Calvinism Refuted

[student ad x]

Orthodox Arminians believe all the right things about who Christ is and what He has done, they're just confused on who He did it for and why He did it.

Classical Arminians even limit the atonement, they just explain it differently.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Classical Arminians even limit the atonement, they just explain it differently.

To be fair, I wrote that, not JDS, I think you got your quote ref mixed up, bro.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dude, is that the Yoda Version? Loved the world, God so much did. Sent His Son, He did. You will belieeeeve, and everlasting life you will have.

Help you he can

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49316928&postcount=130

 

[Hammster]

Well, so called arminians do not believe that. They believe sinners are saved because of the cross. It is the first cause, not pre election. Why isn't that fundamental to the Christian faith?

I am full-on cross centered. I am not sure why you think Calvinism isn't. Election, predestination, all of it, means nothing without the cross.

 

[drstevej]

Well, so called arminians do not believe that. They believe sinners are saved because of the cross. It is the first cause, not pre election. Why isn't that fundamental to the Christian faith?

Ever heard of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world? The cross was planned from eternity past (Acts 2:22). For Arminians it is the cross + a free will decision that are essential. It is a co-op project.

Calvinists affir that Salvation is of the Lord. Even our faith is a gift.

 

[student ad x]

To be fair, I wrote that, not JDS, I think you got your quote ref mixed up, bro.

That was bizarre... I fixed it! Laptop gremlins me thinks

 

[JDS]

The cheap shot charge may not be fair. Recently I have been taking a few myself, but you do seem to have a real difficulty being objective about Calvinism. I have yet to see you offer a summary of it which is fair or considered or even accurate. This is, if intentional, both a cheap shot and a caricature.

My guess is that you don't really know what Calvinism is but you have been told a number of things and prefer these pre-digested nuggets to a real, nuanced and complete understanding.

Well, I have offered a summary and a scriptural argument against it, but you have not been here long so you probably don't know it.

I may not know Calvinism but my question to you was do you think the person and work of Jesus Christ is fundamental to the Christian faith? If you do, this is a major disagreement because we do not see the cross and what was accomplished there in the same way.

 

[Hammster]

Help you he can

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49316928&postcount=130

lol

 

[JDS]

Ever heard of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world? The cross was planned from eternity past (Acts 2:22). For Arminians it is the cross + a free will decision that are essential. It is a co-op project.

Calvinists affir that Salvation is of the Lord. Even our faith is a gift.

Is that fundamental to the Christian faith or not?

 

[Hammster]

Well, I have offered a summary and a scriptural argument against it, but you have not been here long so you probably don't know it.



I may not know Calvinism but my question to you was do you think the person and work of Jesus Christ is fundamental to the Christian faith? If you do, this is a major disagreement because we do not see the cross and what was accomplished there in the same way.

Can I ask this? If you don't know Calvinism, then how is it that you think you can refute it?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

do you think the person and work of Jesus Christ is fundamental to the Christian faith? If you do, this is a major disagreement because we do not see the cross and what was accomplished there in the same way.

Yes, I believe the person and work of Jesus is fundamental to the Christian faith, it is perfectly efficient for what it was for. He died to save sinners, and sinners are saved. And this is what Christianity is all about, reconciling sinners to God, saving them.

We disagree about how the benefits of the cross get applied to believers, but we are agreed that they are applied only to believers, aren't we?

I am not pretending that we don't disagree, we do, and our disagreements are serious, but not serious enough for me to start thinking you aren't a Christian.

 

[JDS]

I am full-on cross centered. I am not sure why you think Calvinism isn't. Election, predestination, all of it, means nothing without the cross.

The cross means nothing without pre-election! Election is first and most important in reformed faith.

 

[drstevej]

Can I ask this? If you don't know Calvinism, then how is it that you think you can refute it?

Excellent question. seems that one could only refute his straw man in this circumstance.

 

[archierieus]

Well, the aorist can be just about anything. It's the aspect of having no aspect.

