How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Ben johnson]

LJSGM, please save post #666 for Ben.

Methinks you doth condemn me with faint praise?

 

[LJSGM]

Methinks you doth condemn me with faint praise?

who got #666 anyways? probably me

 

[drstevej]

so what you are saying is that God made men in order to put on a great show.

What you are doing is avoiding my question and instead putting words in my mouth (weird ones at that).

TILT

game over, Insert another quarter.

 

[Ben johnson]

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Yes, you can be cut off! If you don't continue in Faith.

There has never been a good defense against this passage, by Reformed Theologians. The view that "it's speaking of a PEOPLE, rather than INDIVIDUALS", isn't credible.

Paul clearly says "it is arrogant to think that we cannot fall".

This aligns perfectly with Rom2 (I love the letter to Romans!), where Paul says "God's patience and kindness are MEANT to lead you to REPENTANCE; but your stubborn unrepentant heart is making God MAD."

 

[LJSGM]

What you are doing is avoiding my question and instead putting words in my mouth (weird ones at that).

TILT

game over, Insert another quarter.

What was your question again?

 

[drstevej]

Yes.

Would you say it could be a reason for making some?
Orr does His justice and holiness take a back seat to other attributes?

Bump my questions.

 

[Ben johnson]

It's not easy to navigate this verse from any view, but it's definitely saying some of the hardening in Israel occurred for the sake of bringing in Gentiles, but regarding election they're beloved.
And in fact, y'hafta put the entirety of Romans 11:11ff in that context, because Paul explicitly states that this hardening is not to the point of falling:

The gifts and calling are "irrevocable" (without repentance), by God; but read this in context with Peter's words, in 2:1:5-10 --- "We must therefore (against the man that once HAD the qualities, but FELL) be all the more diligent to make sure of our calling and election ...that the gates of Heaven BE ..provided to you."

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes, but he makes it clear that HE Choses to have mercy on those that believe/ have faith.

That's right; and Rom11:32 says "He has mercy on all".

When we read in Acts17:30 that "God commands all men everywhere to repent", it's not reasonable to just say "But not every commandment can be MET".

He really wants all to repent; and (Rom2), when we refuse, He's angry...

 

[nobdysfool]

I'll never understand how this can be perceived to mean:

"God does not decree-to-perish, all whom He has decreed-to-salvation; but He patiently waits for all to come to repentance whom He has DECREED to repent."

That doesn't make sense to me. Why would Peter write it?

Because you were predestined to be confused by it, so that you would learn how to read context, and understand context, so that you can rightly divide the word of Truth.

Read it again, Ben, and quit trying to re word it. That is one of your weaknesses. And that is why you arrive at such wrong conclusions. Let the Word speak to you as it is written, rather than trying to disassemble it and re-assemble it.

And don't say you don't do that, because the post I am answering is proof that you do!



Like the machine in Short Circuit:

No Disassemble ! Number 5 alive!

 

[JimfromOhio]

I am a Reformed follower, Calvinism is a doctrine of how we believe salvation work according to God's sovereign and the work of the Holy Spirit. Calvinism is a doctrine (not actual salvation). Only God through the Holy Spirit that saves the elect. We don't know who are elected to be saved. We just preach the Gospel to ALL and allow God handle the election part. Jesus loves everyone and did die for ALL but we have to remember that the atonement is only for the elected, those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Calvinism has summarized its position in the famous acronym TULIP, and this serves as a useful way to approach the issue (being logical Calvinism is, if nothing else, easy to follow):

T: "total depravity"
Calvinism: Man after the Fall has no ability to cooperate with God's grace in conversion

Lutheranism: Agrees with Calvinism on total depravity

Arminianism: Man after the Fall can cooperate with God’s grace in conversion

U: "unconditional election"
Calvinism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation and the others (reprobates) for damnation.

Lutheranism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation but did not reprobate (chose for damnation) any.

Arminianism: Before the world was created, God foresaw those who would choose Him of their own free will and elected them to salvation

L: "limited atonement"
Calvinism: Jesus only died for the elect, objectively atoning for their sin, but he did not die for the sins of the reprobates. Reformed churches have historically taught a "limited atonement" of Christ, i.e., that Christ's death on the cross atoned only for the sins of "the elect"--those who have been predestined from eternity to believe in Christ and will spend eternity with Him in heaven.

Lutheranism: Christ’s death objectively atoned for all the sin of the world; by believing we receive this objective atonement and its benefits. Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time--even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ.

Arminianism: Christ died to give all the possibility to be saved.

I: "irresistable grace"
Calvinism: In all of God's outward actions (preaching, baptism, etc.) there is an outward call which all receive, yet there is also a secret effectual calling which God gives to the elect alone. This effectual calling alone saves and is irresistable.

Lutheranism: The question is not answerable; for the elect grace will irresistably triumph, yet those who reject Christ have rejected that Grace; yet the grace is the same.

Arminianism: God gives in His outward actions the same grace to all; this grace can be resisted by all.

P: "perseverance of the saints" (sort of like "once saved, always saved.")
Calvinism: Salvation cannot be lost. Those who have truly put their faith in Christ may temporarily lose the evidence of their faith and even live for a time in grave and unrepentant sin, without losing their salvation.

Lutheranism: Salvation can be lost through mortal sin and unbelief, but this legal warning does not cancel the Gospel promise of election

Arminianism: Salvation can be lost through unrepentant sin and unbelief.

