Calvinism Refuted

[drstevej]

Sorry archierieus is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

 

[archierieus]

God created living things to reproduce after their own kind. That implies that He does not directly create out of nothing every blade of grass, every tree, every baby animal or every baby human. He created all living things to have the ability to reproduce.

Does a person's family tree trace back to God?

So, Adam was a child of God. All who came after him are children of Adam, and only those born again are children of God. God's children are so by two births. God does not have grandchildren...

When did 'born again' start happening? At the time of Christ?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

We had been discussing human beings, and that is the scope at this point. Every human being is a child of God.

No, we were discussing the family of God. That was the scope. And you made the point that to be created by God means to be a child of God. My point is completely and totally legitimate and within the scope of discussion.

Are you denying that some people are in fact children of God?

Yes, in the sense that all are in the family of God. All are born under Adam, into sin. In order to have God as your heavenly Father, you must be born again.

If so, then who created them? Do you contend that the devil created people also?

God gave Adam the ability to procreate man, thus the reason for the imputation of sin.

I agree with Kittel's scholarly treatment of the subject, see his article on psuche, that the Bible does not teach dichotomy.

Well I'll check it out, however I agree with Shedd.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

God created living things to reproduce after their own kind. That implies that He does not directly create out of nothing every blade of grass, every tree, every baby animal or every baby human. He created all living things to have the ability to reproduce. Adam and Jesus were the only 2 humans directly created. And, before someone jumps to a false conclusion, when I say Jesus was created, I mean Jesus' humanity.

God created a new man and the Son became one with the newly created human at the moment of its creation. Jesus was (and still is) the Second Adam. Jesus did not inherit or come into being as a human through any agency of man, nor was any part of Adam's race a part of His humanity. Mary was the world's first surrogate mother. that which she carried was supernaturally created, in toto, not God taking one of her ova and fertilizing it, as some wrongly assume.

So, Adam was a child of God. All who came after him are children of Adam, and only those born again are children of God. God's children are so by two births. God does not have grandchildren...

Excellent.

 

[nobdysfool]

Does a person's family tree trace back to God?

Why do you avoid dealing with what is actually said?

When did 'born again' start happening? At the time of Christ?

Does the name Enoch ring a bell? How about Abel? But, let's just focus on Enoch. Do you think Enoch was taken up, without physical death, to God without being born again?

 

[archierieus]

No, we were discussing the family of God. That was the scope.

The original issue had to do with humans, and that is the direction this student intends to follow at this time. Angels are a different type and order of beings generally, and Satan's case is distinguished as well. I wish to hold off on any discussion of angels until some other time.

Yes, in the sense that all are in the family of God. All are born under Adam, into sin. In order to have God as your heavenly Father, you must be born again.

Then what is the line of succession for those who you suggest are not children of God? Do they or do they not trace their ancestry back to God Who created Adam and Eve, the first humans?

 

[nobdysfool]

Dodge and avoid, put off, defer, and deflect.....

 

[archierieus]

Why do you avoid dealing with what is actually said?

Does a person's family tree trace back to God as the Creator of the first humans? If not, then why not, according to Scripture?

Does the name Enoch ring a bell? How about Abel? But, let's just focus on Enoch. Do you think Enoch was taken up, without physical death, to God without being born again?

So it is your position apparently that the new birth, born of water and the Spirit, was occurring even before the Flood?

 

[nobdysfool]

[quote=archierieus;51387030]
Does a person's family tree trace back to God as the Creator of the first humans? If not, then why not, according to Scripture?[/quote]

Of course the physical lineage traces back to Adam and Eve. No one has said otherwise. But you are trying to establish the idea that all mankind are children of God, ignoring how that term is used in reference to those who are in Christ. You are either ignoring or deliberately trying to erase the distinction. Time for you to pony up and tell us where you're going with this.

So it is your position apparently that the new birth, born of water and the Spirit, was occurring even before the Flood?

Based on the clear fact that Jesus berated Nicodemus for not knowing what the New Birth was, and the fact that OT saints were saved, as saved as you or I, by Grace through Faith, yes the new birth happened even back before the Flood.

Now, answer my question about Enoch. If you can....

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

The original issue had to do with humans, and that is the direction this student intends to follow at this time. Angels are a different type and order of beings generally, and Satan's case is distinguished as well. I wish to hold off on any discussion of angels until some other time.

Suit yourself, but I will assume it's because you have no good answer.

Then what is the line of succession for those who you suggest are not children of God? Do they or do they not trace their ancestry back to God Who created Adam and Eve, the first humans?

If you want to define "child of God" as being "someone who has their ancestry dating back through Adam who was created by God", then fine. But that is not what this argument is about. The whole reason for our debate was based on the fact that you equated mankind's parent/child relationship to God's relationship with every human, basically proposing that all humans have the right to call God their "father". And I am arguing that this is false, because not all humanity is born into the family of God. Clearly, Paul is making a similar point when He says

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

Who have the Spirit of God?

