How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Epiphoskei]

Of course saving belief is not merit. But because all things good which are of us are merit, Saving faith cannot be of our own instigation.

You are saying that a man is, of himself, humbling himself, worshipping God, doing all manner of virtuous acts of self-denial... and that would not make him intrinsically virtuous?

 

[Oye11]

Men who don't have a living spirit can't choose to walk in the spirit & believe.
They can only fool themselves into believing they can.
That's why its called "born again".
Instead of simply being a living soul, dead in spirit, grace irresistably births a living spirit.
How's your book coming along?
Have you titled it yet?
Maybe "The Death Of The Reformation"?
Maybe that's too stuffy & grandiose... how 'bout something more trendy with shock-value for eye candy, like "Killing Calvin"?

Numerous Reformation leaders taught against Calvinism. Wake up amigo. Newsflash, you aren`t the Reformation.. Heck even the great Chuck Spurgeon taught against the unscriptural notion that the new birth precedes belief.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].

 

[Ben johnson]

Tell me , was Thomas , yes doubting Thomas , saved because of his faith or because of the Righteouness that is revealed to faith" (Rom. 1:17)

You miss the context of Rom1:17-19. Righteousness is revealed from BEGINNING faith, to ENDING faith. God was revealed to them, but they chose sin. Paul was very clear....

no wonder some think that if they lose their faith they lose their salvation!!!

Paul thought that. Peter did, James did. Jude, and definitely Jesus did.

Did Peter lose his salvation when he denied Christ ........ of course not!

"I prayed for you, that your faith NOT FAIL; and when you have TURNED, strengthen your brothers."

Does "epistrepho/turned", convey NOT-TURNING? No.

nowhere in scripture does it say we are saved BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH ....

You cited Thomas (Jn20:29); but you won't recognize the import of what Jesus said.

"You believe because you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

Belief because of sight.
And better belief without sight.
And no connection whatsoever to "predestined-belief".

..... we are saved through faith , and the Righteousness we have is not our own!

The righteousness is by Christ; who is in us because of faith.

Not vice-versa.

 

[Epiphoskei]

And no connection whatsoever to "predestined-belief".

Argument from silence. These are of no value to these kinds of discussions. The call of the gospel remains, "believe and you will be saved" for all versions of orthodox Christianity, Calvinist, Arminian, or whatever else. The Bible speaks more infrequently of the reason why people believe, and the absence of such a connection in this case does not indicate a denial of such a connection. The scriptures are merely silent, and you cannot draw conclusions from silence.

 

[Ben johnson]

You are saying that a man is, of himself, humbling himself, worshipping God, doing all manner of virtuous acts of self-denial... and that would not make him intrinsically virtuous?

"HUMBLE YOURSELVES and God will exalt you." Both James (4:10) and Peter (1:5:6) said that.

Do you believe they meant what they said?

Our humbling ourselves, does not make us "intrinsically virtuous"; it makes us "receiving of HIS virtue".

 

[nobdysfool]

Sounds like a big straw man to me. Virtually all theologians prior to Calvin taught that a response precedes conversion and that salvation once attained can be forfeited through rebellion. In fact Calvin was the first to teach OSAS. And classical Arminianism does not teach that salvation is attained apart from grace. And no orthodox theologians taught that man is "adorable." Nice pile of tripe...

um...perhaps you should spend a little more time digesting what was said before you just pop off an answer, because you missed the thrust and misinterpreted some things. Go back and read more carefully what Rick wrote, and then see where your answer missed the mark.

And please be so kind as to not presume to lecture Calvinists about what they believe. It seems that there are too many anti-Calvinists who think they have some sort of "unction" to lecture Calvinists on all sorts of things and all that happens is a bunch of straw gets thrown around and burned, and nothing is accomplished. I accept that you reject Calvinism, please be so kind as to accept that I reject your views as well.

 

[Ben johnson]

Wow. What happened to your grip on context?
We believe because we're saved.
Believing is what born-again people do.
They then repent.
Salvation isn't based on the work we do to believe. the work we do in believing is based on our being saved.
You had it exactly backward.

