12 : 1-50

 

[cygnusx1]

Maybe somewhat obtuse, but when the argument of 'all mankind exclusively' comes up I can't help but think world as including creation as a whole:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8:18-21

Do you reckon this 'holds water'?

yes bro , that is a Calvinist understanding and shows that salvation is recreation overall .

 

[archierieus]

The rumors of Calvinism's demise are greatly exaggerated....

Within the ranks of its die-hard supporters. The rest of the world wonders at their death-grip.

 

[archierieus]

1. Why respond to any of us as that is all we are doing?

T. Jefferson's 'marketplace of ideas' concept, which I subscribe to. Peer review, which is part of that. Evaluate the ideas, compare them with Scripture. As for the Canons of Dordt, they are not authority for doctrine. Scripture is the only authority.

2. Why listen to you, since that is all that you are doing?

Same as above.

Aren't you violating your own principles by both posting here

Same as above.

trying to teach Greek

The principles of Greek grammar did not originate with me. Check them out for yourself. Check out 'middle voice' and 'imperfect tense.'