User Tag List

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456789 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 239

Thread: The Calvinist 5 Solas

  1. #76
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 37 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457388
    Clete:

    Clete:
    I quoted it right out of the horses mouth.
    You are very good at misquoting Calvin.

    Clete:
    I know that you do not impress me in the slightest.
    Don’t care.

    Clete:
    I have a thread with hundreds of posts in it where I couldn't get a Calvinist to part ways with Calvin's direct statement that God is arbitrary. No matter what I said, they would not step one inch away from a word of it.

    Will you?
    How many of those hundreds of posts contain Calvinists telling you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism?

    I’m fine disagreeing with Calvin, I’m a Reformed Baptist. Calvin was strongly paedo-Baptist.

    Clete:
    No it isn't. The reason they won't put in those terms is because a 3rd grade mental retard would know that it was false if they did!
    In other words, you have been confronted with the truth that you are misrepresenting Calvinism and have made a practice of pushing down straw men and you prefer that to actually doing the intellectually honest work of accurately representing the system you aim to critique.

    Clete:
    It doesn't change the meaning of the words, it doesn't change what they actually believe! They absolutely do and would not ever deny that God is in meticulous control of every single event that occures, that those who are saved are saved because of God's choice which has no reason or cause other than God's will itself.
    Of course God is in meticulous control of every event. Name me the events where you think God fell asleep at the wheel.

    Clete:
    People are not saved, according to the Calvinist, because they believe,…
    False.


    .. in fact they only believe because they won the biggest comic lottery in all of existence, God's sovereign uncaused choice.
    You think something or someone caused God to choose?

    Who?

    What?

    For what reason?

    Clete:

    They believe that if you are going to Hell it isn't because you were evil but rather because you're evil because God created you to be so and for NO OTHER REASON!
    I’m sure there are some non-compatibilist Calvinists that believe this but most affirm the sentiments of the Westminster Confession.

    Westminster Confession of Faith:
    God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
    That’s the confession of faith held to by scores of Calvinists throughout for centuries. I’d bet the Clete Online Calvinistic Confession isn’t subscribed to by a single Calvinist.

    Have fun pushing down the straw man.

    Mercy is NOT the opposite of justice!


    How can anyone worship such a twisted sick perverted disgusting god as Sproul espouses!

    OMG! I want to punch him in his face!
    Spare us all your tantrum, virtually no one cares about your inability to manage your anger.

    Try and focus.

    Who said they were opposite? But even the third grader you referenced above can understand that the innocent don’t need mercy.

    Clete:
    Remember what I said about how the Calvinist brain is compartmentalized to the point that they do not notice when they contradict themselves. This is a terrific example of that except you can't see it because you didn't bother to quote anything he said about why God predestines some to Heaven and others to Hell or what he has to say about whether those who do evil do so because they choose to or whether God predestined that they would.
    First, your assessment of a “Calvinist brain” is inconsequential. No one should care. Second, you make the foolish assumption that God’s decree and man’s agency is somehow mutually exclusive despite the fact that you appear to have a rudimentary understanding of compatibilism.

    In reality, whether you are a strong determinist predestinarian or a Greg Boyd style open theist, man's agency is always subordinate to God's decree. Everything that comes to pass is always in accordance with God’s decree, and it is frankly, dumb to state otherwise.

    Clete:
    He predestined neither.
    For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 ESV)
    Clearly, the bible says “people” are the object of God’s predestination.

    Clete:
    Repeating your doctrine does not count as a rebuttal to the argument I've already made against it.
    You’ve yet to make an argument against my doctrine.

    Clete:
    Christ, by his own choice, was penalized in the place of sinners, thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive sin and save people from Hell by applying Christ's payment to their account.
    Mostly right. But God doesn’t owe anyone forgiveness. Forgiveness isn’t a matter of justice.

    “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-- by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:1-7 ESV)”

    It was God’s mercy that made us alive together with Christ. We were justly, objects of God’s wrath. We have been made, mercifully, alive together with Christ.

    Clete:
    You want to limit the value of God's life!

    God's life is of inestimable, infinite, inexhaustible value! He died for the entire world (John 3:16).
    You completely misunderstand John 3:16. It isn’t a statement on the breadth of Christ's atonement, common, rookie mistake. It’s a statement on the way God chose to love the world.

