The Fear of Calvinism in the SBC

[The Biblicist]

1) First, if faith in Christ is instilled via irresistible grace, we are saved by grace and given faith. Not how it reads.

Really? How do you read the following:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS GIFT OF GOD, not of works, lest any man should boast" - Eph. 2:8

If salvation is "through faith" then Paul is referring to the whole phrase "by grace are ye saved through faith" when he says "and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God."

Jesus says that he is the "author" but you claim that man is the author of faith - Heb. 12:2. If Jesus is the author then faith is the work of God as Jesus says - Jn. 6:29. If Jesus is correct that "no man can come to me" then faith must originate from some other source than man - Jn. 6:44. If Jesus is correct that those who did "not believe" and thus no man can come to him by faith unless it is given unto by the Father (Jn. 6:64-65) then faith must be "by grace" thus making salvation sure to all the promised seed (Rom. 4:16).

3) Romans 10:17 says faith comes from hearing, not from irresistible grace.

Really? You, Winman and Skandelon have been corrected so many times on the abuse of this verse that it is hard to believe you still abuse it? The Greek term translated "word" is RHEMA not "logos" and RHEMA means WORD OF COMMAND just as Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:6:

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This is the creative word and work of God alone within the heart! The preacher may bring the gosepl TO sinners but only God can create in the heart the "substance" (Heb. 11:1) of faith or "the light of KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Where was any instrumentality in Genesis 1:2-3 when God simply spoke into existence light? He did merely by His WORD OF COMMAND or RHEMA!


Finally, Paul says concerning all who are "in the flesh" that they "CANNOT" please God (Rom. 8:8) and Paul claims that coming to God in faith is the MINIMAL requirement to please God (Heb. 11:6). Thus Paul says that the lost man "CANNOT" come to God in faith but you say he can. Now, who do you think we should believe? You or Paul?

 

[Skandelon]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS GIFT OF GOD, not of works, lest any man should boast" - Eph. 2:8

If salvation is "through faith" then Paul is referring to the whole phrase "by grace are ye saved through faith" when he says "and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God."

Why, oh WHY, do Calvinists insist that the giver of a gift does NOT get full credit for giving it, if he doesn't irresistibly apply it?

Of course faith is from God. What do we have that we have not received? I couldn't breath unless he granted me breath, why would ANYONE in their right minds suggest that we could have faith apart from God? That is not even in question, or at least it shouldn't be.

The question is whether or not the gift of the gospel, by which we may believe unto salvation (Rom. 10:14), and God's granting of our ability to RESPOND (i.e. responsibility) is sufficient, ORRR does God have to make our decisions for us, making HIM the responsible one and us merely instinctive creatures reflexively acting in accordance with HIS decisions. That is the only debate here...

 

[Skandelon]

Really? You, Winman and Skandelon have been corrected so many times on the abuse of this verse that it is hard to believe you still abuse it? The Greek term translated "word" is RHEMA not "logos" and RHEMA means WORD OF COMMAND just as Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:6:

And this rebuke has been answered almost as many times as you've offered it. Just because we disagree doesn't mean haven't heard it and replied.

Whether faith comes by hearing the 'word of command' or the 'logos' it still doesn't say it comes by 'irresistible grace,' as that would completely nullify the context of Paul's teaching in Romans 10. Verse 14 puts your theory to bed real quick, IMO.

 

[quantumfaith]

Why, oh WHY, do Calvinists insist that the giver of a gift does NOT get full credit for giving it, if he doesn't irresistibly apply it?

Of course faith is from God. What do we have that we have not received? I couldn't breath unless he granted me breath, why would ANYONE in their right minds suggest that we could have faith apart from God? That is not even in question, or at least it shouldn't be.

The question is whether or not the gift of the gospel, by which we may believe unto salvation (Rom. 10:14), and God's granting of our ability to RESPOND (i.e. responsibility) is sufficient, ORRR does God have to make our decisions for us, making HIM the responsible one and us merely instinctive creatures reflexively acting in accordance with HIS decisions. That is the only debate here...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Inspector Javert]

Why, oh WHY, do Calvinists insist that the giver of a gift does NOT get full credit for giving it, if he doesn't irresistibly apply it?

