How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[nobdysfool]

Ahhh, but I can "dazzle with facts".

Doesn't sound very humble to me....

An entire text replete with Scriptural citations, cross-referencing, contextual presentation, and specific forced consideration. "Forced consideration", meaning "listing the possible meanings, and eliminating all but one".

Given your rampant usage of out-of-context citations, and dubious linking together of scriptures based on the presence of one or two words in both, while ignoring the context both immediate and proximate in those verses, and your superimposition of your conclusions on the premises you put forth, I find this claim of yours hugely funny.

Please make note of my assessment of your written works to date as I believe that something very similar will be cited in peer review as the reason why your tome should be rejected by any serious Biblical Scholar.

With respect, that sounds like "I am not here to learn, but only to teach". Those exact words were said to me just a week ago by the Jehovah's Witnesses on my step.

But that doesn't mean that I'm a JW, does it? In other discussions, you would have drawn that conclusion, based on no more evidence that what you show here: a coincidental occurence.

No Ben, I'm not making any claim that "I'm not here to learn, but only to teach". Such a charge would much more closely fit your attitude and methods as you try to impose your view on the forum as a whole, and individuals in particular.

I have learned that it's wisdom to avoid being drawn in to a debate with someone who refuses to listen and consider, as you clearly do, and who cannot let well enough alone, but insists that any mention of that which you oppose MUST be shouted down. You seem to think that you will be heard for your "much-speaking". Just the opposite is what actually happens.

I am "on a fool's mission", if not inspired by God; but if inspired, those who refuse to listen are in fact refusing God. These are the same words asserted by Gamaliel, in Acts5:39.

Indeed. Now it remains to be seen if you can accept that you're not inspired, and that all your labor is for naught.

As a Calvinist, you have no choice --- ignore me, and either I'm inspired by God, and you are refusing Him; or I'm not inspired by God, and you are allowing promotion of a false gospel.

LOL! Ben, do you realize just how self-serving that sounds? As a Calvinist, I realize that it's not up to me, that God is in total control, and nothing happens without His knowledge and permission, even your foray into false doctrine. I have a feeling you are the one who is going to learn a great lesson in all this. I just hope you can embrace being humbled by those whom you seek to impress.

Please answer the three sets of questions above. Number 1, number 2, number 3, or not answer and concede the discussion.

Not answering does not "concede" the discussion. I concede nothing. I already told you I won't waste my time with someone who refuses to listen. You seem to think that you have some sort of "Calvinist-killer" list of questions. You don't. The parameters of your presentation belie the bias and deceitful intent of the questions. I'm not going to feed your delusion and give it any legitimacy by attempting to answer such questions, because you have already decided that no Calvinist can answer them in such a way that you cannot "overturn" their answers, and claim you have "refuted" Calvinism. That's always been your method, claim that you have refuted Calvinism, and then deny that anyone has refuted you, therefore, your refutation is the only one that stands. Such an attitude is one of rabid, unteachable pride.

And you accuse me of the attitude "I'm not here to learn, but to teach"? I believe it is YOU who is holding that attitude right now....

 

[drstevej]

When my text "hits the market", Calvinism will end.

Inherent in an anthropocentric world life view is an unbridled optomism in human ability.

Is Baghdad Bob your press agent?

Good "luck" ....
drstevej

 

[cygnusx1]

is there anymore Calvinists out there who want a free laugh , we are getting FREE entertainment from Ben!

 

[nobdysfool]

is there anymore Calvinists out there who want a free laugh , we are getting FREE entertainment from Ben!

I admit that there is a certain voyeuristic thrill in watching Ben strut and preen before us. It's perhaps a guilty pleasure. But, he has a lot to learn, and I believe he is soon to learn it.

 

[Rick Otto]

We both agree "the seeking came from the Spirit"; we disagree on degree. Does the Spirit fully cause the seeking, or does the Spirit draw the person to where he can decide to seek or not? (In other words, who is it that chooses our "seeking" --- God, or us?)
..........................................................................
>>>>God chooses us, we do not choose Him at all of ourselves in the least.
.........................................................................
The context of, "He rewards those who seek", asserts that "he who comes to God must believe God is" --- this places the man as initiating the faith (believing in the existence of God, and God receiving he WHO comes).
Doesn't it?
.....................................................................
>>>No it doesn't. It places the man as having the faith, and establishes the seeker's belief & reward, but it doesn't at all establish man as the origin of faith.............................................................
It also places God as receiving man's faith --- fully reflecting Acts10:34-35. "God is not partial --- but he who does right and fears God is welcome".

