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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟76,549.00
Faith
Christian
Behe'sBoy said:
Ben johnson said:
I don't mean to be disrespectful --- when "arguing theology", it's essential to cite verses in support of one's position.

Have you any to support what you just said?
Matthew 11:27 for starters....
"All things have geen handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

What does that do for your "case"? Scripture states the Son calls ALL MEN to Himself".

Matt11:21-24 is very damaging to your case. Jesus rebukes entire cities, for willful unbelief. There's no way He would have said what He did, had He privately thought "sovereign-predestined-election" (and gifted faith/belief)...
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟76,549.00
Faith
Christian
Woody said:
Bzzzzz!!! Wrong answer.

Ok, class, let's see what Ben said earlier....

I will say --- one cannot be "dead in sins", and "believing", at the same time. ~ Ben Johnson
One cannot be "dead in sins", and "believ-ING".

He who believes, receives Christ, is no longer dead in sins.

Right answer.
You are, AGAIN, contradicting yourself. One cannot believe, i.e. have faith, and be dead simultaneously. This is your earlier statement!!!!
Correct --- that is why FAITH, "makes us ALIVE". My statements are consistent, parallel with Scripture, and overturn what you said.
Therefore, one cannot have a living faith and be dead simultaneously.
Again, TRUE. But WHILE (or "when") we were dead, we were made alive through faith.

Once faith occurs, we are "made alive" --- no longer dead.

Hence, one cannot be "dead in sins", and "believing".
You are now free to flip flop your position, AGAIN.
No "flip-flop"; perfect consistency.
:wave:
Can you keep your story straight. By your own testimony, one cannot have a living faith AND be dead. You can't have it both ways, Ben.
Straight, consistent, Scriptural. You couldn't ask for more. :p
BTW, if it is faith that makes one alive and faith is NOT of grace as you have said earlier and faith is not from God but from yourself, then you have entirely removed grace from your salvation.
What does faith receive?
And, since we KNOW that faith is accounted for righteousness, you have a nifty graceless deserving salvation.
Which does Scripture say, Woody? "By faith through faith have you been saved"? Or, "by grace through grace have you been saved"?

Neither.
It is almost like you just needed God to die and get out of your way.
:sigh:
Remember, Ben, this MUST be true: It is of faith that it might be of grace. ~ Sola Fide, Sola Gratia
What Scripture is that from? It's not, is it?
Yet another glaring contradiction, Ben, in your false view of John 1:12. Let's take the first moment of belief....

Is 1 John 5:1 true? Yes. Therefore, in the first moment of belief one is ALREADY born of God for whoever believes Jesus is the Christ IS born of God. It doesn't say will be born of God, the verb tense YOU need. The verb tense is ALREADY born of God.
Weak argument. "Whoever believes Jesus is MESSIAH, is born of God" --- does not conflict at all "believers are born of God the moment they believe".

Once again, Jesus is asserting His authority.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟76,549.00
Faith
Christian
HeyMikey80 said:
What's granted is faith! Don't you realize, you can't receive the instrument by which you receive what's granted, until you have the instrument?

"And now, once we're inside the gates, we'll spring from inside the Trojan Rabbit and catch them by surprise!"

The fact that Paul says these things including faith are "not of yourselves" (Ep 2:8), it just sends this argument out to sea.

It's become incoherent.
See if we can establish that "dia pistis", is merely a prepositional phrase; and the genders (between "faith" and "that") don't match; so the only subject, is the entire opening phrase.

"By-grace-through-faith-have-you-been-saved".

It's why NASV footnotes "THAT", with "that salvation". This makes five phrases, mere "modifiers" of the one subject:

1. (that salvation) by grace
2. (that salvation) through faith
3. (that salvation) is not of yourselves
4. (that salvation) is the gift of God
5. (that salvation) is not by works

In no sense can it be made to mean, "THAT FAITH is not of yourselves".

