How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[nobdysfool]

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

Were you asleep???

Well, it was four pages back, and there was a lot of intervening stuff. I missed it. Not that I missed all that much, but I missed it.

And, I do have a life, with real tasks to accomplish, a wife to spend time with, and traveling for work.

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

How can I get you to respect me?

Well, for starters, admission that you are wrong about some things that have been decisively nailed down would be nice. To hear you tell it, no one has ever refuted anything you've said. Nobody, and I mean nobody is that good, Ben. Every time one of us nails you on something, you disappear. You never concede, even when there is no doubt that you need to.

I could ask the same of you: How can I get you to respect me? Or Fru? Or Cygnus? Or CC Woody?

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

If "regeneration" is by God's sovereign choice, then why hasn't it sufficient power to overcome the flesh?

In Rom6, we are told "do not keep submitting your bodies to sin, but submit yourselves as slaves to God".

You're left with two choices --- it's possible to submit to sin but still be saved...

...or...

...by submitting to sin, one forsakes Christ.

Got another choice?

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.

My only point, was that "God is resistible".

It seems you have accepted my point.

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.

Can you provide any Scripture to support any of this? (We've already established Eph2:8 does not assert "that faith is gifted by God".)

For the 9 millionth time...

...it was only 8 million....

I reiterate:
Predestination does not eliminate choice, it simply predestines it.

Choice that is sovereignly determined, is not chosen. Not "choice". Only God's choice.

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:

Apples and oranges; JESUS was predestined to die --- God does not decree any to perish. Peter said that, y'know.

See also 1Pet1:20-21.

 

[Ben johnson]

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

I see Dead People WALKING!

How do you answer Col2:6-8?

 

[Ben johnson]

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

Never said we did. Please give me your opinion on John12:32; does Jesus "call all men", or not?

Now Matt22:2-14 --- who in the parable, was not sincerely called? Who did the KING decide would come, and who decided themselves?

Agreed. A determinite choice.

No such thing. Either GOD chooses, or WE choose; if God chooses, then it's HIS choice, we have no choice.

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.

The "PLAN" of God, is clearly stated: "THis is the WILL (desire) of God, that ALL who see Jesus and believe may be saved." Jn6:40

"Belief" is not "merit"; it is brokenness.

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."

Please tell me how you perceive Matt7:24-27. Do WE ACT, or does God act FOR us?

We do, but only because we do not do out of intrinsic power do we not posess intrinsic merit.

Will you consider that (per Jn12:32), Jesus' sincere call empowers us TO believe?

Please read Rom1:17-20. God is revealed to all, but it's only faith that God receives.

...and it's not JUST "faith", it's BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith. Can you argue with Rom1:17?

If we have such merit that comes from the righteous act of submission, we are justified in boasting, for we contributed to our salvation

How do you deal with verses that say "save yourselves"? 1Tim4:16 for instance....

 

[Epiphoskei]

Choice that is sovereignly determined, is not chosen. Not "choice". Only God's choice.

That's a philosophical statement not proveable from scripture, which itself sets scripture against scripture. It would be better to say that because we have choice and because everything is sovereignly determined (cf. all the vereses calvinists usually quote, since they still say what they've always said), in fact choice that is sovereignly determined is still choice.

Is is so hard to believe that somehow, in God's omnipotence, he could control every little thing in the universe without rendering our choices ingenuine? Setting aside the question of if he has done it, could he do it? I see no reason other than extrabiblical philosophy to say no.

"Belief" is not "merit"; it is brokenness.

Agreed. But if it is by intrinsic power, then it is merit, therefore it is not by intrinsic power for, as we both agree, faith is not merit. The problem is that every good thing, every last good thing which is by intrinsic power is merit.

 

[Ben johnson]

Well, it was four pages back, and there was a lot of intervening stuff. I missed it. Not that I missed all that much, but I missed it.

It's ok, my friend.

And, I do have a life, with real tasks to accomplish, a wife to spend time with, and traveling for work.

Some day perhaps I'll have a life.

Well, for starters, admission that you are wrong about some things that have been decisively nailed down would be nice.

I don't remember being "decisively nailed down". Every "refutation" Calvinists have offered, has been overturned.

