Epiphoskei said:
Argument from silence. Calvinism does not say that faith does not lead to eternal life.
I perceive
it's the other way around: Calvinism asserts that "sovereign election and monergistic regeneration (eternal life) leads to faith".
The question is, upon what sits faith? And this verse does not answer, "upon man's autonomous will."
This is the biggest "thorn" that prevents Calvinists from accepting "free will" ---
where does saving-faith come FROM?
The Calvinist thinks
"Depraved man cannot believe in Christ, for his heart is corrupt and deceitful above all things".
When confronted with Luke8:13, the Calvinist then says:
"Depraved man CAN believe in Christ, but not savingly, evidenced by their eventual falling-away".
This denies what Jesus said; BOTH groups (those who fell, Lk8:13, and those who persevered Lk8:15), began in faith. It was
perseverance ("holding fast") that made the difference. This then reflects Heb3,
"We are of Christ's house IF we hold fast our confidence and (hold fast) the boast of our confidence firm until the end."
Chapter3 continues:
"Do not harden YOUR heart; take care, lest any one of you be hardened by deceitful sin, to falling away from the living God. We are partners in Christ, IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."
Chapter 3 then discusses the Israelites, how they fell because of disobedience and unbelief. This leads to chapter 4, where in verse 11 it warns:
"Let US therefore be DILIGENT to enter God's rest, lest anyone FALL by imitating their example of disobedience (and unbelief)."
Here is established, iron-clad, that OUR diligence and OUR perseverance continues us in salvation. (Identical to 2Pet1:5-10, and 1Tim4:16!)
The Calvinist complains:
"But those in Luke 8:13 fell because they were BAD SOIL! And those in 8:15 STAYED, because they were GOOD soil!" This denies what Jesus was saying --- that those WHO fell were "bad soil" (
because they fell), and the others were "good soil"
because they
HELD FAST and PERSEVERED.
That the label ("bad/good") is the consequence of their action, rather than the determiner, is completely established in Heb6:7-8 --- ONE soil is tilled, and IF it produces good fruit THEN it is blessed; but IF it produces bad fruit, THEN it is cursed and burned.
Only by denying that Heb6:7-8 is connected to Lk8:13-14 (and then by
ignoring the Heb6 passage!) can the "predestinary view" of Lk8 survive.
Saving faith --- comes from men's HEARTS, in Rom10:10. And in Heb11:6, God
receives those who come to Him BY faith; this does not fit "gifted/consequential faith",
it only fits "CAUSAL faith".
There is still no avoiding Eph2:5-8 ---
saving faith, which made us alive, happened WHEN WE WERE DEAD in our sins.
Clearly --- "saving-faith",
precedes made-alive, precedes regeneration. Fully established, not contradictable.
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.
It's
more absurd to think that God stands around
commanding men to do what He knows they CAN NEVER do.
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.
Show me where God is causal to any man's will. Take Matt22:2-14 for instance; the KING, represents God ---
where does the king decide who comes, and who declines?
But then the question remains, "why do people will the way they do?" The biblical answer being predestination. But we'll get to that.
No, it's not; not anywhere. Cite the verse you think supports that, and I'll show the refutation.
For instance --- Eph1:4-5, in context with 2Thess2:13,
shows that "chosen from the beginning" was "through OUR FAITH". Chosen through faith --- thus "faith" precedes "chosen" --- can you argue with that?
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.
Yes, it is.
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?
To quote you, "argument from silence". I perceive that Romans2:14-16 clearly says that "when those who have not the Law (never heard of Jesus), but nevertheless show the Law written in their hearts (they believe in Him as much as they understand), their conscience will alternately accuse and defend them at the Final Judgment".
So it is established that God has more than one single agenda, and he will suspend his desire that all believe for some reasons.
His agenda is clearly spelled out, in Jn6:40. "All WHO see, and BELIEVE, may be saved". Look at how this connects with what Jesus told Thomas:
"You believe BECAUSE you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe." Jn20:29
First, Thomas believed BECAUSE he saw --- not because "God said so". Second,
unseen belief is praised over
seen belief --- complete nonsense
if BOTH beliefs are God-DECIDED.
So --- established, is "All who see and believe, may be saved;
all who have NOT seen and YET believe, have better faith than those who see and believe."
Furthering the point, is what Jesus said to Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin: "Had THEY seen what YOU have, THEY would have BELIEVED; I tell you it will go better for THEM at the judgment, than for YOU."
There's only one point that makes sense here --- Jesus is condemning their willful unbelief.
And that completely disallows "predestined-belief".
Is his goal of election on that list? If election is true, yes. If not true, then no.