    The Holman Christian Bible translates “ουτω” best.

    “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. (Joh 3:16 CSB)”

    In reality, you are the one limiting the value of the death of the Son of God. Your atonement doesn't save anyone, it merely makes men savable by themselves.

    Clete:
    Ezekiel 18 blows Calvinism to pieces not the Apostle Paul! It's the totally unbiblical notions of original sin and total depravity that God directly contradicts by His own words in Ezekiel 18
    Wrong.

    “For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19 ESV)”

    Case closed.

    Ezekiel isn't disputing original sin in Chapter 18. God is saying that I'm responsible for my own sinful actions, not the sinful actions of my father. But I wasn't born Tabula Rasa, capable of living a perfect, pristine life that never needed the blood of Christ. No, both my father and I are sinners. We both were born with a sin nature inherited by our first parents that eventually rears its ugly head in both of our lives. He dies for his sinful actions, I die for mine. We were both born sinners because of Adam. Romans 5:19 isn't erased by Ezekiel 18.

    Clete: This single point is generally true and in an important sense it is universally true but not everyone who makes it to Heaven will have ever heard of Jesus Christ prior to their natural death.
    So?

    By the way, Romans 2 does not teach that some gentiles earned their way into eternal salvation by obedience to a law they knew by instinct, this is a perverted doctrine of your own mind and you should repent of it. The whole point of Romans 2 was to preface the conclusion of Romans 3:23.
    Last edited by Dialogos; September 18th, 2019 at 08:09 PM. Reason: Closed a quote
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  2. #77
    TOL Subscriber Nang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,011
    Thanks
    1,270
    Thanked 2,299 Times in 1,655 Posts

    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    279543
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post

    I’m fine disagreeing with Calvin, I’m a Reformed Baptist.
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

  3. #78
    Over 2000 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,058
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 933 Times in 592 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    428777
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    That is not what I am saying. Instead, I said that Satan blinded those who are perishing to the truth of the gospel. That can only mean that those who are perishing had the ability to see the light of the gospel because it is impossible to blind someone who is already blind.

    This directly contradicts the Calvinist's teaching about their idea of a so called "effectual calling."
    But why would that person believe to begin with? Paul says the vail is taken away in Christ. But that means they have to be in Christ to have the vail taken away. Which means they have to choose to not be blind. But it's Satan that blinded them, then it isn't of their own free will...right? You either believe or you don't. You don't decide one day to believe. Those that don't believe are condemned already. But if Satan has blinded these unbelievers (because they are unbelievers), then you must believe they are irrevocably lost. Because if believing is a choice, that's clearly not their situation now (because Satan blinded them - they aren't blind by their own wills).
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  4. #79
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 37 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457388
    Jerry,

    You said:
    I said that Satan blinded those who are perishing to the truth of the gospel. That can only mean that those who are perishing had the ability to see the light of the gospel because it is impossible to blind someone who is already blind.


    When do you think Satan blinds those who can otherwise see? Everyone all at once at a certain date? What about those who are born after Satan did his blinding? Maybe Satan blinds everyone at a certain age, what age is that?


    The way you are contorting that passage robs it of its plain meaning.

    But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:2-6 ESV)
    The emphasis isn't that Satan, on a particular calendar date, blinded everyone who was able to see the gospel beforehand. The clear emphasis is that the minds of unbelievers has been blinded by Satan and that's what keeps them from seeing the light of the gospel. The only solution is God shining in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  5. #80
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,141
    Thanks
    1,287
    Thanked 8,796 Times in 5,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    But why would that person believe to begin with?
    Because people were told that in order to be saved they must believe:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
    (Acts 16:30-31).

    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Paul says the vail is taken away in Christ. But that means they have to be in Christ to have the vail taken away. Which means they have to choose to not be blind. But it's Satan that blinded them, then it isn't of their own free will...right? You either believe or you don't. You don't decide one day to believe.
    No, a person has to hear the gospel first before they can believe (Ro.10:14-15). And Paul made it plain that even those who are perishing have the ability to believe the gospel. And that directly contradicts the Calvinist's teach of a so-called "effectual calling."

    Calvinists also teach that regeneration precedes faith but John made it plain that life comes as a result of believing and it does not precede believing. He wrote:

    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
    (Jn.20:30-31).

    Confusion reigns supreme in the Calvinist community!