To hear you tell it, no one has ever refuted anything you've said. Nobody, and I mean nobody is that good, Ben.

Ben isn't "that good".

Scripture is.

You have yet to offer credible explanations for the verses cited.

Every time one of us nails you on something, you disappear.

Faulty charge; some times real life intrudes.

...well, it would, if I had a life. (It does.)

You never concede, even when there is no doubt that you need to.

Every last point that you think "should be conceded", has been refuted.

Take the idea of "gifted-faith" --- the only passage that's ever been offered, is Eph2:8. But we've established that "saving-faith" happened WHEN we were dead in sins. There is no way to disconnect verse 5 ("by grace have you been saved") from verse 8 ("by grace through faith have you been saved").

Saving-faith, happened when we were dead in sins. It precedes "made-alive".

Nowhere else is saving-faith, gifted. Not in Rom12:3, not in 1Cor12:9.

I could ask the same of you: How can I get you to respect me? Or Fru? Or Cygnus? Or CC Woody?

Where have I ever posted with disrespect or derision for you, Cygnus, or Woody?

You are my brothers; I expect you all to be with me in the clouds when Jesus returns.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I don't remember being "decisively nailed down". Every "refutation" Calvinists have offered, has been overturned.
You have yet to offer credible explanations for the verses cited.

That is more a matter of perspective.

 

[nobdysfool]

You don't even listen to what we say, and engage it on that basis. You just trot out the same phrases, the same boiler-plate answers you always do. You define words differently, and do not even make the attempt to understand how we use those words with a different understanding and definition. So you really don't even hear us. You have been shown to have reworded scriptures, and ignoring context which in itself refutes your view. You claim that "we have establsihed..." "We" have done no such thing. Do you have a frog in your pocket? You claim that your view always prevails, no matter how often it is shown to be wrong. And you hide behind the claim of "scripture", using it in such a way that you claim that scripture is always right, and since you "quote scripture", therefore you are always right. That won't fly, Ben.

Sorry, but you aren't really listening. You never have. I wonder if you ever will.

 

[Ben johnson]

That's a philosophical statement not proveable from scripture, which itself sets scripture against scripture. It would be better to say that because we have choice and because everything is sovereignly determined (cf. all the verses calvinists usually quote, since they still say what they've always said), in fact choice that is sovereignly determined is still choice.

If we have no choice but what God has already chosen, then we still have no choice.

Is is so hard to believe that somehow, in God's omnipotence, he could control every little thing in the universe without rendering our choices ingenuine?

YES, it is. God authoring everything, means He "authors sin". He does not; He cannot.

Setting aside the question of if he has done it, could he do it? I see no reason other than extrabiblical philosophy to say no.

The foundation of the difference between us, is that you see God as GIFTING us our faith, thus we come to Him with reverence. God is therefore "active", and we are "passive".

...and I see God as receiving faith --- Him being PASSIVE, and we being ACTIVE.

Towards that, I give you Matt7:24-27, Acts10:34-35, and Heb11:6.

What Scriptures do you offer for your view? (And how do you answer the ones I offered?)

Agreed. But if it is by intrinsic power, then it is merit, therefore it is not by intrinsic power for, as we both agree, faith is not merit.

OK, how about: "not intrinsic power, but by the real and effectual call that Jesus calls EVERYONE with"?

John12:32. Rom11:32. Matt22:14. So show me where in Scripture, anyone is not sincerely called to salvation.

The problem is that every good thing, every last good thing which is by intrinsic power is merit.

You and I agree that man is totally depraved, corrupt --- has NOTHING of value or merit. If he HAD, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to die.

Our disagreement is that I see the call as sufficient to overcome man's depravity, inasmuch as he CAN believe.

And that's the only explanation for passages like John5:39-47 --- where Jesus rebukes them for willful unbelief. Jesus even explains WHY they WILL not believe: "HOW can you believe, WHEN you seek men's glory rather than God's?"