To me, God is a sovereign God and we have to understand that somehow, mysteriously, within the framework of predestination and within the framework of His sovereignty and the framework of election, which I believe in, there is a place for human freewill which is whether they respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said in John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows beforehand what everyone will need and He will provide beforehand according to His will. Wisdom sees everything in focus and be able to trust God no matter what happens. All God's acts are done in perfect wisdom for His own glory. In my position, God will not hold me responsible for my lack of understanding in the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these is to look to God in deepest respect say, "0 Lord, You know all."

As a calvinist, I do believe we have "free will" but only according to God's will. God will direct our lives as He sees fit. Bible clearly pointed out that God have directed our lives. In Ephesians 1:11, "He works all things according to the purpose of His own will." 'Providence" means God’s faithful, moment-by-moment control over everything He has made to ensure that everything He has created are going according to His will. He is active in every detail of it. While I cannot ignore Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 which focuses on Predestination because we cannot selectively choose the verses that pleases us. Also, we cannot choose to twist the scriptures to to avoid the upsetting of knowing God's concept of election. Jesus did die for ALL but the atonement is only for the elected (in other words, those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, repented and etc).

 

[LJSGM]

What you are doing is avoiding my question and instead putting words in my mouth (weird ones at that).

TILT

game over, Insert another quarter.

Here, I'll make what you believe sound pretty for you.

What you are saying is that God binds people over to disobeidance in order to display his power and glory. In fact, God orginially caused men to sin for this very purpose. So, the reason wicked men rape women and children, murder, and anything else unGodly, is so that God can pour out his wrath on them, getting some sort of pleasure in it by his power and might being displayed. Are you going to tell this to the little child that got raped by a bad man? that God caused it? (for his own pleasure I might add) Are you saying that God is the author of evil? This is not the God that I worship. In fact, if God could have prevented sin and evil from entering the world, he would have, because he HATES sin and he HATES wickedness.

What if I loved oranges, but the only thing that could get me some would be if I stole it. What if I hated stealing more then anything else in the world? Would it make sense for me to steal the oranges, even if I had to encounter something that I HATED?

 

[drstevej]

Here, I'll make what you believe sound pretty for you.

What you are saying is that God binds people over to disobeidance in order to display his power and glory. In fact, God orginially caused men to sin for this very purpose. So, the reason wicked men rape women and children, murder, and anything else unGodly, is so that God can pour out his wrath on them, getting some sort of pleasure in it by his power and might being displayed. Are you going to tell this to the little child that got raped by a bad man? that God caused it? (for his own pleasure I might add) Are you saying that God is the author of evil? This is not the God that I worship. In fact, if God could have prevented sin and evil from entering the world, he would have, because he HATES sin and he HATES wickedness.

What if I loved oranges, but the only thing that could get me some would be if I stole it. What if I hated stealing more then anything else in the world? Would it make sense for me to steal the oranges, even if I had to encounter something that I HATED?

Again you avoid my question and insist on being a ventiriloquist

GAME OVER

 

[LJSGM]

What I think is a faulty line of reasoning is to think that God created man for one purpose, and because man was stupid, God has to go through all of this other stuff to finally get things back to the way He wanted them to begin with.

It's awfully hard for you to avoid the logical conclusion of the theology of non-Calvinists, that God was forced to go to "Plan B" because Adam sinned. I don't find that anywhere in any version of the Bible that I've read.

If this isn't "Plan B", what evidence do you have that this wasn't therefore planned to be exactly the way it is?

God, didn't have to go to plan B, because God foreknew already. He had plan A ready from the beginning. He had his plan of salvation figured out, Jesus the Christ, even before the beginning!

Here's God first prophesy of the messiah, from the very beginning!

Genesis 3


15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

Then to say that God was trying to put things back the way they were, you are only looking at the present, the tiny little picture, when you should be looking at the big picture. God says that we are a HARVEST from the earth. Why does God have us stay with him for eternity if his one true purpose was to display his wrath, power and might on the earth? What the purpose in giving eternal life?

 

[LJSGM]

Again you avoid my question and insist on being a ventiriloquist

GAME OVER

oh, I was going to answer it, just a sec

 

[LJSGM]

Again you avoid my question and insist on being a ventiriloquist

GAME OVER

besides, you hardly ever answer any of mine, so I don't know why you're getting offended.

 

[LJSGM]

Yes.

Would you say it could be a reason for making some?
Orr does His justice and holiness take a back seat to other attributes?

no, it is not reason for making some, since we know that God hates wickedness, why then would he create it in order to display his power and might? It makes no sense

 

[drstevej]

Is God glorified by the punishment of the wicked? YES or NO ???

Yes, but it doesn't mean that this was the purpose of making men!

Would you say it could be a reason for making some?

no, it is not reason for making some, since we know that God hates wickedness, why then would he create it in order to display his power and might? It makes no sense

Instead of answering my question of whether He could... you say He didn't because of...

Is your answer He could NOT have done so?
YES or NO

 

[LJSGM]

Instead of answering my question of whether He could... you say He didn't because of...

Is your answer He could NOT have done so?
YES or NO

why does it make any difference?

It's like one of those questions, can God create something too heavy for him to lift? Why even respond?

 

[drstevej]

why does it make any difference?

It's like one of those questions, can God create something too heavy for him to lift? Why even respond?

Again you did not answer.

And no it is not a tautology. You yourself said He is glorified in the punishment of the wicked. Is not the glory of God a worthy goal?

 

[LJSGM]

Again you did not answer.

And no it is not a tautology. You yourself said He is glorified in the punishment of the wicked. Is not the glory of God a worthy goal?

Yes it is a tautology. Can an all GOOD God be the creator of evil (the opposite of creating something good), it VERY much is.

Like I said before, the question isn't whether he can or can not, but why would he? Why would he create something he hated? it makes no sense.

Now why don't you answer my question?