  6. #81
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,141
    Thanks
    1,287
    Thanked 8,796 Times in 5,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    When do you think Satan blinds those who can otherwise see?
    He and his minions (2 Cor.11:15) are doing that every day in the church at Rome. They teach that even though the Scriptures say that the sinner is saved on the principle of grace the church at Rome teaches that no one can be saved apart from "works."

    So those who follow Rome's teaching have been blinded to the true meaning of salvation by grace.

  7. #82
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 37 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457388
    Jerry,


    Jerry:

    No, a person has to hear the gospel first before they can believe (Ro.10:14-15).
    Who is disputing this?

    Jerry:

    And Paul made it plain that even those who are perishing have the ability to believe the gospel.
    You just cited a verse that says that they can’t. Remember 2 Cor 4:2-6?
    Romans 10 doesn’t say that those who are perishing can understand and believe the gospel. It says that everyone needs a preacher to hear the gospel. Amen!


    Jerry:
    Calvinists also teach that regeneration precedes faith..
    Yes, because it does.


    Jerry:

    …but John made it plain that life comes as a result of believing and it does not precede believing. He wrote:

    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (Jn.20:30-31).
    John also wrote the following:

    1 John 5:1
    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (1 John 5:1 ESV)
    Everyone who believes has been (perfect tense) born again.

    In John 20:31 πιστευonτες is a present participle which means the action occurs concurrent with the action tense of the main verb. The main verb, εχητε, is a present subjunctive. Ergo, you have life as you believe. John isn’t trying to communicate which comes first.

    I’ve told you this before.

    If doctor told a mother who had just given birth that he was going to spank the baby’s bottom so that the baby could breath and by breathing he could have life, nobody would conclude that the baby wasn’t alive.

    Everyone would understand that the baby needs to breath to continue living.

    Everyone, Calvinists included, believe that we have life through our believing. Nobody lives an eternal life while disbelieving.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  8. #83
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 37 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457388
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    He and his minions (2 Cor.11:15) are doing that every day in the church at Rome. They teach that even though the Scriptures say that the sinner is saved on the principle of grace the church at Rome teaches that no one can be saved apart from "works."

    So those who follow Rome's teaching have been blinded to the true meaning of salvation by grace.
    No argument with your assessment of the syncretism of Rome. My point, however, is that your appear to think that at some point, people were able to see the gospel, and then Satan came and blinded them.

    This is a weird conclusion to make from this verse and, ironically, your reasoning makes you just as syncretistic.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  9. #84
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,141
    Thanks
    1,287
    Thanked 8,796 Times in 5,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Everyone who believes has been (perfect tense) born again.

    In John 20:31 πιστευonτες is a present participle which means the action occurs concurrent with the action tense of the main verb. The main verb, εχητε, is a present subjunctive. Ergo, you have life as you believe. John isn’t trying to communicate which comes first.
    The words of John speak for themselves:

    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

    "and that believing ye might have life through his name."

    Life comes as a result of believing and not before believing, as the Calvinists teach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Romans 10 doesn’t say that those who are perishing can understand and believe the gospel.
    I didn't say Romans 10 says that. It is the following words of Paul which say that:

    "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

    The gospel is hidden to those who are perishing and the god of this age, Satan, is responsible for the gospel being hidden from them. Satan blinded their minds to the gospel for one purpose, "so that they cannot see the light of the gospel."

    The fact that the minds of those who are perishing can be "blinded" to the gospel proves that they have the ability to see it if their minds were not blinded to it. After all, one must be able to see before being blinded can happen.

    This demonstrates that even those who are perishing have the ability to believe the gospel and as a result receive salvation.

    These words of Paul completely destroy the Calvinist's teaching about a so-called "effectual calling."

  10. #85
    Over 2000 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,058
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 933 Times in 592 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    428777
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Because people were told that in order to be saved they must believe:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
    (Acts 16:30-31).



    No, a person has to hear the gospel first before they can believe (Ro.10:14-15). And Paul made it plain that even those who are perishing have the ability to believe the gospel. And that directly contradicts the Calvinist's teach of a so-called "effectual calling."

    Calvinists also teach that regeneration precedes faith but John made it plain that life comes as a result of believing and it does not precede believing. He wrote:

    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
    (Jn.20:30-31).

