How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Ben johnson]

Who will get post #666 ???

My Bible has a footnote, "Some manuscripts state '616'."

Whoever "gets" it, we are solidly "in Christ", and He in us; and "greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." We do not fear superstition.

Of course. Ben, you were predestined to be an Arminian in order that Calvinism can be shown to be entirely biblical.

It hasn't yet been so shown...

Your persistence is because God has other lurkers he wants to read Fru and other's posts.

Heh heh.

Sola Deo Gloria (That Calvinistic Latin)

How is it "Glory to God", for God to predestine the majority to Hellfire, without any hope or chance of escape?

Besides --- look at the rebuke in Jn5:39-47. Their unwillingness to believe in Jesus, was because they sought man's glory rather than God's. At once, there is no glory for God in their unbelief, and their unbelief was their own choice.

Looks like John didn't believe in "predestination"...

 

[Rick Otto]

Besides --- look at the rebuke in Jn5:39-47. Their unwillingness to believe in Jesus, was because they sought man's glory rather than God's. At once, there is no glory for God in their unbelief, and their unbelief was their own choice.

Predestined choice is still our own choice.
Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Looks like Peter believed in predestination and personal responsibility for sin, other wise he would've said "obedient hands".Willingness, unwillingness, choosing, believing, not believing...predestined & wholy owned... no subsidiaries.

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi, Rick. How can God want anyone to sin?

1Kings22:22

You really wanna discuss that chapter? Ahab was antagonistic towards God; so God gave a deceiving spirit to the prophets, that Ahab would be enticed into a losing battle. But Ahab demanded Micah tell him the TRUTH, and Micah told all about the "deceiving-spirit" and "false-victory-news", and told the king that his battle would be disaster. The king imprisoned Micah, and went into battle anyway; and died.

Exactly what about that entire chapter supports your platform? I don't see anything. The verse you cited (22), was Micah telling the king the TRUTH, warning him about God's judgment against his ungodliness. Doesn't support you at all...

Ps 139:8 - If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

How does this support you? "Sheol", means "underworld", or "grave". If it means "eternal Hell", does this mean that those in Hell will get out some day?

I don't think it was so much because He couldn't tolerate sin as because He wanted to glorify His Father.
To do all that out of intolerance is reactionary. God is not reactive, He is pro-active.

His sacrifice propitiated our sins. His blood is what cleanses us from the stains of iniquity; by his blood I am invited behind the veil, into the very presence of almighty God.

...that's so awesome, all I can be is grateful...

Says who?

Says Paul, for one; in Rom2:6-8, judgment is meted out for the consequence of their choices. Either eternal life (to those who SOUGHT God), or wrath (for those who chose sin instead). A "just" God, cannot decide men's destinies, then condemn them for what He chose.

What's your point?
So what?
Get to the point please, I don't have a lot of time...

The point is, that everywhere "man's repentance" is at issue, it's "man's choice", not God's.

Back to Romans --- "God's patience/kindness/forebearance is MEANT to lead you to REPENTANCE --- but your stubborn unrepentant heart is making God MAD." I see zero of "God's gifting-repentance", and all of "God getting mad at men's STUBBORN CHOICE of unrepentance"...

You mean just like the human judge in the example I gave, where he doesn't want anyone to suffer, but he can't just let murderers & rapists have their way?

I mean that it mirrors perfectly what I just said about Rom2:6-8. God doesn't want anyone to perish, so He admonishes "repent and live".

...and those words cannot exist in any kind of a "sovereign-gifted-repentance" doctrine...

Not seems, it is easy. Nobody disagrees with that, you're wasting precious time re-iterating.

Then you have a logical conflict; if God wants everyone to repent, how could He CHOOSE to gift repentance to a FEW and flat ignore the rest?

Does God have "conflicting desires"???

No we don't because that isn't our point of contention at issue. You are headed off the rails.

Yes, it is; does God DECREE anyone for salvation, OR decree anyone to perish? No.

