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

[Rick Otto]

See? It's not hard at all. It's only hard when we deny the reality of "fallible-salvation".

But that is my point...they fell away from repentance, not salvation.

 

[frumanchu]

That Calvinists recognize those in Lk8:13 "receive the word with joy and BELIEVE", and that Calvinists then qualify those people's "belief" by perceiving it was FALSE belief, only PROFESSING but not really saved --- places themselves (Calvinists) in the position of never knowing WHICH belief is "saved", and which is only "falsely, though joyfully, professing".

And there is no way for them to know that, themselves.

If two groups somewhere can begin with "joyful belief", and only steadfastness and perseverance proves WHICH group is "elect/predestined/really-saved", then it's only death that exposes which is (uhm, was) which.

How does a Calvinist know he has "real" faith, rather than "false/only-professing" faith? Those in Lk8:13, surely thought they were saved.


...when they were "joyfully believing"...

There are two separate questions here, Ben:

1. Can an individual know that they are presently in a state of justification (ie - salvation)?

2. Given #1, can an individual know that they will ultimately be saved?

Both you and every Calvinist here would agree that the answer to question number 1 is YES. Not only does Scripture present it as possible to be certain of your own salvation, but men are encouraged to seek out such assurance.

Where we differ, Ben, is in the answer to #2. The Reformed understanding is that IF I know I am presently saved, then duductively I have assurance of my full and final salvation, therefore the answer is YES.

Responsible Grace cannot answer anything but NO to question 2.

 

[frumanchu]

Hi, "Adopted".

Have you ever read 1Jn2:26-28?
"These things I have written to you, concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as the anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in Him. Now, little children, ABIDE in Him, SO THAT when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming."

Is "abiding" presented as "something taken for granted"?
The deceivers are trying to get us NOT to abide, aren't they?
If we do NOT abide, then we shrink-in-shame at His coming; is that shamed position, saved?

This is avoidance. The words of 1 John 2:19 are perfectly clear. IF they had been of us THEN they would have continued with us, but they went out that it might become plain that they are not of us.

No amount of running to other verses can change the clear, explicit teaching of this verse, Ben. It FIRMLY AND IRREFUTABLY ESTABLISHES the principle that men can be with and among believers without ever having been believers themselves. This verse is a dagger in the heart of your continued protests to the contrary.

Look now at 2Jn1:7-9. The context is to the "chosen lady and her children" --- clearly, saved (vs1). Verse 7 warns against deceivers, exactly as 1:2:26 did.

"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. WATCH YOURSELVES, that you do not lose what was wrought, but that you receive full reward. Anyone who GOES TOO FAR (goes out from us!) and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, has not God. But he who abides, has the Father and the Son."

Here is a warning not to "go too far", or "go on ahead", which is "go out from us". The warning is TO saved-believers, isn't it?

This is a play on words on your part. The word in 1 John 2:19 (exerchomai) is a completely different word from the word in 2 John 1:9 (parabaino), yet you are treating them as though they are the same and manipulating the context to force them to be synonymous.

This then is the refutation to the idea of "whoever was never REALLY a believer, will go out from us". In 1:2:19, they were likely never saved; but in 2:1:9, they were.

Do you accept this?

Nobody should accept it...it is completely contrary to the text and requires linguistic gymnastics to even be presented. It is a supreme example of explaining away a verse in favor of a preconception.

 

[frumanchu]

Verse 5 says "WHEN we were dead in sins, God made us alive in Christ (by grace have you been saved)".

Verse 8 says "For by grace through faith have you been saved".

Unless you see TWO "savings-by-grace", the second one "through faith", then the one event, is "by grace", and then it's described again but expanded to include "through faith".

There is no other credible understanding...

Of course there is...you simply dismiss it out of hand because it threatens your paradigm.

You're actually closer to the truth on this than you even realize. Indeed, the two instances of "by grace you have been saved" are referring to the same event...namely your salvation. But they are referring to different aspects of the same event. Regeneration, justification, faith...all are different aspects of your salvation. From a more general view, our salvation involves God in His grace taking dead sinners and making them alive again. More specifically we are saved by grace through faith, not by works.

What you are arguing...and what the verse DOES NOT STATE...is that we are made alive (regenerated) through faith. The only way you can make it say that is by cutting and pasting.

 

[vekarppe]

It's a question of sequence. Which comes first --- "begotten", or "belief"?

