How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[Ben johnson]

And, no man calls Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

I searched for that verse; where is it?

I'm betting this is referring to when Jesus spoke with Peter: "Who do you say that I am?"

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnusx1, what would the difference be of the praise of God between a man in heavan and a man in hell?

THe man in hell says "Oh almighty God, you are ruler of the universe..."

The man in heaven says "Oh almighty God, you are ruler of the universe..."

Same difference I think.

the point is under ben's I-Ology there is simply NO REASON why a saved man would praise God any more than an unsaved man > for God did no more for ben than for any in hell.

 

[Ben johnson]

you haven't answered the question , yet ........

What question? As soon as I'm aware of the sin, I am convicted, and repent; remember, James says "he who knows what is right and does not do it, to him this is sin." There is a "crime of commission", and a "crime of omission".

How many times was the man in James5:19-20 saved? At least twice.

You quote my post, but do not respond to it.

In James5:19-20, a man can "wander from the truth" (only if he was once IN it), and can be "lead back" (only to where he once WAS).

So --- he was saved, again.

 

[Ben johnson]

It would seem that such a realization, being true, would drive a man to believe and receive Jesus --- wouldn't it?

Sounds pretty Calvinistic Ben.

Not at all. Calvinism asserts that "God's sovereign ELECTION drives a man to belief (and regeneration convicts him)."

Responsible Grace asserts that "conviction causes sorrow and repentance, which drives a man to belief, to receive the Spirit and THEN the Spirit regenerates him."

Towards that, I give you Acts2:37, and 2Cor7:9. Can you deny these?

 

[drstevej]

"God's sovereign ELECTION drives a man to belief (and regeneration convicts him)."

You do not understand Calvinism.

 

[Ben johnson]

You do not understand Calvinism.

Yes, I do; but Calvinists hold such a "knife-edge" of definition that it's hard to be accurate, in their esteem.

Let's try again: "God's sovereign election, and regeneration, then changes a man's WILL, so that he CHOOSES to believe. Monergistic regeneration of his heart must happen, else he cannot be convicted of his sin."

Do you accept what I said this time?

 

[Epiphoskei]

You do not understand Calvinism.

Indeed, this sums up the problem.

But this one objection I will make yet again. Your explanation as to why non-calvinistic doctrines do not leave room for boasting is insufficient. You say these things like coming to faith is broken humility so that we cannot boast, but brokenness and humility are Christian virtues which a man can boast about.

 

[drstevej]

Regeneration, Faith and Justification are simultaneous.

Read John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

You do not understand Calvinism, Ben

 

[Bob L]

the point is under ben's I-Ology there is simply NO REASON why a saved man would praise God any more than an unsaved man > for God did no more for ben than for any in hell.

Ok, right, so what's your point then?

 

[Bob L]

but brokenness and humility are Christian virtues which a man can boast about.

Epip, do you realize you're saying that unboastfulness is something that can be boasted about???

 

[Ben johnson]

I know not where to begin with a post that long and disconnected, but let me start with this one challenge, given time and time again without answer.

Where, outside of philosophy, do you get the notion that an offer requires that the one to whom the offer is given might or might not want to accept, and where in scripture do you get the idea that determinism and free will are incompatable?

Throughout Scripture, eternity is decided by what men do. Read Rom2:6-8, where men's choices determine his eternity. And in context, refusal of God's kindness and patience and forbearance, makes God MAD.

In Lk17:30, God commands all men everywhere to repent; the Calvinist tries to assert "this doesn't mean they CAN". That's a non-credible position; again, throughout Scripture, he who repents and turns to God, God receives.

Look at Ezk18:24: "I (God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

You have a philosophy that has blinded you.

You think so? Here I thought everything I believed was supported by Scripture.

Only your philosophy can disagree with deterministic free will. Scripture does not say they contradict at all.

Yet --- believers can cease to believe, and ONCE-believers can return. Rom11:21-23, and James5:19-20 are clear.

Every time you quote a verse at me, it proves nothing you are saying. "It's a Choice! It's a Choice!" "'Choose' it says!" That proves nothing unless you also read your philosophy of incompatablism into it.

And what philosophy changes "stopped/shut-off" (Matt23:13), into "not-really shut off"?

The scripture says that God has elected us unto salvation. (Eph. 1)

No it doesn't. Read verse 4 in context with 2Thess2:13 --- where it says "chosen from the beginning ...THROUGH FAITH".

"Faith", precedes "chosen". Clear and undeniable.

It says that as many as are appointed unto eternal life believed. (Acts 13).

