Calvinism Refuted

[cygnusx1]

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[drstevej]

Calvinism's demise in this thread is overly reported by its opponents' Baghdad Bob-like pronouncements.

Let's keep posting biblical truth and not be distracted by "contextual rationalizations" and claims of "rhetoric" when the argument has no weaknesses.

I can recall howling and ranting before I realized that the Bible teaches a sovereign God who is the author and finisher of salvation.

Calvin is 500 years old, Calvinism is eternal.

(oooh, a great custom title)

 

[Hammster]

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

There is a certain person on here who ignores the second, and how it relates to the first part. I can't say their name for fear of being banned. But he has a buddy named Jughead.

I asked for an exposition for both parts, and got the usual run around.

 

[archierieus]

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.

This verse was discussed on another thread recently. The Greek places 'believed,' aorist, first and states that they were being set in place (perfect participle) for eternal life. The perfect tense is continuing action. This appears to be consistent with Jn. 3:16, as many as believe in Jesus would not perish . . . It also appears to be consistent with jn. 6, where Jesus says that as many as listen to the Father and learn from Him come to Jesus.

 

[archierieus]

why do the none Calvinists ignore the first part of this text ?

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

This verse has been reviewed and discussed in quite some depth very recently on another thread, in fact on more than one thread. The first part of the verse presents no difficulty for those whose orientation is not Calvinist. Not sure what you men by 'ignore,' I have not seen that done. Jesus goes on the passage to explain who it is who come to Him. Those who listen to and learn from the Father.

 

[nobdysfool]

This verse was discussed on another thread recently. The Greek places 'believed,' aorist, first and states that they were being set in place (perfect participle) for eternal life. The perfect tense is continuing action. This appears to be consistent with Jn. 3:16, as many as believe in Jesus would not perish . . . It also appears to be consistent with jn. 6, where Jesus says that as many as listen to the Father and learn from Him come to Jesus.

Who did the appointing? Was it not God? No one can appoint himself to eternal life. the Greek word derived from tetagomai comes from a military term, with the meaning of arrangement. In the military, no soldier arranges his own position, he does what his superiors decide. So it is in this instance, no matter how you slice and dice it. Those who were appointed to eternal life believed, and that appointment was not by them, it was by God. That is the plain meaning and reading of that verse.

 

[Hammster]

This verse has been reviewed and discussed in quite some depth very recently on another thread, in fact on more than one thread. The first part of the verse presents no difficulty for those whose orientation is not Calvinist. Not sure what you men by 'ignore,' I have not seen that done. Jesus goes on the passage to explain who it is who come to Him. Those who listen to and learn from the Father.

I am still interested in an exposition of this verse from you including the second part of the verse...the part after "and".

 

[archierieus]

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.

The passage does not say that. Looking at your highlighted verses, there is reference to a 'new covenant' and to those who 'are called.' Paul describes the new covenant in ch. 9. The new covenant is made with those who have accepted Jesus. This is not a reference to an 'atonement.' V. 28 speaks of the second coming of Christ, not His first coming, hence does not address the issue of Christ's atonement.

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.

Incorrect. You cannot conclude that exegetically from the passage. Apples and oranges. Scripture does, however, state that Christ bore the sins for the entire world. This is not the same as making an 'atonement' for an individual. Different terminology.

 

[archierieus]

I am still interested in an exposition of this verse from you including the second part of the verse...the part after "and".

Nothing to exposit beyond what the verse says, that Christ will raise him up at the last day. 'Raise up at last day' appears to be a reference to the resurrection, which is a 'raising up,' and it occurs 'at the last day,' which concurs with Paul's and Jesus' teaching about the resurrection of the righteous (Jn. 5:44 I think, and 1 Thess. 4:13 - 17, 1 Cor. 15)

 

[Hammster]

The passage does not say that. Looking at your highlighted verses, there is reference to a 'new covenant' and to those who 'are called.' Paul describes the new covenant in ch. 9. The new covenant is made with those who have accepted Jesus. This is not a reference to an 'atonement.' V. 28 speaks of the second coming of Christ, not His first coming, hence does not address the issue of Christ's atonement.



Incorrect. You cannot conclude that exegetically from the passage. Apples and oranges. Scripture does, however, state that Christ bore the sins for the entire world. This is not the same as making an 'atonement' for an individual. Different terminology.

What does it mean/accomplish that Christ bore the sins for the entire world?

 

[Hammster]

Nothing to exposit beyond what the verse says, that Christ will raise him up at the last day. 'Raise up at last day' appears to be a reference to the resurrection, which is a 'raising up,' and it occurs 'at the last day,' which concurs with Paul's and Jesus' teaching about the resurrection of the righteous (Jn. 5:44 I think, and 1 Thess. 4:13 - 17, 1 Cor. 15)

Okay, once again. Can you exposit the whole verse? We seem to keep running into the same issue. You will exposit one part separate from the second part, and separate their combined meanings.