Verse 12 says that "begottenness" (right to BECOME children of God), is given to those who believe/receive Jesus. Calvinists think that verse 13 asserts "begottenness is fully God's CHOICE" --- but that's not what it says. The actual BIRTH is all of God, and nothing of man; but RECEIVING that birth (being given the right to BECOME His children), is by believing and receiving Jesus.

I like the way how the Bible Knowledge Commentary puts it: "A person welcomes Jesus and responds in faith and obedience to Him, but the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit is 'the cause' of regeneration (3:5-8)."

Believing and receiving Jesus, precedes becoming begotten. This opposes "Reformed Theology"...

Well, I do not think that John 1:12-13 does (necessarily) imply that; it is not the point of the passage.

Why would Jesus say "He who ACTS is wise, and he who does NOT act is foolish", if that action, is fully God's choice?

Makes no sense.

Who said it is God's choice? I do not understand.

....but if "acting" (believing!) was a CHOICE, then His words make perfect sense...

Of course it is a choice, to act or not to act. And surely this "acting" is evidence of faith. What is the problem, Ben?

It's a choice, Vekarppe. A conscious decision.

As I said above.

 

[Ben johnson]

we are saved by grace through faith.
and
we are made alive even when we were dead, faith doesn't figure in our first resurrection unless someone shuffles the texts and manipulates what God said ....... that someone is you, Ben.

Hi, Cygnus. Are you asserting that "made-alive", is different from "saved"?

 

[Ben johnson]

But that is my point...they fell away from repentance, not salvation.

Rick --- can someone be "unrepentantly-saved"? Please see Luke13:3...

 

[Ben johnson]

I like the way how the Bible Knowledge Commentary puts it: "A person welcomes Jesus and responds in faith and obedience to Him, but the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit is 'the cause' of regeneration (3:5-8)."

I agree with that. It still remains to be settled between us, "does the Holy Spirit regenerate a believer, or do we believe after being regenerated?"

Well, I do not think that John 1:12-13 does (necessarily) imply that; it is not the point of the passage.

It does not imply, only if "become-children-of-God", is not the same as "begotten".

Whaddya think?

Who said it is God's choice? I do not understand.

Calvinism asserts that "faith is sovereignly GIFTED to those whom He has chosen".

If we can come to agreement on what Jesus meant by "ACTS", then we could also resolve our understandings of this passage.

He who ACTS on Jesus' words --- what else could that mean, but "believe"?

And if we agree that "acts=believe", then saving-faith is clearly not gifted to men by God.

Of course it is a choice, to act or not to act. And surely this "acting" is evidence of faith. What is the problem, Ben?

Is it "evidence of faith"? Or is it "faith itself"?

If it's EVIDENCE of faith, then what does He mean by "act"?

"The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel." Mk1:15

As I said above.

What is the choice? Believing?

If regeneration precedes faith, then faith is irresistible; there is no other choice.

See the issue?

 

[frumanchu]

Hi, Cygnus. Are you asserting that "made-alive", is different from "saved"?

Are you asserting that regeneration and justification are exactly the same thing??

 

[frumanchu]

Rick --- can someone be "unrepentantly-saved"? Please see Luke13:3...

If a person endures a season of stumbling in their life, or struggles for a time with a sin and does not repent, have they lost their salvation during that entire time?

Does God's grace only cover the sins of His children during the peeks and not through the valleys also?!?

 

[frumanchu]

Is it "evidence of faith"? Or is it "faith itself"?

It is a supreme and critical error to equate the accidens with the essence. In so doing, you DO in fact arrive at a works-based salvation.

What is the choice? Believing?

If regeneration precedes faith, then faith is irresistible; there is no other choice.

See the issue?

I see the issue, and I see that you do not. You are confusing two choices. Man has a choice whether or not to believe. Whether you accept that or not, that is the cold hard fact of Calvinism...man DOES have a choice whether or not to believe. The choice he does NOT have is whether or not to act according to his nature, and whether or not to act in accordance with what God has ordained. The fundamental concepts of primary and secondary causality are what is at play here, and they are concepts you clearly do not grasp.

To say that Calvinists believe man has no choice, you would have to show where Calvinists teach man is never presented with a choice. IOW, you would have to show where we believe men do not hear the Gospel and have no awareness of any sort of God and His transcendent goodness. That is a fact you could never demonstrate because it is in fact directly contradictory to what Calvinists actually teach.