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of {God's own} possession, to the praise of His glory.

Those who are In Christ are the sons of God. That is my point. So you are in error when you try to defend yourself by saying-

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]

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.

Are you saying that there is no general call? Are you saying that all are called? Are you saying that all are justified? This is the conclusion I have to come to by your questioning a general call. If only the foreordained and predestined are called in v.30, then either this refers to every person on earth, or it is a specific call. I don't see another option. I am not necessarily describing a special call in v.30, but that is the way I understand it because of the way it is used in the text. You have given no other explanation, except to say that this is incorrect.

I have asked for your exposition on this passage, which you have not done. You have not explained what Paul is referring to when he says those who are called are justified. So it seems obvious to me that you either don't know what is said, or you don't want to admit that this passage supports a Calvinistic view, and cannot support your view.

So I will conclude that Calvinism still isn't refuted.

I am sure that you will have some sort of deflection...er, response to this.

 

[Hammster]

I just realized that we haven't gotten a response yet from Arch.

So, Arch, do men deserve salvation? Yes or No. It is a simple question.

 

[archierieus]

Of course the physical lineage traces back to Adam and Eve.

Good. Agreed. And, of course, since it does, then it traces back to Adam and Eve's Creator, Who created them in His image.

But you are trying to establish the idea that all mankind are children of God, ignoring how that term is used in reference to those who are in Christ.

So then, as I understand the position, there is agreement that all people are children of God in the physical sense, but not in another sense? Is that correct? We are not talking about physical descent, but something else?

If so, please specify what that 'something else' is.

Based on the clear fact that Jesus berated Nicodemus for not knowing what the New Birth was, and the fact that OT saints were saved, as saved as you or I, by Grace through Faith, yes the new birth happened even back before the Flood.

I agree with that 100% although many Christians do not.

Now, answer my question about Enoch. If you can....

Enoch walked with God as we can also, and was saved by grace as we are as well.

 

[archierieus]

I just realized that we haven't gotten a response yet from Arch.

So, Arch, do men deserve salvation? Yes or No. It is a simple question.

Already been addressed several posts back. Answer my question, and I will answer your question. As mentioned ealier, the answer would be the same for both.

 

[archierieus]

Are you saying that there is no general call?

No

Are you saying that all are called?

Yes, per Christ's command to preach the gospel to every living person.

Are you saying that all are justified?

No

If only the foreordained

The verse says 'foreknew,' not foreordained. Different words.

and predestined are called in v.30,

The verse does not say 'only' those He foreknew and predestined have been called. You have added 'only.'

then either this refers to every person on earth, or it is a specific call.

No language of exclusion or restriction appears in reference to the 'call' in v. 30. It cannot be stated either way from that verse.

I don't see another option. I am not necessarily describing a special call in v.30, but that is the way I understand it because of the way it is used in the text. You have given no other explanation, except to say that this is incorrect.

I have said it is not so stated in that verse. And it is not.

You have not explained what Paul is referring to when he says those who are called are justified.

That has been addressed by this student a number of posts back.

So it seems obvious to me that you either don't know what is said,

One cannot accurately go beyond the passage as it reads.

or you don't want to admit that this passage supports a Calvinistic view,

As it reads, it does not.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Already been addressed several posts back. Answer my question, and I will answer your question. As mentioned ealier, the answer would be the same for both.

You haven't answered the question, you are squirming around it.

 

[archierieus]

You haven't answered the question, you are squirming around it.

Answer my question, and I will answer the one you are referencing. The answer for both would be the same.

 

[Hammster]

No



Yes, per Christ's command to preach the gospel to every living person.



No



The verse says 'foreknew,' not foreordained. Different words.



The verse does not say 'only' those He foreknew and predestined have been called. You have added 'only.'



No language of exclusion or restriction appears in reference to the 'call' in v. 30. It cannot be stated either way from that verse.



I have said it is not so stated in that verse. And it is not.



That has been addressed by this student a number of posts back.



One cannot accurately go beyond the passage as it reads.



As it reads, it does not.

I stand corrects on the fact of foreknown instead of foreordained. Should have read my sig.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

You have accused me of inserting 'only' into the text. So here is the text.

If it isn't only those who are called are justified, then how else would you read it? Are you adding 'some' to the text? "and those whom he called he justified some"? It is either 'all', 'some', or 'none'. I don't see any other option. But if you would give us non-students some exposition (which despite your claims you have not done) then maybe we all could learn something.

 

[Hammster]

Already been addressed several posts back. Answer my question, and I will answer your question. As mentioned ealier, the answer would be the same for both.

What post are you referring to? And if you have already answered it, why do I need to answer your question? Just give me the post number of your answer.

 

[cygnusx1]

I said this place is "Dodge" City .... and the last few pages prove it !


I think strange tactics are used for a reason.

Interesting subject for sure , and it fits well with some observations from a few weeks ago relating to man in God's image or FALLEN man in man's image...