Is this sufficiently established, or have you some way to argue?
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟76,549.00
Faith
Christian
HeyMikey80 said:
Actually, you haven't mentioned that at all to me.
I've posted it many times...
Your point isn't carried by the context. It's quite clear (and in your interpretation unmentioned) that those who are Christs sheep believe Him.
NO --- that's not what it says; not "believe Him", but "believe He's the MESSIAH".
If "believe" never means "believe Him" that connection with "because you are not of My sheep" is severed. In your interpretation you actually have no context from which to assert that Christ's sheep believe in Him.
Verse 9, establishes it.
So ... refuted.
"Refutation", overturned.

It's His MESSIAHSHIP they didn't believe, because they didn't believe in HIM. And they didn't believe in Him, because they did not REALLY believe/love/follow the FATHER.
Yeah. Just point out it's in error:
"By grace you have been saved through faith" Paul, Ephesians, in his own words.

Those verbs are really getting in the way of this argument. Saved -- by Grace. Saved -- through Faith.

Works great. Less fiddling.
How is it that you can separate one sentence into two, and accuse BEN of altering the Scripture?

Grace works through faith. By grace through faith.
It's apparent we don't, when your prooftext doesn't even mention one of the nouns I asserted.
Rom5:17 very clearly says that "grace is RECEIVED.
You don't receive grace through faith.
What do you mean --- "you" in general?

If so --- Rom5:17 says that "those who receive the abundance of grace, and (who receive) the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ."

Case closed...
"Responsible Grace" does...
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
See if we can establish that "dia pistis", is merely a prepositional phrase; and the genders (between "faith" and "that") don't match; so the only subject, is the entire opening phrase.

"By-grace-through-faith-have-you-been-saved".

It's why NASV footnotes "THAT", with "that salvation". This makes five phrases, mere "modifiers" of the one subject:

1. (that salvation) by grace
2. (that salvation) through faith
3. (that salvation) is not of yourselves
4. (that salvation) is the gift of God
5. (that salvation) is not by works

In no sense can it be made to mean, "THAT FAITH is not of yourselves".

Is this sufficiently established, or have you some way to argue?
No, it's not established at all. "that not of yourselves" refers to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".

"salvation" is also feminine in Greek. You've objected to "faith" being what's of "not of yourselves" because faith's feminine and "that" is neuter. So surely you realize "that not of yourselves" can't refer to "salvation". It must refer to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".

It can't "work for you, and doesn't apply to me."

So by my prior reasoning (which you can track down) saving faith is "not of yourselves."
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
No, it's not established at all. "that not of yourselves" refers to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".

"salvation" is also feminine in Greek. You've objected to "faith" being what's of "not of yourselves" because faith's feminine and "that" is neuter. So surely you realize "that not of yourselves" can't refer to "salvation". It must refer to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".

It can't "work for you, and doesn't apply to me."

So by my prior reasoning (which you can track down) saving faith is "not of yourselves."

I agree Mikey , the entire package is of Grace not of ourselves , it is rather an odd method to pick out an element from a package and overturn the context , it would then read ;

for by grace you might be saved , and that partly depends upon yourself.

or '

For by grace you can be saved through YOUR faith; and that is in part not of yourselves: this fragment is the gift of God
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've posted it many times...
I believe the term you used was "we've discussed". You & I have not. If "we" means "anyone who cares to read my post & me" it really meant nothing.
NO --- that's not what it says; not "believe Him", but "believe He's the MESSIAH". Verse 9, establishes it.
"Refutation", overturned.
Refutation stands. Only now your argument proved mine. You've now no right to conclude "my sheep" "believe Him". "That's not what it says ..."! By this argument ... "my sheep" don't "believe Him" either, because "That's not what it says ..."! The argument has contradicted itself. So it ... needs change.

Face it: the Scripture does not say. Your argument is to try to sustain an assertion denying a viewpoint from Scripture's silence. But no interpretation will force Scripture to say more than it says. It doesn't say.

But just so you know that your interpretation itself is faulty ...

