Calvinism Refuted

[the particular baptist]

By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 1 Jn. 3:10

And another one;

Matthew 13:36-43

Then he left the crowds and went into the house.

And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.”

He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom.

The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.

The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.

Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace.

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

 

[cygnusx1]

"it is not uncommon in the history of Reformed writing to say that Adam lost the image of God. Thomas Boston, for instance, explains that fallen “men are far from righteousness. They are haters of God because they are haters of His image.”

A little later Boston notes, “How the Scripture takes particular notice of fallen Adam’s communicating ‘his’ image to his fallen posterity…” Quoting Gen. 5:1 he writes, “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and called his name ‘Seth’.” Boston continues, “Compare this with verse 1 or that chapter, ‘In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God He created him.’Behold here, how the image after which man was made, and the image after which he is begotten, are opposed.Man was made after the likeness of God ; that is, the holy and righteous God made a holy and righteous creature; but fallen Adam begat a son, not in the likeness of God, but in his own likeness, that is, corrupt sinful Adam begat a corrupt sinful son.”


http://feedingonchrist.com/2009/02/1...t-part-2-of-3/

 

[archierieus]

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

Nice to know I'm not the only one who does that kind of thing lol.

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.

I am assuming there is some communication breakdown. Once again: No one who has not been called is justified. In order for one to be justified, he or she must be called. How many people are called to accept the gospel? Everyone is called to accept the gospel. How many people respond to the gospel call? Not everyone responds to the gospel call. Does God know who will respond to the gospel call? Yes, He knew who they were from before the world was created. Does He keep those who respond always before His eyes? Yes, He does. Does He call those He knew would respond? Yes, He calls them. Does He NOT call those who He foreknew would not respond? The verse does not say that, but other passages address it. Does He justify those who accept the gospel call? Yes.

I hope that clarifies.

 

[nobdysfool]

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

In one sense, yes. but, and this is what you're avoiding, what scripture identifies as a child of God is not in reference to their physical lineage. Therefore, to impose the idea that all men are children of God based solely on their physical lineage does violence to the scriptures which specifically refer to their spiritual state as either in Christ, or not in Christ. What you are doing is being deliberately imprecise where scripture is precise. For someone who constantly declares that he is trying to be precise and stick to the exact reading of scripture, this discussion has proven that you don't follow your own declared position.

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.

Why do you insist on muddying the waters? Why do you insist on making this complicated, when it's not?


[quote=archierieus]I agree with that 100% although many Christians do not. [/quote]

Well, Hallelujah! We've found a point of agreement! You've finally taken a stance on something!

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

Excellent! Then it follows that Enoch was born again at some point before God took him. It is fairly obvious, concerning Enoch, even though the scriptures don't say it in so many words. I am aware of only two individuals in scripture who were taken to heaven without physically dying: Enoch, and Elijah.

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

Arch, with all due respect, you have not answered the question, you have danced all around it, and a page and a half of posts have resulted from it. You have not answered the question. It is a simple one. And it has great implications for proper understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do men deserve salvation? Yes, or no? Does any man individually, or all mankind inclusively, deserve salvation? It is an easy question, but it does have far-reaching implications.

We Calvinists know what the answer is. Do you?

 

[Hammster]

Nice to know I'm not the only one who does that kind of thing lol.



I am assuming there is some communication breakdown. Once again: No one who has not been called is justified. In order for one to be justified, he or she must be called. How many people are called to accept the gospel? Everyone is called to accept the gospel. How many people respond to the gospel call? Not everyone responds to the gospel call. Does God know who will respond to the gospel call? Yes, He knew who they were from before the world was created. Does He keep those who respond always before His eyes? Yes, He does. Does He call those He knew would respond? Yes, He calls them. Does He NOT call those who He foreknew would not respond? The verse does not say that, but other passages address it. Does He justify those who accept the gospel call? Yes.

I hope that clarifies.

So if those who are justified are called, then those who are not justified must be called in a different sense of the word. This is why we refer to a general call, and an effectual call.

 

[archierieus]

So if those who are justified are called, then those who are not justified must be called in a different sense of the word. This is why we refer to a general call, and an effectual call.

I am familiar with the terminology. However, the Scriptural support is at issue here. We do see from Scripture that God reaches out to everyone, and Jesus gave that commission to His followers. But are you suggesting this is not an 'effective' call? That everyone gets called, but some get called in a 'more effective' way? If that is your position, Scripture please.

 

[Hammster]

I am familiar with the terminology. However, the Scriptural support is at issue here. We do see from Scripture that God reaches out to everyone, and Jesus gave that commission to His followers. But are you suggesting this is not an 'effective' call? That everyone gets called, but some get called in a 'more effective' way? If that is your position, Scripture please.

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

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

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

so blind...

 

[archierieus]

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

But that verse does not use the word 'effectual,' or any modifier. No basis appears in the text for designating this call as any more effective than the gospel call given to everyone. There is no language of exclusion or limitation in v. 30. Now, do you have a Scripture which specifically describes and distinguishes an 'effectual call'?

 

[archierieus]

It is a simple one. And it has great implications for proper understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Agreed on both points. And that is why I am handling it in this way. Please answer the question I posed, then I will give you an answer.

We Calvinists know what the answer is.

Calvinists seem to have built a doctrine around their answer. And that doctrine is at issue, thus clouding what should otherwise be a very simple resolution.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

There is no language of exclusion or limitation in v. 30.

In verse 29.

Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

He only foreknew those who are in Christ (8:1). The others He did not foreknow, that is, He did not foreknow them in a saving way-

Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

 

[archierieus]

In verse 29.

Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

That says nothing about the call described in v. 30 as being any different or more 'powerful' than the gospel appeal to everyone.