What you object to is the fact that the choice man makes is within God's sovereign providence...that man cannot make a choice that God, in His perfect foreknowledge and wisdom, has not already ordained. There is only one possibly source for such an objection and that is the fundamental desire of man for autonomy. It drives right to the heart of the very first sin of our race.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Whew"... amen.

 

[nobdysfool]

As I have said before, those who teach autonomous free will are guilty of the sin of rebellion. Fru has stated very clearly what the real issue underlying all of this is. That is the heart of it.

 

[vekarppe]

I agree with that. It still remains to be settled between us, "does the Holy Spirit regenerate a believer, or do we believe after being regenerated?"

I do not know why this is so important to you, but I am not actually willing to answer questions like this. Why I should? As we can see from Scripture, there is responsibility of man to believe and receive salvation and that regeneration is supernatural divine miracle.

It does not imply, only if "become-children-of-God", is not the same as "begotten".

Whaddya think?

All those who accepted and believe in Christ received not sonship itself, but exousia, that is, warrant or authority to become children of God.

Is it "evidence of faith"? Or is it "faith itself"?

If it's EVIDENCE of faith, then what does He mean by "act"?

What does "act" mean? It means to do what Jesus said. It is evidence of faith because if one believe in Christ, then he also obey Him and take heed of his words.

What is the choice? Believing?

Yea. I think so.

 

[Oye11]

It is a supreme and critical error to equate the accidens with the essence. In so doing, you DO in fact arrive at a works-based salvation.



I see the issue, and I see that you do not. You are confusing two choices. Man has a choice whether or not to believe. Whether you accept that or not, that is the cold hard fact of Calvinism...man DOES have a choice whether or not to believe. The choice he does NOT have is whether or not to act according to his nature, and whether or not to act in accordance with what God has ordained. The fundamental concepts of primary and secondary causality are what is at play here, and they are concepts you clearly do not grasp.

To say that Calvinists believe man has no choice, you would have to show where Calvinists teach man is never presented with a choice. IOW, you would have to show where we believe men do not hear the Gospel and have no awareness of any sort of God and His transcendent goodness. That is a fact you could never demonstrate because it is in fact directly contradictory to what Calvinists actually teach.

What you object to is the fact that the choice man makes is within God's sovereign providence...that man cannot make a choice that God, in His perfect foreknowledge and wisdom, has not already ordained. There is only one possibly source for such an objection and that is the fundamental desire of man for autonomy. It drives right to the heart of the very first sin of our race.

I think it`s only fair that your views are accurately understood and represented, otherwise discussions are a waste of time as we only talk past one another. Let me see if I understand and of course express any disagreements.

1. Okay God orders all events including the actions of men, and as a result, knows the future down to the size of each rain drop. And I interpret you as saying that natures assure specific human actions, eg. regeneration (first cause) assures obedience (second cause). And the sin nature assures sinful actions. Okay, let`s say you have an unregenerate man with a fetish for rape and procliivty to act it out. First of all there is no equating a "sin nature" with this interest as not all unregenerates have it, so where did these specific desires come from? Also, a simple fetish for rape and willingness to act it out doesn`t account for whom is raped, when, where, and how. What is the source of the desires that result in these specific decisions? Can you explain these details from a primary, secondary causation perspective? That God leaves nothing to chance is an important concept for you I understand...

2. You seem to believe that natures necessitate actions. Would the reverse hold true, that all actions have as their source a natural desire?

3. Also, You said, "man DOES have a choice whether or not to believe. The choice he does NOT have is whether or not to act according to "his nature,.."

Confusing. You claim natures determine actions, and what is the new birth but a new nature? Doesn`t your theology teach that man is entirely passive to the new birth and belief is a necessary result? So how is there choice for man here while there isn`t when it comes to acting according to "his nature"? That presents a dilema if you are defining a lack of choice in terms of "can do no other." Or perhaps you believe the Gospel can be rejected for a time in a born again state...



Thanks.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi, Cygnus. Are you asserting that "made-alive", is different from "saved"?

of course I am !

as different as many other aspects of the Christian LIFE are distinct from salvation.


We are saved by Grace through faith unto good works


we are raised from death by God's Spirit not by faith.

 

[Ben johnson]

of course I am!

I thought we were having a "disconnect" on this.

How many who have been "made-alive", are not saved? How many "saved", are not made-alive?

as different as many other aspects of the Christian LIFE are distinct from salvation.

I see "made-alive", as spiritual rebirth. "Born from above" as John puts it in chapter 3. What does it mean to you?