Why did Jesus say, "I TOLD YOU, and you do not believe." Apparently to you this is two completely divided sentences: "I told you [that I am the Messiah]. You do not believe [that I am the Messiah]."

But no, Jesus said, "I told you and you do not believe." There's a conjunction between these two sentences: Jesus was the one who told them. And they did not believe [that He is the Messiah].

It's so clear: they did not believe the One Who told them.

They did not believe Him.

That's really what Jesus is explaining from 10:25b-30. Why, He has no reason to say any of that if He were only saying "You do not believe that I'm the Messiah." He'd have no reason to even say, "I told you." There's no reason to appeal to His patience or His veracity if all Jesus is saying is, "You don't believe that I'm the Messiah."

He's pointing out more.

He's pointing out that they did not believe Him.

And if He's saying more, and He's saying they did not believe Him, then note it well -- they don't believe Him because they are not of His sheep. Disbelieving His words can't be split from disbelieving Him. You can't say, "Jesus is a liar but I believe Him."

But it's even worse in the narrow context of this verse. There's only one "believe" here. Jesus is explaining this "believe" in John 10:25-30.

Teasing out one fact communicated in a sentence, does not eliminate the other facts which are also communicated.
It's His MESSIAHSHIP they didn't believe, because they didn't believe in HIM. And they didn't believe in Him, because they did not REALLY believe/love/follow the FATHER.
Because you can't use my interpretation for Christ's sheep with your interpretation for those who didn't believe. Your argument refuted both. The baby went out with the bath water.

Refutation continues to stand.
How is it that you can separate one sentence into two, and accuse BEN of altering the Scripture?
Oh I'm sorry, I was just following your technique of interpretation to its logical conclusion. :holy:

But truly -- if you check -- I simply extracted phrases, not sentences. That's how I can split up sentences: by remembering that it's a reduction of the full meaning passed by the sentence, but that one nuance of the sentence must be emphasized.

And I'm sure you know sentences could communicate parallelisms as well as causation. I just needed to make such a thing visible to you, and allow you the opportunity to see that's the case here.

The interpretation continues to stand.
Grace works through faith. By grace through faith.
But don't you realize, when I work through an instrument, the instrument doesn't cause me? I raise the violin. I make music through the violin. The music is all mine.
Rom5:17 very clearly says that "grace is RECEIVED.
I didn't say grace wasn't received. I said grace wasn't received through faith.

In point of fact grace isn't transferred in this way in the first place. But to understand that, you'd need to understand what grace is. Favor doesn't transfer mystically into favor in the recipient. I don't favor the favored with favor itself. I favor the favored with gifts, the indirect objects of my favor.

Salvation is transferred by faith and grace. Salvation is from grace. Grace (favor) results in gifts.

Faith is transferred by the grace of God, as Pp 1:29 states.
What do you mean --- "you" in general?
In its context, if you remember from a week ago:
No he didn't, I deny your interpretation, because you left out certain ... VERBS in between!:p And of course excluding VERBS tends to change the meaning of the sentence.
made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved [and overlapped] by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it's a gift of God.
You don't receive grace through faith. You receive salvation through faith, by grace. This whole thing isn't of yourselves it's a gift of God.
It's your interpretation that's being refuted. You asserted that Paul said faith is the cause of our being made alive. I deny that. I defy you to find that. Paul isn't saying you receive grace through faith -- Paul says you are saved through faith by grace. Paul doesn't assert grace is through faith. In fact he asserts the reverse:
For it has been given [graced] to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake Pp 1:29
So when Paul says we have been "made alive by God -- by grace you have been saved" -- Paul is pointing to the grace of God, which causes New Birth, which also gives us faith to receive salvation.

You've not overturned this view. In fact it seems to be getting more and more clear to me.
If so --- Rom5:17 says that "those who receive the abundance of grace, and (who receive) the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ."

Case closed...
Which closure is beside the point you're arguing. But by the way, how is "grace's abundance" exactly the same as "grace"?
 