Of course faith is from God. What do we have that we have not received? I couldn't breath unless he granted me breath, why would ANYONE in their right minds suggest that we could have faith apart from God? That is not even in question, or at least it shouldn't be.

The question is whether or not the gift of the gospel, by which we may believe unto salvation (Rom. 10:14), and God's granting of our ability to RESPOND (i.e. responsibility) is sufficient, ORRR does God have to make our decisions for us, making HIM the responsible one and us merely instinctive creatures reflexively acting in accordance with HIS decisions. That is the only debate here...

QF is right this deserves some thumbs :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
especially:
WHY, do Calvinists insist that the giver of a gift does NOT get full credit for giving it, if he doesn't irresistibly apply it?

Having just given my children far more loot than they deserve, I am pretty sure that my bank account "credits" me and me alone for everything they got! But, I assuredly didn't open it for them.......or make them take it actually. They aren't proud of themselves for accepting a free gift from me. :tongue3:

 

[Van]

Calvinists repeatedly falsely claim faith is instilled. Never mind the grammar of Ephesians 2:8-9 precludes their view. Salvation is not of ourselves it is a gift of God. And we are saved through faith, thus our faith exists prior to our salvation. Therefore God saves us, we do not save ourselves through our faith. Pretty simple if you stick to truth.

Next we get the redefinition of "author" to mean instiller. Hebrews 12:2 says Christ is the author of faith. He is the leader, and the pre-eminence of His faith far surpasses the faith commemorated in Hebrews 11 according to Thayers.

Next we get yet another redefinition, this time of rhema, which means utterance. Thus when the word of God is expressed as the utterance of God, we hear it because it was spoken.

And finally, the Calvinist takes a third swing at truth, but strikes out. Romans 8:8 uses the ambiguous term "in the flesh." Calvinists assert, wrongly, that "in the flesh" only refers to the condition of unsaved unregenerate people, but in the flesh can be used to refer to an unsaved, unregenerate or regenerate person who "sets his or her mind on the flesh.

Bottom line, "in the flesh" is used three ways:

1) To refer to our physical bodies, i.e. Jesus came "in the flesh."

2) To refer to our mindset - we are "in the flesh" when we set our mind on sinful passions, i.e. the lusts of the flesh or fleshly desires.

3) To refer to our mortal tent after conversion, i.e. we are still in the flesh, yet walk by the Spirit.

Romans 8:8 refers to number 2.

Finally, if we set our mind on spiritual milk, we can come to God and please Him, Heb 11:6.

Again and again, the Calvinists throw up the same fictions, that have been refuted again and again, but they have no answer for Matthew 23:13 where natural men of flesh were entering heaven. Obviously they had an ability to set their minds on spiritual milk, even though unregenerate.

 

[The Biblicist]

And this rebuke has been answered almost as many times as you've offered it. Just because we disagree doesn't mean haven't heard it and replied.

Whether faith comes by hearing the 'word of command' or the 'logos' it still doesn't say it comes by 'irresistible grace,' as that would completely nullify the context of Paul's teaching in Romans 10. Verse 14 puts your theory to bed real quick, IMO.

Really? You mean When God has spoken a command as in Genesis 1:3 it sometimes is non-effectual? You realize that is the background of 2 Cor. 4:6 don't you? This is precisely what Isaiah refers to when he says the word does not come back to God void but ACCOMPLISHES the purpose He sent it forth. Another way to say this is that it is always EFFECTUAL when it is a CREATIVE WORD OF COMMAND. That is the meaning of Romans 10:17 and the word RHEMA and 2 Cor. 4:6 illustrates this with the gospel whenever salvation occurs. That is exactly what Paul means in 1 Thes. 1:4-5 when the gospel comes "NOT IN WORD ONLY."

All of these passages are interelated with each other by the same writer concrerning the gospel being effectual in the case of the elect (unto whom Paul writes in each case).

 

[The Biblicist]

Why, oh WHY, do Calvinists insist that the giver of a gift does NOT get full credit for giving it, if he doesn't irresistibly apply it?