Calvinism asserts "God is partial, He chooses certain ONES to salvation".
Scripture asserts "God is not partial, He receives those who seek Him, who do right, who fear (revere) God".
.......................................................................
>>>>God not being partial is about His not choosing to save anyone based on their own merits.
The "certain ones" He chose were not chosen in partiality, their not even having been born to do or be anything to be partial about, but in mercy.
.........................................................................
Have I sufficiently demonstrated the conflict between "Calvinism", and that passage?
.........................................................................
>>>You have sufficiently demonstrated your misunderstanding.
..........................................................................
MIGHT win the weak? Does God sovereignly predestine, or is Paul really asserting "that I might win the weak"? (Conversely, in passages such as Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11, can a weak SAVED person, be "destroyed/ruined"?)All of this so that people may come to believe in Jesus.
......................................................................
He is asserting that God knows, not Paul, who will respond, that's all.
.......................................................................
Please tell me --- is such belief "sovereignly predestined", or does Paul's attitude affect the salvation of his listeners?
........................................................................
God willing, it does.
........................................................................

Disqualified from what, Mike? You have three choices:
1. Disqualified from rewards/crowns, but not from eternal life
2. Disqualified, if possible, but it's not; hyperbole, "effective means"
3. Disqualified from salvation
........................................................................
You forgot:
4. Disqualified in the minds of his preaching audience for a percieved lack of "practicing what he preaches".
.........................................................................
Sorry, gotta run for now...

 

[Ben johnson]

I Tim. 1:16. But that is why God had mercy on me, so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.

Hi, Gordon.

"Realize they can"? Do they have a choice, or not? Why must someone be convinced, if he is "sovereignly regenerated and gifted-of-faith"? I agree with what you said; but please tell me how it fits in "RT".

By way of illustration:

God picked one and did not pick the other.

God is partial? Do you believe that?

God knows that the one He picked is absolutely going to be saved because He is making it happen.

OK, please tell me why there is a "Final Judgment". Paul speaks of that judgment in Rom2:6-8, placing condemnation as the consequence of choosing unrighteousness, and eternal life as the consequence of pursuing righteous immortality. How then to you see it as "all subject to Sovereign Fatalism"?

I apologize if the word "fatalism" offends you; but fatalism is the assertion that "all has been decided, we are nothing but flotsam and jetsam in the grand scheme of things".

Why will men be judged for what God decided? And why will some unbelievers, be judged more harshly than OTHERS? In Matt11:21-24, the only understanding that makes sense to me, is that "God judges more harshly, those who are more willfully unbelieving". What makes sense to you in that passage?

Now God places both in a world and they are hell bound sinners but one is picked to miss hell and make heaven.

For a verse to teach "longsuffering" toward a picked one is contradictory.

Making God also "He who chooses condemnation BEFORE they have been born or sinned". How is that just?

Scripture says (Rom3:26), "God is just and justifier of he who believes". To me that places "belief" as causal to His justification. And justness is defined (in the Judgment) by Rom2:6-8, "to those who BY doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation (not eternal life)".

One of the many reasons that Calvinism is false is that on their premise that some are selected and all others rejected means that of those that are selected and not rejected God is showing patience in waiting for them to come to Christ or God is tolerating them until He zaps them into salvation. But this too is contradictory as well. If a person is pre-selected then when they actually believe means nothing because it is going to happen by decree in that they are made to believe regardless.

I'm confused, Gordon; I agree with what you just said, but the beginning of your post made me think you were "defending Reformed Theology". Please help me out of my confusion...

The question is this - Why does a God who, according to Calvinism, picks a person in all of eternity past have to show longsuffering toward?

There is no need of an example of longsuffering to bring one to salvation at all if that person is picked and can not be lost regardless.

Now longsuffering makes perfect sense and agrees with the Holiness and Character of God when understood correctly in light of the truth. (1) Saving faith is not a special gift from God in order for one to believe. No proof of it in the Bible anywhere - Calvinist have to force and twist language to make their point. (2) Election is clearly taught that it is on the basis of God knowing what men do with Christ and not on the basis of what He forced them to do.