 

[Ben johnson]

You don't even listen to what we say, and engage it on that basis. You just trot out the same phrases, the same boiler-plate answers you always do. You define words differently, and do not even make the attempt to understand how we use those words with a different understanding and definition. So you really don't even hear us. You have been shown to have reworded scriptures, and ignoring context which in itself refutes your view. You claim that "we have establsihed..." "We" have done no such thing. Do you have a frog in your pocket? You claim that your view always prevails, no matter how often it is shown to be wrong. And you hide behind the claim of "scripture", using it in such a way that you claim that scripture is always right, and since you "quote scripture", therefore you are always right. That won't fly, Ben.

Sorry, but you aren't really listening. You never have. I wonder if you ever will.

Actually, you have; most all of your positions found on imposing, "not really".

Take Matt23:13 --- Jesus says "you stop them from entering; you shut off Heaven from men." But you said "He doesn't say 'shut off FOREVER'."

So --- "shut off", doesn't really mean "shut off". Jesus makes a timeless statement, and you perceive it to mean "not shut off forever, if they're elect".

That of course denies the next verse: "You search the world for a proselyte; and when you find him, you make him twice a child of Hell as yourself."

Jesus meant "are entering", and He meant "stopped/shut-off". He didn't specify time, because there is no time indicated. YES they can "enter later", if they RETURN to belief. Just as Paul said in Rom11:21-23.

But Jesus didn't specify time, so "shut off", is "shut off".

And we don't have the luxury of imposing, "not really shut off (not forever, if they're sovereign-elect)".

 

[Epiphoskei]

If we have no choice but what God has already chosen, then we still have no choice.

Philosophy, philosophy, philosophy.
How about this. We have no choice but we have choice and that doesn't contradict. Disprove that solely from scripture. Because if we have to start understanding every truth of scripture with our minds before it becomes true, what then do we do with, say, the trinity, the hypostatic union, etc... So much for chalcedonian christianity... or even nicene.

YES, it is. God authoring everything, means He "authors sin". He does not; He cannot.

I can see that that might make people uncomfortable, however either God authors sin or sin has the power of existance in and of itself. If that is so, then we have two unacceptable consequences. First, aseity is finished. More than God can create itself. Two, it becomes impossible for us to live an eternal sinless life after redemption. If somthing other than God created sin beforehand, then somthing other than God can create sin after the redemption and start this whole miserable process over again. If God wouldn't stop it before hand because that would violate free will or somthing like that, he won't stop it later either.

The foundation of the difference between us, is that you see God as GIFTING us our faith, thus we come to Him with reverence. God is therefore "active", and we are "passive".

...and I see God as receiving faith --- Him being PASSIVE, and we being ACTIVE.

It is rare to see a free-willer speak so candidly about this... usually the notion of a passive God is avoided like the plague.

Towards that, I give you Matt7:24-27, Acts10:34-35, and Heb11:6.
What Scriptures do you offer for your view? (And how do you answer the ones I offered?)

What do those verses have to do with your view? What you do not seem to grasp is that the crux of the gospel remains the same in both the calvinist and anti-calvinist position. Believe and you will be saved. Those verses are silent as to the question "why?" and all arguments from silence are of no value.

But then, how about "it has been granted to you to believe and to suffer for his name" (Phillipians 1:29) "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works within you, both to will and to work." (Phillipians 2:12-13) Or "And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

OK, how about: "not intrinsic power, but by the real and effectual call that Jesus calls EVERYONE with"?

John12:32. Rom11:32. Matt22:14. So show me where in Scripture, anyone is not sincerely called to salvation.

You assume that a sincere call must be an efficacious call. They are not the same thing.

You and I agree that man is totally depraved, corrupt --- has NOTHING of value or merit. If he HAD, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to die.

Our disagreement is that I see the call as sufficient to overcome man's depravity, inasmuch as he CAN believe.

Can he obey? The law was given to prove that when a man is called to do somthing, it produces sin, not obedience. When the commandment came, sin came; that is what scripture says. Now the command to belive comes. Will man obey it or not? He most certainly, without help, will not, because the totality of depravity means that sin has spread to every part of the man, including the will. Man does not desire what he hates.

And that's the only explanation for passages like John5:39-47 --- where Jesus rebukes them for willful unbelief. Jesus even explains WHY they WILL not believe: "HOW can you believe, WHEN you seek men's glory rather than God's?"

