Calvinism Refuted

[JDS]

I have noticed something about you JDS:

You have this habit of telling people what they believe. And you don't do it with charity or an interest in being just or fair with their beliefs. You do it in a way which, if they take your bait, forces them into a defense of your caricature rather than their own presentation.

You have done it throughout this conversation with Calvinism as a whole and now you are doing it with my eschatological opinions.

It's all a game to you. It's about setting them up and knocking them down.

It's not a game to me, so I am going to ask that you return to the issue at hand and continue with your efforts to "refute" Calvinism.

Thanks

I may do that, but I do more than that. I present the views I think are true. The reason I bring up eschatology is because of what John said about it. Did I not present that as my reason? Are not most Calvinists Amil or post mil? Calvinism is a system of theology, which includes the study of endtime events, isn't it?. Why would that topic be off limits if one were refuting the system?

You are guilty of what you are accusing me of - "It's all a game to you."

It is not a game to me and I apologize for any unwarranted attitude problems you may perceive of me, but I mean you no disrespect. You have been kind and gracious with everyone since you have been here. most calvinists here are like you with a couple exceptions.

I usually give scriptural reasons for my positions. I rarely give out one liners. I have observed that Calvinists are unwilling to present their positions scripturally, generally speaking, while ignoring the arguments presented to them.

 

[Hammster]

Lazarus was dead.. He had no willingness. When lazarus was called forth from the dead how can a dead man say no I don't want to believe you can raise me from the dead?

But according to JDS, Mr. Pate and Archie, you have to have faith before God will work.

EDIT posted before I saw your follow op, MamaZ.

 

[heymikey80]

I looked at your profile. You are an amillennialist. This means you have chosen to believe all the prophecies of the suffereing of the Messiah when he first came but you have chosen to allegorized the prophecies of his reign on earth through Israel, though at times information about both are in the same verse. How is this not practicing a double hermeneutic?

That's not the case, JDS. Amillenialism does not exclude the future reign of Christ Jesus. Amillenialism denies this future reign is identified as the Millenium.

I direct you to Eschatology. This is Soteriology. One is not the other.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

I may do that, but I do more than that. I present the views I think are true. The reason I bring up eschatology is because of what John said about it. Did I not present that as my reason? Are not most Calvinists Amil or post mil? Calvinism is a system of theology, which includes the study of endtime events, isn't it?. Why would that topic be off limits if one were refuting the system?

I did not get a question out of your survey. You provided it afterwards and I answered it.

And for the record, Calvinists are Amil, Postmil and Premil, the system makes no recommendation but the majority are probably Amil.

It is not a game to me and I apologize for any unwarranted attitude problems you may perceive of me, but I mean you no disrespect. You have been kind and gracious with everyone since you have been here. most calvinists here are like you with a couple exceptions.

I think what set me off was the introduction of a dispensational hermeneutic which didn't seem to serve the argument. I think I especially took issue with your assumption that those of your own opinion are "more spiritual" than others who are not.

I usually give scriptural reasons for my positions. I rarely give out one liners. I have observed that Calvinists are unwilling to present their positions scripturally, generally speaking, while ignoring the arguments presented to them.

I think you are a dispensationalist and like a lot of dispensationalists, you spend a lot of time with issues related to that doctrine. I think it provides a sort of comfort zone for you and that you probably retreat to it when a conversation gets difficult.

I don't mean to insult you here. You're not stupid. You have demonstrated that you are actually very bright, but like all of us there are channels you are used to running in and, I think Dispensational Premillennialism is one of them for you.

So I think what you have done here is attempt to move the goalposts. You were chewing up the idea that because I believe the issue to be unwillingness informing inability that I am somehow strange or different. I believe you told me I won't last long (not what I would construe as a charitable remark). At any rate, I think you began to realize that this approach was fruitless and a bit difficult and you were concerned that you might actually have to interact with nuance, so you took a dive back into your fall back position.

I am more than willing to have a discussion about eschatology with you but not until you have cleared up the rest of this. However, you need to know that the ONLY thing I have ANY respect for in Dispensationalism is that it at least tries to understand that eschatology informs all theology, however wrongly it may go about it.

Regarding your question about the messiahship of Jesus:

What makes you think Calvinists don't believe in Jesus as Messiah?

