Calvinism Refuted

[archierieus]

Rhetoric does not have to be the "opposite of doing science". Expounding on the facts is not rhetoric in your definition of the term, but is rhetoric in that one is expounding on the facts presented. At some point, one must draw conclusions from facts, as presented, or identify the relevant facts that have not been presented.

Agreed, to an extent. I still tend to distrust 'expounding,' including my on. The more expounding is done, the further removed from the facts, hence increased risk of inaccuracy.

What I have seen here is a dismissiveness that is not supported. If you do not have access to the abundant reference materials that you continue to refer to, then it is hardly helpful to dismiss what you perceive as an opposing viewpoint, since by your own admission, you don't have the requisite materials handy to mount a defense or critique.

There is enough of a knowledge base resulting from classwork and field experience to recognize a red flag when one sees one. Having the detailed info to accurately identify it is the challenge at times.

I have recently reloaded my laptop with a larger hard drive, and a fresh install of the OS, and I'm still reloading the Bible reference materials I have had for quite some time. In fact, I will get the majority of it loaded tonight, since I am sitting in a hotel room with nothing much to do but that. I can understand not having reference materials, handy, but it wears thin as an excuse very quickly.

And I do have these wonderful study tools, including Louw-Nida, BDAG (the acronym changes with the edition lol) Kittel, and more. Problem is extremely limited time. My dw has a honey-do list for me a few miles long, and I can't touch that either. Time to work, come home and eat, go out and work again, come back and spend a little time online, and that is it right now.

Commendable. But at some point, opinion, hopefully based on facts, must be stated. All Theology is, in reality, opinion. ]/quote]

True. In the end, theology consists of opinions--which is why I tend to shun systematic theologies. After perusing a few, I was horrified at the amount of conjecture and downright sloppy technique. Riddled with speculation. And why, as well, peer review is so important IMO.

We will all learn a great deal once we are with the Lord. I have a hunch that when that day comes, we will look back on these days and realize we were all like the blind men trying to describe an elephant.....

lol very good illustration and undoubtedly true.

 

[archierieus]

I understand what justified means. That isn't the issue. The issue is what does Paul mean when he uses the term "called" in verse 30. It would seem that since those who were called were justified, that "those" is a limited group, since we agree that not all are justified.

Agreed.

You, however, want to make an argument that the non-elect are not mentioned, so we don't know if they are called. Or something like that.

Not a matter of making an argument. The fact is that those not mentioned in v. 29 are not mentioned in the passage. The issue is one of uncompromising faithfulness to the text as it reads.

But the question is why use the term 'called' in this passage? This cannot refer to a general call, but must refer to something more specific. You don't seem to want to address it, but would rather address everything around it.

The fact is that no detail is given in this particular passage. I do not wish to speculate, but to take the passage as it reads. One must look elsewhere in Scripture for further information about it. What we do know is that Jesus commanded that the gospel be preached to every living person. You can call this a general call or whatever term one wishes, if you like, I suppose. Indeed, some respond to that general call. The question I see presented is if those who do respond to that general call THEN receive an additional call???

You have mentioned that it is those who are foreknown who are called, and I will even grant your definition of foreknowledge for the sake of argument.

Agreed, as the verse reads, whom He foreknew He predestined (kept ever before Him_ and those He foreknew and predestined He called. That is what the passage says.

What I am trying to get across is that this is specific type of calling, which must be different from a general call.

Yes, I understand that is what you are trying to get across. It is a question worth pursuing, but I am not sure where to begin Scripturally.

I know that you are trying to work in the verse somehow that man has to make a decision to be called, and the passage does not allow that.

This verse does not address that specific question either way. v. 28 refers to those who love the Lord. Ch. 8 speaks of those who have accepted Christ, and that would be the immediate context of v. 29 and 30. Once again, I do understand Scripture to teach that God initiates every step in the plan of salvation.

Dave

 

[MamaZ]

Do men deserve salvation?

 

[archierieus]

Do men deserve salvation?

Do your children and grandchildren deserve your love? Your protection? Your intervention in their behalf? Why, or why not? What if they make bad choices, or fall into a sinful lifestyle, or go to jail for a crime, do they no longer deserve your love or your protection or your intervention in their behalf? Is your love for them performance-based? These questions are directly relevant to the issue you have raised.

 

[Hammster]

Not a matter of making an argument. The fact is that those not mentioned in v. 29 are not mentioned in the passage. The issue is one of uncompromising faithfulness to the text as it reads.

How about God's uncompromising faithfulness to those He foreknows. That is what the passage is about.

The fact is that no detail is given in this particular passage. I do not wish to speculate, but to take the passage as it reads. One must look elsewhere in Scripture for further information about it. What we do know is that Jesus commanded that the gospel be preached to every living person. You can call this a general call or whatever term one wishes, if you like, I suppose. Indeed, some respond to that general call. The question I see presented is if those who do respond to that general call THEN receive an additional call???