And that is the only possible understanding of Matt7:24-27; "he who ACTS ...is like a wise man; he who does NOT act ...is like a foolish man."

(3) God can not violate his desire which is His will "that all be saved" not by force but willingly, showing to be longsuffering. Willingness and Longsuffering are correct displays of God’s love toward a sinful hell bound man of which that hell bound man can believe in God’s work and agree with God and be saved.

Agreed.

The man’s faith saves him not God’s faith.

Paul plainly says "saving-faith comes from the heart".

God does not have to prove anything because He is the author of it, but man must trust in God of his own after hearing the Gospel.

Here is a "bone of contention" between RT and RG. If God is the "sovereign author of saving faith", then man cannot resist it (irresistible faith). But if faith comes from a man's heart (Rom10:9-10), then man can certain choose EITHER to "believe" or "resist". The passage which uses "author of faith", is Heb12:2; citing the Greek it is understood that "God is the LEADER and chief example of faith". Not "one-sided, sovereign-monergistic, machinator of God's faith".

It's a question of direction; does "saving-faith" flow from a man towards God (as Heb11:6 states)? Or is it something God gifts to a man before the man turns to God?

If a man will have faith in God it will be after he hears the Gospel and that is on the basis of his free will.

Agreed. And that fits "Responsible Grace", rather than "Reformed Theology".

 

[Ben johnson]

Doesn't sound very humble to me....

The ability to cite Scripture in cognizant and coherent harmony is not "arrogance", but "confidence".

Given your rampant usage of out-of-context citations...

The most common refutation of Calvinism occurs from merely reading the surrounding context. That's how I "found" 2Jn1:7-9, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Cor3:16, etcetera.

... and dubious linking together of scriptures based on the presence of one or two words in both...

Words like "ekcheo-poured", linking Titus3:5-6 with Acts10:42-47 and 11:17, for instance? The "link" is valid.

while ignoring the context both immediate and proximate in those verses...

Context is how I answered the claim of "sovereign monergistic election" against John6:29; we can read verses 27-28, and reflect on Matt7:24-27 --- and realize that "belief is God's work that we choose to do". It is not something God does IN us (apart from and prior to our consent)...

and your superimposition of your conclusions on the premises you put forth, I find this claim of yours hugely funny.

"Superimposition"? That's amusing; it's fine if what I say is funny, but you have yet to discredit it.

I hope you do not see my words as "disrespectful"; I do not mean them so, Jim.

But that doesn't mean that I'm a JW, does it?

Of course not; I simply being mildly critical of someone who thinks, "I am here to teach, but have learned all I need". If that is your attitude, then I am gently questioning it.

No Ben, I'm not making any claim that "I'm not here to learn, but only to teach". Such a charge would much more closely fit your attitude and methods as you try to impose your view on the forum as a whole, and individuals in particular.

I'm pleased you do not have that attitude. I pray that I also do not believe "I know all things". I post here welcoming demonstration of how "Responsible Grace" does not reflect Scripture.

You defend "Reformed Theology", I defend "Responsible Grace". Each of us presents Bible verses in defense of our position; the outcome of such debate will be the credibility of each understanding. If you say "shut off doesn't mean FOREVER, if they are predestined then they will enter at a time God sovereignly appoints" --- then it is valid for me to ask, "How can 'shut off', mean 'not really shut off'?"

I have learned that it's wisdom to avoid being drawn in to a debate with someone who refuses to listen and consider, as you clearly do, and who cannot let well enough alone, but insists that any mention of that which you oppose MUST be shouted down. You seem to think that you will be heard for your "much-speaking". Just the opposite is what actually happens.

Responding is always a choice. I try to direct the course of the discussion, narrowing down the possible choices until only one remains. But if no one wants to continue towards that "one remaining", there is nothing that says anyone has to.

Please make note of my assessment of your written works to date as I believe that something very similar will be cited in peer review as the reason why your tome should be rejected by any serious Biblical Scholar.

Any "serious Bible Scholar"; you define that to mean "whoever holds to monergistic election", don't you? Those "serious Bible Scholars" propose that John6 is an assertion of "monergistic election". I seem to have James White's treatise on John6 saved to my hard-drive; proposes that "God gives certain ones to Jesus that they BELIEVE". He does not consider how Jn17:6 impacts that, by exposing that "Thine they were" (belonged to the Father), preceded their "being given to Jesus".

