How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Beoga]

To speak plainly, Spurgeon is the kind of idiot who is capable of making evil seem good, up seem like down and black into white so long as it fits his philosophical beliefs. There is no ethical or moral reasoning to be found in what you posted UMP. It is nothing more than a sychophantic apologetic designed to "justify" the description of God offered by your version of Christianity.

before you call someone an idiot, why don't you first prove them wrong. i mean i can call you an idiot but that doesn't mean i have proven you wrong anywhere, it just makes me look stupid for making a claim without backing it up.

 

[Received]

chosen but free was geislers worse book ever. horrible work, alsmost as bad as what love is this? by dave hunt

His own conclusions about the nature of election were pretty strange. But his exegetical work is unsurpassed.

 

[john14_20]

Ah, but you're not God.

Or maybe that is justice, and you just don't like it. Who said you have to like everything that's good?

Ahh, yes. The classic Calvinist defense (I should say, retreat).

When your theology makes absolutley no sense even to yourselves, go hide behind a big rock called "Doesn't matter if you don't understand it or like it, God's ways are higher than our ways"

In other words, if you disagree with me, then I am right and you are wrong and if you don't like it, tooo bad coz it's God's plan anyway.

Well here's a wake up call.

It might not be God's plan after all.

What it is is your interpretation of the Scriptures - which (hold your breath, shock horror) may actually be wrong.

Hiding behind a big rock does not prove your point.

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[john14_20]

Even though I presently cringe at the idea of election -- how can it be refuted after reading Romans 9?

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[4] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[5]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[6] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[7] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[8] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?



(emphasis mine)

How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

Just calling the thread back to it's beginning.

I notice not much has been said regarding the refutation of Romans 9.

C'mon non-Calvinists.

Let's here from you.

 

[Beoga]

His own conclusions about the nature of election were pretty strange. But his exegetical work is unsurpassed.

what exegetical work?

 

[Prodigy]

You must have vessels of wrath for the vessels of mercy to learn obedience to God.

Adam and Eve is a result of only having good. They were easily overcome by evil because they had no genuine godliness.

If God just elected everyone all at once our godliness would be a fraud. The minute evil would be introduced we would all forsake godliness in a heartbeat.

Good angels learn obedience to God by the rebellion of the evil angels. Christ learned obedience to God by the things he suffered on earth by wicked men. Godly people learn obedience to God by the sinfulness of wicked people.

Vessels of wrath WILL be elected for salvation ultimately. There own wickedness will teach them to shun evil because God's presence will intensify their conviction of sin so that they hate evil. They will learn obedience to God by the things they suffer in the Lake of Fire. When the Lamb finally overcomes them and washes them clean of sin they will be genuinely godly like those in heaven.

Then all creatures will genuinely love God, love righteousness, love goodness and not be tempted by evil like God. All will be incorruptible and genuinely perfect forever.

 

[Ben johnson]

Vessels of wrath WILL be elected for salvation ultimately. There own wickedness will teach them to shun evil because God's presence will intensify their conviction of sin so that they hate evil. They will learn obedience to God by the things they suffer in the Lake of Fire. When the Lamb finally overcomes them and washes them clean of sin they will be genuinely godly like those in heaven.

You are invited to participate in the "Universalism" discussion over in Unorthodox Theology. The rules of the board forbid such discussions here.

I do not consider Spurgeon to be an "idiot"; I believe him to seek after God. But the understanding he has found, is in error.

There is no "predestined-election". I've written a whole chapter on Romans9, and the associated Eph1:1-5, and Rom8:29.

There are passages speaking of "falling-from-salvation" --- this flat denies "election", because no "elect", ever COULD fall. See Gal3:1-3, 4:9, 5:4-7.

There are warnings to "persevere", charging US with faith and abiding and endurance. Jude21, Heb6:11-12 & 3:12-14 & 4:11. 2Pet1:5-11 and 2Jn1:7-9. 2Jn2:26-28 and 1Tim4:16. There are MORE.

Jesus berated people in that time, FOR not believing. See John5:39-47. Look at Matt11:20-24 alone denies "predestined-election" --- because Jesus said, "If THEY had seen what YOU have seen, they would have BELIEVED!" Jesus plainly said, "If you had believed/loved Moses/God, THEN you would believe/love Me" (Jn5:46, 8:42).

No, atonement is unlimited in availability, but effective only for believers. Rom10:17-18, 1Tim4:10, 1Jn2:2 & 4:14 God desires all men to be saved (1Tim2:1-4), and commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts17:30); Calvinism says "God does NOT call all to repentance/salvation, atonement is LIMITED by God."

Happy to post my thoughts on Rom9, if anyone (especially the opening poster) wishes.

 

[cygnusx1]

No, atonement is unlimited in availability, but effective only for believers. Rom10:17-18, 1Tim4:10, 1Jn2:2 & 4:14 God desires all men to be saved (1Tim2:1-4), and commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts17:30); Calvinism says "God does NOT call all to repentance/salvation, atonement is LIMITED by God."

While it is true that some Calvinists don't believe "God does NOT call all to repentance/salvation" most in fact do !

there are two calls .

 

[Ben johnson]

Cygnus, please help me to understand how, and why, God "calls everyone to salvation, but with an ineffective call". (Ineffective to most, anyway)....

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnus, please help me to understand how, and why, God "calls everyone to salvation, but with an ineffective call". (Ineffective to most, anyway)....

I have been dwelling on just that for about 20 years

In fact I woke up this morning thinking about it , consider the purpose of the Law , what did men think the Law was given for ?

Now what was it given for ?