Because we have people on this forum that are still teaching that faith is of human origin. Billy Graham in his last message said "anyone can believe" while Jesus said "no man can come unto me" and that is the same contradictive message between some on this forum and God's Word. So just responding "why, oh why" as you do is good rhetoric but empty of common sense.

Of course faith is from God. What do we have that we have not received? I couldn't breath unless he granted me breath, why would ANYONE in their right minds suggest that we could have faith apart from God? That is not even in question, or at least it shouldn't be.

See what I mean? Even you place faith on the same level as breathing air which all humans and animals have recevied from God and thus infer it is as universal among men as breathing is. However, God's word denies your assertion over and over again.

The question is whether or not the gift of the gospel, by which we may believe unto salvation (Rom. 10:14),

If ability came with the gospel then Jesus would never would say "no man can come unto me except the Father draw him" nor would he explain that those who heard the gospel hundreds of times and yet remained in unbelief were NEVER DRAWN by the Father among his own disciples - Jn. 6:64-65.

and God's granting of our ability to RESPOND (i.e. responsibility) is sufficient, ORRR does God have to make our decisions for us, making HIM the responsible one and us merely instinctive creatures reflexively acting in accordance with HIS decisions. That is the only debate here...

The Bible is very clear about the lost condition that there is "NONE THAT SEEKETH AFTER" God no, not one. You realize the term "seeketh" is the act of the will engaged in pursuit of something do you not?

You realize that all those "in the flesh CANNOT please God" and the minimal first step in pleasing God is that they must "come to him by faith" - Rom. 8:8; Heb. 11:6). This is so clear and yet you repudiate and contradict the scriptures by your human philosophical wisdom!!

 

[Skandelon]

Gen. 1:3 God "said"

'amar'
Pronunciation
ä·mar' (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
A primitive root
Dictionary Aids
TWOT Reference: 118
Outline of Biblical Usage
to say, speak, utter
(Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend
(Niphal) to be told, to be said, to be called
(Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly
(Hiphil) to avow, to avouch
KJV Translation Count — Total: 5,308x
The KJV translates Strongs H559 in the following manner: said (4,874x), speak (179x), answer (99x), command (30x), tell (29x), call (7x), promised (6x), misc. (84x).

Gen 6:7
The LORD said, H559 “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the fnsky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Is this the word you speak of?

 

[Skandelon]

Because we have people on this forum that are still teaching that faith is of human origin. Billy Graham in his last message said "anyone can believe" while Jesus said "no man can come unto me" and that is the same contradictive message between some on this forum and God's Word. So just responding "why, oh why" as you do is good rhetoric but empty of common sense.

I'm sure Billy meant that anyone can believe if they have heard, just as Paul implied in Romans 10:14. You are just choosing to hear what you want to the hear in order to support your point of view.

Those in John 6 could not come because they weren't enabled to come for reasons much different than your system teaches. See John 12:39-41, Romans 11, Mark 4, and Matt. 13 for details.

See what I mean? Even you place faith on the same level as breathing air which all humans and animals have recevied from God and thus infer it is as universal among men as breathing is. However, God's word denies your assertion over and over again.

It denies your assertion that our view teaches faith isn't of God, when that is NOT OUR VIEW. It is a common grace, granted to all who hear the word. Now, feel free to argue against that view if you'd like, but don't accuse us of not believing that faith is a result of God's provisional grace...just as our very lives are...okay?

If ability came with the gospel then Jesus would never would say "no man can come unto me except the Father draw him"

He would if his audience was being judicially blinded, hardened, cut off, sent a spirit of stupor, giving eyes that cannot see, hears that cannot hear, spoken in parables lest they believe, etc, etc...but some have become so convinced of their system's perspective they can't (or won't) take that teaching within its context.

But we've been around this merry-go-round a few times before, so I don't see the point in taking another lap...

 

[Skandelon]

Rom. 10:17: 'the word of Christ'
ῥῆμα
Transliteration
rhēma
Pronunciation
rhā'-mä (Key)
Part of Speech
neuter noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From ῥέω (G4483)
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 4:69,505
Outline of Biblical Usage
that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word
any sound produced by the voice and having definite meaning
speech, discourse
what one has said
a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one's mind made in words)
an utterance
a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative
concerning some occurrence
subject matter of speech, thing spoken of
so far forth as it is a matter of narration
so far as it is a matter of command
a matter of dispute, case at law
KJV Translation Count — Total: 70x
The KJV translates Strongs G4487 in the following manner: word (56x), saying (9x), thing (3x), no thing (with G3756) (1x), not tr (1x).

