How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[moonbeam]

Hmmm; Matt13:42, obviously ties to Romans2:8. What is it that separates those who "receive immortality", from "those who receive wrath and indignation, cast into the firey furnace where is weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

A personal relationship (union) with Christ.

"Those who by doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality" --- receive eternal life.

These attributes are the natural outworkings, and the desires of the heart of those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and in union with Christ.

"Those who are selfishly ambitious and obey unrighteousness rather than truth" --- receive wrath/indignation (where they gnash their teeth).

These attributes are the natural outworkings and desires of the heart that is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that has no union with Christ.

Not intending to be sarcastic --- how am I missing words like, "predestined", or "chosen by God", or something?

How are you missing them?.....you haven't used them in your quotes above.....The biblical doctrine of predestination and election can be found in Rom8:29-30 and also Eph1....if you quote from these scriptures you will find the words you have mentioned will not be missing.

I meant no offense, Don. What do you think the conversation between God and the condemned will be like?

Extremely short.....Extremely one sided.....followed by the sounds of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

peace in Christ

 

[holyrokker]

ok it is 1240am, i am super tired, just watched the incredibles (which was wicked good by the way, go see it now, this very moment), but is my observation correct: dottie's belief is pretty much pelagianism?

Her beliefs appear biblical to me.

 

[Reformationist]

Rather than insult me, why don't you explain your position more fully?

Rather than insult me and my reformed brethren why don't you ask for clarification before you post such prattle?

 

[Ben johnson]

These attributes are the natural outworkings, and the desires of the heart of those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and in union with Christ.

Our "difference of opinion" in this, still remains the question of sequence.

Does belief receive regeneration, or does regeneration lead (irresistibly) to belief?

I cited Titus3:5-6; the Spirit is poured through belief in Jesus, and by that POURED Spirit comes His washing and renewal of regeneration.

I asserted that "poured" (ekcheo) is the same "poured" as Acts10:45, which was AFTER belief (11:17).

I asserted that 1Cor1:18 is qualified by verse 21, which says: "THROUGH the foolishness of the message (to the perishing), God is pleased to save those who BELIEVE (and thus are no longer perishing)".

Do you have anything that asserts, "regeneration precedes belief"???

 

[cygnusx1]

Our "difference of opinion" in this, still remains the question of sequence.

Does belief receive regeneration, or does regeneration lead (irresistibly) to belief?

I cited Titus3:5-6; the Spirit is poured through belief in Jesus, and by that POURED Spirit comes His washing and renewal of regeneration.

I asserted that "poured" (ekcheo) is the same "poured" as Acts10:45, which was AFTER belief (11:17).

I asserted that 1Cor1:18 is qualified by verse 21, which says: "THROUGH the foolishness of the message (to the perishing), God is pleased to save those who BELIEVE (and thus are no longer perishing)".

Do you have anything that asserts, "regeneration precedes belief"???

You can argue with men until you are blue in the face ........ makes no difference , men can argue and debate forever , what is really lacking in sinners is perception , they see , but don't see , they hear , but don't hear .
Their hearts and minds are blinded by Satan , and they desire to follow flesh rather than God's Spirit.
so it is perfectly reasonable , obvious , as well as Biblical that men need to be Born again in order to have true Spiritual sight .
Until then it is blindness , made even worse by a strange light being shone in their face , truly man prefers darkness rather than Light , and were it not for Regeneration so would you and I .

Here's a tip , go into General Apologetics and spend at least a Month in there arguing , debating , reasoning , etc , then come back and tell us what you believe.

 

[Van]

Perception is not lacking in all sinners, some come to the light. Jesus taught of those who were good soil, cultivated soil, those that readily accepted the gospel. If the picture in scriputure just had those who loved darkness who did not even know the gospel had been presented and the good soil, your view might have some credence, but since some superficially accept the gospel, this shows unregenerate sinners can hear and respond to the gospel. Their faith is not heart-felt, so they fall away when the going gets difficult, but they heard and accepted the gospel to a degree.
Total Depravity is a false doctrine according to a straightforward understanding of scripture. Jesus said few find the way and that indicates a capability of the unregenerate to find the way.