Thus the Reformed Theologian is reduced to trying to assert "THINE THEY WERE", does not really mean they were believers in, and belonged to, the Father. For if they belonged to the Father (before being given to Jesus), that would make "given", equal to "believing".

So that "given THROUGH belief" reverses the RT understanding of "given TO believe".

Indeed. Now it remains to be seen if you can accept that you're not inspired, and that all your labor is for naught.

Yes --- and per Gamaliel's wisdom, the Calvinist has no choice but to participate; to either "expose me as uninspired (heresy)", or to consider that Responsible Grace might be true."

LOL! Ben, do you realize just how self-serving that sounds? As a Calvinist, I realize that it's not up to me, that God is in total control, and nothing happens without His knowledge and permission, even your foray into false doctrine. I have a feeling you are the one who is going to learn a great lesson in all this. I just hope you can embrace being humbled by those whom you seek to impress.

I seek to impress no one. Besides God, anyway. I seek to "contend earnestly for the faith", and in that to uncover the truths of Scripture.

When Reformed Theology cites John2:19, thinking that "all who go out from us, were never saved", I read verses 26-28 as a true warning to "abide in Him, SO THAT we not shrink from shame when He comes". When Reformed Theology cites 2Cor4:3-4, thinking that the unelect are blinded (veiled from) so they cannot turn to God and believe, I read verse 3:16 to plainly say "when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed". Ruining the "monergistic" view. I read "do not destroy/ruin your weak brother for whom Christ died", as a true admonition to "not destroy/ruin my weak brother".

The strength of understanding is on RG's side, NBF.

Not answering does not "concede" the discussion.

Of course it does.

I concede nothing. I already told you I won't waste my time with someone who refuses to listen.

I've narrowed down the choices, to three; you either hold to one of them, or you have a fourth choice. But refusing to point out which is yours, does "concede the discussion".

You seem to think that you have some sort of "Calvinist-killer" list of questions.

I think I have nothing. I think I undestand the theme of Scripture; it remains for me to be shown "wrong".

You don't. The parameters of your presentation belie the bias and deceitful intent of the questions.

Three examples, each with three choices. You can choose:
#1.
#2.
#3.
#4, write-your-own.
#5 --- refuse to answer.

It's up to you, my friend.

I'm not going to feed your delusion and give it any legitimacy by attempting to answer such questions, because you have already decided that no Calvinist can answer them in such a way that you cannot "overturn" their answers, and claim you have "refuted" Calvinism.

You already answered (at least) one of them, NBF; the one about Matt23, you've already chosen #2. "Not really shut off, if they're sovereign-elect they will enter at a time God predestines".

And that changes what Jesus said ("shut off Heaven from men"), into "not really shut off". I understand Jesus' words at face value, "stopped/shut-off". Period. No duration mentioned (and a "selective duration" would remove the premise for His rebuke). Why is your understanding more credible than mine?

That's always been your method, claim that you have refuted Calvinism, and then deny that anyone has refuted you, therefore, your refutation is the only one that stands. Such an attitude is one of rabid, unteachable pride.

On the contrary; these discussions usually include "throwing a Five-Way, calling RG refuted, then saying 'I'm not going to discuss it any more'."

No disrespect intended, NBF.

And you accuse me of the attitude "I'm not here to learn, but to teach"? I believe it is YOU who is holding that attitude right now....

Teach me. The second set of questions, you've already answered "#2". Tell me which numbers you choose for the first and the third.

 

[Ben johnson]

Sorry, Cygnus; that "sending delusion so they cannot believe", happens only after they have refused to believe.

If God "sends certain men delusions so they cannot believe in Jesus", then what's the purpose of the Judgment?

God judges what HE decides?

It's God's fault for whoever perishes?

 

[cygnusx1]

Sorry, Cygnus; that "sending delusion so they cannot believe", happens only after they have refused to believe.

who has ever denied that!!

show me where I said God sends delusion OTHER than as a punishment ?

again you fail to realise that I am on page 50 , try keeping up , the debate has never been "do men deserve the Gospel" or "do men deserve blinding by God" ...... it has been far more explicit , does God blind , harden and send delusions upon sinners ...... yes!

 

[Ben johnson]

No, it doesn't: "What's born of the flesh is flesh; what's born of the spirit is spirit. ... You must be born again." Jn 3:5

Hi, Mikey. How is one "born again"? Doesn't John1:12 say that "becoming God's child (born anew) is by believing and receiving Jesus"?