Upvote 0
R

Rightglory

Guest
Ben,

By "dead in sins", it refers to the need for salvation; specifically, as Rom6 asserts, "we are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness --- to God". The only way to "not-be-dead-in-sins", is to be indwelt by the Savior and the Spirit --- through faith.
Yes, it surely does. It is referencing mankinds need to be saved, saved from death and the resultant sins. All men need salvation. Without salvation, Christ is not soverenign over His created order. Satan, who has the power of death reigns over mankind. Christ reversed that and is the victor over death and sin.
He freed mankind from the bondage, that is the condemnation we were already under, convicted by one single sin, through one single individual. Christ freed mankind from that bondage, so that each individual could make the free choice, just as Adam was able to make that choice.
But, now as freed human beings, we certainly do have the choice to either return or remain slaves to sin, or slaves to Christ. Without life, neither would make a difference, we all would still die permanently, dust to dust, Gen 3:19.

Without faith, we are still enslaved to sin, and under condemnation. As Rom8:1 says, "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST JESUS..."
Enslaved by our choice, not through Adam. If we reject Christ we are not under the condemnation of Adam, but now we are under the condemnation of Christ. He will judge each soul at the His judgement seat, ONLY because He restored life to mankind so each could stand in judgement. It is the mercy and justice of God being revealed.
As I pointed out from I Cor 15:14-19, faith is moot unless man first has life. If you have faith in Christ and Christ did not overcome death, then at the end of your life, you would die, being a mortal. But that death would be final, permanent as God told Adam in Gen 3:19. You will have no life, no eternal existance, no immortality. Faith is meaningless because it was only temporary, only for this life. Now, this might have been acceptable even for God, but God created man in His Image, to be both eternal and to be in union with Him. Adam precluded that from ever happening. That is why Christ is the Savior of the world, He came to save sinners already under condemnation.
From "bondage", technically --- yes. But men are still under bondage if they choose to be (that is, if they choose to reject Jesus).
But that is the whole point. We can choose. We have been freed from Adam. Under Adam you surely did not choose. You are already condemned simply because you were born a human being. You are convicted irrespective of what you did, or could do. Even if you had faith in God, it would be meaningless, because you would end in death.
Conditionally --- He gave life to ALL, but only those WHO receive Him by faith actually receive His life.
There is absolutely nothing conditional about it. If that were so, just what condition made unbelievers rise from the dead in that last day to stand in judgment?
Faith does not grant life, physical life. Faith grants life IN Christ. It is a spiritual relationship, not a physical one.
Faith doesn't; but faith receives Him AND immortality.
It recieves Him and immortality IN Him. Those in hell also have life, have an eternal existance and have immortality. They did not remain a pile of dust as they would have IF they remained in Adam.
He restores life to believers.
A spiritual life, we Live in Him, in Him we have life, which is a spiritual life, a union, communion with Him. If we did not have a physcial life, this would all be temporary and moot because we would still die permanently. We would still be under Adam's condemnation.
Christ reversed the fall. Christ's Work was for the purpose to restore His created order back to the pre-fall condition of no death, of man being free to choose, not being undercondemnation. All the things we are speaking of which we get by faith, to be in union man was fully capable of before the fall. It is the purpose of our existance. Man and God did not need Christ to make this happen. Adam was doing it, was in communion with God. It is what man was restored to, not what constituted the fall. Death, Death Death, physical death, was the bane of mankind. It is the fall.
I don't think so --- "made alive", is opposed to "dead in sins". The only way to NOT be dead in sins, is to have forgiveness through Christ.
Yes, but all of mankind was dead in sins. While we were yet sinners, (dead in sins, under the Adamic judgment, under permanent death) Christ came to give life, to reverse that judgment. He reversed it for all men. As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. It is the Incarnation. If not, if Christ did not give life to the universe, then we shall not ever rise from the dead. We are just talking words, Satan still has control over mankind through the power of death. Faith is moot.
I know you believe that God calls all men to repentance. That He desires all men to repent and to know Him. This is fully ingenuous if Christ did not save mankind first, give them life, so that the call can be real. Furthermore, if Christ did not save all, then none are saved. It is impossible to save or grant only some to life. It would be possible if mankind had different essences, or different human natures. Thus when Christ assumed our fallen natures in the Incarnation, ONLY those who equated with the human nature He assumed would be granted life, immortality. The problem with that is that then Adam also is of a different human nature than some men. Thus not all men died through Adam. Your whole theology falls without Christ granting life, immortality to mankind through the Incarnation and His resurrection.
Unless, you can show somewhere else and by what means all the unbelievers, those not granted life in your interpretation can arise on the last day. If you cannot then also, you have most beleivers being judged to hell, as only believers by your view can be raised from the dead.
Another problem, if man can be raised by some other means, then why was Christ necessary only for believers? Can you answer these questions?
Man "saves himself", by virtue of conscious belief and receiving of Jesus' gracious sacrifice. AND, man "saves himself", by conscious diligence IN our faith. That's the only possible understanding of 1Tim4:16.
This is spiritual union, the salvation of our individual souls. It is what each man must do. It is what each man would have been required to do without the fall. It is what existed before the fall. It is what man fell from, it is not the fall.
You are exactly correct, that we believe in the sacrifice, we are not part of that sacrifice, We don't participate in it physically, only spiritually through baptism. But to do all that, man needs life. A dead mortal being cannot have an eternal existance. It is impossible.
I believe you're mis-reading the passage. Verse 17 says "If anyone be IN CHRIST" --- that's referring to saved believers. The statement "reconciling the world", is the same as 1Tim4:10, "God is the Savior of ALL MEN"; it does not deny that "all men" is qualified by "above-all (malista) believers".
Yes, vs 17, but 18 is explaining why that is possible. All things, not just man are of God, who has reconciled Himself through Christ. Which also aligns with Col 1:15-20. It also aligns with the following verse 20. We must reconcile ourselves to God. See the opposite initiator. God first reconciles mankind, so that man can reconcile himself to God. God justifies mankind, so that man by faith, may be justifed to God by that faith.
V21 is again mankind. Now granted that if you hold to your view that not all mankind recieved life, then these texts can only be for believers, but that would be subtracting from scripture. Christ reconciled ALL THINGS, to Himself. Hardly leaves any room to miss much of humanity.
But nevertheless, verse 21 God made man righteous, which means acceptable, to be put into a right relationship. Man needed life, eternal existance before any union or communion with God could be meaningful and continuous into an eternal existance.
There's only one "reconcilliation", it's through Jesus' death sacrifice, by faith.
You are correct untill you add, "by faith". There are two. God to mankind, and then by faith, man to God. Same word, same meaning, but the initiator is different. The latter is totally impossible without the former.
Sins expose a heart that is not "dwelling in Christ"; thus, sins do not separate us from Christ (nor does sinlessness JOIN us to Christ) --- the fruit, exposes the heart.
Just how do you not bear fruit and not sin?