He only foreknew those who are in Christ (8:1). The others He did not foreknow, that is, He did not foreknow them in a saving way-

Here you have added to Scripture.

Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Note whom Jesus says that to, 'you who practice lawlessness.' Note the preceding verses: Not those who say Lord, Lord but those who DO the will of the Father, will enter heaven.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

That says nothing about the call described in v. 30 as being any different or more 'powerful' than the gospel appeal to everyone.

Sure it does; those who were predestined were called. If they were predestined, then the call will certainly bring them to justification. The καλέω is effectual; meaning it will certainly bring about their turning to Christ.

Here you have added to Scripture.

Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Note whom Jesus says that to, 'you who practice lawlessness.' As for the parable preceding, it is the one about the guests invited to the wedding feast.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}

This is the reference in which Jesus is speaking - Those who claim to be Christ's, but are not. He never γινώσκω them - meaning he never had relations with them. On the other hand, He has had relations with those mentioned in Romans 8:29, because He προγινώσκω them.

Don't tell me I'm adding to Scripture. I have not added anything, I have simply used two texts to portray one idea - all are called, but few are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.

 

[archierieus]

Sure it does; those who were predestined were called. If they were predestined, then the call will certainly bring them to justification. The καλέω is effectual; meaning it will certainly bring about their turning to Christ.

Incorrect:

1) The verse does not say that the call is the cause of their justification.
2) 'Turning to Christ' is not the same as 'justification.' See Romans 3.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}

This is the reference in which Jesus is speaking - Those who claim to be Christ's, but are not. He never γινώσκω them - meaning he never had relations with them. On the other hand, He has had relations with those mentioned in Romans 8:29, because He προγινώσκω them.

The ground Jesus specifies is doing His Father's will. That is consistent with what Jesus said in Jn. 14, and who He and the Father will make their abode with. As for your connecting 'know' with 'foreknew' here, I would dispute that, but as for this passage it is not that material.

I have simply used two texts to portray one idea - all are called, but few are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.

Agree that all are called. Few are foreknown? We cannot say for certain how many. God knows the future, and He knows ahead of time who will accept the gospel call. Those who accept are justified, etc.

 

[nobdysfool]

It is a simple one. And it has great implications for proper understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Agreed on both points. And that is why I am handling it in this way. Please answer the question I posed, then I will give you an answer.

Your question has been answered, by me. Or, did you miss that part?

We Calvinists know what the answer is.

Calvinists seem to have built a doctrine around their answer. And that doctrine is at issue, thus clouding what should otherwise be a very simple resolution.

What in the world are you talking about??? The answer to the question is simple: No man DESERVES Salvation, so the answer is NO. That is classic, orthodox, historic Christianity, Arch! Good grief, man! It's not "Calvinist doctrine"! It's Christian Doctrine!

A word of advice to you: Quit trying to over-think these things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, to coin a phrase. There was no "hidden agenda" or "gotcha" in the question. Your refusal to answer it looked suspicious, and still does.

I have answered the question, since you refused to. Now, the question which follows is this:

Do you agree with my answer? Does any man DESERVE Salvation???

 

[Hammster]

But that verse does not use the word 'effectual,' or any modifier. No basis appears in the text for designating this call as any more effective than the gospel call given to everyone. There is no language of exclusion or limitation in v. 30. Now, do you have a Scripture which specifically describes and distinguishes an 'effectual call'?

Oh, so it has to use the word 'effectual'? So you don't believe in the Trinity, either?

There is a basis to make this call more effective. Those who are called are justified. You have yet to give any reason why this isn't so, except to say that it isn't so.

Those He justified is a limited group. Which group? Those He predestined. Why did He predestine them? Because He foreknew them. Limited group of people.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Someone explain to me, without Bible verses, how God + predestination = love.

 

[archierieus]

Your question has been answered, by me. Or, did you miss that part?

Apparently so. Here is the question I asked:

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?

You say you had answered it? What was your answer, again? I must have missed it.

What in the world are you talking about??? The answer to the question is simple: No man DESERVES Salvation, so the answer is NO. That is classic, orthodox, historic Christianity, Arch! Good grief, man! It's not "Calvinist doctrine"! It's Christian Doctrine!

It is orthodox Christian doctrine, it is Scriptural. However, orthodox Christian doctrine, Scripture also present another side of God which balances out the picture--which is, God's great love for everyone, and that Jesus died on the cross for everyone, and that the plan of salvation is offered to everyone. Bible doctrine teaches that God is characterized by justice, mercy and love as well as by omnipotent power.

Thus, in some of the presentations made by self-described Calvinists on these threads, I have seen great emphasis on God's sovereign power and on the fact that no one deserves salvation--but that presentation has, too many times I believe, been divorced from the equally significant qualities of God's love for everyone, for the lost, for the abandoned sinner, for everyone. That theme is not emphasized much on these threads. And that is a real concern to me.

 

[archierieus]

Oh, so it has to use the word 'effectual'? So you don't believe in the Trinity, either?

That doesn't answer the question. The verse you are referring to does not specify a more effective call from God as the cause of justification. The writer DOES discuss justification and how a person is justified, in ch. 3 and onward. That would be the place to look to study up on justification.

There is a basis to make this call more effective. Those who are called are justified. You have yet to give any reason why this isn't so, except to say that it isn't so.

Once again, the fact is that in the passage you are relying on, a more effective call is not stated as the basis for justification. Justification is not described in this passage, therefore one needs to go back to where this author discusses justification, to find out how the process works. See for example ch. 3.

Those He justified is a limited group. Which group? Those He predestined. Why did He predestine them? Because He foreknew them. Limited group of people.

And therein lies an important clue to help resolve some of these questions. How does justification work? Where in Paul's writings does he discuss justification? Not in ch. 8.