Yes verse 13 says "the begottenness is all of God and none of us"; but doesn't our faith receive His not-of-us-begottenness?

Which is flatly against the Scripture stating man receives what God delivers -- be it salvation through faith, or condemnation through his works.

If salvation is "God's work" (Jn6:29), then certainly belief is God's work that we do. John6:27-28

Matt7:24-27 speaks of "he who ACTS on the Gospel". That's individual decision, not sovereign predestination...

Another lie blind to the excluded middle. Find Calvin stating God's partial.

The fact of "God choosing SOME to salvation, and choosing the REST to Hellfire", is "full divine partiality". And Peter said "God is not partial, but (receives) whoever fears Him and does right."

Find an actual Calvinist stating what you quoted. Citation, please. Or retract.

Hopefully I've now explained it better...

As for God choosing certain people, that's kind of obvious: "for the sake of the chosen, whom he chose ... to lead astray, if possible, the chosen." Mk 13:20

And in Matt22:14, "many are called, but few are chosen". How difficult (impossible!) it is to assert that "there are different callings; one calling MEANT to save those who are predestined, and another calling for those whom God does not want." In Jesus' words, all are called; those who come, and put on righteousness, become "chosen".

As 2Thess2:13 says, "chosen from the beginning ...through faith".

So Scripture says both. And so Calvinism says both.

No, actually, God does not choose anyone for salvation or Hell. That opposes Rom3:26; "God is just, and justifier of he who believes."

Not in the slightest.

I shall persevere in the struggle.

So God, being immortal, also can't extract Himself from being completely soteriological in your estimate? Angels, being immortal ...? Bore me with more contradictions.

Deal with the words; how does "imperishable wreath", not reflect "eternal salvation"? Peter uses "imperishable inheritance" in 1:1:4; does that refer to "eternal salvation"?

Were that not the case, again, there are clear reasons why grammatically your complaint doesn't prove diddly. Certainly you know that John 3:16 actually has the subjunctive "might not perish" right there.

It's a question of cause; is unbelief causal to condemnation (1Jn5:10), or consequential to God's sovereign choice? Cite the Scripture which supports the latter.

By this kind of assertion that means believers may actually perish anyway?! Oh, that's right, they can slip the grasp of Jesus (cf Jn 10) in your view.

Referring to verse 29? Surely we've discussed how "harpazo" means "seize/remove forcibly"? How then do you understand Rom11:21-23, where "unbelief removes us from Jesus, and belief places us (or grafts in again) into Him"? Verse 18 says "it is arrogant to think we can NOT fall". How do you understand that?

Well Greek doesn't see it that way. Look it up: subjunctive of intent (that is, Christ sacrifice intends to save); future subjunctive (that is, believers will be saved). Both of these perfectly reasonable Greek uses slip right out from under your argument.

What verse?
When Jesus worried about "Peter falling", Lk22:31-32, was "falling" really possible in Jesus' view?

So there you have it. Any one of three different arguments, all quite relevant to your clincher verse, each of which rejects your assertion of a lock-tight soteriological argument here. Yet it only takes one.

Which number did you choose?

Collect your case again. It's showing its shattered state.

I don't see it, Mike. Please choose a number, and help me understand your view.

...as I said to NBF, there is always #4, write your own, and #5, decline to answer...

"Don’t you realize that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize? So run to win!" 1 Cor 9:24

If you think your eternal life is won at the cost of others losing eternal life, then don't consider me in agreement.

That was my point --- clearly Paul is speaking of "individual race"; thus, we race not against Humans, but against our own unbelief and sin.

Not only does my theology reject the loss of eternal, I myself revulse at the thought that you are taking eternal life from someone else. I say Paul would also feel sick to his stomach that you would interpret his words so poorly.

The premise #1 is supported directly by Paul -- he's not striving after his own salvation, he's striving to win others.

So --- "immperishable wreath" is "only rewards; not eternal life." And you reject the idea that "adokimos" connects between 1Cor9:27, and 2Cor13:5.

