Refutation of the "Fatalism" straw-man.

[Rightglory]

Behe's Boy,

All you needed to say to make my point. My views line up with scripture - not scripture according to the EO tradition. There you go...

l I know which is why you have failed to show any evidence that Calvinism is even scriptural. All you have shown is that it is YOUR interpretation or the least, Calvins interpretation of scripture.

It is not as scripture has always been understood the 1600 years before Calvin. It has no link with the Gospel of Christ as He gave it, and preserved it in time.

Since you think it is the Gospel of Christ, you have yet failed to show any historical evidence of it since Pentacost and prior to Calvin. Why would it be called Calvinism, rather than the Gospel of Christ?

 

[AndOne]

Behe's Boy,

l I know which is why you have failed to show any evidence that Calvinism is even scriptural. All you have shown is that it is YOUR interpretation or the least, Calvins interpretation of scripture.

It is not as scripture has always been understood the 1600 years before Calvin. It has no link with the Gospel of Christ as He gave it, and preserved it in time.

Since you think it is the Gospel of Christ, you have yet failed to show any historical evidence of it since Pentacost and prior to Calvin. Why would it be called Calvinism, rather than the Gospel of Christ?

 

[CmRoddy]

It is sad, isn't it? He promotes human tradition over the infallible word of God without feeling any remorse over it.

We can only pray that God changes His heart by His grace.

 

[drstevej]

Behe's Boy,

l I know which is why you have failed to show any evidence that Calvinism is even scriptural. All you have shown is that it is YOUR interpretation or the least, Calvins interpretation of scripture.

It is not as scripture has always been understood the 1600 years before Calvin. It has no link with the Gospel of Christ as He gave it, and preserved it in time.

Since you think it is the Gospel of Christ, you have yet failed to show any historical evidence of it since Pentacost and prior to Calvin. Why would it be called Calvinism, rather than the Gospel of Christ?

Jesus was a Calvinist, as was Paul. The Council of Orange [AD529] was cool.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Jesus was a Calvinist, as was Paul. The Council of Orange [AD529] was cool.

I don't know if quoting a Catholic council is the best way to support Calvinism... But anyway...

This thread is all kinds of interesting. Someone needs to respond to my massive wall of text. That is all.

 

[CmRoddy]

Jesus was a Calvinist, as was Paul. The Council of Orange [AD529] was cool.

Actually, I would call Paul a Jesusist... and I would call Calvin a Paulist...

 

[archierieus]

Jesus was a Calvinist, as was Paul.

No, neither Jesus nor Paul were Calvinist.

 

[Hammster]

No, neither Jesus nor Paul were Calvinist.

Scripture, pls

 

[archierieus]

Scripture, pls

There is no Scripture which says that Jesus and Paul were Calvinist. The Scripture does teach that Christ died for all, that His grace is resistible, that a person once saved can later lose his salvation, and that election is conditional. I shall be glad to provide Scriptures on those points, if needed. Are the teachings I described Calvinist?

 

[Tzaousios]

...that a person once saved can later lose his salvation...

Fascinating. Is this a new development? I have not seen you state this as openly as in other discussions. With that being said, I will second Hammster's call:

"Scripture, pls."

 

[archierieus]

It is amazing, isn't it? What's especially amazing is that he claims the following.

According to John 6, all are taught by God, but those who listen and learn are entrusted to Jesus.
​

Does it really say that? Does John 6, when talking about God teaching, say that only those who listen and learn will be given to Christ? Let's look at it.

John 6:37-40
37"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
​

What does 'gives' mean here?

38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

In Jn. 6, who will be raised up on the last day?

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Note highlighted.
​

He seems to forget that people are given first and then they come to Christ.

It doesnt say 'first,' nor in the verse quoted does it say who is given to Jesus. Vv. 39, 40 do make clear that those entrusted to Jesus by the Father are the ones who believe on Him.

It says that those who come are those who were given to Christ by the Father. God's action results in man's action.

The verse does not say that.

