Calvinism

[Reformed1689]

How is David ignoring the truth in Scripture? I don't necessarily agree with his overall interpretation, but it is a defensible interpretation held by many sound theologians.

Thank you.

 

[JonC]

Of course this is factually not true.

Facts??? We don't need no stinking facts!!!

 

[Van]

How is David ignoring the truth in Scripture? I don't necessarily agree with his overall interpretation, but it is a defensible interpretation held by many sound theologians.

No, it is false and is unsound.

Lets go over them again:

Total Spiritual Inability is shown to be false my Matthew 23:13, where fallen men are seeking God, they are in the process of entering heaven. Additionally, Irresistible grace is shown to be false because they are blocked from entering.

Unconditional Election of individuals is shown to be false by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where people are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election. Ditto for James 2:5.

Limited Atonement is shown to be false by 1 John 2:2 where Christ becomes the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of fallen mankind.

There is no sound defense for these bogus doctrines, only against the man fallacies, misrepresentations, and change of subject questions.

 

[Van]

So anyone that can produce even a single verse of scripture offering support for either "Total Inability" or "Unconditional Election" or "Limited Atonement" or "Irresistible Grace" will have refuted your position?

You set the bar pretty low.

[John 6:43-44 NASB] 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 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.

[John 10:25-30 NASB] 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. 26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one."

[2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NASB] 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

[Ephesians 2:1-10 NASB] 1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

None of the verses or passages cited above actually support the bogus doctrines.

I will just address the first one because they are all the same, misinterpretations.

John 6:43-44 NASB] 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 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.

No one can "come to Me" (Jesus) unless the father draws (attracts through the gospel) and those that "come to Me" arrive spiritually in Me, and I will raise Him up on the last day.

This passage provides absolutely no support for "total spiritual inability."

 

[Reformed1689]

Total Spiritual Inability is shown to be false my Matthew 23:13, where fallen men are seeking God, they are in the process of entering heaven. Additionally, Irresistible grace is shown to be false because they are blocked from entering.

This passage does not say they are in process of entering Heaven.

Limited Atonement is shown to be false by 1 John 2:2 where Christ becomes the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of fallen mankind.

It does not say all of fallen mankind. You have to prove that is what it is meaning based on context and the whole of Scripture. Whole world does not always mean every individual person. Agree?

Example: They eyes of the whole world are watching this moment. Does that mean every person? Of course not.

 

[atpollard]

This passage provides absolutely no support for "total spiritual inability."

"draws" and "will raise" SUPPORT (I was not required to prove, only demonstrate scriptural support for) Irresistible Grace. Those the Father does DRAW are the same ones that the Son WILL raise, which cannot be true if Grace can be resisted making man the determiner of who is "drawn" (and it would then not be "ἑλκύσῃ").

 

[atpollard]

Unconditional Election of individuals is shown to be false by 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where people are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election. Ditto for James 2:5.

This is just plain silly. I mean I have a certain respect for Wesleyan Holiness and the Church of God, but this is just an embarrassing hack of scriptures.

[2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 NKJV] 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

• GOD is the one who CHOSE from the beginning, so the choice belonged to God and not man.
• From the BEGINNING speaks of a choice made before any human action could influence it and nothing in this verse suggests that any future human choice was the reason for God’s choice.
• Everything after the word “through” is a dependent clause that describes HOW God intended to work out His choice to save. God sanctifies, man does not. God directs His Holy Spirit, man does not. So why should the sentence suddenly strip gears and God is going to stop using His resources to save and begin using some hypothetical innate ability of man to self-muster belief in the truth (which other verses claim cannot happen)? The sentence structure suggests that the belief in the truth is as much “of God” as sanctification and the Holy Spirit are.
• The very next verse continues the same sentence with GOD calling man with the gospel, not with a decision of man to head towards God.
• Nothing in this contradicts “Unconditional Election” and nothing in this supports “Conditional Election”.
• There are verses that can be used to argue Conditional Election, but this is not one of them.

[James 2:5-7 NKJV] 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world [to be] rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?

• Are you seriously arguing that wealth disqualifies a person from salvation and God requires material poverty as a CONDITION for being chosen to be saved? Well, the median income world wide is about $700 per year, so no person who earns more than $700 per year can be a real Christian ... which rules out just about everyone in North America.
• These verses have nothing to do with Election and everything to do with how we treat other Christians. It is all about not showing favoritism to the wealthy like the world does. It is about not treating your poor brothers in Christ with contempt the way the world treats the poor with contempt. It is a recognition of the fact that those who feel their need for God most acutely are more likely to be drawn to God because “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Cor 1:27).
• This has nothing to do with “Conditional Election” or “Unconditional Election”. It is a red herring and a bunny trail.

 

[Van]

"draws" and "will raise" SUPPORT (I was not required to prove, only demonstrate scriptural support for) Irresistible Grace. Those the Father does DRAW are the same ones that the Son WILL raise, which cannot be true if Grace can be resisted making man the determiner of who is "drawn" (and it would then not be "ἑλκύσῃ").

I used to live where a spring fed a little creek and then flowed into a stream. Now I drew water from that spring, and so all the water I drank came from that spring. Does that mean all the water drawn by me from the spring I drank? I course not, what about my family members, my pets, and my livestock?

This same absurd claim has been repeated over and over, since all who were saved were drawn, that means all drawn were saved. A logical fallacy.

There is no support, only misrepresentations such as the above.

 

[atpollard]

I used to live where a spring fed a little creek and then flowed into a stream. Now I drew water from that spring, and so all the water I drank came from that spring. Does that mean all the water drawn by me from the spring I drank? I course not, what about my family members, my pets, and my livestock?