Once again, willful unbelief is taught by Calvinism - do not suppose to force me to defend a strawman. We disagree not over the willingness of the unbeliever or believer, but about why a person wills. A calvinist insists that man's will is contingent upon who he is, and that is supported in this passage by the two conditionals.
"How can you believe if you accept each other's praise?"
"You would have believed me if you had believed moses."
Does this indicate that they would not believe just because they had will and they chose not to? Or because their wills were inclined by other things they had already willed and by their own sinful nature? Clearly the latter. And that is Calvinism, for if man's will is contingent upon his nature, and if man is fallen, then man will always willingly not will to be saved, for his eyes are blinded and he does not have what is required for faith in him, i.e., righteousness.

 

[Rick Otto]

BEN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickOtto
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.

If "regeneration" is by God's sovereign choice, then why hasn't it sufficient power to overcome the flesh?

What makes you think it doesn't?
The will is still fallen & the new, eternaly living spirit is only a babe in faith. Imagine when a foal is born. It doesn't land on its feet, but it doesn't take that long for it to get up & try out its legs. Living creatures grow & mature even in experience if not in age in the natural sense (angels).
It takes effort & patient persistance to bring Spiritual fruit forth generaly. We struggle with temptation, but God's strength is in our weakness.

In Rom6, we are told "do not keep submitting your bodies to sin, but submit yourselves as slaves to God".

Of course he did!!! What would you expect him to say, something stupid like "What say we then, shall we sin with abandon that grace may abound all the more"?

You're left with two choices --- it's possible to submit to sin but still be saved......or...
...by submitting to sin, one forsakes Christ.
Got another choice?

How did you make it "either/or"??
It is possible to sin, and wander off from the flock, but The Good Shepard will leave the 99 to come getchya.
Quote:
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.

My only point, was that "God is resistible".

It seems you have accepted my point.

It was always accepted, but only in this way:
God willing, God is resistable.
Quote:
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.

Can you provide any Scripture to support any of this? (We've already established Eph2:8 does not assert "that faith is gifted by God".)

You must have me confused with a weaker minded poster. "WE" never "established" any such thing.
WE simply disagree on that point!
Sure I can provide Scripture to support all of that.
And I'm sure you can ping-pong scripture back at me that you think "overturns" Calvinism.

Quote:
For the 9 millionth time...
...it was only 8 million....

Sorry! I'll switch to Decaff!!!!!
Quote:
I reiterate:
Predestination does not eliminate choice, it simply predestines it.

Choice that is sovereignly determined, is not chosen. Not "choice". Only God's choice.

Oh, stop.
Or just keep repeating it.
Whatever,... again we disagree.
All creation is sovereignly determined. It's the only way God determined reality. Omniscient=All Powerful, Omniscient=All Knowing.
That eliminates chance to a determined degree.
There might still be some randomness inside limited selections that would still serve His purpose, but God will not be mocked.
Of course He will be mocked. He's mocked all the time, but saying that He won't, invokes the ultimate sense... in the end, God wins - He has His way.
That doesn't make us robots, even tho some of us have serious glitches & program errors.
Quote:
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:

Apples and oranges; JESUS was predestined to die --- God does not decree any to perish. Peter said that, y'know.

Baloney. We are predestined to die. In fact we are born dead, needing to be born-again.
He said some from the same clay are made to be vessels of dishonor. Ya gotta keep your eye on Peter!
Or are you already circumcised?
2Pe 2:12 - But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

2Peter3:1: This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
...............
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It was "all", not "any", but you are remiss in noting that it's addressed to believers, not every created soul!
Don't thank me, it was no bother pointing it out, realy.

 

[Easystreet]

BEN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickOtto
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.


What makes you think it doesn't?
The will is still fallen & the new, eternaly living spirit is only a babe in faith. Imagine when a foal is born. It doesn't land on its feet, but it doesn't take that long for it to get up & try out its legs. Living creatures grow & mature even in experience if not in age in the natural sense (angels).
It takes effort & patient persistance to bring Spiritual fruit forth generaly. We struggle with temptation, but God's strength is in our weakness.


Of course he did!!! What would you expect him to say, something stupid like "What say we then, shall we sin with abandon that grace may abound all the more"?