"To the Jews, I became a Jew, that I might win Jews (to greater heavenly rewards). To those who are weak, I became weak, that I might win the weak (to greater crowns and mansions). I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some (from less-rewards in Heaven). I do all things for the sake of the Gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker in it (that is, more of a partaker, so that I'll be more "crowned" in Heaven). Do you not know that all who run a race all run, but only one receives the price? Run in such a way as to WIN (you'll win Heaven, but run that you may be greater-crowned). Everyone who competes excercises self-control in all things (so you also excercise self control; that you may have greater crowns --- if you are not self-controlled, you'll still go to Heaven but with less rewards). They do it (run, excercise control) to receive a perishable wreath, but we (saved!) do it to receive an imperishable one (more crowns and heavenly rewards). Therefore I run in such a way as not without aim; I box not as beating the air, but I buffet my body and make it my slave lest, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified (be shorted from rewards, lest I be "uncontrolled/fleshly-focused, lacking REWARDS but still IN Heaven")."

Is that how you understand Paul's words, Mike? That we are to "race so that we win more heavenly crowns than we would if we are uncontrolled/fleshly BUT still saved"? I hope you see I mean you no disrespect; by imposing "rewards" on Paul's words of "immperishable prize", I'm trying to communicate why that idea is not credible to me.

How is it credible to you?

You don't have insight into what I see and what I don't. What I do see is that you've committed a serious interpretive error -- a word used incidentally in one letter here, means the same thing as a word used incidentally months later in another letter there, in different subjects.

"Adokimos", means "unapproved/disqualified". It conveys a meaning of "coin inspection". Does it mean something different between the two passages?

No, it's not my job to prove it isn't something when Paul says it's something else! It's your job to demonstrate that it must be eternal life. Paul doesn't say it's eternal life -- else you'd be done. Paul says it's something else. Now demonstrate that it must be eternal life.

I cited 1Cor9:19-27, with the understanding of "heavenly rewards rather than eternal life itself". Does it accurately reflect how you understand it? Please tell me how you understand it, if you disagree.

 

[Ben johnson]

Inherent in an anthropocentric world life view is an unbridled optomism in human ability.

It's not a question of "how anyone views world-life", but "what Scripture says".

Is Baghdad Bob your press agent?

What's your answer to the 1Cor9:24-27? Do you agree with how I interpreted verses 18-27 above (to Mike, in green)?

 

[nobdysfool]

The ability to cite Scripture in cognizant and coherent harmony is not "arrogance", but "confidence"....

No, Ben, you do not set the parameters by which truth is measured. God sets those parameters. My refusal to play your game does not constitute concession on my part. Nor do you have the right to declare that I have answered any of your questions, when I have attempted to answer none of them and will not play your game. Seriously, you need to learn to accept what people say, and quit trying to parse it for your own advantage..

I said I would not participate, and I have not. For you to claim that I have in any way participated, or conceded, is disrespectful and insulting. .Read this and accept it: I have not conceded anything.

I am serious. I will no longer waste my time with you, because it is a waste of time, and dangerous to my blood pressure. You don't listen, you twist what I and other say, and try to corner people. You can't just have a discussion, you have to turn it into a contest, because you cannot accept that some of us just are not interested in trying to trump each other. I don't enjoy discussion like that, because it's not discussion, it's one-upmanship.

We started off fine, then you had to try and press the issue, because you can't abide anyone disagreeing with you, and just letting it go at that.

Any further attempts to draw me in will be reported as harrassment.

Capice?

 

[Ben johnson]

God chooses us, we do not choose Him at all of ourselves in the least.

Hi, Rick. What verse says that?

>>>No it doesn't. It places the man as having the faith, and establishes the seeker's belief & reward, but it doesn't at all establish man as the origin of faith.............................................................

Perhaps; but "faith originates in men's hearts" in Rom10:9-10; faith is what brings men into God's reception in Heb11:6. Faith is the cause of saving our souls in 1Pet1:9. Saving-faith comes from conviction on studying Scripture in 2Tim3:15. Have we established that "saving-faith originates in men's hearts"?

God not being partial is about His not choosing to save anyone based on their own merits.
The "certain ones" He chose were not chosen in partiality, their not even having been born to do or be anything to be partial about, but in mercy.

Wait wait wait --- "merits" is not in the text. It is a "thesis/antithesis"; it says:

"God is not partial...

BUT

welcomes those who fear Him and seek righteousness."

Clearly the "welcoming by God", is in response to their "seeking righteousness and revering Him".

Reformed Theology proposes the reverse order; "we seek righteousness and rever God because He has welcomed (sovereignly elected) us".

