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

[Oye11]

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.

I understand all of that. But you are still avocating a determinism and speaking in the philosophical terms of cause and effect. So it goes, God creates the desire in man and as sure as the apple falls from the tree to the earth man acts in accordance by believing. How could God be sovereign otherwise would of course be the question. "Someone could choose something different and thwart his plan!" And perpetual sin from the unregenerates is just as certain, as man is said to be able to act only in accordance with his sin nature. So I was interested in your take on the whole predestination picture in terms of the philopsophy of primary and secondary causes you espouse, if you have thought it through that far... And this is in light of the common claim that God knows every detail of the future precisely because he has ordered it all. My questions in Item #1 are hardly addressed, as to the different roads of sin taken by individuals and their detailed sinful choices, all as this relates to God ordering all future events. Question #2 wasn`t answered....


#3 was answered in a way, but the born again in your view is still acting in irrevocable accord with the nature so given just as the sinner that only sins so this still presents a difficulty in denying the reality of choice in one while granting it to the other. You basically claimed, as to the unregenerate sinner, that they can do no other and thus have no choice. According to you those born anew can do none other than believe the Gospel when presented so you can reasonably apply no choice there as well and with a similar standard. Maybe that is all your buddy Ben Johnson meant.... I mean you say the unregenerate can`t want to believe. The regenerate can`t not want to can they? And it is God who came upon them stealthily to create a condition of the heart to assure this outcome. And actually this really brings me to what I was trying to find out. According to you, God uses the principles of primary and secondary causes to bring about a specific action on the part of the elect to believe the Gospel. But what about all the other decisions men and women make in their lives? Same principles? God creates the desire which makes certain the actions? It was noted that many paths and a variety actions can flow from a sin nature, as could that from a born again for that matter. For example, why does one unregenerate become a law abiding intellectual atheist while another a serial killer? So for God to order all events down to the slightest detail it would appear the need for a rather comphrehensive approach. And how comprehensive is this move the heart to secure a specific action, "primary, secondary causation" approach applied? That is assuming you hold the view that foreknowledge is precisely had because God has predestined all future events and that must include personal decisions.

 

[jmacvols]

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.

Seems your making an assumption here. You say "without ever having been believers themselves." John simply says they were not of us, John did not say they were never of us.

 

[Rick Otto]

Seems your making an assumption here. You say "without ever having been believers themselves." John simply says they were not of us, John did not say they were never of us.

It is safe to assume "never",however, as he did not say "they no longer are of us..."

 

[jmacvols]

It is safe to assume "never",however, as he did not say "they no longer are of us..."

If you can assume "never" then I can assume "they no longer are of us..."

 

[nobdysfool]

If you can assume "never" then I can assume "they no longer are of us..."

Well, you are free to do so, just don't tell us it is sound biblical exegesis....Rick is right, and you're not. See? I can draw my own conclusions....

 

[jmacvols]

Well, you are free to do so, just don't tell us it is sound biblical exegesis....Rick is right, and you're not. See? I can draw my own conclusions....

It's not "safe to assume" things just to get them to fit your theology. I mentioned what John actually said not what I assumed he said.

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

Well, we were tryin' to come to agreement on whether or not "made-alive", is the same thing as "salvation". You said:

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

of course I am !

In 2Cor5:17, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed (is passing) away, behold all has become new (new things have come)."

So --- "in Christ", is our position, which is saved. Can that be differentiated from "made-alive"?

If so, how?

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

I respectfully don't think "made-alive", is a mere aspect of "Christian life". It really cuts to the heart of the Gospel.

Salvation, is "Christ-in-you"; it is "crucified/buried/died/immersed/UNITED into Christ's death and resurrection" (Rom6:1-4).

Rom6:4 says "As God raised Him from the dead, so too shall we walk in newness of life." That's as "made-alive" as we can get.

We are saved by Grace through faith unto good works

Agreed.

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

In John5:24, Jesus said: "He who hears My words and believes Him who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and does not come under judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

Doesn't this connect "belief" (faith) with "saved" (has-eternal-life), and "made-alive" (has passed out of death into life)?

Doesn't that one verse sum up our discussion, nicely?

 

[Thekla]

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.

how could such a thing be proven (either option) ?

 

[Rick Otto]

How 'bout the presidential elections where we vote for whom we least revile?
Ben!
You're cheatin', aren't ya?

I respectfully don't think "made-alive", is a mere aspect of "Christian life". It really cuts to the heart of the Gospel.

"Mere" is marginalizing a major aspect.
"Cuts to the heart" is overdramatizing the connection you want to make between eternaly predetermined election and temporaly consequent regenration.
Resist the temptation to do that, and you probably will see to what is a "mere" connection between the two as a 'grand' equating of the two.

 

[frumanchu]

Well, we were tryin' to come to agreement on whether or not "made-alive", is the same thing as "salvation". You said:
In 2Cor5:17, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed (is passing) away, behold all has become new (new things have come)."