Here is the question I would like to ask: Can Christ fail at doing the will of the Father He was sent to do as described in v. 38-40?

According to v. 40, what is the will of the Father?

But let's go on for now.

John 6:44-45
44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
​

First of all, those who are drawn are the same who are raised up on the last day.

Wrong. Those who come are the same who are raised up on the last day, as it reads.

The first "him" and the second "him" are the same person.

They are both predicate objects. What is the subject? Diagram the sentence. What type of sentence is it? Which is the independent clause? dependent clause? What type of dependent clause? What is the subject of the main sentence? What is the main verb? And what is the antecedent for the two 'hims'?

It takes a lot of adding to the text to take this meaning away. It would require the addition of the following:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him,the one who chose to come as a result of the drawing, up on the last day.

​

If this isn't eisegesis then I don't know what is.

Actually, it would be, 'the one who comes to Me.'

Also, notice v. 45. It says that they will be taught of God. This is a certainty. It's not just saying a possibility.

Agreed.

But again, in order to make it that, eisegesis must be performed. Notice what happens:

It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has who has chosen to heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
​

Actually, it would be, 'everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to Me.' All are taught, not all listen and learn.

​

 

[CmRoddy]

What does 'gives' mean here?



In Jn. 6, who will be raised up on the last day?



Note highlighted.
​

It doesnt say 'first,' nor in the verse quoted does it say who is given to Jesus. Vv. 39, 40 do make clear that those entrusted to Jesus by the Father are the ones who believe on Him.



The verse does not say that.



According to v. 40, what is the will of the Father?



Wrong. Those who come are the same who are raised up on the last day, as it reads.



They are both predicate objects. What is the subject? Diagram the sentence. What type of sentence is it? Which is the independent clause? dependent clause? What type of dependent clause? What is the subject of the main sentence? What is the main verb? And what is the antecedent for the two 'hims'?




Actually, it would be, 'the one who comes to Me.'



Agreed.

Actually, it would be, 'everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to Me.' All are taught, not all listen and learn.

​

*sigh*

When will you ever actually interact with an argument presented?

 

[archierieus]

*sigh*

When will you ever actually interact with an argument presented?

This student has 'interacted' with the Scriptural issues raised. To you have any Scriptural/grammatical/textual response to the points raised?

 

[Tzaousios]

This student has 'interacted' with the Scriptural issues raised. To you have any Scriptural/grammatical/textual response to the points raised?

As if what "this student" presents are not arguments! When you interact with, much less translate, the text, you are making an interpretation of it.

You never acknowledge this because it would destroy the facade that you constantly set up that you are showing the Bible only "how it reads." If this were the case, all you would have to do is cut and paste the verses and not put any of your own words or analysis in. Obviously, that is not the case.

*Note: This is a critique of your METHOD, not your intent or person.

 

[Rightglory]

CmRoddy,

38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
In Jn. 6, who will be raised up on the last day?

40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Once again, you are changing scripture to fit your supposition. Vs 39 aligns with Col 1:20. ALL things were given to Christ. This includes all mankind, every single human being because every single human being is of the same essence. If Christ assumed our human natures, He did it for every single human being.

Consequently, when we get to John 6:39 it is speaking of everything that was given to Christ. But specifically the "it" being raised. What is the it, but our human natues. Every single human being has been raised from the dead because Christ raised our human nature with His resurrection. Consequently, Christ lost none to death. None that the Father gave to Him will he lose. Satan has been defeated as well as death.

Verse 40 makes the separation. Those that specifically believe and see will be raised to eternal life with Him.

Once again, immediate context is denied as well as the context of the rest of scripture. Once again the Incarnation sinks Reformed theology.

to answer your question, Who will be raised in John 6. Every single human being that will ever live. None will be lost.

Your other question: Can God fail? the answer of scripture is NO. But your reformed view, God only raised some, only raised those that were predestined to believe. Thus God becomes a complete failure because He could not reverse the fall. You make I Cor 15:22 say that all in Adam die, but only those that believe will be given life, (resurrected).

Your exegesis fails again miserably.