Calvinism Refuted

[JDS]

JDS, do you believe that unregenerate men are dead in their sins, mostly dead, partially dead, a little dead, or none of the above.

If you understood the biblical definition of death, you would not ask that question in that manner. that is one of your main problems.

Ro 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Is a christian totally unable or is Paul using a figure of speech? The answer is no. The body is dead and the Spirit quickens it by his presence. So, death is separation from God. Life is the presence of God.

Lost men, who are dead because they do not have the Spirit of God, do not walk around totally unable. They are not a corpse.

Ro 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The difference between a lost man and a saved man is the Spirit of God indwelling them!

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The presence of God is a birth. It makes the one possessing the Spirit a CHILD of God.

Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Also, how do you explain John chapters 6 and more importantly chapter 17 ? No need to post them just read them slowly at your convenience and comment on them.

It is hard to approach scripture without operating assumptions or presuppositions, everyone has them without exception, so ill tell you my operating assumption when reading scripture just so you know where i stand.

Creation <---------Redemption------------> New Creation
All from God, through God, for God, every bit of it, for His Glory. Romans 11.36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

I have some questions for you with respect to the new covenant promises in the OT and what God said about them. Later though.

In our fellowship there are 4 members who used to be Independent Fundamental Baptists KJO to boot and their heros were Finney and Scofield. If God can convert these men to the Doctrines Of Grace there is hope for you too so cheer up.

If you think you are glorifying God by your theology while misunderstanding almost everything he says, are you really glorifying him? Probably in your own mind your are, but in reality, you are a reproach to him and your boasting is in yourself. The heart is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked, who can know it?

I have commented often on Jn 6 and just recently I quoted from Jn 17. John 6 is not about you! The men in John 6 are Jews. Jesus Christ is not offering himself and proving his Messianic credentials to gentiles. Historically, they will not be considered in the ministry of Jesus for another 10 years or so and then he will not be to them a Messiah, but a saviour. Did the gentiles benefit from the earthly ministry of Jesus? Yes, but as the crumbs that fell from the Masters table, but they were not invited to the table.

It is incredulous to me that you men do not recognize a historical context to scripture!

In our fellowship there are 4 members who used to be Independent Fundamental Baptists KJO to boot and their heros were Finney and Scofield. If God can convert these men to the Doctrines Of Grace there is hope for you too so cheer up.

I believe that men who depart from the faith for a works salvation are likely lost men who never had any true convictions or a true conversion. Departing from the faith is an end time phenonmenon. I believe Calvinism is a works based cultic system of salvation simply because you do not have any testimony of being saved.

Most of Calvinisms converts come from the same place the Mormons, Russellites, and other religious systems come from, Baptists or Pentecostal fellowships and if I were you, this would concern me. The more religious men are not taught, the better your chances of growing your churches, IMHO!

 

[Hammster]

JDS, I am guessing that you still haven't gotten a concordance. I wasn't making stuff up when I gave you the definition, and better transition, of the word "dead" in those passages. You can look them up yourself, or remain willfully ignorant because the KJV fits your theology. Your choice.

 

[JDS]

JDS, I am guessing that you still haven't gotten a concordance. I wasn't making stuff up when I gave you the definition, and better transition, of the word "dead" in those passages. You can look them up yourself, or remain willfully ignorant because the KJV fits your theology. Your choice.

The KJV is the authority for my faith. The context of scripture defines scriptural terms. We compare scripture with scripture to understand the mind of God.

Have you followed the discussion on the Greek language on here? How much edification have you received from it and what has been the main focus? The saviour? No the structure of the language. The exercise is one in futility.

A Christian can understand God but he must have his words because that is how thoughts are conveyed. He must have his words in his own language, and we have them as English speaking people in the KJV.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (In words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

This is how I know the meaning of death. Did you not follow my post when I explained it?

 

[Hammster]

The KJV is the authority for my faith. The context of scripture defines scriptural terms. We compare scripture with scripture to understand the mind of God.



Have you followed the discussion on the Greek language on here? How much edification have you received from it and what has been the main focus? The saviour? No the structure of the language. The exercise is one in futility.



A Christian can understand God but he must have his words because that is how thoughts are conveyed. He must have his words in his own language, and we have them as English speaking people in the KJV.



1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man&#8217;s wisdom teacheth, but (In words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.



This is how I know the meaning of death. Did you not follow my post when I explained it?

I guess you chose willful ignorance.

Just because it says dead in the KJV, it doesn't always mean dead. Go online and use a concordance for the different times dead is used and you will see what I mean. You don't have to take my word for it.

 

[Hammster]

And I don't mean this to turn into an anti-KJV discussion. The KJV is fine by me. But even the original translators said that there may be new discoveries that would ensure a better translation. Google the original preface to the KJV and read what they wrote. It isn't included in most of today's copies.

 

[JDS]

I guess you chose willful ignorance.

Just because it says dead in the KJV, it doesn't always mean dead. Go online and use a concordance for the different times dead is used and you will see what I mean. You don't have to take my word for it.

If you have a case to make, Hammster, make it. Good Grief!

 

[Hammster]

If you have a case to make, Hammster, make it. Good Grief!

I believe I did make it. Look up the word dead in a concordance and you will see different definitions because there are different words that are translated "dead". And I figured since you don't trust me, you could look it up and see for yourself.