No, it doesn't; it says "as many as were positioned/inclined, believed". It also says "the JEWS considered THEMSELVES unworthy of eternal life."

If God sovereignly appoints ONE, then the other cannot un-appoint HIMSELF. Context, my friend.

No one can come unless the father draws him. (John 6:44)

"Draw", in that verse, is "helkuo" (drag).

...and it's the same in Jn12:32, "I will draw all men to Myself."

And that drawing is more than just a call, and there are people, like Judas, who did not come because they could not come because the father did not draw them, despite being called (John 6:64-65).

I would like you to read John6:70, in conjunction with John15:16. You will find two things:

1. Judas was chosen exactly the same as the other 11, and ordained to bear fruit that REMAINED.

2. The other eleven are shown to be just as capable of LEAVING Jesus, as JUDAS.

Those two points are impossible to deny.

And yet the scripture extends a genuine offer of salvation to all who repent, and yet what a man does he wills to do.

Calvinism perceives "repentance" as consequential to God's sovereign choice; but Scripture presents it as causal to God's favor.

The natural interpretation is that man's will and total divine sovereignty over election do not conflict, regardless of whether you think that is a contradiction. If the Bible says both, both are true, discussion is over.

The Bible says God is sovereign over all; but our salvation is optional.

After reading Eph1:4 in conjunction with 2Thess2:13, please read Eph1:5-13, and understand that "the kind intention of His will", is the same as in John6:40: "THis is the will of God, that all who see and believe may be saved."

Understand that JESUS was predestined to die (1Pet1:20-21), and we-who-believe JOIN that predestined plan.

Now read Eph4:17-19, and try to fit it into "predestined-election". You can't.


"EP", I understand that your platform is built on Eph1:4-5, parts of Rom9, and Rom8:28; but by reviewing the rest of Scripture, it's demonstrated that "predestination" cannot stand.

Some of those "predestination-contradictory-verses" I've cited here; and I've responded to some verses you thought "predestinary".

I look forward to your comments.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Epip, do you realize you're saying that unboastfulness is something that can be boasted about???

Exactly! He's got it!
Humility is a virtue, and all virtues can be cause for boasting. We've all heard the stories of men who go, "Oh, I'm so humble, I'm the least prideful man on earth. Look at me, see an example of humility!"

The Calvinist attempts to attain to the standard by which he has been called, as Phillipians puts it, but we never kid ourselves into believing that any virtue that has been manifested in us is our own creation. Every virtue, including humility, is fruit of the spirit. Every vice is a fruit of our flesh.

 

[Ben johnson]

Regeneration, Faith and Justification are simultaneous.

Read John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

You do not understand Calvinism, Ben

Can't be; per Eph2:5-8, "WHEN we were dead in sins, we were made alive ...THROUGH FAITH".

In Titus3:5-6, regeneration is by the POURED Spirit. It's the same word as in Acts10:45, in context with "poured/gifted/RECEIVED". In Titus3, regeneration is by the Spirit, who WAS POURED (on us!) through Jesus OUR Savior.

This only supports "belief receives the Spirit, and THEN He regenerates us".

Regeneration is by the received Spirit; faith precedes regeneration. Undeniable.

Ben understands Calvinism; but Calvinism doesn't understand Scripture.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Throughout Scripture, eternity is decided by what men do. Read Rom2:6-8, where men's choices determine his eternity. And in context, refusal of God's kindness and patience and forbearance, makes God MAD.

Argument from silence. Calvinism does not say that faith does not lead to eternal life. The question is, upon what sits faith? And this verse does not answer, "upon man's autonomous will."

In Lk17:30, God commands all men everywhere to repent; the Calvinist tries to assert "this doesn't mean they CAN". That's a non-credible position; again, throughout Scripture, he who repents and turns to God, God receives.

I recall someone bringing up pelagianism already. It is absurd to say that a command make implications about the nature of the one who recieves it. God calls all to repentance. But depending on their will, they either will or will not come, and you should have no objection to that statement. But then the question remains, "why do people will the way they do?" The biblical answer being predestination. But we'll get to that.

Look at Ezk18:24: "I (God) take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies; so REPENT and LIVE."

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So the objection goes, how can he ordain their destruction? Not quite so simple though. If God didn't want the wicked to die and that were all there was to it, God would step in and prevent the wicked from dying. God takes no pleasure in the deaths of those who had never heard Christ, but he won't save those who would willingly choose him if they heard? He won't come down out of a cloud and preach the gospel to them himself? He wants them to live, right, and if he did, many probably would?