See the conflict?

You have sufficiently demonstrated your misunderstanding.

Can you hear me now??? (I'm so sorry; could not resist the orneryness. Have I shown my understanding now?)

He is asserting that God knows, not Paul, who will respond, that's all.

No, he's clearly warning against "destroying/ruining one who IS saved". This is a warning for us not to cause anyone to fall from salvation.

What else?

It's the same argument as in Matt23:13; WERE they entering, or not? WERE they stopped/shut-off from Heaven, or not? RT must change one of those positions into "not really"....

God willing, it does.

It does --- which? "show sovereign predestination", or "affects salvation"?

God willing? "This is the will of God, that all who see Jesus and believe may be saved." Jn6:40

"Let whosoever will take of the water of life freely." Rev22:17

"You search the Scriptures thinking in them you have eternal life; but they speak of Me and you are UNWILLING to come to Me that you may have life. How can you believe, when you seek men's glory rather than God's?" Jn5:39-47

God's will is clear, isn't it, Rick?

You forgot:
4. Disqualified in the minds of his preaching audience for a percieved lack of "practicing what he preaches".

OK, what does this mean? "Not practice what he preaches". Per context, could "not practice" mean anything else but "not be controlled, but be subject to fleshly desires"? What else?

...and if so, then "uncontrolled, fleshly" --- can "still be saved"? I'm not being disrespectful, Rick; trying to understand your position.

Sorry, gotta run for now...

Hope you don't have to run too hard!

God bless!

 

[Easystreet]

Isa. 1:18. "Come now, let us argue this out," says the Lord. "No matter how deep the stain of your sins, I can remove it. I can make you as clean as freshly fallen snow. Even if you are stained as red as crimson, I can make you as white as wool.

 

[drstevej]

Eternal Life
not Probation

 

[cygnusx1]

^


interesting rebuttal ;


Proposition 1. The Bible teaches that all men have completely fallen in Adam and are at enmity with God at conception. Genesis 6:5 states, "And the Lord saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intent and thought of his heart was only evil continually." Romans 3:1, "There is no one good no not one…" Psalm 51:5, "In sin my mother conceived me."

Arminianism teaches that all men have fallen in Adam, but not completely—only in part. Arminius could not give up the idea that man has lost his will to do good before God. Genesis 6:5 demonstrates that man cannot do good as it refers to man’s heart as wicked upon "every intent." Arminianism teaches, then, that man is not completely sinful, and that he may deem himself capable of good works. This denies Romans 3:1, "There is no one who does good, no not one." Arminianism is against the Bible on this point and ties to make man greater than he is.

Proposition 2: The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things, even the hearts of men. Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." God is sovereign over every aspect of the created universe. Even the king’s heart is under His complete control. Romans 9:18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." God softens some hearts and hardens others. His will is accomplished in every creature, whether to save them and show His mercy to them, or to pass over them, and leave them in their sin. He changes the heart of those he will save, and passes over others hardening them in their sin.

Arminianism teaches that God is not sovereign over the entirety of the created order. It teaches that men may frustrate God’s plan, resist the Holy Spirit, and reject God even if God comes to them to change their heart by His grace. Arminianism places the sovereign control of a human being’s life, not in the hands of the Creator, but in the hands of the creature. Man has the final say on whether he will allow God to work in him or not.


Concluding exhortation: Arminianism teaches that,

1) man is not completely sinful,

2) that God is not really sovereign over all His creation,

3) that Christ does not really save anyone from his death on the cross,

4) that man can resist the pouring out of grace by the Holy Spirit and reject salvation even after grace has been introduced to him, and

5) that the work of Christ can ultimately be discarded and salvation lost even after one believes on Christ.

What error! The devil tempted Eve, and Eve tempted Adam, and Adam fell for the very same doctrine the Arminians propagate today: man can be ultimately in control—man can be like God. The irony of this is that the Arminian "god" is not really in control, and the Arminian Christ does not really have any power to save. Why then would anyone want to be like the impotent "god" which Arminius propagated? Arminians believe sincerely that they teach the Gospel, but they really teach a different one. Sincerity does not mean what you believe is true. Paul states in Galatians 1:9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul does not say that those who preach a false Gospel will be forgiven when they die, he says they will be eternally lost and tormented among the damned of hell. How important is it then to have a right understanding of the Bible?