How did you make it "either/or"??
It is possible to sin, and wander off from the flock, but The Good Shepard will leave the 99 to come getchya.
Quote:
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.

It was always accepted, but only in this way:
God willing, God is resistable.
Quote:
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.

You must have me confused with a weaker minded poster. "WE" never "established" any such thing.
WE simply disagree on that point!
Sure I can provide Scripture to support all of that.
And I'm sure you can ping-pong scripture back at me that you think "overturns" Calvinism.


Sorry! I'll switch to Decaff!!!!!
Quote:
I reiterate:
Predestination does not eliminate choice, it simply predestines it.


Oh, stop.
Or just keep repeating it.
Whatever,... again we disagree.
All creation is sovereignly determined. It's the only way God determined reality. Omniscient=All Powerful, Omniscient=All Knowing.
That eliminates chance to a determined degree.
There might still be some randomness inside limited selections that would still serve His purpose, but God will not be mocked.
Of course He will be mocked. He's mocked all the time, but saying that He won't, invokes the ultimate sense... in the end, God wins - He has His way.
That doesn't make us robots, even tho some of us have serious glitches & program errors.
Quote:
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:


Baloney. We are predestined to die. In fact we are born dead, needing to be born-again.
He said some from the same clay are made to be vessels of dishonor. Ya gotta keep your eye on Peter!
Or are you already circumcised?
2Pe 2:12 - But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

2Peter3:1: This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
...............
9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It was "all", not "any", but you are remiss in noting that it's addressed to believers, not every created soul!
Don't thank me, it was no bother pointing it out, realy.

Hi Rick, nice bike, what's in the mug?

 

[cygnusx1]

if salvation is because of faith and sin is due to a lack of faith , then it follows if and when ben sins he loses his salvation !!

 

[nobdysfool]

Actually, you have; most all of your positions found on imposing, "not really".

Take Matt23:13 --- Jesus says "you stop them from entering; you shut off Heaven from men." But you said "He doesn't say 'shut off FOREVER'."

So --- "shut off", doesn't really mean "shut off". Jesus makes a timeless statement, and you perceive it to mean "not shut off forever, if they're elect".

That of course denies the next verse: "You search the world for a proselyte; and when you find him, you make him twice a child of Hell as yourself."

Jesus meant "are entering", and He meant "stopped/shut-off". He didn't specify time, because there is no time indicated. YES they can "enter later", if they RETURN to belief. Just as Paul said in Rom11:21-23.

But Jesus didn't specify time, so "shut off", is "shut off".

And we don't have the luxury of imposing, "not really shut off (not forever, if they're sovereign-elect)".

Talk about circular reasoning! You claim "shut off means shut off", and then tell me that predestination isn't biblical. If "shut off means shut off", then the result is set in stone. Isn't that what you're really saying? How does that differ from predestination?

You've been riding this hobby-horse for some time now. It's getting ridiculous, because you have put words in our mouths that we've never said, and turned around and repeated it as though we said it. I call that bearing false witness, because this has been dealt with, and you have been proven wrong.

Just consider the fact that your reasoning forces the idea that mere men can finally and ultimately thwart God's Will. If God wants someone saved, is He powerless to make that happen? According to you, He is powerless, because He is passive. Since you state that God is passive and man is active, then it follows that man is his own savior, because it is man who, by his actions and force of will, saves himself.

 

[Ben johnson]

Philosophy, philosophy, philosophy.

Speaking of "philosophy" --- what about Col2:6-8? Can "worldly philosophy", lead someone away from Christ, or not?

How about this. We have no choice but we have choice and that doesn't contradict.

It contradicts.

Disprove that solely from scripture.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil to you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Deut30:15ff "I have set before you life and death, propserity and adversity, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice and following His statutes. For this is your life and the length of your days."

Because if we have to start understanding every truth of scripture with our minds before it becomes true, what then do we do with, say, the trinity, the hypostatic union, etc... So much for chalcedonian christianity... or even nicene.

Christian principles are clearly established in Scripture.

The forfeitability of salvation, is also.

I can see that that might make people uncomfortable, however either God authors sin or sin has the power of existance in and of itself.

Both positions are wrong.