Those who are not in Christ, are condemned to perishing. Only through faith does one receive eternal life.
Perishing eternally, immortally. Now, how did they get this way? What did they do to recieve life in order to endure hell?
Remember, the purpose of man's existance was to be eternally in union with God. So when the Bible speaks of those believers receiving eternal life, it is implied with HIM. That is the purpose of Christ coming in the first place. To restore His created order back to prefall status. Death was the end of God's created order. It could not stand or God would not be sovereign. Christ won over Satan and the power of death. Death period. Not death for some. For some is life for none. That is why Christ did not, could not lose any the Father granted to Him. He saved mankind from Death, so man could freely accomplish what God created him to be and do. Now, those that freely reject Him will bear the consequences, but the consequences of their own choosing, not by one man, for a single sin of which they had no responsibility for.
And, as Rom1:17 says, it's "BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith; the just shall live BY faith."
Agree, but all this is moot without life. Life, Life, Life, man need life. He needed to overcome the condemnation he was already under. Could man do it? No, But Christ did overcome death for all.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mr 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Ben could make great progress & save a lot of publishing expense by getting the "...and that not of ourselves" applied to both grace & faith.
If scripture was a highway, you could say he's stuck on the "over-parse".^_^
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sep 10, 2004
6,609
414
Kansas City area
✟23,771.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
profilepic84076_3.gif


