Calvinism Refuted

[cygnusx1]

Originally Posted by 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.
​

how is that ?

why the difficulty in humans coming to Christ ?

what possible reason beyond mans Total Depravity can be given for the impossibility of coming to Christ unless God uses power ?

where does that leave the none Calvinists "free-will" defense argument ?

if all men have free-will to come to Christ why do they need help , why do they need grace ? why do they need God to draw them ...... why ?

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Incorrect:

1) The verse does not say that the call is the cause of their justification.

Well I think we can conclude that it does.

1. Someone must be called before they can answer a call.
2. When someone "hears" the call, they either respond or don't respond, based on a few things -

a. their ability to respond or not respond.
b. their willingness to respond or not respond (this I believe is a subpoint of a).

Either way, the call itself is the what brings someone to answering the call, for one cannot answer without first being called.

So there is something about the call that brings about the response, otherwise, if everyone heard the same call, and everyone had the same ability to respond to the call, then there would be no explanation for the opposite responses between men (either coming to Christ or denying Him).

2) 'Turning to Christ' is not the same as 'justification.' See Romans 3.

Sure, justification has more judicial implications than that. However, before one is justified, He must be inclined, for how can one answer a call in which he is hostile to? Turning to Christ is certainly an aspect in becoming justified; you must accept Him before His blood cleanses you, no?

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.

How this is a refutation, I am unsure. Your original argument was that "those whom He foreknew" in Romans 8:29 is not necessarily referring to only "those in Him" in 8:1. And I showed how Jesus knows those who are His and those who are not. Whether you accept the context or not is of no matter; the principle stands. God foreknew those whom He would save, and had relations with them before the foundations of the world in Christ. Those whom He did not foreknow, He did not have relations with, and therefore are not destined to be in Christ.

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.

I can say "few", because those who are foreknown in 8:29 are the ones who are chosen. And Jesus clearly says "many are called but few are chosen". Doctrinally there is no problem with interchanging God's intimate foreknowledge of His elect with His choice of them. They are both true and both limited to them in scope.

 

[archierieus]

Hebrews 9:15 is a good one, too.

Yes, it is. However, I was simply using an exhaustive analytical Greek concordance to identify each occurrence of THAT FORM of the word. Heb. 9:15 is a perfect passive participle.

Since 'called' has a variety of uses, why do you insist that it can't be used in the sense that I am using it?

I have not so far insisted on ANY particular meaning within the semantic range. Simply recognizing that the word is used in a variety of ways, hence a cautionary note in attempting to assign an ironclad meaning here.

Where do you come up with the idea that everyone is called? I don't see that in the passage, or the chapter.

The passage and chapter is silent in regard to the question. But it is not inconsistent with a broader scope of calling than the specific group mentioned in v. 29, 'whom He foreknew.' Once again, the verse and passae is silent as to any caling given to a larger group. The immediate context in ch. 8 is believers in Jesus. This chapter does not address those who are not yet believers.

So you are adding "calls by His own name" into the passage? Tsk, Tsk.

Nope. Giving examples of the range of meaning for the word as it is used elsewhere in the NT.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

So in essence that boils down to God choosing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If all men choose to reject God no questions asked, then we shouldn't even consider the point as it's just extra, confusing verbage.

Men are free to choose God, but you definitively say they will not. Ever. Not without God choosing them first. This equates to God choosing for them (i.e. man does not have a free choice) unless I'm missing something.

All of orthodox Christianity believes in predestination - that God chose before all time who would be saved and who would not. The argument is not over that; the argument is over on what basis does God predestine?

Semi-Pelagians believe God predestines based on His foreknowledge. Augustinian Predestinarians believe that God predestines based on His sovereign will without regard to our actions or choices.

It seems like everyone has a problem with predestination even though they believe it and don't know it.

 

[archierieus]

Augustinian Predestinarians believe that God predestines based on His sovereign will without regard to our actions or choices.

When Augustine was cited earlier, perhaps on this thread or a similar one, as teaching Calvinist predestinarians, a number of Roman Catholics objected and provided quotes from his writings to dispute that assertion. I do recall that happening. The RCC certainly accepts Augustine's teachings, but the RCC does not believe in Calvinistic predestination.

