Disprove Calvinist Soteriology

[nobdysfool]

I disagree with that (but have no intention of getting into this future feeding frenzy, as Dean points out).

Of course, you are free to disagree, but understand that disagreement, in and of itself, proves nothing other than a personal preference. So be it.

We both know very well that most Christians, no matter the camp, haven't started in one camp and ended in another. Most continue in what they were taught and the camp they entered when they were most impressionable: whether that be from childhood, at initial conversion, or at a time of life crisis.

Again, a personal opinion, chosen. Since you offer no real proof of your chosen view, it is, at best, anecdotal. Just because you chose to believe it doesn't make it a valid observation. My own personal experience, and that of others here, runs counter to your opinion. therefore, I cannot agree with you. There are many examples of people who have changed their views, for a variety of reasons. Your view seems to deny this.

There are some who have changed over. For those it can be asked "didn't you say before that your views were in accord with scripture? And aren't you once again adamantly saying now that your views are in accord with scripture?"

If so, then the only sure thing to say definitively is that you have made another step in your journey.

Then the only question remaining is, do you believe this to be a good thing, or a bad thing?

The one thing that is certain is that the Holy Spirit will lead believers into all Truth. That is a promise made by God in Scripture. What remains to be proven, is whether that which any person espouses is (a) a result of the Holy Spirit's leading and instruction, and (b) does what they believe truly agree with (a). Seeing that it is the Holy Spirit's job to do this, any person who is claiming, either verbally, or by their actions, to be the agent of that instruction, i.e. "to set people straight", or to "defeat __________", is presumptuous at best, and a false teacher at worst.

Till we all get tired of this,

Many of us are already tired of it....

H., who watched a Calvinist become a dispensationalist, another dispensationalist become a Calvinist, and a nondenom Charismatic become a Catholic.

The one thing they all have in common is that they think they now have the scriptural truth, and were deceived before.

And I've watched an Atheist become a committed Christian, and know Mormons who became Calvinists. None of which proves anything other than people change, sometimes due to the Holy Spirit's influence, and sometimes just because they felt like changing....in other words, it proves nothing other than change happens.

The proof is in the fruit produced, not the claims made.

 

[nobdysfool]

Soren Kierkegaard's words: "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die."

Unfortunately, this is true for Christians when they approach Scripture.

Kierkegaard's error was in the idea that Truth is relative, that it varies from individual to individual. Truth, with a capital T, is absolute, and does not depend on any individual to validate it.

So, the statement which follows is rather curious. The real issue is that a Christian should allow Scripture to form his beliefs, rather than impose presuppositions upon Scripture.

 

[Ryan Collins]

Kierkegaard's error was in the idea that Truth is relative, that it varies from individual to individual. Truth, with a capital T, is absolute, and does not depend on any individual to validate it.

So, the statement which follows is rather curious. The real issue is that a Christian should allow Scripture to form his beliefs, rather than impose presuppositions upon Scripture.

I agree. What I was implying is that people approach the Scriptures with presuppositions. This thread and all others where Reformed Soteriology is evident in Scripture, they still do not find it to be true in their minds because they have chosen to take their presuppositions to Scripture to find the truth that is true to them, or the truth that they want to be true.

 

[jsarber]

I have a group here that's been studying eternal salvation for the last several weeks. We actually believe salvation is solely by the grace of God without the need for human conditions to be met. We agree with Reformed Theology for the most part.

We were going to look at Bible verses tonight which seem to contradict our views and attempt to discover how they fit. That's why I was asking.

 

[anthony55]

Soren Kierkegaard's words: "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die."

Unfortunately, this is true for Christians when they approach Scripture.

man made philsophy, scripture is truth.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I have a group here that's been studying eternal salvation for the last several weeks. We actually believe salvation is solely by the grace of God without the need for human conditions to be met. We agree with Reformed Theology for the most part.

We were going to look at Bible verses tonight which seem to contradict our views and attempt to discover how they fit. That's why I was asking.

Well you should have said that in the first place!

The ones that seem to be used the most often are Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29. Most Arminians just appeal to John 3:16 as "the verse which destroys all other verses" lol. John 12:32 is also quoted often. If you do a little bit of reading on the forums, you can see the arguments the non-calvinists put forth and which verses they most often appeal to. You probably don't need us to tell you all of them.