So --- "in Christ", is our position, which is saved. Can that be differentiated from "made-alive"?

If so, how?
I respectfully don't think "made-alive", is a mere aspect of "Christian life". It really cuts to the heart of the Gospel.

Salvation, is "Christ-in-you"; it is "crucified/buried/died/immersed/UNITED into Christ's death and resurrection" (Rom6:1-4).

Rom6:4 says "As God raised Him from the dead, so too shall we walk in newness of life." That's as "made-alive" as we can get.
Agreed.
In John5:24, Jesus said: "He who hears My words and believes Him who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and does not come under judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

Doesn't this connect "belief" (faith) with "saved" (has-eternal-life), and "made-alive" (has passed out of death into life)?

Doesn't that one verse sum up our discussion, nicely?

Ben, you are refusing to acknowledge a distinction that is implicit in your previous arguements: the distinction between regeneration and justification. You are arguing now as though they are exactly the same thing, but if they are exactly the same thing you could not POSSIBLY argue over one preceding the other.

Quit avoiding the tough questions, Ben.

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

 

[Ben johnson]

How 'bout the presidential elections where we vote for whom we least revile?

The candidate I wanna see elected, I won't revile at all. He's a strong Christian, and will be an excellent president. He's already done well in the office he previously held.

Ben!
You're cheatin', aren't ya?

You lost me here; cheatin' 'bout what?

"Mere" is marginalizing a major aspect.

It's not an "aspect", at all; it's essence.

"Cuts to the heart" is overdramatizing the connection you want to make between eternally predetermined election and temporary consequent regenration.

"Made-alive", is "salvation". It's not an aspect --- it's the essence.

We are "born-from-above", "born again", "made new" --- "a new creation". As Paul eloquently said: ]
"I have been CRUCIFIED with Christ (the old man died), it is no longer I who live but CHRIST lives in me (born-anew); and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the one who loved me and delivered Himself up for me."

In Rom6, "How shall we who have DIED, still live in sin? Never!"

"Made-alive", is not just an aspect; it's not just important. It's the ESSENCE of salvation.

Resist the temptation to do that, and you probably will see to what is a "mere" connection between the two as a 'grand' equating of the two.

If we agree on what I've said, so much the better. Then I know we'll agree that "backslidden", ain't saved.

He who is backslidden, is alive to sin.
...and dead to Christ...

It's "night and day".

 

[nobdysfool]

And yet, as we reach the end of the second thread on this subject, it should be remembered that the Original Poster, who started the original thread, is himself now a Calvinist, by doing the research and with prayerful consideration. He did that which some here will not. and he has embraced the Doctrines of Grace, aka Calvinism, aka Reformed Theology. All the smokescreens, misrepresentation, and attempts to defeat Calvinism fail, every time. Ben johnson tries to tell us that he has "overturned" Calvinism, yet he has not. He claims that which he cannot do, and cannot prove, and the witness is the torture of scriptures he engages in, and refuses to be corrected on. those who know the Word do not accept Ben's twisted readings and twisted logic. He is willfully resistant to correction. He says he will listen, but he rejects every attempt to correct him, no matter what.

Calvinism is alive and well, and growing. Ben and his supporters (if there are any) notwithstanding.

 

[Ben johnson]

And yet, as we reach the end of the second thread on this subject, it should be remembered that the Original Poster, who started the original thread, is himself now a Calvinist, by doing the research and with prayerful consideration. He did that which some here will not. and he has embraced the Doctrines of Grace, aka Calvinism, aka Reformed Theology.

....and disregarded all the verses we've quoted to him.

All the smokescreens, misrepresentation, and attempts to defeat Calvinism fail, every time.

Have they? I hadn't noticed that...

Ben johnson tries to tell us that he has "overturned" Calvinism, yet he has not.

Then refute the refutations I've posted...

He claims that which he cannot do, and cannot prove, and the witness is the torture of scriptures he engages in, and refuses to be corrected on.

Correct me with Scripture; you haven't...

those who know the Word do not accept Ben's twisted readings and twisted logic.

Since you know the Word, then please cite verses that conflict what I've been saying.

He is willfully resistant to correction. He says he will listen, but he rejects every attempt to correct him, no matter what.

Nonsense. I've responded to each assertion --- responses replete with Scriptural citation. And then I'm accused of "obfuscation and burying the argument under superfluous citing".

If Calvinism could be supported with Scriptures, it would be; no disrespect intended.

Calvinism is alive and well, and growing. Ben and his supporters (if there are any) notwithstanding.

Calvinism is over; it only continues by denying the clear positions we've demonstrated from Scripture.

...like...

"Saving-faith", is charged to men, themselves; it is not a unilateral gift from God. Heb11:6. Rom10:9-10.

Saving-faith precedes the indwelling of the Spirit, who (at the moment of indwelling) regenerates the believer. Eph2:5-8, Titus3:5-6.