    Confusion reigns supreme in the Calvinist community!
    If you are going to be consistent, you have to say they have the capacity but they don't have the ability. Maybe they had the ability, but they don't have it. If they are blind they can't see. If Satan did it, they aren't simply choosing not to see. Capacity and ability are two different things. And if Paul is saying they are blinded, that means something different than they are closing their eyes to it - or looking away from it.
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  11. #86
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    14,141
    Thanks
    1,287
    Thanked 8,796 Times in 5,782 Posts

    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147845
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    If you are going to be consistent, you have to say they have the capacity but they don't have the ability. Maybe they had the ability, but they don't have it.
    Certainly they had the ability because it would be impossible for Satan to blind anyone to the truth of the gospel unless they have the ability to see its truth. No one can be blinded to its truth unless they have the ability to see its truth in the first place. So your distinction between "capacity" and "ability" helps you none.

    What Paul said about Satan blinding the minds of those perishing to the light of the gospel proves conclusively that the Calvinist teaching about a so-called "effectual calling" cannot possibly be correct.

  12. #87
    Over 750 post club Dialogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 37 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    457388
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The words of John speak for themselves:
    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).

    "and that believing ye might have life through his name."

    Life comes as a result of believing and not before believing, as the Calvinists teach.
    No where in Jn 20:30-31 does it say that being born again comes subsequent to believing, the tense of the verb is clear and the tense of the participle is equally clear. Present tense participles happen concurrently with the action of the main verb, not prior to the action of the main verb. If John had used an Aorist or perfect tense participle, your point would be valid, but he did not. Since the verb “to have” is a present subjunctive we know that John is asserting that we have life concurrent with our believing. This isn’t all that hard to understand.

    We make statements parallel to this all the time.

    We went to the store to buy food that we might eat and that eating we might have life.
    We keep our airways clear that we might breathe and that breathing we might have life.
    We went to the well to make sure we could drink water and by drinking that we might have life.

    All valid statements constructed in parallel. All illustrating the fact that there are things we must doing continually in order to have physical life. However, nobody concludes from these statements that we were born the day we ate our first burger, or that we took our first breath before conception or that we celebrate the moment of our birth concurrent with the first drink of water we ever took.

    Of course not! We were born, before we drank, ate or took our first breathe. Nevertheless our life is contingent upon all of these.

    You and I both agree on the contingency. Our eternal life is contingent upon our believing. We simply disagree that contingency implies either logical or temporal priority.

    What absolutely does imply logical priority is 1 John 5:1.

    Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (1 John 5:1 ESV)

    The perfect tense verb γεγεννηται means that the act of being born again is completed prior to the implied action of the substantive participle (πιστευων).

    Case closed. Everyone who is believer has already been born again.

    The action of being born again was completed prior to the action implied in being a believer.

    Now on to your misunderstanding of 2 Cor 4:3-4

    Jerry:

    I didn't say Romans 10 says that. It is the following words of Paul which say that:
    "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor.4:3-4).

    The gospel is hidden to those who are perishing and the god of this age, Satan, is responsible for the gospel being hidden from them. Satan blinded their minds to the gospel for one purpose, "so that they cannot see the light of the gospel."

    The fact that the minds of those who are perishing can be "blinded" to the gospel proves that they have the ability to see it if their minds were not blinded to it. After all, one must be able to see before being blinded can happen.

    This demonstrates that even those who are perishing have the ability to believe the gospel and as a result receive salvation.

    These words of Paul completely destroy the Calvinist's teaching about a so-called "effectual calling."
    I’m sorry but this really just falls apart.

    First, you are right about a few things.


    1. Satan has blinded all unbelievers.
    2. The consequence of that is that they can’t see the light of the gospel.


    Your conclusion that they must have been able to see before “being blinded” is false on its face.

    I know of a woman who has been blinded by a genetic defect. Both her parents could see perfectly but were carriers of a particular gene that found expression in her DNA. That DNA pair has blinded her from before her birth. But according to you she must have been able to see at some point because if she “has been blinded” that proves that she could see before.

    Wrong, your inference from the language is invalid.

    It is perfectly valid to say that shehas been blinded bya genetic disorder and yet that doesn’t necessitate in any sense that she was able to see at some point.

    Want another example?

    Let me ask you a question.

    In 1 John 2:9 Johns says that anyone who hates his brother is still in darkness. The KJV says, “even until now.”