 

[cygnusx1]

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.

given the aim , context and overall plan of God for the JEWS as a nation , it seems , at least to me , pretty clear God was behind this devastating hardening (Romans 9-11) and that such being the case what God has done , none can add to or detract from (Ecc 3:14 ; Isaiah 46:10) The hardening principle is not simplistic or arbitrary , ie, man is NOT hardened willy nilly , but God's strengthening man's resistance is worked out through human desire and greed , multiple causation has never been denied , that men harden themselves all will agree , that God uses ways and means to harden men is undeniable , that God as Prime mover indeed DOES harden men is what is disputed , and how successful God is in hardening them is likewise disputed.


The cause of their hardening was never an issue , the idea that "all can be saved" ..(not according to Parable of The Sower) . "prove from scripture this is NOT so " ..(OK)... therefore they (the Jews that were hardened) could not believe " , is what it is , even with a doctorate in GREEK.

To argue the Jews that God hardened could still believe opens up many objections not least the wisdom of God in planning to open the doors to the Gentiles THROUGH the Jews hardening...

Romans 11

1. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
2. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
3. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
4. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
5. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
6. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
7. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
8. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
9. For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
10. If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
11. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
12. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
13. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
14. Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
15. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
16. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
17. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
18. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
19. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
20. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
21. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
22. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
23. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
24. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
25. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
26. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

inability ?

I think that once recognition is granted that the difference between moral inability (we will not have this man Reign over us / You will not come to me that Ye may have life) and 'mechanical inability' (man cannot come because he has no brain ; will ; reason ; evidence etc ...........) all will be in harmony.

 

[Hammster]

Although my purpose in this discussion is not necessarily to refute Calvinism per se, I do have genuine questions about it and am interested in it.



I asked you as well as several other resident Calvinists in here to examine my questions. cygnusx1 and Bulstrode Whitelock were kind enough to engage them.



The rest of you seem to want to take potshots as those whom you know are rabid anti-Calvinists and provide easy caricatures to refute and mock.



If you would like to view my questions, here is a list:



#741

#773

#791

#814

#834

#840

#855

The reason I didn't respond is that I felt I would have nothing to add. Plus, everything was going so fast yesterday, I could hardly keep up on my cell.

 

[cygnusx1]

Look carefully at the order :
Jesus said "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."John 10:26

notice he did not say

"ye are not of my sheep, because you believe not "

which is what the natural mind with natural reason wishes to reduce it to !


How easy it is to read into scripture from a preconceived paradigm.to place the cart before the horse and to see human descisions "seeking" , "being receptive" as granting us 'sheephood' .
It is the tree that determines the fruit ................. many see it that the fruit determines the tree!

 

[student ad x]

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)

Brother, perhaps this chart will help further the discussion and to help all see side by side: Arminian - hyper-Calvinism on the Will of God. (So that we can remain on the same page so to speak.) I hold the high-Calvinism/infralapsarian position, and from what I can tell, most of the others doing the bulk of the participating in this discussion are high-calvinists as well.

humbly,
Cam

 

[archierieus]

I thought Sola Scriptura meant looking at single verses out of context to find doctrine.

The steps in understanding Bible doctrine using a Sola Scriptura approach, so far as I am familiar with them, are as follows:

1. Identify word meanings and resolve grammatical issues;
2. Look at the immediate context;
3. Study the larger context of the 'book' itself;
4. Compare other Bible books by the same author;
5. Compare also with the testimony of the rest of Scripture.

In terms of sequence, step 1 should come first, study of word meanings and grammar is done, and preliminary conclusions reached. If there is an iffy grammatical question, then immediate context is consulted to attempt resolution. And the steps proceed from there.

Dave

 

[Hammster]

The steps in understanding Bible doctrine using a Sola Scriptura approach, so far as I am familiar with them, are as follows:



1. Identify word meanings and resolve grammatical issues;

2. Look at the immediate context;

3. Study the larger context of the 'book' itself;

4. Compare other Bible books by the same author;

5. Compare also with the testimony of the rest of Scripture.



In terms of sequence, step 1 should come first, study of word meanings and grammar is done, and preliminary conclusions reached. If there is an iffy grammatical question, then immediate context is consulted to attempt resolution. And the steps proceed from there.



Dave

Since sarcasm seems completely lost on you, I will refrain from using it in your presence.

