Featured To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

Can you show that in Genesis chapter 3. You can't just quote a doctrinal statement of another man and add something to the Bible that isn't there.

 

Php. 1:29. There are more.

See above and reference it. Romans 10:17 still stands. You are wrong, and have been corrected on many levels and your arguments my friend are simply not well thought out and they just don't prove anything you are attempting to prove.

You erected two straw man arguments. I pointed them out and they are what I call them.

My argument is not even close to a straw man argument. I gave scriptural evidence. Man does not want to be saved, he is hostile toward God et al. I admitted to an issue since you brought it up -- the straw man was your false assumptions that I stated certain things by your assumption when in fact I never did -- yet you used them to argue against me. THAT is a straw man argument and you were beating on both of them.

God grants faith. Faith is evidence of being saved -- not the cause. The cause is God. I gave you Biblical evidence. But hey, you're trying hard -- you simply need to think deeper -- you're getting closer to the truth here.

Just exactly how does this weak argument refute what I've stated? Both sources given (Word/preacher) are each OUTSIDE of the man who hears -- and still faith COMES FROM hearing the Word of Christ, the same creative Word that creates all things. We've received all things from God cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7. Your point is moot and actually proves my point. That and Christ Himself is both the AUTHOR and PERFECTER of our faith -- thus it comes from Him. The evidence is clear yet you and others of your theology wish to boast and grab credit.

Oprahs point is the same faith as WoF and of yours as well -- that it is an inherent power source which is a dissident theological position. The extreme of this error is seen in Kenneth Copleand, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen and many many more. Your point proves nothing. Her belief in what faith is remains erroneous and many people are deceived by this. Faith is not mental assent as you are making it out to be. It is not the same faith as one sitting in a chair believing it will hold them. Instead faith is supernatural and it is by Gods power we believe cf. Eph. 1:19.

In addition, your point that the Word of God shows to whom we are to have faith in comes from -- well -- the Word of God as you point out -- not from self. Again, Romans 10:17.

Correct. Romans 10:17 shows, as you say 'the source from where faith is found'. You're getting warmer -- faith is from God's Word.

Romans 10:17 shows where faith comes from. And no, a sinner cannot believe without the Word of God. Your argument is invalid and not well thought out friend -- in fact up above prior to this last statement you showed where the sinner has to hear the Word to believe and this I believe as well and my entire argument supports this. Yet now you're all over the place with the whole thing. Your logic isn't logical.

Nothing you've said to date supports your argument, but it does in fact support mine.

- Blessings

 

You can take a horse to the water but you sure can't make him drink. A man can recieve nothing except it be given him from above, St. John 3: 27

 

That's a great point salzer mtn.

 

Part 1 p4t

 

Part 2 pft

Do I really have to spell that out for you? Your original dogmatic assertion was that "faith comes from hearing the word of God not from us. It's a gift". If faith is a gift, then it is given. What your statement implies is that there is a mediator between the gift and the receiving, i.e. hearing and the preacher, because the order follows faith comes by hearing, but how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach except they be sent. (vs 18-20). Thus you say faith doesn't come from us, but yet an "us" is required to deliver the message ("how shall they hear without a preacher").

Thus your reliance on Romans 10:17 to prove faith is a gift, according to YOUR interpretation, presents a self defeating statement because in Romans 10:17, this passage DEPENDS ON the message being delivered by someone else, and if it depends on the message being delivered by someone else (another human) then faith is not a gift in Romans 10:17.

And having faith in Christ of ones own volition is not 'boasting'. That is complete garbage. No Non Calvinist that believes in free will believes they can save themselves. Having faith and trusting Christ willingly does not mean you are saving yourself and it never gives a person room to say "I did it". Saying "I believed and was saved" is not the same thing as saying "I believe and saved myself".

Yet it is Calvinist that are the boasters because they believe that faith is a work. If faith is a work, even if God gave you the faith against your will, then you would still be saved by works since faith is a work.