    Do you think that person ever walked in the light?



    I’ll wait for your answer.
    αξιον εστιν το αρνιον
    Worthy is the Lamb

  13. #88
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,824
    Thanks
    707
    Thanked 7,188 Times in 3,833 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147779
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialogos View Post
    Clete:


    You are very good at misquoting Calvin.
    You a very good at lying.

    I've not simply quoted him, I've provided references to where the quote is located and where it can be read for free by anyone curious enough to do so. Further, as I've said a couple of times already, I have yet to find a Calvinist who will disagree with a syllable of what I've quoted, yourself included.

    Don’t care.
    Yes, I know. That's why you fail.

    How many of those hundreds of posts contain Calvinists telling you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism?
    None that I recall.

    There are some I'm sure but none of them that could substantiate the claim. Calvinists make claims all the time. It's actual arguments they seem unable to formulate, especially the ones on this website.

    I’m fine disagreeing with Calvin, I’m a Reformed Baptist.
    Well you can disagree all you want but it's mindlessness to do so. His doctrine follows logically from the premises that I guarantee that you do no disagree with. Namely the primary Calvinist premise of Immutability.

    You really have only two options from which to choose (by your own free will, of course)...
    1. Accept that God cannot change in any way whatsoever.
    2. Reject the whole of Calvinism's distinctive doctrines.

    There is no rational third option. You don't get to pick and choose which doctrines you like and which you would rather disagree with. I mean, of course, you are capable of doing that but, like I said, you'd be doing so mindlessly. You can't rightly claim to have a systematic theology or a rationally coherent worldview if you accept a premise and reject the conclusions that follow from it or if you do the reverse and accept conclusions but reject the premises upon which they are based.

    If Augustine was right and God is immutable then everything Calvin said follows logically from that single premise, including all the blasphemous filth that you so desperately want to believe that I'm misquoting.

    Calvin was strongly paedo-Baptist.
    Why bring up infant baptism? The belief is that it removes original sin, by the way. Did you know that?

    Also, I don't thinks its supposed to be a hyphenated word. I think it's just "paedobaptist" but I could be wrong on that. Regardless, the practice is just a hold over from Catholicism. It wasn't the only error that the reformers failed to excise from Christianity and it is not relevant to this discussion so I don't see why you would bring it up.

    In other words, you have been confronted with the truth that you are misrepresenting Calvinism and have made a practice of pushing down straw men and you prefer that to actually doing the intellectually honest work of accurately representing the system you aim to critique.
    I've been debating this topic for twenty years! Do you think you're the first person to claim that I'm misrepresenting something? You're certainly not! But as all the others, you too will fail to substantiate that claim. I've not only debated dozens of Calvinists myself but I've read (and listened to) Sproul, Pink, Van Til and just about any other Calvinist author you're likely to be able to name.
    I am not misrepresenting anything. If you think otherwise, it is you who have it wrong and need to do the intellectually honest work, not me.

    Maybe you're not the Calvinist your pastor lead you to believe you are.

    Of course God is in meticulous control of every event. Name me the events where you think God fell asleep at the wheel.
    God is not meticulously controlling it when a pervert penetrates a 5 year old child.
    God was not meticulously controlling it when Jeffery Dahmer raped, murdered, dismembered and ate other sexual perverts.
    God was not meticulously controlling it when people would burn their own children as a sacrifice to their false god.

    Jeremiah 19:5 [God speaking](they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

    Now, you go ahead and tell me I'm wrong! Tell me that you believe that God is meticulously in control of every molecule that sticks to the toilet paper after you've used it!
    Tell me that God has to not only be a first person witness to but in active meticulous control of every vile act that occurs in all of the back rooms of every gay bar in America at once.
    Tell me that God is in meticulous control of whether the abortionist clips off the babies leg before his head or the other way around.

    Go ahead tell me that!

    False.
    You either don't know what you're talking about or you just a liar.

    I gave you the direct quote of Calvin himself. I mean it couldn't get any more directly out of the horse's mouth than that!

    Don't believe Calvin? How about Pink?...