We are saved by Grace through faith unto good works

I agree...

we are raised from death by God's Spirit not by faith.

We are not raised through faith? How many who have not faith, are raised?

 

[cygnusx1]

I thought we were having a "disconnect" on this.

How many who have been "made-alive", are not saved? How many "saved", are not made-alive?
I see "made-alive", as spiritual rebirth. "Born from above" as John puts it in chapter 3. What does it mean to you?
I agree...
We are not raised through faith? How many who have not faith, are raised?

ben of course there is a link between salvation and regeneration , it is simply that the link does not equate to an equal starting point , faith saves , God's Spirit regenerates.

 

[frumanchu]

I think it`s only fair that your views are accurately understood and represented, otherwise discussions are a waste of time as we only talk past one another. Let me see if I understand and of course express any disagreements.

1. Okay God orders all events including the actions of men, and as a result, knows the future down to the size of each rain drop. And I interpret you as saying that natures assure specific human actions, eg. regeneration (first cause) assures obedience (second cause). And the sin nature assures sinful actions. Okay, let`s say you have an unregenerate man with a fetish for rape and procliivty to act it out. First of all there is no equating a "sin nature" with this interest as not all unregenerates have it, so where did these specific desires come from? Also, a simple fetish for rape and willingness to act it out doesn`t account for whom is raped, when, where, and how. What is the source of the desires that result in these specific decisions? Can you explain these details from a primary, secondary causation perspective? That God leaves nothing to chance is an important concept for you I understand...

2. You seem to believe that natures necessitate actions. Would the reverse hold true, that all actions have as their source a natural desire?

3. Also, You said, "man DOES have a choice whether or not to believe. The choice he does NOT have is whether or not to act according to "his nature,.."

Confusing. You claim natures determine actions, and what is the new birth but a new nature? Doesn`t your theology teach that man is entirely passive to the new birth and belief is a necessary result? So how is there choice for man here while there isn`t when it comes to acting according to "his nature"? That presents a dilema if you are defining a lack of choice in terms of "can do no other." Or perhaps you believe the Gospel can be rejected for a time in a born again state...

Thanks.

When I spoke of man acting according to his nature, I was speaking more generally about the principle that man chooses according to his strongest desire at the time of the choice. Man does have free will insofar as he is freely able to choose that which he desires. The problem is that unregenerate man's desires are only for sin and self. Thus from a moral standpoint his will is not free...it is in slavery to sin and until it is set free from its slavery to sin it will never choose God.

When Calvinists say that unregenerate man cannot choose God, the understanding of man's natural free will and the reality of his total depravity are implicit and necessary to that understanding. It is not a matter of there being a fundamental flaw in the natural function of the will...it's a matter of the complete absence of desire in the heart. The statement is perfectly true that IF a man desired to choose God THEN he could and would do so. The issue is that unregenerate man doesn't have that desire. Until and unless someone desires to choose something, he never will choose that something.

The challenge I have often put forth is for someone who takes issue with this understanding of the will to provide me with any example of an individual who chooses something other than that which he desires most from the options presented him. I have yet to be provided with any such example.

To address you last few questions, man is indeed passive with respect to the new birth (regeneration) itself. God does not regenerate man in response to anything man does. Rightly said then, regeneration is monergistic. The faith that results however is rightly said to be synergistic insofar as that faith is the natural response of the will, according to the renewed heart, to the call of the Gospel. That's why I take extreme exception to the repeated assertion by Ben johnson that Calvinists teach faith is "instilled" or "imparted" to man...that it's really God's faith and not the individual person's faith. While that faith is necessarily the result of God's sovereign work in the man, it is nevertheless wholly a function of the individual's will in accordance with the desire of his heart upon the hearing of the Word.

The best example I can give is that of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. God did not dictate the Scriptures word for word to the authors...they are the words of the authors in their language with their tendencies and idiosyncrasies. Yet we also believe that the Scriptures are the infallible and perfect Word of God. They were not dictated, they were inspired. God assured with perfect certainty that His Word would be given by the authors, yet it was in perfect accordance with the will of the authors. Primary (God) and secondary (man) causality both firmly established and working in perfect accordance.

 

[frumanchu]

How many who have been "made-alive", are not saved? How many "saved", are not made-alive?

We are not raised through faith? How many who have not faith, are raised?

Ben, when you get a second, Google "questionable cause fallacy"

Nobody is saying there is not a necessary relationship between the two, but establishing relationship does not establish causality.