Is this the other word to which you speak?

So, you are attempting to equate 'amar' with 'rhema' and by this suggest this verse supports irresistible application of faith, in the same manner he Commanded the creation into existence?

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

 

[The Biblicist]

Is this the word you speak of?

This is absolute nonsense and you fully well know it!!!! The reference to Genesis 1:3 cannot possibly be twisted to mean that God persuaded, convinced, enticed or invited light to come out of darkness!

The KJV translators are using common sense in their translation of "command" in 2 Cor. 4:6 because they full well realize that is exactly what is in view when Paul refers the reader to Genesis 1:3. - CONTEXT!

Second, when God "says" something as a CREATIVE WORD OF COMMAND it is never ineffectual and you fully well know it. You are simply playing with fire when you intentionally attempt to distort the word of God and that is precisely what you are doing.

 

[The Biblicist]

Is this the other word to which you speak?

So, you are attempting to equate 'amar' with 'rhema' and by this suggest this verse supports irresistible application of faith, in the same manner he Commanded the creation into existence?

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

Look, anyone with only two grains of common sense can play this silly game and it seems that you love this type of sport.

2 Cor. 4:6 is a gospel context and the preaching of the gospel just as Romans 10:17 is a gospel context and the preaching of the gospel, just as 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 is a gospel context and the preaching of the gospel and all are written by the very same author.

It does not take too much common sense to see the direct analogy Paul is making between Genesis 1:3 and how inner light of gospel knowledge is obtained within the darkened heart. It is by God's creative word of command rather than by any external instrumental preachers of the gospel. Hence, the very "substance" of faith obtains entrance into the heart by a creative word of command. The command in Genesis 1:3 is ALWAYS EFFECTUAL and never non-effectual. That is precisely why Paul tells the Thessalonians that they can know they are the elect of God just by how the gospel came to them. The contrast is laid out "not in word only" in contrast to "in power and in Spirit and in much assurance" not merely one or the other and you fully well know that the gospel does not come to every hearer "in full assurance" and so why argue it does come in either of the other two prepositional phrases either?

Your position is based upon perverting critical pivotal texts that if you dealt with them honestly and directly you would have to give up your whole philosophical based theology. I speak of Romans 8:7-9; Romans 3:9-23 where Paul directly addresses the complete and utter inability of fallen man to even seek much less respond positively to anything pleasing to God.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm sure Billy meant that anyone can believe if they have heard, just as Paul implied in Romans 10:14. You are just choosing to hear what you want to the hear in order to support your point of view.

Those in John 6 could not come because they weren't enabled to come for reasons much different than your system teaches. See John 12:39-41, Romans 11, Mark 4, and Matt. 13 for details.

It denies your assertion that our view teaches faith isn't of God, when that is NOT OUR VIEW. It is a common grace, granted to all who hear the word. Now, feel free to argue against that view if you'd like, but don't accuse us of not believing that faith is a result of God's provisional grace...just as our very lives are...okay?

He would if his audience was being judicially blinded, hardened, cut off, sent a spirit of stupor, giving eyes that cannot see, hears that cannot hear, spoken in parables lest they believe, etc, etc...but some have become so convinced of their system's perspective they can't (or won't) take that teaching within its context.

But we've been around this merry-go-round a few times before, so I don't see the point in taking another lap...

Thank you Skan.

 

[Skandelon]

Look, anyone with only two grains of common sense can play this silly game and it seems that you love this type of sport.

WHOA!?!

Look back at what I posted, brother. Remove the "nefarious intent" that you seem to read into my posts because I'm not a Calvinist, and look at what I wrote. I copied and pasted Strongs for the two words you referenced and asked you a simple clarifying question about the argument you are making.

You can choose to answer my question, or attack me as not having enough "common sense" to even question you. I'd rather not engage with you again if you are going to take this approach. Can we start over?