    If God was able to subdue your will and win your heart, and that without interfering with your moral responsibility, then is He not able to do the same for others? Assuredly He is. Then how inconsistent, how illogical, how foolish of you, in seeking to account for the present course of the wicked and their ultimate fate, to argue that God is unable to save them, that they will not let Him. Do you say, “But the time came when I was willing, willing to receive Christ as my Saviour”? True, but it was the Lord who made you willing (Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13) why then does He not make all sinners willing? Why, but for the fact that He is sovereign and does as He pleases! - Arthur W. Pink "The Sovereignty of God in Salvation"

    Don't believe Pink either? How about Rev. Gordon Girod...

    The grace of God is irresistible. When God has determined to present us with the gift of salvation, we cannot refuse that gift. - Rev. Gordon Girod "Irresistible Grace"

    That's just two of literally dozens of quotes from I don't know how many different Calvinist authors that I could quote you! Are they all misrepresenting Calvinism too, their very own professed doctrine?

    You think something or someone caused God to choose?
    No. I don't. I am not a Calvinist! I don't believe God predestined everything. I don't need to believe that there was a cause for an event that didn't happen.

    God didn't choose who would be saved on an individual basis. What God predestined, amoung a few other things, was the creation of the Body of Christ and the salvation of the members of that body, whomever they happen to be.

    I’m sure there are some non-compatibilist Calvinists that believe this but most affirm the sentiments of the Westminster Confession.
    Do you think Pink or Girod, who I quoted above, rejected the WCF?

    You really just do not get it, do you?

    I am not suggesting that Calvinists do not say that people go to Hell because they were evil. They absolutely do say that but it amounts to lip service! What they actually believe when you pay close attention to what they actually teach is that people go to Hell because God chose not to regenerate them. And when asked why God chose not to, the answer is "because it pleased Him not to". That's what they believe, Dialogos! That's what your pastor believes, that's what the elders in your church believe and that's what they expect for you to believe! If you insist otherwise too loudly, they will kick you out of that church, I guarantee it.

    That’s the confession of faith held to by scores of Calvinists throughout for centuries. I’d bet the Clete Online Calvinistic Confession isn’t subscribed to by a single Calvinist.
    You're a laugh. I'm the one who first stated that Calvinists would never state their beliefs in the terms that I state them in but that a rose by any other name is still a rose.

    Facts are real and ideas have consequences, dialogos. The doctrines I cite follow logically and directly from a very few base premises and I have all the quotes you can stomach to show that what I say is true, fair and accurate. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about but that's your own problem, not mine.

    Have fun pushing down the straw man.
    Calling my arguments straw men arguments doesn't magically turn them into such.

    If they're straw man arguments, then refute them! Prove it! I dare you.

    Let's start with at the base premise of everything Calvinist, the doctrine upon which all of their heresy is based, the doctrine of immutability.

    Do you deny believing that God cannot change in any way whatsoever? If so, you'll be the very first I've ever encountered and it will disqualify you as a Calvinist and absolutely would get you disfellowshipped from any church with the word "Reformed" on the sign out front.

    Spare us all your tantrum, virtually no one cares about your inability to manage your anger.
    No way! You blaspheme God in my presence or quote someone else doing the same, you're going to get anger. Your dislike of it is the point. Get over it or repent.

    Try and focus.

    Who said they were opposite?
    Sproul did, and by extension you did. It isn't my fault that you can't follow what Sproul is saying.

    But even the third grader you referenced above can understand that the innocent don’t need mercy.
    You're telling me to focus? Who said anything about anyone being innocent? Not me!

    Stop transferring your Calvinist mindset to me! (I know, you have no idea what I'm talking about - skip it.)

    [quote]First, your assessment of a “Calvinist brain” is inconsequential. No one should care. Second, you make the foolish assumption that God’s decree and man’s agency is somehow mutually exclusive despite the fact that you appear to have a rudimentary understanding of compatibilism.[quote]
    Saying it doesn't make it so, dialogos.

    If they aren't mutually exclusive then make the argument!

    You think I haven't heard those "arguments" a thousand times before? They all - and I mean all of them - amount to simply making the claim that they are in fact compatible in spite of our pea sized human brains not being able to understand how. That, or they redefine what ever English words they have to redefine in order to remove the obvious contradiction between "God’s decree and man’s agency" as you put it. Calvinist simply state the doctrine as fact, dress it up in very verbose, definitionally contorted commentary and then at the end of the day call it an antinomy. At which point I say, thank you for conceded the debate because that's precisely what they've done.