I must disagree with you there. Granted that the aorist is unique, with no exact counterpart in English, still it definitely DOES have an aspect. That is quite a study in itself.

Being imperfect, we can only say it means continual inability, not advancing inability.

Incorrect. It indicates continuing action, as opposed to continual. The difference may seem slight, but still is significant. As for 'advancing' action, any indication of such would be from the immediate context rather than from the verb itself.

But it's not really in the middle voice. A deponant verb is not a middle verb, it's an active verb. And intransitive verbs simply can't be middles or passives.

I once again checked, triple checked, and I would have to disagree with you. Intransitive verbs can indeed be middle or passive. As for a deponent, it is morphogically a middle, the active voice having 'deposited' or disappeared thus the word 'deponent.' Two issues then, can an intransitive verb be a middle or passive, the answer is yes; secondly, must a deponent ALWAYS be understood with the active voice, the answer is no. As for the middle voice, it often denotes the subject acting on or for itself.

Let's say we're talking about a blind man, and writing about him in Greek. This particular man was blind from birth, he did not initiate his blindness. If we wished to say "he was not able to see," wouldn't we have to say "edunato ophthelein"? Dunamai has to take middle endings because it's deponant.

But as such, it does not always have to be understood in the active voice.

We'd want to use one of the past tenses, and we wouldn't want to use one of the perfect tenses. That leaves us with imperfect or aorist. Either is fine, but if I wanted to stress that he had been blind from birth and was continually blind all his life, and had not ceased being blind, I'd use imperfect. Hence, "edunato ophthelein." This doesn't indicate that I mean to say he blinded himself

However, it could as well mean that he blinded himself. The grammar would support that. In fact, the verse in question is silent as to the ORIGIN of the Jews' inability to believe, other than two factors, one the possibility presented by the inflected meaning, and second the immediate context.

or became progressivly blind all his life.

The verb itself does not indicate that. It simply represents a continuing action, initiated by the individuals.

I mean to say he was always blind, and "edunato ophthelein" works just fine to express that.

However, the verse does not say that. It would be an assumption. Context would have significance on that point. Nor does the verse describe a STATE of being, as in blind from birth, a one-time event, such as aorist would convey. It conveys continuing action in the past, hence the imperfect.

Or, to look at this another way, if John had wanted to write that the Jews were not capable of believing, and continually inable despite seeing miracle after miracle over three years of Christ's ministry, what tense and voice would he have needed to put dunamai in to indicate this?

Depending on the message he wanted to convey. If he wanted to convey that they had been made incapable by an outside source, for example God, then the aorist would be quite appropriate. The verb then would describe a STATE of being blind. However, the tense and voice chosen indicate continuing ACTION in the past, initiated and participated in by the group described. If John were to want to convey the understanding that the group caused their own inability, and was describing the STATE of inability, then the middle voice would be appropriate, and the aorist would be a good fit. If he wanted to convey that the group caused their own inability, initiated their inability, and continued a course of action, then the imperfect would be a good fit. That is consistent with both the immediate context and the prophetic context as referenced from Isaiah. And those factors are part of exegesis as well.

Dave

 

[drstevej]

The cross means nothing without pre-election! Election is first and most important in reformed faith.

Again you caricature Calvinism.

 

[student ad x]

I may not know Calvinism

You're position is to refute the doctrines of Grace as expressed by the Canons of Dordt which refuted the Arminian Remonstants. Not attack a strawman based on anything else. This is the points of contention:

Total Depravity

Man has a will and his will is in bondage to his nature. The will of man is free to choose according to the dictates of his nature, but it is not free to contradict his nature. From Adam's fall the nature of every man has been sinful. Therefore, every action of the unsaved man is sinful and rebellious; it is stained through and through by his sin nature. The unregenerate man cannot perform even one single righteous or pleasing work with respect to a holy God.