So it is established that God has more than one single agenda, and he will suspend his desire that all believe for some reasons. Is his goal of election on that list? If election is true, yes. If not true, then no. So verses like this, or like II Peter 3:9, all must be interpreted in light of what the Bible says about election - they cannot provide imput on election itself because everyone agrees that they do not indicate God's greatest motivation in the universe - everyone except universalists, that is.

Yet --- believers can cease to believe, and ONCE-believers can return. Rom11:21-23, and James5:19-20 are clear. And what philosophy changes "stopped/shut-off" (Matt23:13), into "not-really shut off"?

Romans 11 is about the national cutting off of Israel. Being that Christ crucified became a stumbling block for those who had believed in Judaism, it is clear that Jews who fell away from Israel when Christ came never had Christ to begin with. Perseverence of the saints states that those who believe will not ultimatly be fallen away at the end. James 5 doesn't actually contradict this, except in what you are inferring from it. Calvinism does not deny that God uses means, and Matthew 23 does not imply that the scribes and pharisees were not shutting up heaven in accordance with the foreordained plan of God. Once again, you are reading your philosophy into the silence.

No it doesn't. Read verse 4 in context with 2Thess2:13 --- where it says "chosen from the beginning ...THROUGH FAITH".

"Faith", precedes "chosen". Clear and undeniable.

Yes it does. You cannot pit scripture against scripture, and you cannot say that it is impossible to interpret one verse without another from another book. The ephesians did not have thesselonians, and paul expected them to understand.

But what does 2 Thesselonians mean? You omitted a vital part of the verse. The verse does not say that we were chosen through faith, but rather, that we were chosen for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and faith in the truth. Since it makes much more sense to say we were saved through sanctification as opposed to saying we were chosen through sanctification, were we chosen by faith or saved through faith? Attaching sanctification and faith to salvation and not chosen works better all around. Faith preceeds Salvation.

No, it doesn't; it says "as many as were positioned/inclined, believed". It also says "the JEWS considered THEMSELVES unworthy of eternal life."

That's simply a wrong translation. One anti-calvinists keep throwing around, but still a translation that takes liberties with the Greek and which bible translators have more or less rejected.

"Draw", in that verse, is "helkuo" (drag).

...and it's the same in Jn12:32, "I will draw all men to Myself."

Then you have set scripture against scripture, for John 6 teaches that it is the fact that the father has not drawn each and every man that explains why there were some among his number who did not believe.

I would like you to read John6:70, in conjunction with John15:16. You will find two things:

1. Judas was chosen exactly the same as the other 11, and ordained to bear fruit that REMAINED.

2. The other eleven are shown to be just as capable of LEAVING Jesus, as JUDAS.

Judas was not in the audience of that passage. He left in chapter 13. These verses were adressed only to the 11, who were called and predestined differently than Judas.

Those two points are impossible to deny. Calvinism perceives "repentance" as consequential to God's sovereign choice; but Scripture presents it as causal to God's favor.

"I will have compassion on whom I will have comassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy."

After reading Eph1:4 in conjunction with 2Thess2:13, please read Eph1:5-13, and understand that "the kind intention of His will", is the same as in John6:40: "THis is the will of God, that all who see and believe may be saved."

Understand that JESUS was predestined to die (1Pet1:20-21), and we-who-believe JOIN that predestined plan.

Which is a very calvinistic perspective, but does not imply where the faith comes from. Once again, argument from silence.

Now read Eph4:17-19, and try to fit it into "predestined-election". You can't.

How can anyone read it any other way?
Once again, God uses means. The fact that means prevent the salvation of some is perfectly Calvinistic.

 

[Easystreet]

"I will have compassion on whom I will have comassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy."

32. For God has imprisoned all people in their own disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone.

Now, just who is "everyone" that God is having mercy on in Romans 11:32. I am sure someone will find a way to reason this one out of the Scripture as well.

By the way this is the concluding statement to the Potter / Clay Strawman that RT, Tulipologist, and Calvinist love to use. Perhaps someone will consider the conclusion which is the final say on the previous verse. But there again you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[Bob L]

Exactly! He's got it!
Humility is a virtue, and all virtues can be cause for boasting. We've all heard the stories of men who go, "Oh, I'm so humble, I'm the least prideful man on earth. Look at me, see an example of humility!"

The Calvinist attempts to attain to the standard by which he has been called, as Phillipians puts it, but we never kid ourselves into believing that any virtue that has been manifested in us is our own creation. Every virtue, including humility, is fruit of the spirit. Every vice is a fruit of our flesh.