1. If God authors sin, then absolute and perfect Good, causes evil. God cannot go against His nature. Besides, to be "JUST", we must receive the consequence of our chosen actions (Col3:25!!!). NOT the consequence of HIS CHOICE.

2. If sin has its own power, then we are fully "with excuse". NOWHERE is the idea presented that "we cannot resist sin". See 1Cor10:12-13!

If that is so, then we have two unacceptable consequences. First, aseity is finished. More than God can create itself. Two, it becomes impossible for us to live an eternal sinless life after redemption. If somthing other than God created sin beforehand, then something other than God can create sin after the redemption and start this whole miserable process over again. If God wouldn't stop it before hand because that would violate free will or somthing like that, he won't stop it later either.

God does not cause sin, ever.

It is rare to see a free-willer speak so candidly about this... usually the notion of a passive God is avoided like the plague.

God was ACTIVE in presenting CHrist to the world. He is PASSIVE in the decision to receive Christ. It's clearly stated in 1Tim4:10: "God is the Savior of the world (active, universal), specially (malista/above-all) believers (passive in RECEIVING belief)." You won't be able to deny that.

And you have not answered the verses I asserted --- Matt7:24-27, Acts10:34-35, Heb11:6.

What do those verses have to do with your view?

Everything. In Matt7 Jesus says "he WHO ACTS is wise, he who DOES NOT act is foolish". In Acts10 Peter says "God is not partial, but RECEIVES man's reverence/pursuit-of-righteousness". In Heb11, "God RECEIVES he who comes BY faith, God REWARDS those WHO seek".

What you do not seem to grasp is that the crux of the gospel remains the same in both the calvinist and anti-calvinist position. Believe and you will be saved.

Yes, and no; mere belief isn't it (James2:19). It is belief that causes one to DIE to sin and the world, and be born from above. Rom6.

You're right, if we agree on that, then we have sufficient agreement to stand together in Him.

Those verses are silent as to the question "why?" and all arguments from silence are of no value.

John5:39-47 is not silent. Jesus plainly states WHY they WILL not believe.

But then, how about "it has been granted to you to believe and to suffer for his name" (Phillipians 1:29)

Same as in 1Tim4:10; granted yes (to all), compelled no (realized to those who believe).

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works within you, both to will and to work." (Phillipians 2:12-13)

In no way does this contradict the idea that "all WHO believe, saved", and "you work the work of God, belief". Full free choice.

Or "And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

"Appointed", is "positioned". There is no way it could mean "sovereignly-ordained", if the context (verse 46!!!) conveys "the Jews unappointed THEMSELVES".

It's consistent to understand, "As many as were inclined, believed." See Rom13:1, for a verse that says "ordained by God". Luke did not forget "by God", accidentally.

You assume that a sincere call must be an efficacious call. They are not the same thing.

The parable (Matt22) is about salvation. And the king decided nothing. Each one, chose. "Many are called, but few are chosen" --- Calvinists see "sovereign-divine-predestinary-choice", but context conveys "the few that were chosen, are they that CAME".

We haven't the luxury of writing in additional words.

Can he obey? The law was given to prove that when a man is called to do somthing, it produces sin, not obedience.

You stand against Rom6:15-17, and Heb5:9.

When the commandment came, sin came; that is what scripture says. Now the command to belive comes. Will man obey it or not? He most certainly, without help, will not, because the totality of depravity means that sin has spread to every part of the man, including the will. Man does not desire what he hates.

So man CANNOT believe, CANNOT seek God in ANY measure, because he's totally depraved.

...but then the Calvinist has to "back-pedal" to explain Luke8:13; Calvinist: "Oh they CAN believe, but it's not REAL (heart) belief because they later FALL". There is no difference in the beginning belief of those in 8:13, and those in 8:15; only perseverance differentiates them.

Once again, willful unbelief is taught by Calvinism - do not suppose to force me to defend a strawman.

Then defend the reality that you believe men have no choice, BUT to will-to-unbelief.

We disagree not over the willingness of the unbeliever or believer, but about why a person wills. A calvinist insists that man's will is contingent upon who he is, and that is supported in this passage by the two conditionals.
"How can you believe if you accept each other's praise?"
"You would have believed me if you had believed moses."