Charles P. Newberry's patented three-minute rebuttal against Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
"

Matt11:21-24 is very damaging to your case. Jesus rebukes entire cities, for willful unbelief. There's no way He would have said what He did, had He privately thought "sovereign-predestined-election" (and gifted faith/belief)...

No it certainly doesn't hurt my case.

I don't argue that they were in willful unbelief.

My point is that all are in willful unbelief. In this case even the Jewish cities were in willful unbelief - and if anyone should have believed - it should have been them.

My point is simply that the only way anyone can get out of willful unbelief is through the miraculous revelation of the son - as is clearly stated in vs. 25-27 of this chapter in Matthew.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟76,549.00
Faith
Christian
HeyMikey80 said:
No, it's not established at all. "that not of yourselves" refers to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".
No, it doesn't --- it refers to the entier phrase: "By grace through faith have you been saved".

Hence, NAS' footnote, "THAT SALVATION".
"salvation" is also feminine in Greek. You've objected to "faith" being what's of "not of yourselves" because faith's feminine and "that" is neuter. So surely you realize "that not of yourselves" can't refer to "salvation". It must refer to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".
The subject isn't one word; it's the entire phrase.
It can't "work for you, and doesn't apply to me."

So by my prior reasoning (which you can track down) saving faith is "not of yourselves."
Then you'll have to scratch out verses like "Receive as the outcome of YOUR FAITH the salvation of your souls".

1Pet1:9.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Charles P. Newberry's patented three-minute rebuttal against Calvinism.

Yep - but I think you'd have more fun with stakes and fire...

Oh yea - don't forget the lions - those work too.

Oh yea - got any tar? We Chrisitians make good garden lights too.

....but doesn't mean we're goin' away.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sep 10, 2004
6,609
414
Kansas City area
✟23,771.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Yep - but I think you'd have more fun with stakes and fire...

Oh yea - don't forget the lions - those work too.

Oh yea - got any tar? We Chrisitians make good garden lights too.

....but doesn't mean we're goin' away.....

I'm thinking you are missing the joke. Is Newberry depraved? Is he predestined to shoot a calvinist? etc.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyMikey80
No, it's not established at all. "that not of yourselves" refers to the entire phrase "by-grace-saved-through-faith".

Ben: No, it doesn't --- it refers to the entier phrase: "By grace through faith have you been saved".

Ben, your "disagreement" is an exact wording of what you claimed to disagree with.

salvation is not of ourselves.
the means of salvation, grace & faith are not of ourselves.
We experience them ourselves, but grace, faith, and salvation don't originate in ourselves
 
Upvote 0

frumanchu

God's justice does not demand second chances
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2003
6,719
469
47
Ohio
✟62,780.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"All things have geen handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

What does that do for your "case"? Scripture states the Son calls ALL MEN to Himself".

Well, for starters it has Jesus saying something completely pointless. If He truly chose to reveal the Father to all individuals without exception (which is, of course, NOT what John 12:32 says), then Jesus is saying, "No one knows the Father...except everyone."

Makes no sense at all, Ben. The only way His words make any sense there is if there are in fact men to which the Son chooses NOT to reveal the Father.
 
Upvote 0

frumanchu

God's justice does not demand second chances
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2003
6,719
469
47
Ohio
✟62,780.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Weak argument. "Whoever believes Jesus is MESSIAH, is born of God" --- does not conflict at all "believers are born of God the moment they believe".

WRONG. Ben, this flatly contradicts your previous statement in which you say that one must first be indwelt by the Holy Spirit before they can be regenerated (born again). It irresistibly follows that nobody prior to Pentecost could have been born again the moment they believed because they did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (yet Jesus marveled that Nicodemus did not realize this). Hence they could not have seen or entered into the Kingdom.