 

[archierieus]

Since sarcasm seems completely lost on you, I will refrain from using it in your presence.

I recognized the sarcasm, but took the opportunity to recap study technique. Personally, I try hard to avoid making sarcastic comments, as that can interfere with a dispassionate discussion.

 

[heymikey80]

For me this is fine, but some exceptions roll into play when Paul is being "devil's advocate" or Jesus is preaching "under suspicion" or teaching in parables. Some things can be quite a stretch.

I remember a long time ago reading Matt 5:17-19 and first realizing that the Pharisees weren't being attacked here -- they were held up as a great example, "way better'n you" and yet "not enough". That would argue against most other references to Pharisees in the Gospels and in Scripture, most of which are admittedly quite negative.

So for me, not simply the Scriptural context but the historical context factors in. Once we start leaping between books of the Bible, the historical context should also be accounted for. Scripture does still interpret Scripture; but it can't rip Scripture out of when it was written. Similarly, history interprets Scripture; but it can't rip Scripture out of Scripture. To me an interpretation that is both historically practical and Scripturally plausible is better than an interpretation focused on incidental connections of Scriptural words. It puts Scripture in Scripture's real context, in both directions.

 

[archierieus]

Brother, perhaps this chart will help further the discussion and to help all see side by side: Arminian - hyper-Calvinism on the Will of God. (So that we can remain on the same page so to speak.) I hold the high-Calvinism/infralapsarian position, and from what I can tell, most of the others doing the bulk of the participating in this discussion are high-calvinists as well.

humbly,
Cam

Thank you for sharing that, Cam. I will save the chart in my files for future reference. Nice to have something like that on hand.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

So for me, not simply the Scriptural context but the historical context factors in. Once we start leaping between books of the Bible, the historical context should also be accounted for. Scripture does still interpret Scripture; but it can't rip Scripture out of when it was written. Similarly, history interprets Scripture; but it can't rip Scripture out of Scripture. To me an interpretation that is both historically practical and Scripturally plausible is better than an interpretation focused on incidental connections of Scriptural words. It puts Scripture in Scripture's real context, in both directions.

Absolutely, without a doubt. Cultural and historical context are extremely important. I didn't want to over-complicate the description, but should have included those. That is one reason I like Kittel. As for historical context, reliability can be challenging, and there are conflicting accounts. I would not rely strictly on the ECF's for an accurate knowledge of early church history, for example. But some things are reasonably clear.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

given the aim , context and overall plan of God for the JEWS as a nation , it seems , at least to me , pretty clear God was behind this devastating hardening (Romans 9-11) and that such being the case what God has done , none can add to or detract from (Ecc 3:14 ; Isaiah 46:10) The hardening principle is not simplistic or arbitrary , ie, man is NOT hardened willy nilly , but God's strengthening man's resistance is worked out through human desire and greed , multiple causation has never been denied , that men harden themselves all will agree , that God uses ways and means to harden men is undeniable , that God as Prime mover indeed DOES harden men is what is disputed , and how successful God is in hardening them is likewise disputed.


The cause of their hardening was never an issue , the idea that "all can be saved" ..(not according to Parable of The Sower) . "prove from scripture this is NOT so " ..(OK)... therefore they (the Jews that were hardened) could not believe " , is what it is , even with a doctorate in GREEK.

This is an absolutely intriguing subject, and one which is IMO at the core of both the differing positions taken, and of understanding the process. This needs to be explored in detail, the whole issue of 'hardening.' By the way, I received what to me is a HUGE compliment this morning, which is that the conclusion I had reached through independent study, consulting no commentaries, about the hardening of hearts as mentioned in Jn. 12 and Isaiah, is consistent with that held by the EO church and has ancient precedent and agreement. Now THAT made my day!!! Yaaaay!!!

To argue the Jews that God hardened could still believe opens up many objections not least the wisdom of God in planning to open the doors to the Gentiles THROUGH the Jews hardening...

I was referring to the grammar in v. 40 and to the recorded subsequent history in Acts. Aside from that, I know of many cases where a person hardened his heart against the light, but later circumstances caused him to open his heart to it--a softening, if you please.

1. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
2. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
3. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
4. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

Yes, most interesting. I would like to embark upon a study of this passage and its antecedents in the OT, later today.

inability ?

