How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[cygnusx1]

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."



Ezek 36;


36:24 For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.

36:25 And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.


if I have enough goodness in me to obey the Lord , to seek The Lord and to Love the Lord before I am regenerate then I don't really need a new heart , for my heart of stone is not a heart of stone after all..... it woud be a heart of flesh in no need of another heart of flesh


faith is the assurance of things not seen .......... change the desire and then the will will change , but to change the desire , the nature first needs changing , regeneration grants new desires , if it were not so , then regeneration would be unnecessary , even an accessory.

 

[cygnusx1]

We are saved by faith, not works. So based on logic, faith is not works. Why do calvinists believe that faith is works? God chooses those that have faith/believe in Him (Christ). That is God's sovereign choice, and it's quite understandable as well.

if you had read this thread here and here , you would know none Calvinists accept faith as a 'work' , and to be blunt , faith is described as "faith that worketh by love" , so in one sense it is 'a work' of God through us and in another sense it is certainly not a work because it is resting in THE WORK of another , Christ.

the point is anyone can quote a text to prove a point , what is needed is balance , prove ALL things , not merely proof text one side of a truth.

according to scripture there are TWO ways of looking at faith ;

1. as a work , Gal 5:6 "faith working by love" (some deny this)

2. As not a work .

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

how to reconcile this paradox!

In terms of salvation faith is NOT a work , rather it is faith beholds the work of another and that is why we cannot boast , the act of being saved BY GRACE THROUGH faith is said to be not of ourselves , not meaning the act of believing is nothing to do with us , it is we who believe , but the origin , the source , the desire to believe is by Grace , the Grace of God , so as to leave no room for boasting.


And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: Acts 18:27

There are two ways in which the word Justified is used in scripture , toward God and towards man.

Before God we are justified by HIM , by His blood , and By faith IN HIS SON.


Before men we are justified (and therefore this can be a problem with boasting) by works , what we do testifies before men what we are.

compare "wisdom is justified of her children" , obviously not in the legal sense as we are justified before God , but in the revealed sense , as to make known to others.

 

[cygnusx1]

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.

ben equates what is avoidable with what is human responsibility , in which case all humans born after Adam SHOULD be able to avoid ALL sin , but even ben hasn't avoided all sin , neither does he avoid all sin even now !

so ben must think the human race are not accountable , and that he himself is not accountable ......... he cannot have his cake and eat it at the same time !


John Calvin might well have been writing to ben had he posted here with these words ;


Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man's will, were there not some who endeavour to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavour to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture, (infra, sec. 6.) Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If any one will dispute with God, and endeavour to evade his judgement, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man's revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says, (Serm. 81, in Cantica,) that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

Inst Book II ch. 5

 

[cygnusx1]

"They add, that unless virtue and vice proceed from free choice, it is absurd either to punish man or reward him. Although this argument is taken from Aristotle, I admit that it is also used by Chrysostom and Jerome. Jerome, however, does not disguise that it was familiar to the Pelagians. He even quotes their words, "If grace acts in us, grace, and not we who do the work, will be crowned," (Heron. in Ep. ad Ctesiphont. et Dialog. 1) With regard to punishment, I answer, that it is properly inflicted on those by whom the guilt is contracted. What matters it whether you sin with a free or an enslaved judgement, so long as you sin voluntarily, especially when man is proved to be a sinner because he is under the bondage of sin? In regard to the rewards of righteousness, is there any great absurdity in acknowledging that they depend on the kindness of God rather than our own merits? How often do we meet in Augustine with this expression, - "God crowns not our merits but his own gifts; and the name of reward is given not to what is due to our merits, but to the recompense of grace previously bestowed?" Some seem to think there is acuteness in the remark, that there is no place at all for the mind, if good works do not spring from free will as their proper source; but in thinking this so very unreasonable they are widely mistaken. Augustine does not hesitate uniformly to describe as necessary the very thing which they count it impious to acknowledge. Thus he asks, "What is human merit? He who came to bestow not due recompense but free grace, though himself free from sin, and the giver of freedom, found all men sinners," (Augustin. in Psal. 31.) Again, "If you are to receive your due, you must be punished. What then is done? God has not rendered you due punishment, but bestows upon you unmerited grace. If you wish to be an alien from grace, boast your merits," (in Psal. 70.) Again, "You are nothing in yourself, sin is yours, merit God's. Punishment is your due; and when the reward shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not your merits," (Ep. 52.) To the same effect he elsewhere says, (De Verb. Apostol. Serm. 15,) that grace is not of merit, but merit of grace. And shortly after he concludes, that God by his gifts anticipates all our merit, that he may thereby manifest his own merit, and give what is absolutely free, because he sees nothing in us that can be a ground of salvation. But why extend the list of quotations, when similar sentiments are ever and anon recurring in his works? The abettors of this error would see a still better refutation of it, if they would attend to the source from which the apostle derives the glory of the saints, - "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified," (Rom. 8: 30.) On what ground, then, the apostle being judge, (2 Tim. 4: 8,) are believers crowned? Because by the mercy of God, not their own exertions, they are predestinated, called, and justified. Away, then, with the vain fear, that unless free will stand, there will no longer be any merit! It is most foolish to take alarm, and recoil from that which Scripture inculcates. "If thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Cor. 4: 7.) You see how every thing is denied to free will, for the very purpose of leaving no room for merit. And yet, as the beneficence and liberality of God are manifold and inexhaustible, the grace which he bestows upon us, inasmuch as he makes it our own, he recompenses as if the virtuous acts were our own."