Epip, what a silly post. You're being entirely contradictory as I had hoped you would have seen. By boasting about one's unboastfulness, one violates the essence of unboastfulness inherently. (I love using made up words!) It's like saying 'I never lie' when in fact I do lie, it's a contradiction in terms.

God offers to all men the cleansing of sin through the sacrifice of His son, Jesus. The only thing man can do is humble himself to receive this gift. But the very act of humbling oneself is anti-boasting, so no man may boast. And if a man boasts, then he never went to God with humility in the first place!

Either a person can say I humbly asked God for His forgiveness, or a person can boastfully say they deserve God's forgiveness. But both are possible.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Or a man can boast of how he asked for forgiveness. It's silly, but it's logically possible.

Humility and brokenness are virtues in Christianity.
All virtues are grounds for boasting.
Therefore a man's humility is reason for boasting in someone.
If a virtue comes from God, we ought to boast in God.
If a virtue comes from ourselves, we can boast in ourselves.

This isn't may seem contradicting, but we are part of a faith where the first shall be last, where the poor shall be rich, and where weakness is strength. Brokenness is usually a bad thing, not worthy of being boasted about. However in Christianity it is a desirable virtue. Virtue comes only from God. If any virtue comes from us, we have the right to boast about it.

 

[Bob L]

Epip, you confuse true brokenness with false brokenness. What you say in your post is true

"we are part of a faith where the first shall be last, where the poor shall be rich, and where weakness is strength"

But when you say about brokenness "in Christianity it is a desirable virtue. Virtue comes only from God. If any virtue comes from us, we have the right to boast about it." you err.

It is true that brokenness is desirable, it is desired of us by God. Pridefuls man detests it. It is the true test of the believer, if he is ready to humble himself before God. However, if the man takes on false humility and then boasts about it to others, then he never was humble in the first place.

To say that virtue is from God is true, but so are we. God made us in His image and one of our faculties is the ability to see our sin in the light of scripture. It is just hard to do.

"Humility and brokenness are virtues in Christianity.
All virtues are grounds for boasting.
Therefore a man's humility is reason for boasting in someone.
If a virtue comes from God, we ought to boast in God.
If a virtue comes from ourselves, we can boast in ourselves."

Untrue. The very nature of the virtue humility is that with it we would boast of God, not of ourselves. If man has humility he boasts of one higher than hiimself. He can't have humility and boast that he has it.

"Or a man can boast of how he asked for forgiveness. It's silly, but it's logically possible." Not really, not truthfully at least.

 

[Epiphoskei]

And you continue to skirt the question.
"Humility and brokenness are virtues in Christianity.
All virtues are grounds for boasting.
Therefore a man's humility is reason for boasting in someone.
If a virtue comes from God, we ought to boast in God.
If a virtue comes from ourselves, we can boast in ourselves."
That is a logical proof. You can't disagree with it unless you take issue with one of the statements specifically. Is humility not a virtue? Do we not have the right to boast in somthing that we provided?

You arrive at the right conclusion, that we cannot boast in our humility. The problem is you don't realize that the only way we have no grounds for boasting is if we have no virtue to boast in.

You also get chronology wrong. We were saved when we came in brokenness. It is impossible to be broken and boasting at the same time. But why can a man not look back and acknowledge, "yeah, I had a hand in my salvation." Which is boasting, and which, if we say that man provides his faith without assistance, is also true.

 

[Bob L]

And you continue to skirt the question.
"Humility and brokenness are virtues in Christianity.
All virtues are grounds for boasting.
Therefore a man's humility is reason for boasting in someone.
If a virtue comes from God, we ought to boast in God.
If a virtue comes from ourselves, we can boast in ourselves."
That is a logical proof. You can't disagree with it unless you take issue with one of the statements specifically. Is humility not a virtue? Do we not have the right to boast in somthing that we provided?

You arrive at the right conclusion, that we cannot boast in our humility. The problem is you don't realize that the only way we have no grounds for boasting is if we have no virtue to boast in.

No, the problem is how you define what a virtue is. A virtue is a commendable trait (merriam-webster.com) i.e. the opposite of sin. But boasting is a sin, so your proof falls apart when you say that having no sin is a reason to sin. "All virtues are grounds for boasting"

To go one step further, you could say in a sense that someone having virtue is cause for boasting by someone. Say, if a parent were to boast about his daughter's performance in a musical. Or God boasting about one of His creatures' faithfulness etc. So virtue in this sense would come from ourselves so that God could boast. That's probably a better way to state your proof.