"Election", means "salvation". All WHO believe, are elect.
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.
Your interpretation of 2Pet3:9, is:
"God does not decree-to-condemnation, any of the FEW-decreed-to-salvation". Why would Peter write that? You refuse the clear meaning:
"God does not decree ANYONE to perish, but patiently makes-room for ALL to repent."
The rest of 2Pet is equally clear --- 2:5-10 ("DILIGENCE: is required of us, that the gates of Heaven BE provided!); 2:20-22, 3:14, and 3:17.
Romans 11 is about the national cutting off of Israel.
Come now --- what does that mean? It's saying, "They were cut off for UNBELIEF; if they RETURN, they will be grafted in AGAIN."
What understanding allows "cut/off and re-connected, but not INDIVIDUALLY"? Are we to understand that he's speaking generationally, as in: "If you believe, but your KIDS don't, then THEY are cut off --- but if THEY (or THEIR kids) return to belief (but not "return", it REALLY means "come to belief in the FIRST place), they will be grafted in AGAIN (but not "again", it's "grafted in, in the FIRST place)?
You have two choices:
1. He's speaking "generationally", not "individually".
2. He's speaking of Israel, the INDIVIDUAL Israelites who were cut off for unbelief, and who can be grafted in again if they INDIVIDUALLY return to belief.
The third choice, is to ignore what I just said, and pretend "this has been refuted". It has not.
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.
Bologna. With respect, balogna. They were "cut off for unbelief --- do not be arrogant, for YOU can be cut off, TOO." They were cut off because they chose works, rather than faith.
You're denying the clearly stated concept of "cut-off", and "grafted-in-AGAIN". Choose which point you endorse --- 1 (generations), 2 (cut-off/restored), or 3 (ignore it and pretend it's refuted).
Perseverence of the saints states that those who believe will not ultimatly be fallen away at the end.
That's right --- but Scripture never asserts that. Nowhere, nohow.
James 5 doesn't actually contradict this, except in what you are inferring from it.
James speaks of a man who FELL from salvatoin. And may be "returned" (grafted in again!).
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.
Jesus plainly stated, "WERE ENTERING" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "predestined-elect". Do you disagree?
Yet, they were "stopped/shut-off" --- by Calvinism, they MUST have been "never-elect". Do you disagree?
Unresolveable conflict, "EP".
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.
Paul was "OSNAS"; Eph4 speaks of "us falling".
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.
It's both, "EP". You cannot deny "chosen through faith". Can you?
Besides --- look at the man in Heb10:29, who WAS (once) sanctified. What happened to him? (Hint --- Heb10:26!)
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.
I didn't attach it --- Paul did.
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.
I can link you to a discussion of Acts13:48 where Greek scholars disagree. But verse 46, forbids the idea of "sovereign-election" --- because the Jews unelected THEMSELVES.
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.
You're speaking of verse 44 --- it does NOT say "not every man is drawn". Jesus is saying, "Those who come to Me --- they do not come unless drawn by God". He's asserting His AUTHORITY; they were saying (verse 42), "We saw this kid grow up! Who does He think He IS?!"
Another point --- "belief", precedes "given" --- John17:6 is clear on that. "Father, those Thou hast given Me out of the world --- Thine they WERE, and Thou gavest them to Me."
Identical to John8:42 --- "If God were your Father, then you would love ME."
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.
Deny that Jesus said "I chose ALL TWELVE", and that "I chose you (to be the 12 Disciples), and that your fruit remain".
Deny that Jesus was contradicting Peter ("No, we won't leave; we know You're the Messiah.") --- by saying, "ONE of you IS leaving!"
That's what Jesus said, "EP". Clear and plain.
"I will have compassion on whom I will have comassion, and mercy on whom I will have mercy."
First, that is an ALSO-GENTILES passage; second, Rom11:32 says "God has mercy on ALL."
Which is a very calvinistic perspective, but does not imply where the faith comes from. Once again, argument from silence.
Rom10:10, and Heb11:6, plainly tells us "were saving-faith comes from". So does 2Tim3:15. Contrast 2Tim3:15 (faith comes from studying Scripture), with Jn5:39-47, "you study but REFUSE to believe!"
Once again, God uses means. The fact that means prevent the salvation of some is perfectly Calvinistic
Read the Eph4 passage again; it's not an "empty warning".
EP, I thank you for participating; and hope you see that every point of Calvinism, has been refuted. Sometimes I number the choices --- so that we can conclude a discussion. As in this post, you have three choices --- 1)generationally (Calvinistic), 2)individually (Responsible), 3)ignore (not honest).
Please tell which you chose, or if you've come up with a #4.