This same absurd claim has been repeated over and over, since all who were saved were drawn, that means all drawn were saved. A logical fallacy.

There is no support, only misrepresentations such as the above.

I can’t give you ‘ears to hear’ what the scripture actually SAYS.
However, I have provided “support” even if you reject that support.
(Which is what you said did not exist.)

 

[Van]

This is just plain silly. I mean I have a certain respect for Wesleyan Holiness and the Church of God, but this is just an embarrassing hack of scriptures.

[2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 NKJV] 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

• GOD is the one who CHOSE from the beginning, so the choice belonged to God and not man.
• From the BEGINNING speaks of a choice made before any human action could influence it and nothing in this verse suggests that any future human choice was the reason for God’s choice.
• Everything after the word “through” is a dependent clause that describes HOW God intended to work out His choice to save. God sanctifies, man does not. God directs His Holy Spirit, man does not. So why should the sentence suddenly strip gears and God is going to stop using His resources to save and begin using some hypothetical innate ability of man to self-muster belief in the truth (which other verses claim cannot happen)? The sentence structure suggests that the belief in the truth is as much “of God” as sanctification and the Holy Spirit are.
• The very next verse continues the same sentence with GOD calling man with the gospel, not with a decision of man to head towards God.
• Nothing in this contradicts “Unconditional Election” and nothing in this supports “Conditional Election”.
• There are verses that can be used to argue Conditional Election, but this is not one of them.

[James 2:5-7 NKJV] 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world [to be] rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?

• Are you seriously arguing that wealth disqualifies a person from salvation and God requires material poverty as a CONDITION for being chosen to be saved? Well, the median income world wide is about $700 per year, so no person who earns more than $700 per year can be a real Christian ... which rules out just about everyone in North America.
• These verses have nothing to do with Election and everything to do with how we treat other Christians. It is all about not showing favoritism to the wealthy like the world does. It is about not treating your poor brothers in Christ with contempt the way the world treats the poor with contempt. It is a recognition of the fact that those who feel their need for God most acutely are more likely to be drawn to God because “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Cor 1:27).
• This has nothing to do with “Conditional Election” or “Unconditional Election”. It is a red herring and a bunny trail.

To repeat, there is no support in scripture for the TULI of the tulip. None, zip, nada.

1. Your first effort was to disparage me, not an auspicious start.

2) God chose us - not in dispute.

3) from the beginning - you have no idea of what beginning. Logically, the phrase refers to the beginning of the New Covenant.

4) "through" modifies the the verb "chose" describes the means - being set apart in Christ, and the basis - God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness.

Therefore, once again, Conditional Election is taught by 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[Van]

I can’t give you ‘ears to hear’ what the scripture actually SAYS.
However, I have provided “support” even if you reject that support.
(Which is what you said did not exist.)

You are wasting elections, your support is non-existent. Presenting a logical fallacy as if it was support is not support.

 

[Van]

Next, concerning James 2:5, we get the old, "you can ignore a sub-point, if the main point asserts some other truth." More nonsense, more scripture does not mean what it says. Conditional Election has once again been shown to be biblical doctrine. Saying taint so is no rebuttal. God chose (1) people poor to the world, (2) people rich in faith, and (3) people who love God.

 

[Reformed1689]

I used to live where a spring fed a little creek and then flowed into a stream. Now I drew water from that spring, and so all the water I drank came from that spring. Does that mean all the water drawn by me from the spring I drank? I course not, what about my family members, my pets, and my livestock?

This same absurd claim has been repeated over and over, since all who were saved were drawn, that means all drawn were saved. A logical fallacy.

There is no support, only misrepresentations such as the above.

Bad illustration. God doesn't use all of his children in the same way just as you didn't use all of the water in the same way. But you DID use and possess all of it. It was YOUR water at that point.

 

[Van]

Bad illustration. God doesn't use all of his children in the same way just as you didn't use all of the water in the same way. But you DID use and possess all of it. It was YOUR water at that point.

You continue to waste electrons, the interpretation of the text employed a logical fallacy and provided no support for the bogus doctrine.

 

[Reformed1689]

You continue to waste electrons, the interpretation of the text employed a logical fallacy and provided no support for the bogus doctrine.

I'm not wasting anything, I just proved your logic on your illustration didn't work. I know you don't like it but it is what it is.

 

[Van]

You wasted electrons, David, next time just post "taint so."

 

[Reformed1689]

You wasted electrons, David, next time just post "taint so."

Do you ever offer substance? You say your favorite (robotic) catchphrase "taint so" all the time, which is just another way of saying taint so.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you ever offer substance? You say your favorite (robotic) catchphrase "taint so" all the time, which is just another way of saying taint so.

David, May I suggest the ‘IGNORE’ feature?

 

[Van]

Do you ever offer substance? You say your favorite (robotic) catchphrase "taint so" all the time, which is just another way of saying taint so.

Note the massive amount of "substance" contained in this post.

Calvinism is defended not by substance but by false charges, disparagement, and misrepresentation.

All drinking water was drawn does not mean all drawn water was drinking water. What about irrigation water? Bath water?

All those saved were first drawn by the Father, but not all drawn by the Father were saved. So simple a child could grasp it.

 

[Reformed1689]

All drinking water was drawn does not mean all drawn water was drinking water. What about irrigation water? Bath water?

All of the water was used. Different purposes. Some in the body are a hand, some a foot, etc...

All those saved were first drawn by the Father, but not all drawn by the Father were saved. So simple a child could grasp it.

That's not what Scripture says.