How do you explain this apparent contradiction, Ben?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟76,549.00
Faith
Christian
HeyMikey80 said:
Refutation stands. Only now your argument proved mine. You've now no right to conclude "my sheep" "believe Him". "That's not what it says ..."! By this argument ... "my sheep" don't "believe Him" either, because "That's not what it says ..."! The argument has contradicted itself. So it ... needs change.
Calvinists assert that "You don't believe (in ME) because you're not My sheep". But it says "You don't believe (that I'm the Messiah) because you haven't believed in Me."

Your refutation does not stand.

One who believes in God, believes in Jesus (John14:1, 8:42); one who believes in Jesus, believes He's the Messiah

The concept of "shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture", means only "become My sheep".

...and Jesus plainly said, "ANYONE".
Face it: the Scripture does not say. Your argument is to try to sustain an assertion denying a viewpoint from Scripture's silence.
This is one facet of the entire text; it does support what I've said. But if you deny that support, you're left struggling to explain the rest.
But no interpretation will force Scripture to say more than it says. It doesn't say.
It plainly says:
1. Tell us if You're the Messiah
2. I told you (that I'm the Messiah)
3. You don't believe (that I'm the Messiah)
4. ...because you're not My sheep
5. ...if ANYONE enters through Me (believes!) he shall ...find pasture (BECOME My sheep)
6. My sheep know My voice
7. You don't believe (that I'm the Messiah) because you're not My sheep (because you haven't believed in Me)

That's what was written, and it doesn't mean what you thought.
But just so you know that your interpretation itself is faulty ...

Why did Jesus say, "I TOLD YOU, and you do not believe." Apparently to you this is two completely divided sentences: "I told you [that I am the Messiah]. You do not believe [that I am the Messiah]."

But no, Jesus said, "I told you and you do not believe." There's a conjunction between these two sentences: Jesus was the one who told them. And they did not believe [that He is the Messiah].
As I said, you might deny one passage, but you cannot deny the whole.

John5:46-47 connects here: "If you believed Moses' words, then you would believe Me; how can you believe Moses, HOW will you believe Me?"
It's so clear: they did not believe the One Who told them.

They did not believe Him.
Why?
That's really what Jesus is explaining from 10:25b-30. Why, He has no reason to say any of that if He were only saying "You do not believe that I'm the Messiah." He'd have no reason to even say, "I told you." There's no reason to appeal to His patience or His veracity if all Jesus is saying is, "You don't believe that I'm the Messiah."
They chose not to believe Moses, even though they said they did. The context (Jn5:39-47) says "how can you believe, WHEN you seek MAN'S glory rather than GOD'S?" They were unwilling to believe; their own choice, not God's.

So "if ANYONE enters through Me, saved ...find pasture" --- is the reason for "you do not believe I'm-Messiah, because you have not entered". Contextually complete, accurate, and sound.
He's pointing out more.

He's pointing out that they did not believe Him.

And if He's saying more, and He's saying they did not believe Him, then note it well -- they don't believe Him because they are not of His sheep. Disbelieving His words can't be split from disbelieving Him. You can't say, "Jesus is a liar but I believe Him."
Look at Matt17:16 --- did Peter know that Jesus was the Messiah before, or after he had believed in Him? He chose to follow Jesus FIRST, didn't he?
But it's even worse in the narrow context of this verse. There's only one "believe" here. Jesus is explaining this "believe" in John 10:25-30.
And neither you nor I can get away from verse 9....
Teasing out one fact communicated in a sentence, does not eliminate the other facts which are also communicated.
Exactly.
Because you can't use my interpretation for Christ's sheep with your interpretation for those who didn't believe. Your argument refuted both. The baby went out with the bath water.