You conveniently ignore the first part of that verse which contextualy limits who He is talking to & about:
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any (of us-the people He is longsuffering toward)should perish, but that all (of us)should come to repentance.
He patiently waits for the moment He has predestined us to be ready for His gift of repentance

Look at how I worded that: "God doesn't decree to perish, any decreed-to-salvation..."

Why would Peter write that?

...but patiently waits/makes-room for all (few-whom-He-has-elected) to repent."

Why would God patiently wait for what He DECREED?

You didn't answer what Paul said about God's patience, in Rom2; "God's patience is MEANT to lead you to REPENTANCE."

Here God "patiently waits", but stubborn UNrepentance makes God MAD.

Do you see the conflict now?

Desperate speculation:
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
THe antagonism has nothing to do with the persons identity, it is questioning, exactly like you, how God can judge (find fault) if fault was decreed.

"[YOU might say 'who can resist His will?"

You have yet to demonstrate one verse that speaks of "decreed-salvation". Or "decreed condemnation". There isn't any, Rick.

Every instance is decreed, that's my point. To single one out would be silly.

I've shown you how "God's patience is MEANT to lead you to REPENTANCE". Show me one verse where "repentance" (or belief, or salvation), is decreed. It's not "silly", it's important; you can't show one instance, because there isn't any...

Spare me that indignity, please. I have read The Bible cover-to-cover 7 times, not counting word studies, etc., etc., etc.

I wish everyone had read it that much.

And all who believe are all who He personaly decreed would do so, in time.

Show me that idea in Scripture. Anywhere.

1Tim, not 2Tim, and it's "pray for", not "are to be saved"

Exactly what are we praying for them, if not their salvation? How do you see a disconnect, in "pray for them ...God desires ALL MEN to be saved"?

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Please tell me how the context allows "kings-all-authority", to be different from "all men"?

It doesn't, Rick; God desires the salvation of kings and ALL in authority.

And that forbids "predestined-few"...

No, but He knows it is necessary.

Necessary? Why? What is it about the Universe that requires ANYONE to perish?

Not harsh, just dense & confused, like I often get myself.

I don't think I've been "dense" in my posts, nor "confused"; I think I've posted with calm clarity, and Scriptural harmony.

While being accused of "avoiding passages", I respend to every verse, while those with whom I debate, do not. If anyone feels that assessment is wrong, then please respond to all verses cited in this post...

 

[Ben johnson]

I saw this and I just had to respond...

Hi, JF5000!

According to Acts 4:27-28, the crucifixion of Jesus was predestined.

Yes, and according to all other Scriptures. See 1Pet1:20-21.

27"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Please read Acts2, about 37-38; Peter told them that the Messiah CAME, and they KILLED Him. How did they respond? They were "smitten in conscience, and repented". Didn't they?

Tell me, did God the Father "delight" in the death of Jesus? Then how did He predestine it?

Did Jesus perish because of His sins?

No.

The meaning of Ezk18:24, is clear...

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes !!!

I too noticed that , whenever Fru debates with you it does always end the same way.......... Fru Biblically and Logically wipes the floor with your theories ben.

100%

Fru doesn't say anything different than the rest of the Calvinists say. Look back at these last few posts, and tell me that "Ben did not refute every point made, one by one".

I did. Rather, Scripture did. I did with Scripture. Right.

 

[Ben johnson]

Hi again, Rick. Please read my post to "Jesusfreak5000". I think I've fully answered what you just said about Acts2:24, in post #624.

I look forward to your response.

 

[cygnusx1]

Fru doesn't say anything different than the rest of the Calvinists say. Look back at these last few posts, and tell me that "Ben did not refute every point made, one by one".

I did. Rather, Scripture did. I did with Scripture. Right.

so you testify that Calvinists speak with one voice !

Fru has continually and majestically overturned every fallacious refutation of yours ben , that is why you will no longer debate with him!!!

 

[drstevej]

Fru doesn't say anything different than the rest of the Calvinists say. Look back at these last few posts, and tell me that "Ben did not refute every point made, one by one".

I did. Rather, Scripture did. I did with Scripture. Right.

Ben congratulates Ben, again.

