Calvanism Disproven

[Van]

Does God give grace to the humble but opposes the proud? Yes, thus God can conditionally choose to give grace to some and not to others. A falselogy would deny this.

Can they dodge it by saying God makes the proud humble, then gives His grace? Nope because making the person humble is an act of grace.

Did Paul speak to new Christians as he would to men of flesh using spiritual milk? Yes. Thus rather than total spiritual inability the actual biblical doctrine is limited spiritual ability, able to understand and embrace spiritual milk but not spiritual solid food (meat.)

Did Christ purchase those never to be saved? Yes so Christ died as a ransom for all of humanity, not just the elect. Thus the logical necessity is that all of the elect had not yet been chosen individually before Christ died. Therefore, our gospel's promise is valid, everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[AustinC]

Of course that is what you find. That is what your doctrine tells you to find. Your presupposition will not allow for anything else. Problem is you did not make the case for your errant definition of dead in Ephesians. You did however, read into Ephesians that definition. Again, you define it differently than scripture does so it makes these discussions impossible.

Dead means separated not unable. The difficulty with the reformed version of dead is that you want to claim that the lost are dead like a corps but only apply that analogy half way. You say that dead means unable but then the question is unable to do what? You say unable to respond to the gospel. But then you trip yourself up with that analogy because all of the sudden the dead are not so dead that they can reject the gospel. If a dead person is unable to believe then how is it they are able to reject? Unable must logically go both ways to be intellectually honest. Inability must necessarily be applied to rejecting as much as it is believing. Your argument defeats itself.

The prodigal was separated from his father. That is what the father meant. That is the point of the parable. There are three parables in Luke 15. The two main thoughts are something precious was lost and then found, and there was rejoicing over finding that which was precious. None of the parables indicate death in the sense of lazerus. The sheep, the coin, the son were all lost (separated) from someone. The context here does not allow for the reformed errant definition of death.

The gospel, itself, is the power that God created to provide faith (Romans 10:9-17, 1:16). It is inspired (God breathed) and the means by which God has chosen to save souls. There is no scripture that says the Holy Spirit must first make one spiritually alive in order for men to believe under the measure of grace (the gospel) that God provided as the means to bring men to salvation. The gospel is the grace of God for the ability to believe (faith). There is no other means that God uses other than the gospel. He does not need to also give an extra measure of grace (enable to believe) for men to be saved. The power is the word of God.

When we are saved, God becomes our Father. We can stray away and wander off as children, yet we have our Father waiting to show us mercy. This is the story of the prodigal. The decision of the Prodigal meant he had become dead to the Father, but upon repentance, he was received back into the Father's arms. The prodigal is about someone for whom God is their Father.

Do you think that Ephesians 2:1-5 is speaking about a Christian being dead and then returning to God? Read the text, you will not be able to argue that position from Ephesians 2:1-5.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is the fact that the prodigal is already the son of the father. That is not the case in Ephesians. Therefore you are attempting to make a connection that is impossible to make.

Finally, I spent much of my life in free will theology. Therefore your accusation that my presupposition drives the argument is false. It is my reading of God's Word is what drives my argument.

 

[Van]

Pro 3:34 (CSB)
He mocks those who mock,
but gives grace to the humble.

Jas 4:6 (CSB)
But he gives greater grace. Therefore he says:
God resists the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.

1Pe 5:5 (CSB)
In the same way, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. All of you clothe yourselves with[fn] humility toward one another, because
God resists the proud
but gives grace to the humble.

Only a Calvinist would read these verses as saying God gives grace to the proud, making them humble, then says He gives grace to the humble.

 

[37818]

I’ll try one more time. You claim it is “fraudulent” to offer salvation if the person is unable to accept it.

It issue is, is there really a gift available to be offered.

 

[Van]

Did anyone ever read where a Calvinist says His presuppositions created support for Calvinism which he then claimed he found in the text.

 

[AustinC]

Did Christ purchase those never to be saved? Yes so Christ died as a ransom for all of humanity, not just the elect.

No, Christ only purchased those whom the Father has given to him. No one else.

Your assertion makes God unjust in sending ransomed and holy persons to hell.

You place your eternal position in the hands of humans whose self-will and self-faith keeps themselves from falling away. God becomes secondary, after the cross and humans become primary from that point on.

Now, I expect you to whine and cry and twist and twist, saying I misrepresent you. However, the reader can see your claim and make their own decision about what you preach.

 

[Van]

No, Christ only purchased those whom the Father has given to him. No one else.

Your assertion makes God unjust in sending ransomed and holy persons to hell.

You place your eternal position in the hands of humans whose self-will and self-faith keeps themselves from falling away. God becomes secondary, after the cross and humans become primary from that point on.