    Go ahead! Surprise me, if you think you can! Show me the argument that does something new, something different, something other than merely making the claim that the two concept are compatible in any rational sense.

    In reality, whether you are a strong determinist predestinarian or a Greg Boyd style open theist, man's agency is always subordinate to God's decree. Everything that comes to pass is always in accordance with God’s decree, and it is frankly, dumb to state otherwise.
    It is blasphemy to have even written that sentence!

    You will give an account for every idle word.

    My advice is repentance.

    But of course, you must believe that God decreed your blasphemy and so how could you have done otherwise?

    It's utter insanity.

    For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 ESV)
    Clearly, the bible says “people” are the object of God’s predestination.
    You don't have the faintest idea what Romans 8 is even about!
    It would be funny if it weren't so tragic! I wonder how many times a Calvinist thinks that Paul changes subjects in Romans? Just in chapters 7 through 9 they must think he changed subjects half a dozen times. How does anyone make sense of the bible when they read it as though it were a huge collection of mostly disconnected passages that have no flow or connection to the passages that came before or that come immediately after?

    Paul did not just drop what he had just spent the previous almost eight full chapters talking about to bring up a whole new topic and say,"Oh yeah, by the way, you didn't have any choice in the matter, God predestined whether you'd believe or not." No! Paul is continuing right along with the same subject he had already been discussing and he is saying that God planned in advance that those who would believe would be made like Jesus. Those in the Body of Christ have been glorified (past tense) in Him! It isn't that we are currently glorified in our flesh but that Christ has been glorified and that we are in Him and thus we are glorified by virtue of the fact the we are members of His Body and that He has been glorified.

    It's not really even a concept that can be properly communicated in two or three sentences and there is no hope at all of understanding what is being said if one simply rips those two verses out of the context of not only the chapter they're in but the book and even the entire ministry of the book's author, not to mention the nature of the God whom he was ministering for! One has to understand who God is, that He is just, that He is rational, personal, righteous and loving and that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but wills that all should come to repentance and that "whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame", which Paul states maybe a page after the two verses you've yanked out of context.

    You’ve yet to make an argument against my doctrine.
    Of course I have!

    Remember Ezekiel 18?

    The God of the bible (the only one that actually exists) is just and cannot be otherwise, therefore He could not choose who to save and who to condemn to Hell arbitrarily.

    Calvinist believe that God chose before time began for no reason other than it pleased Him to do so (arbitrarily).

    Therefore, Calvinism is unbiblical.
    Therefore, Calvinism is false.

    Mostly right.
    Mostly? Which part of the gospel do you reject?

    But God doesn’t owe anyone forgiveness. Forgiveness isn’t a matter of justice.
    Who said anything about God owing forgiveness?

    And forgiveness is not divorced from justice. God does not act in any manner that is inconsistent with justice. God is Justice! God cannot simply wink at sin and pretend that it didn't happen. That would turn God's heaven into Hell eventually. Further, God tells us repeatedly that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. For the wages of sin is death. One way or another that sin debt will be paid and it is because of the innocent blood that Christ willingly shed that God is able to forgive sin at all and remain just.

    It was God’s mercy that made us alive together with Christ. We were justly, objects of God’s wrath. We have been made, mercifully, alive together with Christ.
    When (if) we believed! Not before!

    You completely misunderstand John 3:16. It isn’t a statement on the breadth of Christ's atonement, common, rookie mistake. It’s a statement on the way God chose to love the world.
    It means exactly what it says. It isn't written in code.

    In reality, you are the one limiting the value of the death of the Son of God. Your atonement doesn't save anyone, it merely makes men savable by themselves.
    Stupidity.

    I can't save myself! God offers me salvation, I both acknowledge my need for salvation and accept God's freely offered gift.

    When you get a gift from your Mother, do you feel like you've earned it by having accepted it?

    Did the servant in Christ's parable earn the forgiveness of his debt (Matthew 18:27), was it offered out of obligation or out of compassion?

    Wrong.
    Right!

    “For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19 ESV)”
    Why do you say I'm wrong and then quote the one verse that proves that I'm right?

    Case closed.
    Except that you continue....

    Ezekiel isn't disputing original sin in Chapter 18. God is saying that I'm responsible for my own sinful actions, not the sinful actions of my father.