 

[heymikey80]

Just one quick comment on 1 Jn. 5:1. Here is N-A:

&#928;&#8118;&#962; &#8001; &#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#8059;&#969;&#957; &#8005;&#964;&#953; &#7992;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166;&#962; &#7952;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; &#8001; &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8056;&#962; &#7952;&#954; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8166; &#947;&#949;&#947;&#8051;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#964;&#945;&#953;

Perfect passive indicative 3rd pers. sing.

I don't see here the precedence you claim. I do note pisteuwn, present active participle nom. sing. masc. I believe, which reflects John's habit of putting believing in the continuing action, and being born (again) as a one time action, always in the past. Thus, the one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. This does not show born again preceding belief. It is descriptive of the believer. The issue in the immediate context pertains to Arianism, which John is speaking against. It might possibly be different if John had written believing also as a one-time action. As it reads, however, believing appears as ongoing, with the beginning point of believing unstated. Such would need to be determined by comparing Scripture. Taking it just as it reads, believing could have begun BEFORE being born of God, CONCURRENTLY with or AFTER. 'Believing' is continuing action. HOWEVER, if a student approaches the text with a presupposition that regeneration precedes faith, then there is the danger of eisegesis. Instead, it is good to take the text exactly as it reads, without any agenda.

Must disagree with you there. It occurs in the singular, with the definite article. I chose the word 'every one' but the wording also calls for 'any one' hence, I expect, the original word 'whosoever.' ANYONE believing. 'Every' one with the significance of 'any' one. And that is a different shade of meaning from 'all those believing.'

As I'd pointed out before the discussion was truncated, all the five uses of "born of God' are dependency uses in 1 John 5:1. And the statement here is singular, with the definite article. If John 3:16 is individuistic and comprehensive, so too must be 1 John 5:1.

Whosoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 Jn 5:1
​

So belief is dependent on being born of God. And it's true individuistically and comprehensively, if you take John 3:16 as individuistic and comprehensive.

 

[heymikey80]

As I'd pointed out before the discussion was truncated, all the five uses of "born of God' are dependency uses in 1 John 5:1. And the statement here is singular, with the definite article. If John 3:16 is individuistic and comprehensive, so too must be 1 John 5:1.

Whosoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 Jn 5:1
​

So belief is dependent on being born of God. And it's true individuistically and comprehensively, if you take John 3:16 as individuistic and comprehensive.

I've been expecting some kind of response to this point. Well, to a number of points set out on a number of threads, but this one in particular there still seems to be a lot of denial on.

If there are no responses to this point, I'll take it as accepted.

For the record again, the five uses in 1 John are:

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.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith.

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
​

These results are dependent on being born of God. There's reason to include 1 John 5:1 among them. It's what John's attributing to New Birth.

And he attributes faith there.

 

[archierieus]

I've been expecting some kind of response to this point. Well, to a number of points set out on a number of threads, but this one in particular there still seems to be a lot of denial on.

If there are no responses to this point, I'll take it as accepted.

It already has been responded to, some pages back I believe. Did you miss the post?

 

[&Abel]

I've been expecting some kind of response to this point. Well, to a number of points set out on a number of threads, but this one in particular there still seems to be a lot of denial on.

If there are no responses to this point, I'll take it as accepted.

For the record again, the five uses in 1 John are:

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.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith.

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
​

These results are dependent on being born of God. There's reason to include 1 John 5:1 among them. It's what John's attributing to New Birth.

And he attributes faith there.

being born of God involves accepting God's grace

simple

next!

 

[beloved57]

being born of God involves accepting God's grace

only in your imagination..

 

[the particular baptist]

being born of God involves accepting God's grace

simple

next!

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

ONLY those appointed to Life believed, the others did not. Why did the others not believe ? Because they were not appointed to Life.

 

[JacobHall86]

being born of God involves accepting God's grace

simple

next!

Cant Accept what you cant see. You cant see anything when you are dead in your sin. Only those who have had the scales removed can see Grace.

 

[the particular baptist]

Cant Accept what you cant see. You cant see anything when you are dead in your sin. Only those who have had the scales removed can see Grace.

 

[cygnusx1]

two pro-Calvinist threads locked one anti-Calvinist thread left open .... mmmmmmmm

 

[Hammster]

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Just another passage in context that shows that the atonement was for a specific group and the calling is limited.

Also, a good view in scripture that all doesn't always mean all, since in v.26 the writer uses 'all', but in v. 28 he uses 'many'. In both cases he is talking about the same group.

 

[Hammster]

two pro-Calvinist threads locked one anti-Calvinist thread left open .... mmmmmmmm

It's okay. It still serves the same purpose. It is strange, though, because the debate was essentially the same in each thread.

 

[cygnusx1]

It's okay. It still serves the same purpose. It is strange, though, because the debate was essentially the same in each thread.

right , so I might see this thread locked by bed time too ...... say , why don't we Calvinists just post our thoughts then lock our thread

 

[nobdysfool]

It appears that some here of the anti-Calvinist, anti-Reformed variety, will play "dog in the manger" if they cannot overcome their opponents any other way. By that, I mean that they will ramp up the flaming, the brinking, and the defamation of Calvinists in general and certain posters in specific, to the point where action is taken, and threads locked. It is the equivalent of a military "scorched earth" policy.