Nope --- belief precedes "born-again". Just read John1:12 for the proof:
"To as many as RECEIVED Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God (born-again!) --- even to those WHO BELIEVE on His name.

Once again, game set and match.

 

[nobdysfool]

Nope --- belief precedes "born-again". Just read John1:12 for the proof:
"To as many as RECEIVED Christ, to THEM He gave the right to become children of God (born-again!) --- even to those WHO BELIEVE on His name.

Once again, game set and match.

Nope, you impose a meaning that is not in the text. Adoption is not regeneration.

Point nullified, Play over.

 

[Rick Otto]

Oye11;Sounds like a big straw man to me.

Of course it does.
Imagine what it sounded like to Arminius, or the Pope!

Virtually all theologians prior to Calvin taught that a response precedes conversion

Not even, but leave "virtually all theologians" aside and you might notice scripture teaching regeneration before conversion.
The response that precedes conversion is belief. Belief is the first response of a new spirit graced with life. Then comes repentance, then conversion.

and that salvation once attained can be forfeited through rebellion.

You're trippin'. Or "tripen'"
Loss of rewards in heaven happen, but not loss of eternal life from a God who gives His gifts & calling without repentance.

In fact Calvin was the first to teach OSAS.

Only if you don't count the apostles in scripture & the writings of the ECF. Eternal security isn't difficult to find in scripture unless you're a fear junkie.

And classical Arminianism does not teach that salvation is attained apart from grace.

Not overtly, but their cognitive dissonance on the issue is abundantly clear when they declare God rewards belief & claim themselves to be the origin of their belief.

And no orthodox theologians taught that man is "adorable." Nice pile of tripe...

You must have a lax standard for the title "theologan", judging by your offensively worthless post.

 

[Ben johnson]

Bad fruits do NOT make a tree bad , they merely make known that the tree IS bad. Men do bad things because they are bad.

Good works can never ever make a person good , they merely make known that a person is good. Men do good things because God is in them willing and working for His good pleasure.

Actually, it's a choice --- Heb6:7-8 is quite clear.

The outcome, "blessing" or "curse", is because OF the fruit (useful, or thorns).

Not vice-versa.

 

[Epiphoskei]

"HUMBE YOURSELVES and God will exalt you." Both James (4:10) and Peter (1:5:6) said that.

Do you believe they meant what they said?

Our humbling ourselves, does not make us "intrinsically virtuous"; it makes us "receiving of HIS virtue".

Is humbling oneself a righteous act? Yes or no?
Is humbling oneself intrinsic? Yes or no?

If it is both righteous and intrinsic, then we have intrinsic righteousness.

Our humbling of ourselves of course doesn't make us intrinsically righteous. The calvinist of course believes in righteousness recieved by grace, for though the acts we do are not out of keeping with our will, our will did not fabricate them out of nothing, but rather they were done in accordance with the plan of God.

Deny that, however, and you are still stuck with the problem that it would make us intrinsically virtuous. The scriptures deny such a possibility, but that is proof that the Calvinist is right. For if he were not, then man would have intrinsic virtue.

If anything is good, it by nature cannot also be ours own intrinsic creation. And the fact that the Bible doesn't treat faith like a work doesn't mean that intrinsic faith isn't a work, it means that faith can't be intrinsic.

 

[Ben johnson]

Nope, you impose a meaning that is not in the text. Adoption is not regeneration.

"Adoption", is "born-again" (born-from-above).

Can you deny it?

Point nullified, Play over.

Only in your eyes.

 

[Oye11]

Nope, you impose a meaning that is not in the text. Adoption is not regeneration.

Point nullified, Play over.

Tell me how someone can possess the Holy Spirit which is "the Spirit of adoption" without being adopted? You have gotten this out of Calvinist theology texts and/or off websites, not the bible...

 

[Rick Otto]

Ben johnson;The outcome, "blessing" or "curse", is because OF the fruit (useful, or thorns).