That is the problem You don't want to take the passage as it reads. The people who do respond to the general call are those mentioned in v. 30, the called.

Agreed, as the verse reads, whom He foreknew He predestined (kept ever before Him_ and those He foreknew and predestined He called. That is what the passage says.



Yes, I understand that is what you are trying to get across. It is a question worth pursuing, but I am not sure where to begin Scripturally.

How about right where we are at?

This verse does not address that specific question either way. v. 28 refers to those who love the Lord. Ch. 8 speaks of those who have accepted Christ, and that would be the immediate context of v. 29 and 30.

Dave

If it doesn't address it either way, then what it is addressing? What is Paul trying to get across to his readers?

 

[archierieus]

How about God's uncompromising faithfulness to those He foreknows.

Without a doubt that is a theme.

That is the problem You don't want to take the passage as it reads.

That is something you would not be aware of either way.

The people who do respond to the general call are those mentioned in v. 30, the called.

Incorrect. There is no reference to a 'general call.' You have added that word to the Scripture.

How about right where we are at?

If that is your preference, very well, then for starters, please provide textual evidence from 'where we are at' which distinguishes between the general call you had mentioned in earlier posts and the call described in vv. 29, 30--if that is your position, as you said in a recent post, distinguishing betwen the 'general call' which is given to everyone, as you described it, and the 'special call,' as you described it, in vv. 29, 30.

If it doesn't address it either way, then what it is addressing? What is Paul trying to get across to his readers?

Take a look at ch. 8. Of whom is Paul speaking in ch. 8, starting with the first verse? The saved, or the unsaved? Believers, or unbelievers?

 

[cygnusx1]

Some Calvinists (and others) derisively refer to the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace as "universal enablement." They characterize the Wesleyan view as teaching that God has restored to every individual the ability to seek after God and choose salvation and as not being justified by the Bible.[8][9] They argue that because this grace is supposedly given to all alike, the determining factor in salvation becomes the will of man. Calvinists believe that Wesleyans teach that God seeks all people equally, and if it weren't for the fact that some were willing to respond to his promptings and persuasions, no one would be saved. They see this dependence on the will and choice of the individual as a good work required for salvation and thus an implicit rejection of salvation by grace alone. Conversely, in Calvinism it is singularly God's own will and pleasure that brings salvation (see monergism) lest salvation be, at least in part, "of ourselves" in contrast to Ephesians 2:8-9.

Prevenient grace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cygnusx1]

Some Calvinists (and others) derisively refer to the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace as "universal enablement." They characterize the Wesleyan view as teaching that God has restored to every individual the ability to seek after God and choose salvation and as not being justified by the Bible.[8][9] They argue that because this grace is supposedly given to all alike, the determining factor in salvation becomes the will of man. Calvinists believe that Wesleyans teach that God seeks all people equally, and if it weren't for the fact that some were willing to respond to his promptings and persuasions, no one would be saved. They see this dependence on the will and choice of the individual as a good work required for salvation and thus an implicit rejection of salvation by grace alone. Conversely, in Calvinism it is singularly God's own will and pleasure that brings salvation (see monergism) lest salvation be, at least in part, "of ourselves" in contrast to Ephesians 2:8-9.

Prevenient grace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nobdysfool]

Do men deserve salvation?

Do your children and grandchildren deserve your love? Your protection? Your intervention in their behalf? Why, or why not? What if they make bad choices, or fall into a sinful lifestyle, or go to jail for a crime, do they no longer deserve your love or your protection or your intervention in their behalf? Is your love for them performance-based? These questions are directly relevant to the issue you have raised.

Apples and oranges, Arch. You're avoiding the question. The question is simple. Do men deserve salvation? Not "do you love your children and grandchildren?" Does mankind deserve, as their just due, salvation? By trying to turn the question around, you are attempting to make it look as though you answered, without having to actually state what you believe. In so doing, one can easily draw the conclusion that you believe that men deserve to be saved, and that God owes them salvation, or at least a "fair chance" at salvation. However, I believe you would be hard pressed to make that case from scripture.

Scripture shows just the opposite, that men are sinners, and deserve the judgment for sin, which is their own physical death. All mankind is under that sentence, which was pronounced in the Garden. After physical death, sinners are justly condemned to the Lake of Fire. None of us may like it, or think it's fair, but God isn't concerned with our flawed, fallen definition of justice or fairness. Such thinking reveals a lack of knowledge of the true effect of sin, and its extent.