See: Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8.21, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:3, John 3:19, John 8:44, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 5:12, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:26

Unconditional Election

God’s election is truly unconditional. The foreknowledge of God is based upon His decree, plan, and purpose; it is the expression of His will and good pleasure, not a response to man's free-will choices. Election is the sovereign act of God the Father choosing specific individuals out from the "lump of clay" of humanity. These individuals were chosen before the foundations of the universe and not as a result of any foreseen merit or activity or decision on their part. These chosen or elect individuals are purposed to become monuments to the Father's love for all of eternity. In this regard the Reformed believer understands election as an example of God’s "love before time."

See: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9

Limited Atonement

In order to accomplish the specific will of the Father, Christ took to the Cross the sins of the elect. Christ died for the sins of men without distinction as to race or nationality (that is, Jew or Gentile). He provided a complete and effectual atonement for their sins. Those whom Christ redeemed, Christ really and truly redeemed (actual not potential). Though infinite in value, Christ's atoning work was specific in its design. Some prefer to call this "definite atonement" or "particular redemption". The death of Christ at Calvary does not make men savable, but rather it saves men completely. The Cross is a completed, successful work that requires no assistance from man. The Reformed believe that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect.

See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Luke 1:68, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 10:14 -18, John 17:2,6,9; Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-9, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 5:25, Hebrews 10:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9.

Irresistible Grace

The Holy Spirit, in agreement with the electing will of the Father and the atoning work of the Son, does in the fullness of time quicken the dead spirit of a man and give to him the gift of saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the Reformed, the logical order of salvation is regeneration first, followed by faith/believing. Since dead men do not respond, God must make them alive first (Eph 2:4-5); regeneration, of necessity, precedes any action or activity on the part of man, including faith and repentance. Hence, every single individual upon whom the Spirit of God moves savingly (the elect) has been called, regenerated, united to Christ, granted faith and repentance, is justified, adopted, sanctified, and will be ultimately fully glorified.

See: Ezekiel 11:19-20, John 5:24 - the perfect tense verb should read has already passed from death unto life; John 6:37-39,44, Romans 8:8, Romans 8:30, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 2:12-13, Colossians 2:13, James 1:18, Tutus 3:5, 1 John 5:1 - another perfect tense verb is used here and should be translated has already been born of God, 1 John 3:7, John 1: 12-13 but of God.

Perseverance of the Saints

Since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, man cannot fall away from eternal salvation. Furthermore, the elect of God will definitely manifest evidences of their salvation by means of good works. The elect shall, by the grace of God and without exception, ultimately persevere in righteousness. The eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones.

See: Isaiah 43:1-3, Jeremiah 32:40, John 3:36, John 10:28, Romans 8:35-39, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 2:10 God’s workmanship, Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12b & 4:18, 1 Peter 1:4-5, I John 2:19, Jude 24-25.


document from RTI

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

The cross means nothing without pre-election! Election is first and most important in reformed faith.

Do you think your problem might be that you are considering all this far too temporally?

Yes, we were chosen before the foundation of the world. The Bible tells us so. But the cross was also intended before the foundation of the world as the means by which this would be accomplished.

For God everything is now. There may be a logical sequence but there isn't necessarily a temporal sequence in the ordo, and no step in the ordo is non-essential.

You can say that election is first, but it's not accurate to say that it is "most important".

 

[JDS]

Can I ask this? If you don't know Calvinism, then how is it that you think you can refute it?

You folks say I don't know Calvinism. I don't need to know Calvinism to asl the question if the person and work of Jesus Christ is fundamental to the Christian faith.

If you say yes and I am redefining the work of Jesus Christ and misrepresenting the fundamental doctrine of the faith, why are you granting me the status of Christian brother?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

And frankly, election had better be in your ordo as well if you take the bible seriously.

 

[cygnusx1]

The cross means nothing without pre-election! Election is first and most important in reformed faith.

wrong!

it only seems that way by the circumstance of this focused part of CF , one may as well argue JDS thinks Soteriology and Eschatology is first and foremost and Christ and Evangelism are at the bottom of the list ...... experience can be deceptive!