 

[Ryan Collins]

I would also do a good study on Romans 8:1,38,39; John 10:27-30; Phil. 1:6.

 

[depthdeception]

We both know very well that most Christians, no matter the camp, haven't started in one camp and ended in another. Most continue in what they were taught and the camp they entered when they were most impressionable: whether that be from childhood, at initial conversion, or at a time of life crisis.

There are some who have changed over. For those it can be asked "didn't you say before that your views were in accord with scripture? And aren't you once again adamantly saying now that your views are in accord with scripture?"

If so, then the only sure thing to say definitively is that you have made another step in your journey.

Till we all get tired of this,

H., who watched a Calvinist become a dispensationalist, another dispensationalist become a Calvinist, and a nondenom Charismatic become a Catholic.

The one thing they all have in common is that they think they now have the scriptural truth, and were deceived before.

Yes, this is in fact what we see time and again. Everyone thinks that "now" they've come into the truth because they've aligned themselves with this or that theological camp, or because they've now been enlightened to read the Scriptures in the "right" or "objective" way.

But it's all circular reasoning. We align with particular theological methodologies either because we have philosophical tendencies in the overall direction of the system, or because of weakness of mind that is swayed by the gravitas of someone who holds to the particular system.

 

[depthdeception]

Kierkegaard's error was in the idea that Truth is relative, that it varies from individual to individual. Truth, with a capital T, is absolute, and does not depend on any individual to validate it.

One might assume that "Truth" is objective and absolute, but there is no means within the possession of human epistemology to either demonstrate it nor appropriate it to the service of thinking and being. The "Truth" of God can only be apprehended by the trans-rational, trans-verifiable movement of one's whole existence in faith to God.

So, the statement which follows is rather curious. The real issue is that a Christian should allow Scripture to form his beliefs, rather than impose presuppositions upon Scripture.

This could only be possible to a limited extent. We are not blank canvases in our approach to Scripture; rather, we bring an incomprehensible number of presuppositions and philosophical prejudices to bear on the text every time that we interpret it. Therefore, the act of interpretation is more of a reflection of what we assume, rather than of what the texts "really" say.

Of course, for those mostly interested in creating an absolute hegemony of thought from interpretation which they can use to dominate the thinking of others, this conclusion is a big problem. For those who do not presume upon epistemological access to such elusive objectivity, it is not, and in fact is the conduit through which the meaningfulness of faith is made real in the existential orientation of the believer.

 

[depthdeception]

I would agree that most Christians continue in that which they were raised. However, Calvinists are different.

LOL!!!! That is hilarious. Yours is the ultimate demonstration of the point you are attempting (and failing) to refute.

I am proof of that. I was raised in a Calvinist home, meaning, my parents both held to Calvinism, but I never really heard about it until one day at a youth group someone brought up "predestination". Just like everyone else, I had a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of God having total sovereignty over my eternal dwelling place. I brought it up to my parents, and they sided with Calvin and told me a bit about election and those types of subjects. This was when I was 16. I went on for a few years thinking that the idea of "predestination" was entirely unfair and that God couldn't possibly have "predestined" all of history apart from our "free will". Long story short, I start reading my Bible every day, and saw that the Scriptures taught Calvinism, and so I adopted it as my own view.

What you're not telling is the impact that the influence of your parents, youth pastor, and others in your life had on your ultimate determination to embrace this line of thinking. You didn't come to these ideas in a vacuum, as if the categories of Reformed theology just suddenly jumped out of the pages of the Scriptures and fully formed themselves in your mind.

And this is the point, after all, of what I and others have been saying. We all like to think that we came to the theological prejudices that we hold in an objective way--such a conclusion, after all, provides the self-justification that our limited minds so desperately crave. Yet as you admitted in the rehearsal of your "journey" towards Reformed theology, the ideas that took hold did not come out of thin air; rather, you were influenced by people in your life that you (I assume) respected, and this had an indelible impact on how you finally landed on the issue.

It is the same story for all of us. There is no need to try to claim the opposite, and to do so is just to reveal a naivety about how ideas and beliefs are formed.