God is, by definition and by example, the very essence of goodness, justice, mercy, omniscience, omnipotence, and every other good and righteous characteristic that can be conceived. Therefore, His actions, which flow from His Character, are equally so. Consequently, any flaw or defect we may think we see in those characteristics and actions is a fault in our own understanding, and not a fault in God.

But, I digress. Answer the question, Arch. Don't deflect and dodge it.

 

[archierieus]

Apples and oranges, Arch.

No, they're not. Same principle, same answer for both. Which answer would you give?

 

[nobdysfool]

No, they're not. Same principle, same answer for both. Which answer would you give?

And you're still deflecting. MamaZ asked you a question about salvation of men, not love of children and grandchildren. You're trying to change the subject.

There is no shame in admitting that you cannot answer, or refuse to answer. But, there is a lot of honesty in such an admission.....

 

[archierieus]

And you're still deflecting. MamaZ asked you a question about salvation of men, not love of children and grandchildren. You're trying to change the subject.

There is no shame in admitting that you cannot answer, or refuse to answer. But, there is a lot of honesty in such an admission.....

My resposne to MamaZ's question, and your post, was based upon several months of reading position statements by Calvinists on this specific issue. My conclusion, upon reflection, has been that some Calvinists may be overlooking or missing a significant component of the question, focusing on their own perceptions of God, which may not necessarily be complete. Thus, the repetitive questions, continuing to ask the same thing over and over again. I feel that the most appropriate response would be what I have done above.

 

[nobdysfool]

My resposne to MamaZ's question, and your post, was based upon several months of reading position statements by Calvinists on this specific issue. My conclusion, upon reflection, has been that some Calvinists may be overlooking or missing a significant component of the question, focusing on their own perceptions of God, which may not necessarily be complete. Thus, the repetitive questions, continuing to ask the same thing over and over again. I feel that the most appropriate response would be what I have done above.

With all due respect, you are avoiding the core question. Asking a question in response to a question may be good courtroom tactics, but it is rightfully viewed as avoidance and deflection in theological debate.

You allude to knowledge that you seem certain that at least some of us do not possess, but rather than share that knowledge, you utilize it as an excuse and a reason why you refuse to answer a simple, biblical, core question.

Perhaps it would reveal more of your theology than you wish to reveal????

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Do your children and grandchildren deserve your love? Your protection? Your intervention in their behalf? Why, or why not? What if they make bad choices, or fall into a sinful lifestyle, or go to jail for a crime, do they no longer deserve your love or your protection or your intervention in their behalf? Is your love for them performance-based? These questions are directly relevant to the issue you have raised.

This answer is based upon a false premise. Not all humanity are God's children-

Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Not all are sons of God and therefore, are not all children of God. Relating the general salvation of man to the treatment of a child from a parent is a false comparison.

 

[archierieus]

With all due respect, you are avoiding the core question. Asking a question in response to a question may be good courtroom tactics, but it is rightfully viewed as avoidance and deflection in theological debate.

Jesus did it frequently.

 

[archierieus]

This answer is based upon a false premise. Not all humanity are God's children-

And thus we arrive at a core premise of the Calvinist belief system as I understand it--and a response which I anticipated. This, now, perhaps needs to be carefully studied, as perhaps a next step in the process of evaluation.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

And thus we arrive at a core premise of the Calvinist belief system as I understand it--and a response which I anticipated. This, now, perhaps needs to be carefully studied, as perhaps a next step in the process of evaluation.

Yes, I would like to see you "evaluate" the belief that simply being born a man places you into the family of God, and He treats you as He would His own son. This is what would have to be true in order for your prior defense of MamaZ's question to make any sense.

 

[nobdysfool]

Jesus did it frequently.

But unlike Jesus, your question in response to a question did not reveal any problem in the original question, or reveal anything about the questioner. Jesus may have answered questions with questions at times, but He was much more skillful (and inspired by the Holy Spirit) at it, and used it as a teaching tool. I don't believe that your use of the tactic achieved anywhere near that kind of result. And there certainly hasn't been a teachable moment coming out of it, from your side. However, I believe we are learning a bit about you in the process....

 

[nobdysfool]

And thus we arrive at a core premise of the Calvinist belief system as I understand it--and a response which I anticipated. This, now, perhaps needs to be carefully studied, as perhaps a next step in the process of evaluation.

Talk about empty rhetoric.....

 

[archierieus]

But unlike Jesus, your question in response to a question did not reveal any problem in the original question, or reveal anything about the questioner. Jesus may have answered questions with questions at times, but He was much more skillful (and inspired by the Holy Spirit) at it, and used it as a teaching tool.

Actually, the response you are referring to was intended to, and could reasonably accomplish each of those objectives--revealing a problem in the original question, revealing something about the questioner, and a teaching tool.

I don't believe that your use of the tactic achieved anywhere near that kind of result.

Jesus' questions made them want to kill Him. Not exactly positive results.