 

[brightlights]

I don't think that today's Calvinism is what Calvin actually taught. From what I understand, Calvin did not believe in "double pre-destination" -- in that while some are called to be saved, others are destined to be damned.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

I don't think that today's Calvinism is what Calvin actually taught. From what I understand, Calvin did not believe in "double pre-destination" -- in that while some are called to be saved, others are destined to be damned.

However if you belive in individual predestination the only logical way is to belive in double predestination. You cannot get around without completly talking over yourself or denying scripture.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi unimportantbuthisnameis;

However if you belive in individual predestination the only logical way is to belive in double predestination. You cannot get around without completly talking over yourself or denying scripture.

Is this because you aply an English definition to an original Ancient Greek word with out the unalterability of the word predestination. God is unchangable yes, but His plans are not.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
The word repented means a changed mind.
The true Ancient Greek definition of this word translated to be predestinated. in bold type;
[size=+1]proorizô[/size]to determine beforehand, to predetermine, pre-ordain Entry in LSJ or Middle Liddellproorisa_saor part act masc nom sg attic epic ionic proorisa_saor part act masc voc sg attic epic ionic pro+orisa_saor part act masc nom sg attic epic ionic raw_preverbpro+orisa_saor part act masc voc sg attic epic ionic raw_preverbFrequency in other AuthorsGreek Word SearchCorpusWordsMax. Inst.Freq./10KMin. Inst.Freq./10KNew Testament13785360.4460.44Greek Texts485104960.0160.01Click on a number in the Max. Inst. column to search for this word in that group of texts.Click on a number in the Freq./10K column for a more detailed frequency table.
This is the only meanings intended when the new testament was written.
Predestination is also translated correctly depending on which definition you aply to it. Not all definitions in the English dictionary can be applied all at once, and "Unalterable" is only one of many definitions.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Hi unimportantbuthisnameis;
Is this because you aply an English definition to an original Ancient Greek word with out the unalterability of the word predestination. God is unchangable yes, but His plans are not.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
The word repented means a changed mind.
The true Ancient Greek definition of this word translated to be predestinated. in bold type;
[size=+1]proorizô[/size]to determine beforehand, to predetermine, pre-ordain Entry in LSJ or Middle Liddellproorisa_saor part act masc nom sg attic epic ionic proorisa_saor part act masc voc sg attic epic ionic pro+orisa_saor part act masc nom sg attic epic ionic raw_preverbpro+orisa_saor part act masc voc sg attic epic ionic raw_preverbFrequency in other AuthorsGreek Word SearchCorpusWordsMax. Inst.Freq./10KMin. Inst.Freq./10KNew Testament13785360.4460.44Greek Texts485104960.0160.01Click on a number in the Max. Inst. column to search for this word in that group of texts.Click on a number in the Freq./10K column for a more detailed frequency table.
This is the only meanings intended when the new testament was written.
Predestination is also translated correctly depending on which definition you aply to it. Not all definitions in the English dictionary can be applied all at once, and "Unalterable" is only one of many definitions.
In Christ;
Romanbear

Actually I was dealing with thought that some Calvinists would say that God only predestined those who will be saved to be saved. The whole thought of modern predestination has to believe in double predestination. I'm not dealing with what the word in the Greek meant, as I belive in a form of predestination, however it not the same as the way Calvinist interpret the Scripture.

 

[cygnusx1]

I don't think that today's Calvinism is what Calvin actually taught. From what I understand, Calvin did not believe in "double pre-destination" -- in that while some are called to be saved, others are destined to be damned.

You have got to be joking ......... go read some Calvin.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi unimportantbuthisnameis;

I'm not dealing with what the word in the Greek meant, as I belive in a form of predestination, however it not the same as the way Calvinist interpret the Scripture.

I agree it isn't. I also believe in predestination but do not accept the Calvinist interpretation or definition of it.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi unimportantbuthisnameis;
I agree it isn't. I also believe in predestination but do not accept the Calvinist interpretation or definition of it.
In Christ;
Romanbear

so you are an Arminian

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

so you are an Arminian

NO, I'm not an Arminian, as John Wesley said "To consider oneself an Arminian, one should know what he [Arminus] taught." Because I checked several sources to find what Arminus taught I don't agree with him.

 

[Dmckay]

Brightlights said:
Ok. So justice is defined herein:

God creates one man to suffer eternally and another man to live forever with God.

This is, of course, regardless of the man's will -- because God has willed it for him.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see that as justice. Justice means that people get what they deserve, and if someone rebels against God unwillingly then that man does not deserve the punishment to rebellion.

Every human has their own finite view of what justice is, and God's is the only standard that matters. It almost seems that every child springs from the womb with the words, "That's not fair!" ready to spring forth at a moments notice. Fair from God's point is that all are justly condemned for eternity for our sinful nature. God is just as righteously glorified by sending a sinner to hell as He is by graciously chosing to save those whom He chooses. He is totally sovereign after all.

 

[Dmckay]

One must ask why would you cringe at a Biblical doctrine? Not only is there more than sufficient Biblical text to support the doctrine of election, not to mention that it is actually spoken of by name in Scripture, but there is ample Biblical example of election throughout Scripture.

I can surmise from some of the topic titles on this board that John Calvin is not thought to highly of by a great many participants on this board. However, election is but one point of T.U.L.I.P., which is commonly referred to, improperly, as Calvinism. The Five point of T.U.L.I.P., as they have come to be called, are actually the formal pronouncements of the Synod of Dort after six months of refutation of the 5 Points of the Remonstrants— a heretical Dutch sect. These five pronouncements of the Synod of Dort reflected the Biblical position of the non-catholic Church as a whole during the 1600s.