I say all of this to point out that all men start out against the sovereignty of God, from the time they are born, and even from the time they are born again, to some degree. There is a desire to be independent from God, and a false pretense as to what God can and can't do. A judgment, if you will. And to me, this sounds exactly like what took place at the fall. A judgment, as to what man can and should be allowed to do. It is a judgment apart from God's judgment, which is why it is false. And it is not seen by most for that very reason.

But not all of us define sovereignty in the small way that Reformed theology does, so I fail to see how this line of thinking is applicable to anyone except those who have already bought into the philosophical presuppositions of Reformed theology.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

LOL!!!! That is hilarious. Yours is the ultimate demonstration of the point you are attempting (and failing) to refute.

That is simply not true. Yes, I did eventually follow in the footsteps of those around me. But it was not without intense debate, inward struggle, flat out denial, etc. I have never, ever, ever heard of that being the case with an Arminian (or free-willer in general). No one starts out placing God above themselves. NO ONE. That is the point I am making.

Can you even imagine reversing my story? My parents were Arminian, and as soon as I was told that I had "free will", I lashed out against them because it seemed only fair that God is sovereign over everything. LOL. Now that is hilarious.

 

[anthony55]

Thats the great deception, the devil has fooled people into believing that the Truth of God is no more than something made up by a man named calvin. They have failed to look at the scripture that this calvinism represents. That will be no excuse however in the great day.

 

[Ryan Collins]

Thats the great deception, the devil has fooled people into believing that the Truth of God is no more than something made up by a man named calvin. They have failed to look at the scripture that this calvinism represents. That will be no excuse however in the great day.

That is why the term Calvinism has plagued soteriology. It's just Biblical soteriology more than anything else. I actually cannot stand hearing the term "Calvinism."

 

[Hupomone10]

How does one change from a Calvinist to a Dispensationalist? I am both, why do I have to change from one to the other? Dispensationalism has little to do with Soteriology. Some, but little.

Forgive me. I thought it was obvious what I meant. I've seen a dispensationalist change to a covenant theology Reformed, a Reformed covenanter change to a dispensationalist, and I guess the Catholic thing you understood. It could be that you and I have no differences at all.

Long story short, I start reading my Bible every day, and saw that the Scriptures taught Calvinism, and so I adopted it as my own view.

Interesting the way you put that. I don't believe the scriptures teach calvinism, anymore than they teach arminianism. They teach scriptural theology. We take into- and take from- scripture calvinism and arminianism.

Watchman Nee is one of my favorite authors. Consider what you would think if I were to say that I read the Bible every day and saw that the scriptures taught WatchmanNeeism.

I say all of this to point out that all men start out against the sovereignty of God, from the time they are born, and even from the time they are born again, to some degree.

Agree completely. And one of the biggest strongholds for the Christian to overcome is the mind, the reasoning. We love a theological reasoning that will explain all things to us and fit neatly into a box. It is uncomfortable to the mind of man to follow the Spirit, submit to Him in our thoughts regarding the Bible rather than try to reason it all out with our logical sanctified but still fleshly mind.

1 Cor 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

The actual Greek word translated "natural man" could better be translated "soulish." It is a person driven by the mind, will, and emotions. The spiritual man is one driven and guided by the spirit united with the Holy Spirit. The soulish listen more to their own rational thinking than the Spirit. This is probably why Covenant Theology Calvinism is the home for many intellectuals in the Christian community, but not the majority in the Christian community. They love reason more than faith. I am not against reason; I am for it, but only as it is subservient to walking in the Spirit by faith.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

That is why the term Calvinism has plagued soteriology. It's just Biblical soteriology more than anything else. I actually cannot stand hearing the term "Calvinism."

It really doesn't matter to me, every term has connotations, and if it doesn't, it will eventually grab hold of some. Call me whatever you want, I really don't care, I'll let my words speak for themselves.

I am okay with the Calvinist label though because it quickly conveys where I place God and man's relationship to Him. Also Calvin was an amazing fella. But in the end I would just call myself a Bible-believing Christian, someone who loves Jesus as their King, Lord, Savior, and Best Friend.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Forgive me. I thought it was obvious what I meant. I've seen a dispensationalist change to a covenant theology Reformed, a Reformed covenanter change to a dispensationalist, and I guess the Catholic thing you understood. It could be that you and I have no differences at all.