That doesn't change the fact that the fruit or lack of, is determined by the tree. We might have to wait for the fruit to judge the tree, but the One who created the tree foreknows, having created it by His determinate counsel.
Adoption is not birth.

 

[Ben johnson]

I must admit, I am going through a hard time right now, so please forgive me

I'm sorry about that; I'll be honored if you'll allow me to pray for you.

Sorry I lost my temper. I'll go walk down to the coffee shop & grab a cup for a chill-out.
I been hittin' some rough air too, but my wife & son are in fairly good spirits, so it doesn't seem so bleak

I'll also be privileged to pray for you.

I love both of you, and appreciate the godly attitude I just quoted.

Please let me know what I may pray for, and thank you for being my brother and sister.

...and that goes for NBF, Cygnus, Oye, Jipsah, and everyone else.



Group hug

 

[Oye11]

I'm sorry about that; I'll be honored if you'll allow me to pray for you.
I'll also be privileged to pray for you also.

I love both of you, and appreciate the godly attitude I just quoted.

Please let me know what I may pray for, and thank you for being my brother and sister.

...and that goes for NBF, Cygnus, Oye, Jipsah, and everyone else.



Group hug

I feel the same way. One`s individual salvation is not at issue here, and all of us are surely dealing with the stresses of this fast paced, demanding culture we live in plus whatever else. My prayers are for all.

 

[Ben johnson]

That doesn't change the fact that the fruit or lack of, is determined by the tree.

No, it's not --- in Lk8:13-15, Calvinists contend that "soils determine the fruit" (thus equating with "tree determines fruit").

But Hebrews is clear --- ONE field (one soil), IF it produces good fruit THEN it's useful; but IF (the same field!) produces BAD fruit, THEN it's burned.

You're backwards; the fruit determines whether the tree/soil is CALLED "good", or CALLED "bad"...

We might have to wait for the fruit to judge the tree, but the One who created the tree foreknows, having created it by His determinate counsel.

He does not determine fruit; we are judged BECAUSE of fruit.

Unless you know some way to disregard Rom2:6-8.

Adoption is not birth.

It certainly is; in John3, "born again", is "born from above".

One who is "born from above", is "born of God". You'll be hard-pressed to contend there is a SECOND "birth" (errr, that would be a THIRD one; first fleshly, second spiritual, third begotten of God.

"Begotten", means "born". There's only two.

 

[Ben johnson]

Argument from silence.

It's not silent at all --- it's very vocal. "You believe BECAUSE you see" --- does not connote "you believe because God has sovereignly chosen you to see".

Nor does ascribing greater value to "unseen belief".

Unseen faith is BETTER than seen faith; and that does not connect to "all saving-faith is God-ordained".

These are of no value to these kinds of discussions.

I think it is. Because of what I just said...

The call of the gospel remains, "believe and you will be saved" for all versions of orthodox Christianity, Calvinist, Arminian, or whatever else.

But Calvinism qualifies the idea of "believe", with "God decides who WILL believe". And that's at odds with Scripture.

If "belief" is equivalent to "repentance" (the two always co-exist), then look at Rom2: "God's kindness and patience are MEANT to lead you to REPENTANCE; but your stubborn unrepentant heart is making God MAD."

Why would God get mad, at what He sovereignly decreed?

What would that say about God?

The only view that fits, is "willful choice".

As in, "Willfull unbelief, angers God".

The Bible speaks more infrequently of the reason why people believe...

Why do people believe, in your perception of the Scriptures? (Please cite Scriptures)

and the absence of such a connection in this case does not indicate a denial of such a connection. The scriptures are merely silent, and you cannot draw conclusions from silence.

There's no absence, nor silence.

"You believe BECAUSE YOU SEE".

Contrast this with how Jesus berated the Pharisees, John5:39-47: "You study Scriptures ...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?"

Oops --- this establishes men's choice, rather than God sovereignly-choosing.

Doesn't it?


[/quote]

 

[cygnusx1]

those in the flesh cannot please God = scripture

yes they can = ben

 

[cygnusx1]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rick Otto again.