 

[Reformationist]

Total Depravity is a false doctrine according to a straightforward understanding of scripture. Jesus said few find the way and that indicates a capability of the unregenerate to find the way.

LOL! ROTFLOL! Thanks Van. I needed that.

 

[Ben johnson]

You can argue with men until you are blue in the face ........ makes no difference , men can argue and debate forever , what is really lacking in sinners is perception , they see , but don't see , they hear , but don't hear .

To take Rom3 as meaning "No one EVER seeks God", is to deny Matt7:7-8 and Jer29:11-14 which plainly say, "Seek Me and you will FIND Me, when you search with all your heart". We've discussed lamentation --- "None seek God, but if you seek God you will find Him". It's the same as in Genesis 6: "None are righteous, all seek only evil continually; but Noah is righteous and finds favor with God".

Until then it is blindness , made even worse by a strange light being shone in their face , truly man prefers darkness rather than Light , and were it not for Regeneration so would you and I .

There's a problem with that view and how Paul worded 1Cor1:21. Paul says in vs18, the Gospel is foolish to the perishing; but in verse 21 he says that God saves the man who believes THROUGH the foolishness. If your position was Scriptural, then it would have to cease being foolish BEFORE (and so that he CAN) believe.

Perception is not lacking in all sinners, some come to the light. Jesus taught of those who were good soil, cultivated soil, those that readily accepted the gospel.

Perception is not laking in ANY sinner. For "ALL are called" (Jn12:32), Jesus "is revealed to all so all are without excuse" (Rom1:19-20), "God desires all to repent and to come to knowledge of the truth" (1Tim2:4, Act17:30). The call to salvation is universal, overcoming man's depravity.

And the "good soil", is CALLED "good soil", because "they held fast and bore fruit with perseverance". The others were CALLED "rocky", because though they first RECEIVED the gospel with joy and BELIEVED (which Reformed Theology says is IMPOSSIBLE) --- they FELL to temptation/affliction/persecution.

Nowhere does it hint that "those fell because of unelection and others endured because of election" --- it plainly says, "they are 'rocky' BECAUSE they fell", and "they are good soil BECAUSE they held fast and persevered".

We cannot ignore the parable of Matt22; it is not "assigning more meaning than Jesus intended", to simply read what Jesus said. "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..." Jesus plainly tells that EVERYONE was called EQUALLY; but only those who CAME, and put on righteousness, were saved. There is no way to overturn, "For MANY are CALLED but FEW are CHOSEN". The chosen, are those who BELIEVED. This reflects perfectly on what I just said about the rocky, CALLED rocky because they fell away, and the good CALLED good because they held fast. But it reflects "predestination", not at all.

 

[Dottie]

LOL! ROTFLOL! Thanks Van. I needed that.

"Get up! Get up!" I say, "Get up off the floor Reformationist, and cease the hollow, foolish laughter." You have been shown by SCRIPTURE that the "T" in your "Tulip" has been snipped off. Where is your reply to my last post?

 

[Beoga]

Total Depravity is a false doctrine according to a straightforward understanding of scripture. Jesus said few find the way and that indicates a capability of the unregenerate to find the way.

How or why?

 

[Dottie]

ok it is 1240am, i am super tired, just watched the incredibles (which was wicked good by the way, go see it now, this very moment), but is my observation correct: dottie's belief is pretty much pelagianism?

How or why?

 

[Van]

All I see is stonewalling and no response. Find means find. If Total Depravity was a biblical doctrine, then Jesus would not say folks can find the narrow way that leads to life. Could dead mean find the way. Nope, so dead does not mean incapacitated. What about no one seeks after God. If this meant no one ever seeks after God by any means, then folks could not find the way. So no one seeks God means no one effectively seeks God by doing the works of the Law. The Bible teaches that we are conceived in sin, being in Adam in a sinful state, separated from God. Depraved. But this Biblical Depravity does not equate with Spiritual Inability to hear the call, receive the call, and trust in Christ, thus finding the narrow door.