Interesting the way you put that. I don't believe the scriptures teach calvinism, anymore than they teach arminianism. They teach scriptural theology. We take into- and take from- scripture calvinism and arminianism.

Watchman Nee is one of my favorite authors. Consider what you would think if I were to say that I read the Bible every day and saw that the scriptures taught WatchmanNeeism.

Agree completely. And one of the biggest strongholds for the Christian to overcome is the mind, the reasoning. We love a theological reasoning that will explain all things to us and fit neatly into a box. It is uncomfortable to the mind of man to follow the Spirit, submit to Him in our thoughts regarding the Bible rather than try to reason it all out with our logical sanctified but still fleshly mind.

1 Cor 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

The actual Greek word translated "natural man" could better be translated "soulish." It is a person driven by the mind, will, and emotions. The spiritual man is one driven and guided by the spirit united with the Holy Spirit. The soulish listen more to their own rational thinking than the Spirit. This is probably why Covenant Theology Calvinism is the home for many intellectuals in the Christian community, but not the majority in the Christian community. They love reason more than faith. I am not against reason; I am for it, but only as it is subservient to walking in the Spirit by faith.

Good post. I think we can agree on a lot of this. I do take issue with your last few sentences though concerning intellectualism. I understand your point, and agree for the most part. But I suppose I see faith and knowledge/reason as being intermingled and inseparable. After all, our faith in Christ was based on the knowledge and, ultimately, reasoning which took place in our brains. If the story of Jesus had blatant contradictions and things which ultimately did not succumb to our logic, we would have never placed faith in it and entrusted ourselves to Him. You really cannot separate the two. And after our conversion, it was only human of us to systematize and formulate the Scriptures into some sort of working mechanism for us to make sense of. These systems are constantly being refined and added to for the benefit of our knowledge of God, ultimately bringing about a greater glorification of Him.

I say all of this because I don't think you can make the claim that men who have devoted themselves to these things ultimately love reason over faith. Instead, they see reason as being a part of faith. If we didn't have reason, we wouldn't have faith. It is a basis for it. You might find Francis Schaeffer's Escape From Reason a good read.

 

[Hupomone10]

Sorry, jsarber. You can see what happens. I responded to Hammster, then someone responds to my response to Hammster. Then I resond to his response...

Of course, you are free to disagree, but understand that disagreement, in and of itself, proves nothing other than a personal preference. So be it.

I have responded to you before. You are a challenge brother. But that's ok. What you say here is like saying "your opinion is only your opinion." Unless you missed the obvious, Hammster's comment was also opinion. If I said that, would I have then made a good point?

Again, a personal opinion, chosen. Since you offer no real proof of your chosen view, it is, at best, anecdotal. Just because you chose to believe it doesn't make it a valid observation. My own personal experience, and that of others here, runs counter to your opinion. therefore, I cannot agree with you. There are many examples of people who have changed their views, for a variety of reasons. Your view seems to deny this.

This is regarding my comment of most believers merely staying in the camp they were raised in. I see here you are speaking for others and saying their experience is like yours, that most believers switch theology camps. That is your personal opinion, and since not supported by any statistics other than your statement you're making for yourself and "others here" is as you say, anecdotal.

I didn't say there weren't many people who change their views; merely countering the insinuation that there are more that change to calvinism than change to anything else. Since I didn't say that many don't change, but merely said that most believe what they were raised in (those raised in church to start with), saying that i deny this is misleading at best, and deceptive at worst.

Seeing that it is the Holy Spirit's job to do this, any person who is claiming, either verbally, or by their actions, to be the agent of that instruction, i.e. "to set people straight", or to "defeat __________", is presumptuous at best, and a false teacher at worst.

I am amazed at the need to defend a theology that I see on some of these threads. This gentleman merely asked for verses that disprove calvinism. What's wrong with that? The first response wasn't any verses, but a spiritual proud statement that "there aren't any." Anyone that answers on this thread doesn't mean thatthey are trying "to set people straight", or to "defeat __________", I would agree with you if they were and with those that do. But do you realize that in responding as you do, you sound like the very thing you're condemning? Why the need to attack my comments? Do you really think that there are more believers converting to Calvinism as you define it (by your signature) than in the moderate form that I believe, just based on the few scattered people on a series of threads on CF?