Can you not see it? If they had BELIEVED Moses, then they would have believed JESUS. Their choice! It's identical to Jn8:43 --- "If GOD were your Father (if you believed/followed God), then you would love Me!"

Does this indicate that they would not believe just because they had will and they chose not to?

According to 5:40, yes.

Or because their wills were inclined by other things they had already willed and by their own sinful nature?

Extra-Scriptural words. Eisegesis.

Clearly the latter.

Not clear at all. It's the same as in Matt11:21-24, where Jesus rebukes entire cities (Capernaum, Bethsiada and Chorazin) for willful unbelief. He said, "Had Tyre, Sidon, and even SODOM seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have believed! I tell you it will go better for THEM (in the Judgment), than for YOU!"

And that is Calvinism, for if man's will is contingent upon his nature, and if man is fallen, then man will always willingly not will to be saved, for his eyes are blinded and he does not have what is required for faith in him, i.e., righteousness.

Right. So God chooses, and then runs a "kangaroo court" (Final Judgment), condemning men for what they could never avoid, and accepting men that He commanded would be saved.

...not much of a court, is it?

 

[Ben johnson]

if salvation is because of faith and sin is due to a lack of faith , then it follows if and when ben sins he loses his salvation !!

If Ben sins, and then sins again and again (which is "unrepentance"), then yes he has forsaken Christ.

If Ben sins (all Christians do), but is promptly convicted and throws himself remorsefully on Christ's mercy and asks forgiveness, and asks strength in resisting sin, he has not forsaken Christ OR salvation.

Clear now?

 

[Ben johnson]

Talk about circular reasoning! You claim "shut off means shut off", and then tell me that predestination isn't biblical. If "shut off means shut off", then the result is set in stone.

Who "shuts them off"? God, or men? Men. What God decrees is "set in stone" --- but He decrees no one's condemnation. They are shut off by the deceit of the Pharisees.

Isn't that what you're really saying? How does that differ from predestination?

Men cannot "predestine".

You've been riding this hobby-horse for some time now. It's getting ridiculous, because you have put words in our mouths that we've never said, and turned around and repeated it as though we said it. I call that bearing false witness, because this has been dealt with, and you have been proven wrong.

You clearly stated "it doesn't mean they are shut off forever, if they are 'elect' ". If I'm not representing your position accurately, them please correct me.

Just consider the fact that your reasoning forces the idea that mere men can finally and ultimately thwart God's Will.

Calvinists confuse God's WILL (desire --- Jn6:40), with God's WILL (decree, 2Pet3:9).

If God wants someone saved, is He powerless to make that happen?

He wants ALL men to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth. 1Tim2:1-4 is clear on that, and "kings and all authority" clearly exceeds the scope of "saved" (ruining the idea that "all", means "few").

According to you, He is powerless, because He is passive.

Does God RECEIVE men's faith, reverence, and pursuing-righteousness? Or not? Acts10:34-35, Heb11:6. Yes, or no.

Since you state that God is passive and man is active

Is man ACTIVE, in Matt7:24-27? Yes, or no.

then it follows that man is his own savior

Does Paul use the words "SAVE YOURSELVES" in 1Tim4:16, or not?

because it is man who, by his actions and force of will, saves himself.

Does Jesus say, in Lk21:19, "By YOUR endurance, save YOUR souls"? Or not?

You're forced to answer those, "yes".

 

[Ben johnson]

BEN!

What makes you think it doesn't?
The will is still fallen & the new, eternaly living spirit is only a babe in faith. Imagine when a foal is born. It doesn't land on its feet, but it doesn't take that long for it to get up & try out its legs. Living creatures grow & mature even in experience if not in age in the natural sense (angels).

And yet, immaturity is condemned (Heb5); persistent immaturity is clearly shown to be "fallen from salvation" (Heb6:4-6). It is BY unrepentance that they are fall-ING.

It takes effort & patient persistance to bring Spiritual fruit forth generally. We struggle with temptation, but God's strength is in our weakness.

Exactly! But what if we FALL to temptation? 1Cor10:12-13! Where do we fall, TO???

Of course he did!!! What would you expect him to say, something stupid like "What say we then, shall we sin with abandon that grace may abound all the more"?