John Calvin

 

[Ben johnson]

Ezek 36...

We've discussed this many times, Cygnus. Ezk36:26-27 mirrors Ezk11:18-21 --- and verse 11:18 clearly presents "turning to God, away from abominations", as preceding "God giving them new hearts". This ruins the Calvinist understanding (that new hearts must be given before one CAN turn to God). Further, verse 21 plainly states that those who WILL not forsake abominations and turn to God, are in trouble.

Each verse given in support of Calvinism (like Ezk36:26-27), has been overturned in that understanding. With respect, the only way Calvinism can persist, is to ignore what has been said (like ignoring what's been said about Ezk11:18 & 21).

ben equates what is avoidable with what is human responsibility , in which case all humans born after Adam SHOULD be able to avoid ALL sin , but even ben hasn't avoided all sin , neither does he avoid all sin even now !

so ben must think the human race are not accountable , and that he himself is not accountable ......... he cannot have his cake and eat it at the same time !

I can throw this "ball", right back at you.

If "elect-men's" hearts have been changed by God, so that they cannot resist believing savingly, then how is it that the saved, still sin? They would not be able to resist His desire for them NOT to sin.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

You protested the idea of "humbling oneself". I gave you two verses, one by Peter and one by James, that says "humble yourselves".

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

It's a choice.

Our humbling of ourselves of course doesn't make us intrinsically righteous.

It does, if it receives Jesus and His righteousness.

The calvinist of course believes in righteousness recieved by grace...

And that's the problem --- you forgot, "by grace THROUGH FAITH"....

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.

By faith....

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.

Just can't tolerate the idea that "man has a choice". In humbling oneself, man receives Jesus. In receiving Jesus, man becomes righteous --- because of Christ-in-him. 2Cor5:21

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.

John6:29 clearly says "saving-faith is a work --- GOD'S work."

John6:28 clearly says "WE WORK the work of God".
Verse 27 has the Jews asking, "What must we DO, to WORK the works of God?"

Your position seeks to deny "DO". Have you an answer for the action demonstrated in Jesus' words, Matt7:24-27?

 

[Ben johnson]

those in the flesh cannot please God = scripture

yes they can = ben

I agree with you, Cygnus, that "fleshly men cannot please God".

We disagree that "fleshlyness itself, is a choice".

In the midst of Rom8, Paul clearly and plainly says "if WE walk in the flesh, WE must die; but if by the Spirit we are putting to death the flesh, we will live."

Walking, Cygnus, is fully a choice; start to finish. Read Col2:6-8:

"As you have received Jesus, so walk IN Him. See to it that no one takes you captive through empty philosophy and worldly deception ..rather than according to Christ."

Does Paul present "take-captive, away from Christ", as something that's not really possible?

No.

Do we have any CHOICE in this?

Yes.

"WALK."

The same as in Rom8:12-14.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, when are you going to answer posts 845, 846, and 847? Or are you doing what you usually do, and ignoring the posts you cannot answer?