If that's true, please explain to me why the largest and growing denominations in the world today are the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God, and that all mainline denominations, most of whom are covenant theology and all of whom are liberal, are dying. I know, you will dismiss this as merely my opinion. Anyone can check the internet for recent news articles to prove this. And I would encourage them to check for articles talking about covenant theology groups growth. They may be in for a surprise.

God is blessing So Baptists because they have returned to the Word of God, repentance, and faith; and said so in their convention meetings. I am responding to something of which I know something about. Not just making a personal opinion.

And I've watched an Atheist become a committed Christian, and know Mormons who became Calvinists. None of which proves anything other than people change, sometimes due to the Holy Spirit's influence, and sometimes just because they felt like changing....in other words, it proves nothing other than change happens.

which was my only point in the original response, if you had been willing to read it as such, instead of intent on countering it merely because I was perceived to be "the enemy." Maybe you should cut your response above and paste it into a response to Hammster.

Many of us are already tired of it....

I do not see the evidence of that, example being your response here which had as little substance as you accused mine of. But you couldn't let it die; you had to respond. That's ok.

But when you wear your theology on your shirt sleeves, the doctrinal statement in your signature of regeneration preceding faith, it doesn't appear that you are anything but ready for a fight, and the fight is for a theological statement that to be honest, doesn't matter a bit to the spread of the gospel and is useless to the further growth of a believer in deliverance and victory over the strongholds in their life. It is just a doctrinal statement, nothing more. I know, that is only my opinion. But before you write it off as such, just imagine: a Christian brother tells you they are really struggling with lust and you offer them your favorite defenses on these threads - "you have to be regenerated to believe."How have you helped him?

My frustration, as it exists, is with the arminians that continuously spout works, and never lead people to grow in faith that will connect them with the Presence of Christ, the Power of Christ, and their Position in Christ, which will lead to "works" and is the only thing that will produce lasting deliverance, everything else being wood, hay, stubble. And with the Reformed Covenant Calvinists who are good about emphasizing salvation by grace through faith, but then offer nothing beyond that to lead him out, but instead leave the struggling believer to believe that God in His sovereignty didn't ordain them to victory or they would have it; or that they by their own ability must achieve victory; again wood, hay, stubble and totally useless when confronting strongholds like homosexuality, drug addiction, alcoholism, strong lust attachments.

Both groups are almost totally useless when it come to anything but arguing about doctrines like "regeneration comes before faith" or "justification is by works as well as faith."

I just had a thread where I plainly asked people whether they had had a point of conversion where they accepted/believe in/prayed to receive Christ, and couldn't even get a straight answer out of but half of the people. The rest had to get into a theological discussion to answer a simple question. Either you have or you have not. In the process of some peoples discussions about whether faith was a gift of God or not, one young man who had been struggling with coming to Christ was encouraged by another to "go ahead and make the jump." I rejoice to say that he posted later that he had done so and ended the tottering on the fence. I rejoice in that, as do the angels in heaven. But I doubt there is much rejoicing over the other posts arguing over when faith is granted, or over mine and your posts here. But, that brother, as you so eloquently put it, is only my opinion, which is as we know, worth very little.
H.

 

[Hammster]

[/QUOTE]I didn't say there weren't many people who change their views; merely countering the insinuation that there are more that change to calvinism than change to anything else[/QUOTE]Since I never made that claim, you may want to go back and evaluate your response to my post.

 

[Hupomone10]

I need everything you've got to disprove Calvinist beliefs on eternal salvation. I'm looking for Bible verses more than arguments.

Elaborate. Do you want verses regarding eternal salvation vs. temporal salvation, once saved always saved? Or verses regarding repentance, faith, grace, as they relate to salvation.

 

[Hupomone10]

[/quote]Since I never made that claim, you may want to go back and evaluate your response to my post.[/quote]

Oops. My apologies Hammster. I ran yours together with the fellow Calvinist brother who jumped in to speak for you. I know you don't want to be misquoted and you are right. You merely pointed out the crossover.

As has been pointed out, most Calvinists once believed differently, so their knowledge of their opposition is higher by definition than the opposition's knowledge of Calvinism. There are very few ex-Calvinists.

Let's see... That is merely your opinion, nobodysfool, and since not supported with facts, it is I guess, anecdotal? beyond that, the other post applies.