Arminianism is not the Gospel of the Bible. It is a grand delusion of the depraved mind. It is a damning heresy for those who continue in it defending it as the truth. Arminians believe that their faith is the determining factor of salvation, and they then treat Christ as the cosmic bell hop who caters to their every whim and fancy. Man is the sovereign and Christ is the lackey. In doing so, they have denied Christ, as Jude says in v. 4, as our only Sovereign and Lord. They have propagated a false view of God, of salvation, of grace, and of the redeeming work of the cross.

http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Popular_Heresies_Arminianism.html

 

[nobdysfool]

^


interesting rebuttal ;


Proposition 1. The Bible teaches that all men have completely fallen in Adam and are at enmity with God at conception. Genesis 6:5 states, "And the Lord saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intent and thought of his heart was only evil continually." Romans 3:1, "There is no one good no not one…" Psalm 51:5, "In sin my mother conceived me."

Arminianism teaches that all men have fallen in Adam, but not completely—only in part. Arminius could not give up the idea that man has lost his will to do good before God. Genesis 6:5 demonstrates that man cannot do good as it refers to man’s heart as wicked upon "every intent." Arminianism teaches, then, that man is not completely sinful, and that he may deem himself capable of good works. This denies Romans 3:1, "There is no one who does good, no not one." Arminianism is against the Bible on this point and ties to make man greater than he is.

Proposition 2: The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things, even the hearts of men. Proverbs 21:1, "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." God is sovereign over every aspect of the created universe. Even the king’s heart is under His complete control. Romans 9:18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." God softens some hearts and hardens others. His will is accomplished in every creature, whether to save them and show His mercy to them, or to pass over them, and leave them in their sin. He changes the heart of those he will save, and passes over others hardening them in their sin.

Arminianism teaches that God is not sovereign over the entirety of the created order. It teaches that men may frustrate God’s plan, resist the Holy Spirit, and reject God even if God comes to them to change their heart by His grace. Arminianism places the sovereign control of a human being’s life, not in the hands of the Creator, but in the hands of the creature. Man has the final say on whether he will allow God to work in him or not.


Concluding exhortation: Arminianism teaches that,

1) man is not completely sinful,

2) that God is not really sovereign over all His creation,

3) that Christ does not really save anyone from his death on the cross,

4) that man can resist the pouring out of grace by the Holy Spirit and reject salvation even after grace has been introduced to him, and

5) that the work of Christ can ultimately be discarded and salvation lost even after one believes on Christ.

What error! The devil tempted Eve, and Eve tempted Adam, and Adam fell for the very same doctrine the Arminians propagate today: man can be ultimately in control—man can be like God. The irony of this is that the Arminian "god" is not really in control, and the Arminian Christ does not really have any power to save. Why then would anyone want to be like the impotent "god" which Arminius propagated? Arminians believe sincerely that they teach the Gospel, but they really teach a different one. Sincerity does not mean what you believe is true. Paul states in Galatians 1:9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul does not say that those who preach a false Gospel will be forgiven when they die, he says they will be eternally lost and tormented among the damned of hell. How important is it then to have a right understanding of the Bible?

Arminianism is not the Gospel of the Bible. It is a grand delusion of the depraved mind. It is a damning heresy for those who continue in it defending it as the truth. Arminians believe that their faith is the determining factor of salvation, and they then treat Christ as the cosmic bell hop who caters to their every whim and fancy. Man is the sovereign and Christ is the lackey. In doing so, they have denied Christ, as Jude says in v. 4, as our only Sovereign and Lord. They have propagated a false view of God, of salvation, of grace, and of the redeeming work of the cross.

http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Popular_Heresies_Arminianism.html

Amen, and Amen! Excellent!

 

[Easystreet]

Sorry wrong place for this post - Removed

 

[Rick Otto]

If God "sends certain men delusions so they cannot believe in Jesus", then what's the purpose of the Judgment?

God judges what HE decides?
>>>>>>Who else is worthy?<<<<<<<<<
It's God's fault for whoever perishes?

Great Questions, Paul thought so too:

Rom9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

"Fault" is not found with God because when He creates evil, it is not out of evil motive. When men sin, we do so out of evil intent, not necessarily malice, but evil selfishness.

 

[Easystreet]

How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

It's not in the Bible. Can't find Calvinism in the Bible. Its a mute point.