 

[Skandelon]

This is absolute nonsense and you fully well know it!!!!

And again, that was a verbatim copy and paste quote from Strongs... I didn't even make an argument yet. I simply asked if this was the word you were speaking of and you responded like this????

"me thinks thou dost protest too much..."

 

[quantumfaith]

WHOA!?!

Look back at what I posted, brother. Remove the "nefarious intent" that you seem to read into my posts because I'm not a Calvinist, and look at what I wrote. I copied and pasted Strongs for the two words you referenced and asked you a simple clarifying question about the argument you are making.

You can choose to answer my question, or attack me as not having enough "common sense" to even question you. I'd rather not engage with you again if you are going to take this approach. Can we start over?

I was going to suggest the same. Thanks for calling out on it. Statements like such are simple attempts to imply some form or degree of superiority.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm sure Billy meant that anyone can believe if they have heard, just as Paul implied in Romans 10:14.

That is not implied. The only thing implied is that the preaching of the gospel is necessary for salvation to occur.

Those in John 6 could not come because they weren't enabled to come for reasons much different than your system teaches.

You are simply denying what the text says. It says "NO MAN" not "NO JEW" or "NO HARDENED JEW". Indeed nothing is said about hardening or any other reason in this entire context. The fact that his own disciple who heard the gospel (Jn. 3:16; 3:36) and professed the gospel and were baptized becoming his disciles (Jn. 4:4; Acts 1:21-22) are explicitly said by Christ to still be in unbelief and the explicit reason is that they cannot come to him because the Father had not drawn them, given unto them the ability to come to him is completely ignored, twisted and perverted by you. YOu have to either ignore or pervert it to maintain what you are teaching.

Now, feel free to argue against that view if you'd like, but don't accuse us of not believing that faith is a result of God's provisional grace...just as our very lives are...okay?

The problem is that there is not one single solitary verse to support your theory. Just words, empty words that use the term "grace" to cover the same doctrine that all men exposed to the gospel can please God when the scriptures clearly and explicitly deny this (Rom. 8:8; Heb. 11:6) in regard to faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

WHOA!?!

Look back at what I posted, brother. Remove the "nefarious intent" that you seem to read into my posts because I'm not a Calvinist, and look at what I wrote. I copied and pasted Strongs for the two words you referenced and asked you a simple clarifying question about the argument you are making.

You can choose to answer my question, or attack me as not having enough "common sense" to even question you. I'd rather not engage with you again if you are going to take this approach. Can we start over?

You are deliberately trying to escape the obvious and that is why you did not address the evidence placed squarely before your eyes.

Hey, I am not brain dead! This is not my first rodeo! Your approach is the approach by all who are trying to deny the obvioius.

1. It is obvious that 2 Cor. 4:6 is directly referring to Genesis 1:3

2. It is obvious Genesis 1:3 is a effecual creative word of command without human instrumentality.

3. It is obvious that Paul is directly making this application to the internal darkned heart of the lost man

4. It is obvious that the very "substance" of faith which the gospel brings TO the lost is what is being CREATED BY DIVINE FIAT within the heart of man by God alone.

5. It is obvious that RHEMA as your own list of definitions CAN be applied this way and that it IS applied this way in 2 Cor. 4:6 and 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

These things are so obvious that only intentional "nefarious" methods are being sought out to escape them.

 

[The Biblicist]

And again, that was a verbatim copy and paste quote from Strongs... I didn't even make an argument yet. I simply asked if this was the word you were speaking of and you responded like this????

"me thinks thou dost protest too much..."

Why even go this route as you know if you read your own quotations that the meaning I said it "MAY" mean is admitted in your quotes. So, it comes down to context and I provided that and YOU DON'T HAVE A o SINGLE WORD TO SAY IN RESPONSE but rather choose to go this route!

You guys don't want to deal with the most pivotal texts that directly addresses and annihates your whole view (Rom. 8:7-9; Jn. 6:64-65). When you cannot deal with clear and obvious contextual based evidence (2 Cor. 4:6) you want to deflect to ridiculous details that provide nothing for your position except distraction. So we just go round and round with these silly games.