The difference in my faith and Oprah's is the my faith is in JESUS CHRIST not humanity or some abstract cosmic force. And since you choose to insult me by labeling my faith the same as Oprah's, let's not forget that your belief is derived from a murdering, baby baptizing, amillennialist. If Calvin couldn't get baptism right, and justified murdering those who disagreed with him, and threw out the book of Revelation, then how could he possible get salvation right? The Bible says clearly that no man who practices murder has eternal life abiding in him 1 John 3:15, and therefore since John Calvin consented to and promoted the murder of multitudes of people, there is no evidence that John Calvin was a saved man. Therefore your theology is based on an unsaved heretic.

And once again, quoting verses that do not say what you say:

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power" Eph 1:19

This does not say it is by God's power we believe unto salvation. First of all, you are mixing faith that God DOES give AFTER we have already been sealed. Secondly, this verse asks the rhetorical question about what God's power is. The emphasis is on the subject of God's power, not the one who believes. If you're going to misquote verses, at least get one that comes a little bit closer to what you are trying to prove. Preferably one that actually supports what you say, but at this point I'll settle for something close to it so I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

Again, totally misconstruing the point. Faith comes BY HEARING THE WORD. Faith is the RESULT of what is heard from the word of God. Faith does not magically morph into your soul by osmosis. The word of God tells you the subject that your existing faith is supposed to be directed to: JESUS CHRIST, that does not mean that the word generated your faith, THAT is what Copeland believes.

When Peter took his eyes off of Jesus during the storm, did Peter sink because he lost faith? No. It was because his faith was taken off of Christ.

If John Calvin would have understood what faith was, he would have either attempted to explain his version of truth more fully, or just gave up and rejected Servetus instead of having him killed. It's no wonder you still don't get it. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Just another example to prove that your presumption about Romans 10:17 is flawed. In Genesis 22 when God told Abraham to take his only son and bind him on the alter to be sacrificed, Abraham was never told that God would spare his son. Abraham had faith that God was going to spare Isaac anyway without ever having heard that God intended to do so, and that faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness. Rom 4:3. Genesis 22 nor anywhere else that Abraham is discussed ever says that God gave Abraham faith, and yet Abraham is a model of faith throughout the NT.

Now I can be just as pejorative and petty as you are in my responses

 

And I don't disagree with that. But it is a faulty premise if your assumption is that faith is something that has to be given. If faith is a response to the gospel by believing what it says about Christ, then what is received can only come from above and nowhere else, then John 3:27 applies. John 3:27 does not say that faith is received from above, but being born of the Spirit comes from above. If you read that to say faith, you are adding something to the context that it does not say.

But even your own analogy refutes Calvinism because it has already been conceded on here that Calvinism holds that faith is imparted against your will. But your analogy is that "you can't make [the horse] drink". But according to Calvinism you can. Not really the best analogy you could have used to support your argument.

But since you brought it up, I agree, you can't MAKE the horse drink anymore than God MAKES a person become saved.

 

By whom? I certainly don't concede that! Without? Perhaps. Against? No sir.

 

I'm certain you meant 'pejorative' Dr. but to reiterate, and this is not a pejorative statement, your logic plainly isn't. Your hermeneutics are suspect and weak and filled with presuppositions and false assumptions. Don't take this wrong, but bro, most if not all KJVO have a very weak theology so it naturally goes with the territory.

Now, did I whine when you made the statement 'hermeneutically challenged' which was directed at me?

Not at all. As a matter of fact I chuckled. So pot, don't go talking to the kettle. OK? :thumbs:

Brother, none of your arguments hold water -- you're wasting your time and your interpretations are a feeble attempt to grasp the gift of faith and the totality of salvation of being solely from God and make salvation partly of you.

Directly and concisely the Word tells us where faith comes from and it is from the Word. The word from should be easy for you to grasp but you can't see the forest for the trees. You've been shown this over and over again. I am a little baffled that you simply cannot see the truth of Scripture here, Dr.