 

[nobdysfool]

Fru doesn't say anything different than the rest of the Calvinists say. Look back at these last few posts, and tell me that "Ben did not refute every point made, one by one".

I did. Rather, Scripture did. I did with Scripture. Right.

You have attempted to answer, but that does not automatically constitute "refutation". That is something you haven't learned yet, Ben. not everything you say is "refutation". Neither is quoting scripture automatically the last word, because scripture must be rightly divided in order for that to happen. Anyone can quote scripture.

You equate your answers with scripture, and therefore want us to believe that your answers are equal to scripture, just because they contain scripture quoted by you. It does not automatically follow that such is the case.

Fru has convincingly and completely refuted your views on more than one occasion, using scripture, rightly divided. Answering back with other scriptures does not constitute refutation on your part.

Now, are you going to deal with what I posted in Romans 2 (and predestination)?

 

[Rick Otto]

 

[nobdysfool]

LOL! I think Monty Python is hilarious!

This parrot has expired! It has ceased to be! It is bereft of life! It has run down the curtain, and joined the bleeding choir invisible!

It is an EX-PARROT!

 

[LJSGM]

Romans 9


3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

This is the key to refuting calvanism, if taken in context that Paul is speaking of his race, the people of israel, then whole thing seems to make sense somehow. This continues until chapter 11 I believe. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, since I haven't read the whole thread.

 

[cygnusx1]

Romans 9


3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

This is the key to refuting calvanism, if taken in context that Paul is speaking of his race, the people of israel, then whole thing seems to make sense somehow. This continues until chapter 11 I believe. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, since I haven't read the whole thread.

well , erm , mmmmm , yes , maybe you might like to take a guess as to what chapter in the Bible is used most by Calvinists ........ hint it talks about the potter and the clay.

 

[LJSGM]

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]
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."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

continuing on through Chapter 9:

here Paul says "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary"

What he is saying is that it's not by being "born" into by natural means that makes you a child of the promise, but it's something else, which he defines more clearly later on as his gets into it.


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."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

He gives the example of Jacob and Esau. Notice how Esau, because he was the first son was going to recieve the inhertiance, but instead, because God loved Jacob and hated Esau, the inhertiance was given to Jacob instead, foreshadowing our relationship (the gentiles) relationship with God. Esau was the "elect" by birth, but because God loved Jacob, it was given to him instead.

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."[f] 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."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Is God unjust because he choses to have mercy upon who he wants to have mercy on (the gentiles)? Who were not the elect by birth?

 

[LJSGM]

Anyone want me to go on?

 

[cygnusx1]

Anyone want me to go on?

absolutely ! * cygnus gets his glass of wine out and sets down into a comfy chair with feet up *

 

[nobdysfool]

absolutely ! * cygnus gets his glass of wine out and sets down into a comfy chair with feet up *

Isn't it amazing how many want to try their hand at "refuting" the Doctrines of Grace?

 

[cygnusx1]

Isn't it amazing how many want to try their hand at "refuting" the Doctrines of Grace?

Harry Cygnus: I know what you're thinking.
"Did he fire six scriptures or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth,
in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
But being as this is a Calvinist , packing the most powerful teachings in the world,
and would blow any Arminians clean away , you've got to ask yourself a question:

Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, merit monger ? ​

 

[LJSGM]

Isn't it amazing how many want to try their hand at "refuting" the Doctrines of Grace?

I will go back to verse 18

Romans 9

18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

who is it that Paul is talking about God hardening their hearts?

Romans 11

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]

but I have to skip ahead for some to understand this.

 

[LJSGM]

Moving on

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?' "[h] 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?

"Then why does God still blame us" he is speaking about the Jews' heart being hardened, them making the excuse that they can no longer be to blame.

but God is not speaking about hardening the true "elect", those that he loves, but his enemies. The pharaoh was God's enemy, but why did he not destroy his kingdom right away? Instead, he raised him up to become a powerful leader, and it was for a purpose.

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."[g]

This doesn't say that he choses people at random and for no good reason, and hardens people for no good reason either and we shouldn't question his odd ways...the contrary. He has very good reason!

why then did he harden israel?

3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[m]