I think that once recognition is granted that the difference between moral inability (we will not have this man Reign over us / You will not come to me that Ye may have life) and 'mechanical inability' (man cannot come because he has no brain ; will ; reason ; evidence etc ...........) all will be in harmony.

I see issues of semantics, and possibly deeper issues. Anxious to get back to this.

Dave

 

[cygnusx1]

By the way, I received what to me is a HUGE compliment this morning, which is that the conclusion I had reached through independent study, consulting no commentaries, about the hardening of hearts as mentioned in Jn. 12 and Isaiah, is consistent with that held by the EO church and has ancient precedent and agreement. Now THAT made my day!!! Yaaaay!!!



Dave

Congratulations , I know that feeling , a few months ago someone was arguing over generational curses , Federalism and Imputed sin , using scriptures for and against , I spent time studying the texts and pondering what seemed an eternal unsolvable problem , in the end I posted up my solution , the thread * for me ended right there , a few days later I was reading some Augustine , and amazingly he also came to the same conclusion how many years ago ? boy I felt like I was walking on air for an hour

 

[archierieus]

Congratulations , I know that feeling , a few months ago someone was arguing over generational curses , Federalism and Imputed sin , using scriptures for and against , I spent time studying the texts and pondering what seemed an eternal unsolvable problem , in the end I posted up my solution , the thread ended right there , a few days later I was reading some Augustine , and amazingly he also came to the same conclusion how many years ago ? boy I felt like I was walking on air for an hour

Cool And it is good to know that these discussions can have some significant results, also that we have serious, wel-read and carefully-thinking students of Scripture participating!

 

[Hammster]

Cool And it is good to know that these discussions can have some significant results, also that we have serious, wel-read and carefully-thinking students of Scripture participating!

And don't forget me.

 

[heymikey80]

Alright. But I am a member of neither denomination and I do not think that I have abused the phrase. What you said is pretty much the definition.

What did the grace you are describing do to the unregenerate elect's will and at what point in time is it applied?

I think the basic facet of change is that the spiritual was made real, the person has become a spiritual reality operating in the world -- and slowly maybe, becomes aware of spiritual reality operating around him. In Scripture the first is called "born of God" or "born from above". The second is considered "being spiritual" or "[living/growing] in the Spirit".

Is that what you were asking?

Alright. Does this mean that Judas is an unregenerate non-elect?

Pretty-much, yes.

Whatever Judas might be, was he able to become cognizant of the spiritual good without God's grace?

Cognizant -- depends what you mean. Could he hear the words and think about "what if" and nod his head? Sure. Could he base his life on something he thought was crazy and completely unreal? No.

Secondly, how do you account for the spiritual good that Judas did as one of the disciples, before the betrayal took place?

Spiritual good is more than its results or actions. "No one is good, but God alone." To account for it, one need point out the Spirit is involved, yet not internalized in Judas. The same case could be made for the sons of Sceva, and even possibly Baalam.

Did he desire and will to do this with or without grace?

As pointed out, spiritual action may be desired for false motives. That's a concentration in the Sermon on the Mount.

Good is not an attribute of actions. It's a relationship of actions, actors and intents.

Augustine makes these two distinctions in his letter to Simplician. However, there are some inconsistencies in Augustine's view of the role of the human will, which I think carried over into Calvin's adaptation.

Since I addressed this in #840 to our new brother BW, please see what I said there. Basically, it seems, when the logical steps of Calvinism are followed, and God's interconnected predestining and foreknowing are taken into account in the context of his divine plan, Adam did not have the ability not to sin.

I haven't looked at #840, but lemme speculate. When taken as a whole, we're back to God's intent in ordination and creation. Once God's ordination is taken into account, Adam's actions are a foregone conclusion.

This is a constant issue when crossing between the infinite view of God and the view of people in time. There's no view of God that really slips this knot. The "predictability" view of salvation doesn't pass muster here. If you know beforehand Adam would sin, then Adam wouldn't have the ability not to.

So the philosophical question of free will and ability isn't that, at least to me. It's more limited. Ability doesn't factor in the changeability of the will. If it did, free will would be the human attribute ordaining the Fall. Because given eternal life and a changeable will, the will eventually shall change.

 

[archierieus]

And don't forget me.

I hadn't meant to. Group study.