Keep studying, you got warm there for a minute then turned back into ice and off you went back to your fallacious theological trail.

- Peace

 

The Holy Spirit was not operating during the time of Genesis 3 as He is today:

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" John 7:39

"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Luke 24:49

So again, how was Adam able to hear God and respond to him while he was dead in his sin.

Furthermore, Romans 1:17-20 makes it clear that the unsaved can perceive the truth of God though they are dead in their sin.

 

OK so at least you believe that you can come to Christ of your own free will, is that correct?

 

...and you don't even understand what jonathanD said right there. He said nothing of the sort.

raying:

 

And I'm sure you meant to capitalize the "But" after the Dr., and I'm sure you meant to make a full sentence out of your first paragraph, unless you meant to say that my logic isn't pejorative. If that's what you meant, thanks for the compliment.

And funny that you claim "most if not all KJVO have weak theology" when the very person you got YOUR theology from used the same text, whether you base it off Calvin or the 1689 Baptist Confession, both used the TR. And all of the great Calvinist preachers you herald virtually all used the KJV. So you're kind of spitting on your ancestors graves and demeaning your own theology, but you probably didn't think that all the way through or that far ahead before you posted that.

Hermeneutically challenged was not directed at you, it was directed at Iconoclast after he continued making his pot-shots that I ignored for about 20 posts in a row.

Pretty short and simple rebuttal to none of the arguments I just raised in those 2 posts. Thanks for contributing.

 

And apparently, you don't know the difference between a declarative statement, and an interrogatory statement. I am ASKING what he said for clarification, I'm sure he can defend himself if that's not what he meant or said.

But hey, please don't burn me at the stake for disagreeing with you!

 

John Calvin systematized biblical doctrines in his Institutes. He fleshed more out in his commentaries,and brought out more applications in his sermons. But we didn't get it from John Calvin;the Holy Scripture is our source as it was his.

Actually no,regarding Calvin using the TR. But I will access my source material tomorrow to prove my point.

 

Not at all, the sentence was one. But hey, at least you can now spell 'pejorative'.

You have proven my point on that fact in this thread and in others you have taken part in. KJVO = a weak theology typically and consistently.

Then you erect straw man arguments yet again. You have to, you need something to beat on so you can win since you cannot refute truth or actual facts so you make up things then go and attack those things.

As far as Calvin, your 1st straw man argument? I haven't read him. :wavey:

Straw man 2 the 'BCF'. I haven't read the 1689 BCF. I don't base my theology on CoF's. Actually, I've not read any CoF's.

Straw man 3. 'Others were KJV'. That's not nearly the same as KJVO. I'm certain they'd dismantle your KJVOnlyisms readily and shame you for the nonsense you and others use to support that myth. They'd probably also (if living today) use an ESV or NIV. So, you're incorrect again, no one is spitting on anyone. Your false assumptions cause you to see things that aren't there -- they weren't KJVO. Their scholarship, intellect and understanding of truth would never allow such a dive into utter nonsense.

Nope. It was in a post quoting me and to me. I see you use this term often, eh? Icon has schooled you, and often. You really need to learn to listen as you are far off track in theological understanding, especially in the matter of Soteriology.

Have you studied the word 'from' yet (As per Romans 10:17)? If not you really need to. It's a rather simple word to understand. It shouldn't be this hard for you to grasp its meaning.

- Blessings

 

Not only can you, those who are saved always come by their own free will...however, I suspect you will disagree with how I define "free".

 

And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Gen 1:2

The Spirit of God was there alright, and I'd have to say it's the same with Him as with Christ, 'the same yesterday, today, yea, and forever.'

God doesn't change.

 

You still have no clue what a straw-man argument is even after I tried to explain it to you.

And yet you claim to know everything that Calvin did NOT teach while admitting you have never read him.

All of your presuppositions have been based on Calvinist (John Calvin if you don't know what Calvinistic means) doctrines. Perhaps since you've never "read him" you haven't noticed the striking similarities.