In Rom6, continual sin is opposed to "died to sin, and made-alive through Christ". Look at what "continual sin" does, in Heb10:26! (Read through verse 29 --- here is a man who WAS sanctified, but now is NOT!!!)

How did you make it "either/or"??
It is possible to sin, and wander off from the flock, but The Good Shepherd will leave the 99 to come getchya.

Please read James5:19-20; when he says "IF another returns him", is James asserting a GIVEN? No. IF he returns, THEN he is saved (again!), AND (then!) his sins are covered.

It's not a certainty, at all...

You have to be proposing this nonsense out of mere contentiousness, because there is no way you yourself believe being saved means we totally cease from sinning.

That we sin, demonstrates God is resistible.

It was always accepted, but only in this way:
God willing, God is resistable.

If God is resistible, then He is resistible.

This opposes "irresistible grace".

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.

Sin in our lives, demonstrates non-salvation. Have you read 1Jn3:5-10? "He who practices sin, does not know God".

You must have me confused with a weaker minded poster. "WE" never "established" any such thing.
WE simply disagree on that point!

Then deny that "saving-faith", happened "WHEN we were dead in our sins". Can you? (No.)

Sure I can provide Scripture to support all of that.
And I'm sure you can ping-pong scripture back at me that you think "overturns" Calvinism.

Where's the citation(s)?

Sorry! I'll switch to Decaff!!!!!

I reiterate:
Predestination does not eliminate choice, it simply predestines it.

If man has no choice about his choice, he still has no choice.

Oh, stop.
Or just keep repeating it.
Whatever,... again we disagree.

Man has choice, or he hasn't choice; one or t'other.

All creation is sovereignly determined.

satan was not predestined to be evil.

It's the only way God determined reality. Omniscient=All Powerful, Omniscient=All Knowing.

But not "all-causing". God cannot cause sin.

That eliminates chance to a determined degree.
There might still be some randomness inside limited selections that would still serve His purpose, but God will not be mocked.

It's not "chance", it's "faith"; faith is causal, not consequential. This is our difference.

Of course He will be mocked. He's mocked all the time, but saying that He won't, invokes the ultimate sense... in the end, God wins - He has His way.

In the end, He runs a "Final Judgment", a court to JUDGE men on what they CHOSE. See Rom2:6-8!

That doesn't make us robots, even tho some of us have serious glitches & program errors.

Please describe the difference between a "robot", and a "Calvinist who is predestined to belief by God".

What's the difference?

Baloney.

I like it fried, with peanut butter...

We are predestined to die. In fact we are born dead, needing to be born-again.

And WHEN we were dead, God made us alive, by grace THROUGH FAITH. (Eph2:5-8)

The only thing Calvinism can say about that, is "oops".

He said some from the same clay are made to be vessels of dishonor.

The NASV translates "atimia" there, as "common". I agree with them. The third vessels (wrath prepared for destruction), are condemned; and it's third-person, "they condemned themselves".

Ya gotta keep your eye on Peter!

Peter was soundly opposed to OSAS; his second letter, ALL of it, is excellent on the subject.

Or are you already circumcised?
2Pe 2:12 - But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

What does 2Pet2:5-10 say? 2:20-22?

2Peter3:1: This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

What does 2Pet3:14 say? 3:17???

9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You do understand that it uses "boulema" here, "Not boulemai-decreeing any perish"? And it uses "choreo", but "choreo-making-room-for ALL to repent"? Ruins Predestination...

It was "all", not "any", but you are remiss in noting that it's addressed to believers, not every created soul!

God does not deree BELIEVERS to perish? That makes no sense.

God doesn't decree ANYONE to perish, does make sense.

Don't thank me, it was no bother pointing it out, really.

Thank you.

...but...

I look forward to your response to overwhelming refutation.

 

[drstevej]

Thank you.

...but...

I look forward to your response to overwhelming refutation.

Proud of yourself? It seems so. And the issue with Arminianism is the demand to have something to boast about.

I didn't resist.
I believed.
I abide.
I persevered.




PS: If your book will be the end of Calvinism, why have not your posts ended Calvinism here?
Just a thought.