Refutation continues to stand.
"Tis-ANYONE", Mike. Believe in Jesus, know He's the Messiah. Believe Moses' words, believe Jesus. Love the Father, love the Son. You're not "getting" the cause-and-effect.
Oh I'm sorry, I was just following your technique of interpretation to its logical conclusion.
"Logical conclusion" is not good theology; one man's logic conflicts another's --- Scripture must decide.
But truly -- if you check -- I simply extracted phrases, not sentences. That's how I can split up sentences: by remembering that it's a reduction of the full meaning passed by the sentence, but that one nuance of the sentence must be emphasized.
Context defeats you.
And I'm sure you know sentences could communicate parallelisms as well as causation. I just needed to make such a thing visible to you, and allow you the opportunity to see that's the case here.

The interpretation continues to stand.
Afraid not.

Calvinism: "You don't believe (in Me), because you're not My (predestined sovereign-elect) sheep."

Scripture: "You don't believe I'm the Messiah, because you're not My sheep; if ANYONE enters through Me, He shall become My sheep (and know I'm the Messiah)."
But don't you realize, when I work through an instrument, the instrument doesn't cause me? I raise the violin. I make music through the violin. The music is all mine.
Does the violin play you? The violin offers its music, if you but pick it up and draw its bow. Do you not have the choice to walk away in silence? And the violin will remain, unplayed...
I didn't say grace wasn't received. I said grace wasn't received through faith.
I see. What is received, by one who does not believe?

This is probably the biggest "gaff" you've ever made. Please read only John1:12.
In point of fact grace isn't transferred in this way in the first place. But to understand that, you'd need to understand what grace is. Favor doesn't transfer mystically into favor in the recipient. I don't favor the favored with favor itself. I favor the favored with gifts, the indirect objects of my favor.
Read again Acts10:34-35 --- God does not favor anyone who does not revere Him and seek righteousness.

Calvinism is the partiality that God is not.
Salvation is transferred by faith and grace. Salvation is from grace. Grace (favor) results in gifts.
You just said it wasn't received by faith.
Faith is transferred by the grace of God, as Pp 1:29 states.
No it doesn't --- it is GRANTED (bestowed graciously), for us to believe and suffer; as Eph1 says, "bestowed on us in the Beloved" (Jesus!).

...that "all who see Him AND BELIEVE, may be saved..."

Even if you reject the particular, you cannot deny the whole.
No he didn't, I deny your interpretation, because you left out certain ... VERBS in between! And of course excluding VERBS tends to change the meaning of the sentence.
made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved [and overlapped] by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it's a gift of God.

You don't receive grace through faith.
Grace is received in Rom5:17; those who believe and receive Jesus, become adopted children of God.

What is the dynamic that permits the concept of "we don't receive grace through faith"?
You receive salvation through faith, by grace. This whole thing isn't of yourselves it's a gift of God.
And God runs a "kangaroo kourt, the Final Judgment, JUDGING men for what He HIMSELF has chosen". Can't you see the problem with that?
It's your interpretation that's being refuted. You asserted that Paul said faith is the cause of our being made alive. I deny that. I defy you to find that. Paul isn't saying you receive grace through faith -- Paul says you are saved through faith by grace. Paul doesn't assert grace is through faith. In fact he asserts the reverse:
For it has been given [graced] to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake Pp 1:29
And once again you're taking "charizomai" to mean "exclusive sovereing choice"; rather than "provision to all". Men can RECEIVE the provision (both to believe and suffer), or refuse it.
So when Paul says we have been "made alive by God -- by grace you have been saved" -- Paul is pointing to the grace of God, which causes New Birth, which also gives us faith to receive salvation.
Afraid not --- when we were dead, we were made alive...
...THROUGH FAITH....
You've not overturned this view. In fact it seems to be getting more and more clear to me.
Then you're declining the other verses offered....
Which closure is beside the point you're arguing. But by the way, how is "grace's abundance" exactly the same as "grace"?
Heh heh heh! The "abundance of grace", is not "grace"?

And "received" is not "by faith".

With sincere respect, eventually you'll begin to see the contradictions in what you've embrace.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.