Now, I expect you to whine and cry and twist and twist, saying I misrepresent you. However, the reader can see your claim and make their own decision about what you preach.

One outrageous falsehood after another. 2 Peter 2:1, not me, says Christ purchased (bought) those heading for swift destruction.
Paying a ransom to allow reconciliation, does not automatically reconcile those for which ransom was paid. Scripture says after the ransom, individuals must "receive" the reconciliation. And according to Romans 5:1-2 access to that grace is by way of faith.

 

[kyredneck]

It's quite the phenomena these days, there's several 'Calvinist-slayers' on board now.

Yea… they are kept on here for entertainment value not theological perspective.

Makes me wonder what awful thing a 'Calvinist' must have done to them to cause their obsession and derangement.

 

[AustinC]

One outrageous falsehood after another. 2 Peter 2:1, not me, says Christ purchased (bought) those heading for swift destruction.
Paying a ransom to allow reconciliation, does not automatically reconcile those for which ransom was paid. Scripture says after the ransom, individuals must "receive" the reconciliation. And according to Romans 5:1-2 access to that grace is by way of faith.

Not a falsehood. You said:
"Did Christ purchase those never to be saved? Yes so Christ died as a ransom for all of humanity, not just the elect."

Anyone reading your statement can see the huge problem with your assertion.

Where does God say "I paid a ransom to 'allow' you to be reconciled".???? That assertion from you is not asserted by God.

Where does the Bible say "after the ransom, individuals must "receive" the reconciliation."

It certainly isn't found in Romans 5:1-2.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

When we are saved, God becomes our Father. We can stray away and wander off as children, yet we have our Father waiting to show us mercy. This is the story of the prodigal. The decision of the Prodigal meant he had become dead to the Father, but upon repentance, he was received back into the Father's arms. The prodigal is about someone for whom God is their Father.

You cannot divorce the context of the prodigal from the other two parables. Again your presupposition directs your errant doctrine.

Do you think that Ephesians 2:1-5 is speaking about a Christian being dead and then returning to God? Read the text, you will not be able to argue that position from Ephesians 2:1-5.

I didn't say that.

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is the fact that the prodigal is already the son of the father. That is not the case in Ephesians. Therefore you are attempting to make a connection that is impossible to make.

When interpreting parables all of the details are not part of the interpretation of the point. Again, read the other two parables.

Finally, I spent much of my life in free will theology. Therefore your accusation that my presupposition drives the argument is false. It is my reading of God's Word is what drives my argument.

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Alan Gross]

Of course that is what you find. That is what your doctrine tells you to find. Your presupposition will not allow for anything else. Problem is you did not make the case for your errant definition of dead in Ephesians. You did however, read into Ephesians that definition. Again, you define it differently than scripture does so it makes these discussions impossible.

Dead means separated not unable. The difficulty with the reformed version of dead is that you want to claim that the lost are dead like a corps but only apply that analogy half way. You say that dead means unable but then the question is unable to do what? You say unable to respond to the gospel. But then you trip yourself up with that analogy because all of the sudden the dead are not so dead that they can reject the gospel. If a dead person is unable to believe then how is it they are able to reject? Unable must logically go both ways to be intellectually honest. Inability must necessarily be applied to rejecting as much as it is believing. Your argument defeats itself.

The prodigal was separated from his father. That is what the father meant. That is the point of the parable. There are three parables in Luke 15. The two main thoughts are something precious was lost and then found, and there was rejoicing over finding that which was precious. None of the parables indicate death in the sense of lazerus. The sheep, the coin, the son were all lost (separated) from someone. The context here does not allow for the reformed errant definition of death.

The gospel, itself, is the power that God created to provide faith (Romans 10:9-17, 1:16). It is inspired (God breathed) and the means by which God has chosen to save souls. There is no scripture that says the Holy Spirit must first make one spiritually alive in order for men to believe under the measure of grace (the gospel) that God provided as the means to bring men to salvation. The gospel is the grace of God for the ability to believe (faith). There is no other means that God uses other than the gospel. He does not need to also give an extra measure of grace (enable to believe) for men to be saved. The power is the word of God.

That is what your doctrine tells you to find

The Fall of Adam was long before John Calvin was born.

 

[Van]

Not a falsehood. You said:
"Did Christ purchase those never to be saved? Yes so Christ died as a ransom for all of humanity, not just the elect."

Anyone reading your statement can see the huge problem with your assertion.

Where does God say "I paid a ransom to 'allow' you to be reconciled".???? That assertion from you is not asserted by God.

Where does the Bible say "after the ransom, individuals must "receive" the reconciliation."