You have done this before with Romans 8:29-30, and now you are doing it with this verse. Please refrain from this and give and explanation for the whole verse or passage.

You don't have to do this, if you don't want. But please quit pretending that you are. Thanks.

Cheers

 

[archierieus]

What does it mean/accomplish that Christ bore the sins for the entire world?

Paul the apostle explains that Christ's death reconciled the world to God--"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself,' I think in 1 Cor. Christ's death opened the way for as many as would receive Him, as many as would believe in Him and accept the provision of His sacrifice, to be saved. The price has been paid. However, that offer of salvation must be accepted by the individual. 'As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the children of God,' 'whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

 

[Hammster]

Paul the apostle explains that Christ's death reconciled the world to God--"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself,' I think in 1 Cor. Christ's death opened the way for as many as would receive Him, as many as would believe in Him and accept the provision of His sacrifice, to be saved. The price has been paid. However, that offer of salvation must be accepted by the individual. 'As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the children of God,' 'whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

What does 'reconcile' mean? If Christ reconciled the whole world to Himself, what does that mean?

 

[archierieus]

Okay, once again. Can you exposit the whole verse? We seem to keep running into the same issue. You will exposit one part separate from the second part, and separate their combined meanings.

You have done this before with Romans 8:29-30, and now you are doing it with this verse. Please refrain from this and give and explanation for the whole verse or passage.

You don't have to do this, if you don't want. But please quit pretending that you are. Thanks.

Cheers

It has been done already, both as a whole and as addressing each component. Let me see if I can find the posts, and copy and paste them into a new post. That would be quite a bit earlier on this thread, and I believe also on another, related thread. You will also find there a discussion of Romans 8:29, 30, as a unit.

 

[nobdysfool]

Okay, once again. Can you exposit the whole verse? We seem to keep running into the same issue. You will exposit one part separate from the second part, and separate their combined meanings.

You have done this before with Romans 8:29-30, and now you are doing it with this verse. Please refrain from this and give and explanation for the whole verse or passage.

You don't have to do this, if you don't want. But please quit pretending that you are. Thanks.

Cheers

Paul and the other inspired writers of the Scriptures did not write in verses, or chapters. Paul wrote letters.

 

[Hammster]

It has been done already, both as a whole and as addressing each component. Let me see if I can find the posts, and copy and paste them into a new post. That would be quite a bit earlier on this thread, and I believe also on another, related thread.

Is it really that difficult? You seem to be able to quickly post responses to the first part, and the second part, but not the whole thing. Well, that's okay.

 

[Hammster]

Paul and the other inspired writers of the Scriptures did not write in verses, or chapters. Paul wrote letters.

True. And I like the whole letters. However, there are some specifics that they tried to convey, in context of the whole letter, and we need to understand them in that way, too.

 

[archierieus]

Is it really that difficult? You seem to be able to quickly post responses to the first part, and the second part, but not the whole thing. Well, that's okay.

I am headed out the door, but if you like, check back on this thread and you will find both parts together as well as separately discussed. If you cannot find those discussions, I will see what I can do later on this evening. Same for Romans 8:29, 20

 

[nobdysfool]

True. And I like the whole letters. However, there are some specifics that they tried to convey, in context of the whole letter, and we need to understand them in that way, too.

Exactly. There are some who want to take verses individually, as though each verse stood alone as a doctrinal statement, with no connection to the ones preceding or following. Just as you or I or anyone may take several sentences or even a paragraph to state an idea, concept, or principle, so did Paul, Peter, John, James, and the other writers.

Sometimes, a complete thought can be stated in just one sentence, but that doesn't happen often. The anti-Calvinists here love to cherry-pick and separate verses from their context and the thought flow of the writer. In many cases that's how their errors started. That is certainly how they perpetuate them.

 

[&Abel]

Exactly. There are some who want to take verses individually, as though each verse stood alone as a doctrinal statement, with no connection to the ones preceding or following. Just as you or I or anyone may take several sentences or even a paragraph to state an idea, concept, or principle, so did Paul, Peter, John, James, and the other writers.

Sometimes, a complete thought can be stated in just one sentence, but that doesn't happen often. The anti-Calvinists here love to cherry-pick and separate verses from their context and the thought flow of the writer. In many cases that's how their errors started. That is certainly how they perpetuate them.

this is, in actuality the only recourse of the Calvinist

you should have noticed I almost always post large chunks to scripture to capture the context as best as possible