 

[Reformationist]

"Get up! Get up!" I say, "Get up off the floor Reformationist, and cease the hollow, foolish laughter."

It's not hollow. Trust me. It was heartfelt. I am amazed and amused by the need some people clearly have to elevate their own importance.

You have been shown by SCRIPTURE that the "T" in your "Tulip" has been snipped off.

I have?? When did Scripture start posting on Christian Forums? Ooooohhh, you meant you showed me what you thought was the proper understanding of Scripture. I got it now.

Where is your reply to my last post?

Sorry Dottie but it's the same old endless, self-serving, anthropocentric position that I always see coming from the Arminian camp and it gets a bit monotonous.

Tell you what, I'll go back and reread your last post and see if I should respond. Sound good?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

If Total Depravity was a biblical doctrine, then Jesus would not say folks can find the narrow way that leads to life.

Which folks Van? And, if anyone can naturally find it then why is it that only few do? What's different about those that do find it?

Could dead mean find the way. Nope, so dead does not mean incapacitated.

No one is purporting a view that unregenerate man is incapacitated so what's your point?

What about no one seeks after God. If this meant no one ever seeks after God by any means, then folks could not find the way. So no one seeks God means no one effectively seeks God by doing the works of the Law.

No. It means that no one naturally seeks God because no one desires to seek after God in their carnal state.

The Bible teaches that we are conceived in sin, being in Adam in a sinful state, separated from God. Depraved. But this Biblical Depravity does not equate with Spiritual Inability to hear the call, receive the call, and trust in Christ, thus finding the narrow door.

So why do some hear the call, receive the call, trust in Christ and find the narrow door when so many others clearly do not? Are those that do just smarter? More in tune with the Spirit?

 

[Reformationist]

Tell you what, I'll go back and reread your last post and see if I should respond. Sound good?

Sorry Dottie. After rereading it I simply feel that the gulf between our views is too great for me to address in such a general manner.

I will, however, offer one piece of advice. You maintain the position that post-Fall man is born without a sinful nature. I will merely tell you that your position on original sin has been almost unanimously rejected as heretical by Christendom for 1600 years. You may want to rethink whether that is a position you feel is worth holding on to.

God bless

 

[Dottie]

Sorry Dottie. After rereading it I simply feel that the gulf between our views is too great for me to address in such a general manner.

I will, however, offer one piece of advice. You maintain the position that post-Fall man is born without a sinful nature. I will merely tell you that your position on original sin has been almost unanimously rejected as heretical by Christendom for 1600 years. You may want to rethink whether that is a position you feel is worth holding on to.

God bless

'Aw come on. Don't be a "fraidy cat". Show me with Scriptures where I am wrong.

You can't do it, and You know you can't do it.

When you say my position on "original sin" has been "almost unanimously rejected as heretical by Christendom for 1600 years", that leaves a blank between your so-called Christendom and the teachings of the inspired apostles of at least 400 years. So why did it take so long for Christians to learn what you are advocating as being truth here?

Thanks, but no thanks, for your advice to "reconsider my position in this matter". I'll take what the scriptures say any time over what such Philosophers as Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Calvin say.

 

[Van]

No. It means that no one naturally seeks God because no one desires to seek after God in their carnal state.

Contextually Paul is teaching that we are all sinners therefore separated from our Holy God so that by doing the works of the Law we are not seeking God effectively. If you look at the passage quoted by Paul, God is looking down to see if anyone is seeking God, therefore teaching that folks have the capacity to seek God. Paul adds to this truth by stating no one seeks God by doing the works of the Law. Bottom line the passage actually teaches the exact opposite of Calvinist doctrine.

 

[Dottie]

[/font]
Contextually Paul is teaching that we are all sinners therefore separated from our Holy God so that by doing the works of the Law we are not seeking God effectively. If you look at the passage quoted by Paul, God is looking down to see if anyone is seeking God, therefore teaching that folks have the capacity to seek God. Paul adds to this truth by stating no one seeks God by doing the works of the Law. Bottom line the passage actually teaches the exact opposite of Calvinist doctrine.

Hello Van.