Most Christians worldwide believe that God knows beforehand who will accept the gospel, because God knows the future and, in fact, is in the future. Most believe that God loves everyone, and reaches out to everyone and wants everyone to be saved.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

When Augustine was cited earlier, perhaps on this thread or a similar one, as teaching Calvinist predestinarians, a number of Roman Catholics objected and provided quotes from his writings to dispute that assertion. I do recall that happening. The RCC certainly accepts Augustine's teachings, but the RCC does not believe in Calvinistic predestination.

Most Christians worldwide believe that God knows beforehand who will accept the gospel, because God knows the future and, in fact, is in the future. Most believe that God loves everyone, and reaches out to everyone and wants everyone to be saved.

Whether you agree with the terminology behind "Augustinian Predestinarian" is besides the point; those who hold to unconditional election have titled themselves this, and among the general public of theology are known and called this, much like those who hold to conditional election are called semi-pelagians.

All believe in predestination. To argue against "predestination" as a whole is to not include yourself among orthodox Christian teaching.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is this thread finally resolved?

 

[NowIAmFound]

I would say I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian, there has to be a balanced view.

 

[Hammster]

I would say I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian, there has to be a balanced view.

Why does there have to be a balanced view.?

 

[nobdysfool]

Is this thread finally resolved?

No, I don't think so. Everyone is taking a breather, or they have other real-life things to do. They'll be back, as will we....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I would say I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian, there has to be a balanced view.

I can say the say thing as far as not being RC or Protestant

 

[Hammster]

Is this thread finally resolved?

Well, it's like this. There were stories after WWII about Japanese that were on remote islands. The war was over and they had been defeated, but those on the island didn't know it.

That is how the Anti-Calvinists are. The war is over, they have been defeated and just don't know it.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I would say I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian, there has to be a balanced view.

I think when you say "balanced view", you mean "middle of the road", correct? In that case, Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism) is the middle of the road, because Pelagianism (Liberal) is the left and Augustinian Predestination (Calvinist) is the right. Pelagianism says man can come to God completely and totally on his own (monergism, man-active & God-passive), Augustinians say God has to bring man to Him completely and totally on His own (monergism, God-active & man-passive). Semi-Pelagianism would be the middle of the road, in that both God and man play a part (synergism, God-active, man-active).

These views cannot be balanced, there are only three options-

1. Man can come to God without God's help
2. Man can come if God helps Him
3. God brings man to Himself apart from anything man does

As far as my opinion is concerned, a well balanced view would be the Augustinian view, because it is what Scripture teaches, not what some people deem as "fair" or "unfair".

 

[nobdysfool]

I would say I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian, there has to be a balanced view.

Rev 3:15-16 "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! (16) So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
​

Jesus did not tell us to look for balance, He taught us to look for Truth.

Pro 23:12 Apply your heart to instruction and your ear to words of knowledge.
​

Pro 23:23 Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.
​

 

[Hammster]

No, I don't think so. Everyone is taking a breather, or they have other real-life things to do. They'll be back, as will we....

I sure hope that they haven't given up.

 

[Hammster]

What is mercy?

Is God merciful?

Does everyone receive mercy?

What is justice?

Is God just?

Does everyone receive justice?

 

[drstevej]

Calvinism is unrefuted.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, it's like this. There were stories after WWII about Japanese that were on remote islands. The war was over and they had been defeated, but those on the island didn't know it.

That is how the Anti-Calvinists are. The war is over, they have been defeated and just don't know it.

This is the exact reason why I have not posted in the Soteriology room in quite a while.

People here are so hades bent on defeating Calvinism, that that is all that is discussed/debated anymore.

I don't agree with the Arminian position, but I don't start thread after thread attacking it.

But yet, here, in this area, that is the thing.

Attack, attack, attack.

Calvinism has endured for nearly 500 years. It has stood all those attacks for 5 centuries, and helped to lead countless billions to the Lord. Provided the Lord tarries, it will stand for another 500 years.

When the attacks of Calvinism quit in this area, I might return to posting. I myself, am sick and tried of it.

There is no discussion to find some truth, or common ground. Its nothing more than to attack and prove Calvinism wrong at all costs.

Calvinism has not been defeated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

A post was deleted somewhere.

 

[student ad x]

Calvinism is unrefuted.