    Did you write this as a joke?

    But I wasn't born Tabula Rasa, capable of living a perfect, pristine life that never needed the blood of Christ. No, both my father and I are sinners. We both were born with a sin nature inherited by our first parents that eventually rears its ugly head in both of our lives. He dies for his sinful actions, I die for mine. We were both born sinners because of Adam. Romans 5:19 isn't erased by Ezekiel 18.
    That might pass as a version of total depravity - sort of - but it has nothing at all to do with original sin. The doctrine of original sin says that you are born in sin, that you are guilty from conception and deserving of Hell fire from your mother's womb and that it is so because Adam sinned.

    Now, you can throw your hands in the air and deny that this is what the doctrine teaches and that I'm misrepresenting it but if you do, you're a liar. That's what the doctrine is - period.

    And what you said isn't even total depravity. Total depravity is the doctrine that teaches that the unregenerate does nothing at all that is good - period. He is evil to his core, that he was born in sin and every blink of his eye continues that sin and nothing good is possible unless and until God regenerates him.

    The Calvinist will often attempt to worm around the injustice of both doctrines by taking the position that is this condition itself that is referred to as original sin and they say that it was merely caused by Adam's sin but the result is the exact same. One way or the other, Adam ate sour grapes and all of mankind's teeth were set on edge.

    So?
    What do you mean, "So?".

    By the way, Romans 2 does not teach that some gentiles earned their way into eternal salvation by obedience to a law they knew by instinct, this is a perverted doctrine of your own mind and you should repent of it. The whole point of Romans 2 was to preface the conclusion of Romans 3:23.
    This is just too stupid! So Romans 2, which is talking about people who have never even heard of the Jewish scripture, never mind Jesus Christ and then its supposed to be the self same folks who are being referred to in chapter 3 as "being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus". You can't be both evangelized and unreached at the same time.

    Romans 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

    "The soul who sins shall die. But if a man is just, He shall surely live!” Says the Lord God." Ezekiel 18:5 & 9

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 19th, 2019)

  15. #89
    Over 2000 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,058
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 933 Times in 592 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    428777
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Certainly they had the ability because it would be impossible for Satan to blind anyone to the truth of the gospel unless they have the ability to see its truth. No one can be blinded to its truth unless they have the ability to see its truth in the first place. So your distinction between "capacity" and "ability" helps you none.

    What Paul said about Satan blinding the minds of those perishing to the light of the gospel proves conclusively that the Calvinist teaching about a so-called "effectual calling" cannot possibly be correct.
    So you should agree with the proposition that those who are perishing are NOW perishing through no fault of their own, correct? They are perishing because they are blinded - and Satan blinded them. Correct?

    IF you agree with that, how are they to be converted? It either has to be all of God or you have to place anyone who doesn't believe in a permanently unbelieving category because they have been blinded (by Satan) and so all who don't believe already are without hope (and will never be able to believe and pass into life).

    So if you agree with that, then when did those who believe pass from death to life? And if it was sometime during their lives, were they not blinded before they believed? If so, then the above falls apart.

    However, if you are saying that they heard and didn't believe and so now Satan is blinding them, then you are having to deal with what Paul said here :

    What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
    Romans 11:7

    That election is according to grace (as the previous verses state). And God told Elijah that HE had reserved to Himself 7,000 that had not bowed the knee to Ba'al. Some did not receive what they sought. This is not merely blinding after a period of unbelief. If some sought but didn't find AND THEN WERE BLINDED, then blinding isn't the whole story.
    Last edited by nikolai_42; September 19th, 2019 at 10:34 AM.
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  16. #90
    Over 6000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,321
    Thanks
    69
    Thanked 1,078 Times in 784 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    304595
    Quote Originally Posted by Nang View Post
    Calvinists, holding to the historical Reformed Faith of the Protestant churches, witness to the following Gospel doctrines:

    May God show mercy to those who falsely bring dark accusations against those who walk in the light of Godly TRUTH.
    Hi Nang , I see where Paul said in Eph 3(9 To make all see what IS the FELLOWSHIP of the MYSTERY !!

    But where does it say to make all see what is the FELLOWSHIP OF CALVINISM ?

    At least DISPENSATIONISM IS IN THE BIBLE , THE Greek word for CALVINISM is not !!

    dan p

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to DAN P For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 19th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us