I believe that Paul's point here in Rom. 3:1-18 is simply to show that the Jews were no more deserving of God's mercy than were the Gentiles, and that he speaks of the whole or the generality of the Jewish nation's deterioration, and that because of their falling away from the precepts of righteousness and godliness which they, as God's chosen nation, had once had. We find a very good example of this same form of generalization in John 1:11 where John says " He came unto his own, and his own received him not." . Taking that scripture at its face value, or just having it standing alone, would make it sound as though None , or not a single one of Christ's kinsman recieved or believed in him. While we know that the greater part of them did reject him, we also know that not all of them did, for in the following verse 12, it is written .
" But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
Rom. 3:11. "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

This passage in no way says that they were not capable of understanding or seeking after God. For we see that the apostle has said this in Acts 17:26-27 " And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:"

Rom. 3:12 "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

There is none that doeth good out of those who have gone out of the way and become unprofitable, because we know that Jesus did find some out of the nation of Israel (his people) who were righteous and God fearing people when he came to them. This cannot be argued to the contrary, for look what is written of Zacharius and Elisabeth, the parents of John the baptist. (Luke 1:5-6) "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

And so, we might ask these questions here: How can one got out of the path of righteousness if he was not in the path of righteousness to start with? And, how could one become unprofitable if he were never profitable at any time before?

And as to the question of "So why do some hear the call, receive the call, trust in Christ and find the narrow door when so many others clearly do not? Are those that do just smarter? More in tune with the Spirit?" : The Saviour teaches in John 3: 20-21 "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." So we can see that it is not because one is smarter in intellectual terms that they find the "door", but Jesus said it is because those who do truth are not ashamed to have the light surround them; while those who do evil do not want the light to be shined upon them, knowing that the light will show up their evil deeds. And this speaks nothing to the idea that some cannot come to the light, because they are "spiritually dead". For if they are so dead as that, they would never "hear the call" to come, or "see the light" that they have reasoned to shy away from.

May God bless you.

 

[Reformationist]

'Aw come on. Don't be a "fraidy cat". Show me with Scriptures where I am wrong.

Fraidy cat? Okay.

You can't do it, and You know you can't do it.

Okay Dottie. Well, good luck with that.

When you say my position on "original sin" has been "almost unanimously rejected as heretical by Christendom for 1600 years", that leaves a blank between your so-called Christendom and the teachings of the inspired apostles of at least 400 years. So why did it take so long for Christians to learn what you are advocating as being truth here?

It was condemned before that as well. I was speaking of the rulings of official synods. Is 1600 years not long enough for you?

Thanks, but no thanks, for your advice to "reconsider my position in this matter". I'll take what the scriptures say any time over what such Philosophers as Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Calvin say.

You're not "taking what the Scriptures say." The Scriptures are quite clear, and the Christian community has definitively stated, that the nature of man was corrupted by sin. The degree of that corruption has been debated but I am not aware of any Christian church that believes that man's will is in a "neutral state" after the Fall.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

If you look at the passage quoted by Paul, God is looking down to see if anyone is seeking God, therefore teaching that folks have the capacity to seek God.

You see Van, part of the problem is that you are a self-proclaimed open theist. God isn't looking down at us to find anything out. God is omniscient. If you feel inclined, would you please cite these Scripture references that indicate that Paul teaches that "folks have the capacity to seek God" and by "folks" please show how Paul is teaching that natural, unregenerate man has this capacity. Thanks.

Paul adds to this truth by stating no one seeks God by doing the works of the Law.

Again, please cite the verses you are referring to and show where I've stated that people do seek God by doing the works of the Law. The truth is, I don't believe people do seek God by doing the works required by His Law, at least not as a rule of faith. Also, if possible, please show how "There is none who seeks after God" is properly understood as "There is none who seeks after God by the works of the Law."

Bottom line the passage actually teaches the exact opposite of Calvinist doctrine.

LOL! You keep repeating this as if you suffer from the Jesse Jackson syndrome. You know, the more times I say it the more credible it becomes? Your inaccurate understanding of Scripture doesn't mean that Scripture contradicts Calvin's doctrine.