How, then, is the Calvinist refuted? (2)

[cygnusx1]

Yah, Mikey...
I meant it's safe to ssume contextualy, not soteriologicaly (although that is true, too.)
Mikey nailed it:
if they had been of us, they would have continued with us

yes the nature of a thing produces it's own effects , "been of us" , well they were certainly not of us , of the same nature , and so their destiny follows their nature. sheep or goats , no evolution.

 

[Ben johnson]

Following the Law perfectly is charged to men themselves; it is not a unilateral gift from God. Rom 9:19-20.

Yet it's required. Yet no one was able to do so. Yet it's required.

Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it; as Rom8 says, "What the flesh could not do, weak as it was, God did --- sending His Son in the image of sinful flesh..."

The same chapter, also conveys "walking in the flesh", or "walking in the Spirit". Pure choice, even obligation.

But the faith involved in our salvation is through a gift of God. Pp 1:29.

That verse says "grated not only to believe, but to suffer"; granted, Mike --- not sovereignly ordained. He grants, we receive.

...some don't...

It too is required, but on different grounds than Law.

It is on the grounds of faith.

That's the essential problem as I see it. When faith is approached as a legal requirement, the end result raises faith to a level of "the last case law: get faith." Yet when faith is seen as the outworking of the Holy Spirit in making people alive and bringing them to salvation (cf Ep 2:8-9, :5), it takes its proper place in Christianity as a vital necessity -- not a new legalistic stipulation (which is then often recombined with works).

"Saving-faith", is "saving-belief" --- identically. It's called "the work of God" in John6:29; but in context, it's the work of God that WE WORK.

The difference between us, is that you and I perceive different directions for "saving-faith"; you perceive it flows from God-to-man, I perceive it flows from man-towards-God.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God; for he who COMES to God must believe God IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who SEEK Him." Heb11:6

Which direction is that? 100% man-towards-God; God receives the faith by which man comes to Him.

Calvinists emphasize sovereign grace, which is a responsible grace

Contradiction. If it's SOVEREIGN, then it's all HIS responsibility. All of Him, all His choice, nothing of us --- none of our responsibility. Webster's defines "responsibility" as causal; you don't believe man has any cause in his salvation, "it's all God's sovereign choice".

...and this flies in the face of what Jesus told Thomas: "You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

-- just not your version of what it should be, which seems to slips fluidly into enemy lines requiring works again.

Show me where I've even hinted at "works". Just because you consider "faith" to be "works/merit", doesn't mean it is.

Paul says it flatly: "not of works" (Ep 2:9), "one who does not work" (Rom 4:5).

Paul also worried about his own apostasy from salvation. 2Cor9:25-27.

Scripture has been cited again and again. Some claim that the last posting "doesn't contain Scripture" just doesn't wash. Scripture's plastered over these two threads. Enjoy the read.

Cite them again; because each verse that's been cited before, has been answered --- explained in context, and answered with other verses. Those "other verses" have not been answered.

But don't try to press the case that Calvinism isn't Scriptural. That case broadsides yours, and it really makes your assertion look petty. "Owp! You didn't quote Scripture in your last post, so you're UnScriptural!"

In challenging my colleagues here to "quote Scripture", I hope to establish what verses say. But most often, I refute a verse that s'posedly supported Calvinism; and then my refutation is ignored, it's pretended that I have not refuted anything, and then the same verses Calvinists quoted before (that I refuted), are quoted again.

Take John10:26 for instance; context fully overturns Calvinistic understanding. Jesus said, "My works testify to Me. ...If you do not believe in Me, believe in My works --- and you will know the Father is in Me and I am in the Father."

Calvinism isn't overturned. It continues to stand.

I'm afraid not, Mike.

The reason why it isn't refuted is because of a simple fact: Scripture supports it.

What Scripture? Where?

It's not John10:26 & 38.
It's not John6:39 or 44 & Jn17:6.
It's not Eph1:4-5 & 2Thess2:13.
It's not Eph2:5-8.
It's not 1Cor2:12-14.
It's not 2Cor4:3-4 & 2Cor3:16.
It's not Rom9:11-21.
It's not Rom8:28-29.
It's not 1Jn2:19 & 2Jn1:9.

Notice that in the "it's-not" notes above, I'm including the refutation.

What's left for Calvinism, Mike?

 

[Ben johnson]

Arguable.
I could equaly say reconciliation is the essence of salvation, or forgiveness is the essence of salvation, etc., etc.

Jesus said, "Unless you are born again[/b] (born from above), you cannot see/enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Made-alive, is born-again; is "a new creation". It's the essence.

Since Adam, all flesh is "slidden". Sheep that backslide get lost but they do not turn into goats. As in Hebrews 6, we can fall from repentance, not from salvation.

I see. "Backslidden, dwelling-in-sin SAVED". How do you get a waiver for 1Cor6:9-11? How do you get an exception from Galatians5:19-21? How are you exempt from Eph5:5-6?

"Backslidden", by definition, is dwelling in sin.

That's incompatible with "dwelling in Jesus", with being "gorn again".

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Never! How shall we who have died to sin, still live in it?

--------------------------------

Rick Otto
Yah, Mikey...
I meant it's safe to ssume contextualy, not soteriologicaly (although that is true, too.)
Mikey nailed it:
if they had been of us, they would have continued with us

I have to say amen to that also..

Hi, "Adopted". What about those in 2Jn1:9, who "went on ahead" (went out from us)? Are they still saved?

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "How, then, is the Calvinist refuted? (3)"