 

[Rick Otto]

If "elect-men's" hearts have been changed by God, so that they cannot resist believing savingly, then how is it that the saved, still sin? They would not be able to resist His desire for them NOT to sin.

The saved still sin because they live in a body of corrupted flesh.
If being saved meant you stop sinning, there would be no division over doctrine, no divorce, etc. The world would be radically different.
You have to be proposing this nonsense out of mere contentiousness, because there is no way you yourself believe being saved means we totaly cease from sinning.

The irresistable grace by which we are born again, provides saving faith, but that faith must mature in resistance to temptation to eliminate sin from our lives.

Do we have any CHOICE in this?

For the 9 millionth time, I reiterate:
Predestination does not eliminate choice, it simply predestines it.
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:

 

[drstevej]

Walking, Cygnus, is fully a choice; start to finish.

I see Dead People WALKING!

 

[nobdysfool]

We disagree that "fleshlyness itself, is a choice".

Not so. All men are born in the flesh. They did not choose to be so. Men are not born into this world "in the spirit". Your assertion falls apart. as usual.

Walking, Cygnus, is fully a choice; start to finish

By that reasoning, breathing is also a choice. Is it, Ben?

 

[drstevej]

By that reasoning, breathing is also a choice. Is it, Ben?

Man it keeps me awake at night choosing to keep breathing, not to mention choosing contract my ventricles in the proper sequence, selecting dreams to watch.

 

[nobdysfool]

Man it keeps me awake at night choosing to keep breathing, not to mention choosing contract my ventricles in the proper sequence, selecting dreams to watch.

I know! Exhausting, isn't it?

 

[Epiphoskei]

You protested the idea of "humbling oneself". I gave you two verses, one by Peter and one by James, that says "humble yourselves".

Which do not say out of some intrinsic ability apart from God.

It's a choice.

Agreed. A determinite choice.

And that's the problem --- you forgot, "by grace THROUGH FAITH".... By faith....
Just can't tolerate the idea that "man has a choice". In humbling oneself, man receives Jesus. In receiving Jesus, man becomes righteous --- because of Christ-in-him. 2Cor5:21

The only way that man cannot boast about his salvation is if he merited nothing, and providing anything merits somthing. Man has a "choice," indeed, but not independant of the plan of God.

John6:29 clearly says "saving-faith is a work --- GOD'S work."

John6:28 clearly says "WE WORK the work of God".
Verse 27 has the Jews asking, "What must we DO, to WORK the works of God?"

Your position seeks to deny "DO".

Typical anti-calvinist strawman. We don't disagree with "do," we disagree with, "if you do, you're doing it autonomously, under your own power and instigation."

We do, but only because we do not do out of intrinsic power do we not posess intrinsic merit. If we have such merit that comes from the righteous act of submission, we are justified in boasting, for we contributed to our salvation.

 

[drstevej]

Choosin' / Losing My Religion (Losing My Religion by R.E.M.)​

It`s bigger than You
And You are not me
The lengths that I have go to
The sadness in your eyes
Oh no I`ve sinned too much
I messed it up

That`s me in the center
That`s me in the lime-light
Choosing my religion
Trying to hold on to You
And I don`t know if I can do it
Oh no I`ve sinned too much
I haven`t done enough

I thought that I saw You grieving
I thought that I felt Your boot
I think I thought I saw You sigh
Free Grace is just a dream
Try try try try
Secure is just a dream
Just a dream
Just a dream
Dream​

 

[Rick Otto]

Just what kinda Dr. ARE you, steveJ?
"Two degrees in BeBop, a PHD in Swing, he's a Dr. of Rythm, he's a Rock & Roll king" - Little Feat ("Rock & Roll Dr.")

 

[drstevej]

PhD in Parody

actually PhD in Reformation History and Theology

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, when are you going to answer posts 845, 846, and 847?

845 was answered in 851.
846 was answered in 853.
847 was answered in 856.

Were you asleep???

Or are you doing what you usually do, and ignoring the posts you cannot answer?

Each was answered, in detail; but once again you post with derision.

How can I get you to respect me?

 

[Rick Otto]

PhD in Parody

actually PhD in Reformation History and Theology

Well mine needs a check-up.
What do you charge?

 

[Rick Otto]

Ben johnson;
How can I get you to respect me?

Well, you're out all hours, you never call, and you come back with Arminianism on your breath!