A truly-saved person, absolutely can be deceived to unbelief, away from Jesus. 1Jn2:26-28, 1Tim4:1, Col2:6-8, 2Jn1:7-9, and many others.

...a couple in 1Tim6 for instance...

No, my friend-and-brother, "Responsible Grace" has not been overturned in the way that Calvinism has.

With complete respect, your post (to which I'm responding), has no verses cited, while mine (once again) has many.

But may we continue to encourage each other closer to Christ through our fellowship here in the debates.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Ben johnson;You lost me here; cheatin' 'bout what?

Using emotionaly laden adjectives.
Appealing to the emotions.

It's not an "aspect", at all; it's essence.

Even the essence of a thing is as aspect of that thing.
You're making an issue where there is none.

"Made-alive", is "salvation". It's not an aspect --- it's the essence.

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

We are "born-from-above", "born again", "made new" --- "a new creation". As Paul eloquently said: ]
"I have been CRUCIFIED with Christ (the old man died), it is no longer I who live but CHRIST lives in me (born-anew); and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the one who loved me and delivered Himself up for me."

In Rom6, "How shall we who have DIED, still live in sin? Never!"

"Made-alive", is not just an aspect; it's not just important. It's the ESSENCE of salvation.
If we agree on what I've said, so much the better. Then I know we'll agree that "backslidden", ain't saved.

He who is backslidden, is alive to sin.
...and dead to Christ...

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.

 

[heymikey80]

It is safe to assume "never",however, as he did not say "they no longer are of us..."

If you can assume "never" then I can assume "they no longer are of us..."

Well, you are free to do so, just don't tell us it is sound biblical exegesis....Rick is right, and you're not. See? I can draw my own conclusions....

It's not "safe to assume" things just to get them to fit your theology. I mentioned what John actually said not what I assumed he said.

I don't find the view very plausible that John thought these people were once "of us". What John actually said was, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." 1 Jn 2:19

John's point is that they would've acted differently in the past if they had been [at that time] "of us". And in point of fact John's saying their departing makes it plain now that "they aren't of us", and that "they weren't of us" even before "they went out from us".

And if they weren't of us, and they aren't of us, where do we get off saying they were, just even further back? John only shows two kinds of apostates here: the unseen one and the seen one. And John makes no bones about it: "they would have continued with us if they had been of us."

Where's this excluded middle of "being of us, yet not continuing with us"? John excludes it.

 

[heymikey80]

....and disregarded all the verses we've quoted to him. Have they? I hadn't noticed that... Then refute the refutations I've posted... Correct me with Scripture; you haven't... Since you know the Word, then please cite verses that conflict what I've been saying. Nonsense. I've responded to each assertion --- responses replete with Scriptural citation. And then I'm accused of "obfuscation and burying the argument under superfluous citing".

If Calvinism could be supported with Scriptures, it would be; no disrespect intended.
Calvinism is over; it only continues by denying the clear positions we've demonstrated from Scripture.

...like...

"Saving-faith", is charged to men, themselves; it is not a unilateral gift from God. Heb11:6. Rom10:9-10.

Saving-faith precedes the indwelling of the Spirit, who (at the moment of indwelling) regenerates the believer. Eph2:5-8, Titus3:5-6.

A truly-saved person, absolutely can be deceived to unbelief, away from Jesus. 1Jn2:26-28, 1Tim4:1, Col2:6-8, 2Jn1:7-9, and many others.

...a couple in 1Tim6 for instance...

No, my friend-and-brother, "Responsible Grace" has not been overturned in the way that Calvinism has.

With complete respect, your post (to which I'm responding), has no verses cited, while mine (once again) has many.

But may we continue to encourage each other closer to Christ through our fellowship here in the debates.

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.

But the faith involved in our salvation is through a gift of God. Pp 1:29. It too is required, but on different grounds than Law.

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).

Calvinists emphasize sovereign grace, which is a responsible grace -- just not your version of what it should be, which seems to slips fluidly into enemy lines requiring works again. Paul says it flatly: "not of works" (Ep 2:9), "one who does not work" (Rom 4:5).

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. 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!"

Calvinism isn't overturned. It continues to stand. The reason why it isn't refuted is because of a simple fact: Scripture supports it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

hey mik

But the faith involved in our salvation is through a gift of God. Pp 1:29. It too is required, but on different grounds than Law.

I like the way you are articulating sir, faith is required only in the sense that it gives the elect the knowledge of their salvation and it makes manifest to other believers that one has like precious faith..

 

[cygnusx1]

hey mik



I like the way you are articulating sir, faith is required only in the sense that it gives the elect the knowledge of their salvation and it makes manifest to other believers that one has like precious faith..

still reading your thoughts into others words 57 , just ask Mikey why we need faith , I know what he is going to say , he is well versed.

 

[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

 

[IamAdopted]

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..