It certainly isn't found in Romans 5:1-2.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Another straight up denial of scripture. Does 2 Peter 2:1 say Christ bought those never to be saved, those heading for swift destruction. Yes. Did AustinC admit that truth? Nope.
If Christ bought those never to be saved, He did not just purchase those to be saved. Rather by logical necessity, He ransomed humanity, (1 Timothy 2:6) both those to be saved and those never to be saved. Did AustinC admit that truth? Nope

Where does scripture say, written after Christ died on the cross, people must "receive" the reconciliation?

Romans 5:11 (NASB)
And not only this, but we also celebrate in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. ​

This verse was written after Christ had died, but the reconciliation was "now" in the present "received." And in this period after Christ died, believers have the ministry of reconciliation where we ask people to be reconciled, thus they are not reconciled yet.

 

[Alan Gross]

Does God give grace to the humble but opposes the proud? Yes, thus God can conditionally choose to give grace to some and not to others. A falselogy would deny this.

Can they dodge it by saying God makes the proud humble, then gives His grace? Nope because making the person humble is an act of grace.

Did Paul speak to new Christians as he would to men of flesh using spiritual milk? Yes. Thus rather than total spiritual inability the actual biblical doctrine is limited spiritual ability, able to understand and embrace spiritual milk but not spiritual solid food (meat.)

Did Christ purchase those never to be saved? Yes so Christ died as a ransom for all of humanity, not just the elect. Thus the logical necessity is that all of the elect had not yet been chosen individually before Christ died. Therefore, our gospel's promise is valid, everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

King James Bible
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

 

[Alan Gross]

Makes me wonder what awful thing a 'Calvinist' must have done to them to cause their obsession and derangement.

This is just a wild guess, I can't know for sure if someone is a sheep or just untaught in the scriptures:

"If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, ( John Calvin) he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." I John 4:20

 

[Reformed1689]

My argument I was referring to was that salvation is conditional. That condition being that salvation being a gift is not merited. Which goes to that gift being genuinely offered to all. Otherwise would be fraudulent gospel offered to all.

Why does that gift have to genuinely be offered to all? Where does the Bible say it is offered to all? Please give the reference where it says it is equally offered to all.

 

[AustinC]

Another straight up denial of scripture. Does 2 Peter 2:1 say Christ bought those never to be saved, those heading for swift destruction. Yes. Did AustinC admit that truth? Nope.
If Christ bought those never to be saved, He did not just purchase those to be saved. Rather by logical necessity, He ransomed humanity, (1 Timothy 2:6) both those to be saved and those never to be saved. Did AustinC admit that truth? Nope

Where does scripture say, written after Christ died on the cross, people must "receive" the reconciliation?

Romans 5:11 (NASB)
And not only this, but we also celebrate in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. ​

This verse was written after Christ had died, but the reconciliation was "now" in the present "received." And in this period after Christ died, believers have the ministry of reconciliation where we ask people to be reconciled, thus they are not reconciled yet.

Let's look.
*2 Peter 1:19-21*
And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

*2 Peter 2:1-3*
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

In response:
The meaning of the word “bought” in 2 Peter 2:1 is arguably quite ambiguous. When we look at the context of the verse, it seems likely that the word “bought” does not refer to Jesus purchasing salvation, but rather to a general deliverance from the idolatry of the world.

This is supported by Peter’s later statement in verse 20 that these people who were “bought” have “escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” It is certainly possible to escape “the defilements of the world” through the knowledge of the gospel without actually being saved.

Some professing Christians are baptized and serve in the church as if they were truly regenerate, but they eventually apostatize and demonstrate that they were in actuality never truly regenerated. It is entirely possible that these are the kinds of people Peter is referring to in 2 Peter 2:1.

There are other passages in Scripture that are very clear that Jesus actually saves those for whom He died. 2 Peter 2:1 does not speak directly about this topic, and, taken by itself, it is unclear exactly what the phrase, “even denying the Master who bought them,” really means. Because of this, it is important to interpret 2 Peter 2:1 in light of other, clearer, more foundational passages, rather than seeking to interpret it in isolation.

Calvinism and 2 Peter 2:1 – “denying the Master”

 

[kyredneck]

This is just a wild guess, I can't know for sure if someone is a sheep or just untaught in the scriptures:

"If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, ( John Calvin) he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." I John 4:20

My 'wild guess' is they belong in the 'religious nut' category.

 

[Alan Gross]

My 'wild guess' is they belong in the 'religious nut' category.

King James Bible
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

King James Bible
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. James 1:18

 

[canadyjd]

It issue is, is there really a gift available to be offered.

So, you can’t answer my question. That is fine.

thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[37818]

Where does the Bible say it is offered to all?

What was Jesus' instruction as given in Mark 16:15, which Paul believed, Colossians 1:23.