The heresy that I find inherent in Calvinism

[makesends]

Correction: there are those who are of the elect who are not yet saved.

They are predestined to salvation but have not yet crossed over from death into life, by doing what it says in such passages as Acts 16:31, Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39.

True enough, but irrelevant to his point. Get on with it.

 

[makesends]

It states that we are not regenerated apart from making a free will decision to receive Christ; which is neither of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man.

My contention has always been that no one can come to Christ unless he is drawn to Him by the Father.

However, being drawn to Christ is not the same thing as being given to Christ.

In being drawn to Christ, I am given the opportunity to receive Christ; and if I receive Him, I am regenerated and given to Christ by the Father.

Being drawn to Christ does not guarantee being given to Christ.

But in being drawn to Christ, we are given a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

Receive Him and be regenerated.

Reject Him; and you were drawn to Christ, but never saved.

And so you demonstrate, and quite clearly, at that, what @Josheb just said. The Scripture reference does not say even one of those sentences you just wrote as though it does say them.

 

[makesends]

Hosea 14:2, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39.

Debate ended?

This, like several I have answered this morning, was directed at @Josheb ; the others I meant to answer out of curiosity or just as commentary, and I know Josh will have his own full answer to you on them, but this one, I can see him, (quite reasonably, actually), answering, "No, I don't see anywhere in these 4 passages, 'The sinner's sin-enslaved fleshly will did it.' "

He has repeatedly mentioned your penchant for placing your lens over the text, and here you do it again. None of these 4 references are about the actions of unregenerate penitent faith.

In Hosea 14:2 it is a penitent returning to the Lord, not about salvific faith.

Acts 16:31 and Romans 10:9-13 are like many others: coincidence is not causality. Further, these are not specific in and of themselves as to whether or not regeneration came first; they certainly do not rule it out, as you seem to think. The implication in context is that God has indeed already changed their heart.

Acts 2:38-39, I expect, you wish to use to invoke the notion that the receiving of the Holy Spirit follows the repentance. In my view, this 'iteration' of the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the "indwelling", but the "filling", done by God for a temporal purpose. This is the filling where the will of the believer is involved to differing degrees ("And be not drunk with wine, in which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit."). (I can't answer for Josh, though even if it is the indwelling begun at the point of repentance, the coincidence still does not imply causation).

 

[makesends]

I can take scripture at face value and believe it for what it says in its most general sense.

For example, when I read John 6:37, I can determine that Christ will not reject a man over his "not being of the elect"...

If he desires to walk in through the door into salvation, the door is open to him...

And Christ will in no wise cast him out.

Not only do you remove verses from context to determine what you do from them, but you can't help but place your self-deterministic lens over what you read. It is self-determinism that claims the face value is what you describe.

Further, taking one verse or passage "at face value and believe it for what it says in its most general sense" is not, (even in reading non-biblical literature), "the way it is written". The one verse or passage is not written out of context —why read it out of context?

But to add to the silliness, you continue to misrepresent what has been described to you many times: Your opponents do not claim, nor even imply, that anyone is kept out that wishes to come in. That is your own inference, and is untrue and unnecessary.

 

[Josheb]

No, it is a misconception that may be logically concluded from the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election.

You have yet to prove that, and since the entire thread is built on a straw man (what you think is Calvinism is not Calvinism) no proof will be forthcoming as long as the errors understanding Calvinism accurately remain uncorrected.

 

[Josheb]

The Laodicean church is the visible church of that time in history; however it can be said that the majority of believers in it are not saved.

They are lukewarm; and Jesus will "spue them out of His mouth."

Stop adding to scripture. The facts of the text are that the letter was written to the Chruch and NOT to people who were not already saved. You have abused the verse and after having been shown the verse was written to bondservants of Christ in the church you are still defending an indefensible error.

Stop it!

Stop abusing scripture and stop defending the abuse.

The Laodicean church is...

The church. Period.

They are lukewarm; and Jesus will "spue them out of His mouth."

Yep.

That does not change the fact they are bondservants of Christ and the ecclesia. The verse does not apply to people not yet saved. Stop abusing scripture and acknowledge ALL of what the text explicitly states.

 

[Josheb]

I would ask you whether you are of the opinion that Jesus might cast out anyone who comes to Him.

Am always inclined to ignore your question on any occasion when you have not answered questions when asked you. You are notorious for a lack of parity. It stinks. I will, as a show of good faith and good will in hope you will emulate, answer the question. My answer to that question is scripture read exactly as written.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
..........But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

A person can "build" on any number of "foundations," but if the foundation upon which s/he is building is Jesus then he can build on that foundation with a variety of (other) materials. If what s/he builds does not withstand God's fiery testing he will lose everything s/he built, emerge from the testing charred and covered in soot and ash but still be saved. If the foundation was not Jesus then the person was never saved in the first place.

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you........'

A lot of people wrongly imagine they know Jesus and are building on him as their foundation. They have nothing to do with those who are actually saved from sin by the blood of Christ. They are poseurs, what you would call part of the "visible church" (a moniker invented by men and added to scripture). Not all Christians are Christians any more than all Israel is Israel.

John 6:39
And this is the will of Him who sent me, that of everything that He has given me I will lose nothing but will raise it up on the last day.

We've already covered the larger passage in which this verse is found. Jesus has unequivocally stated he will not lose any of those given him and the reason he will not lose them is that it is his Father's will that he not lose them. Logically, the necessary inference is that if they are lost then they were not given to him in the first place. None are given to him and then lost.

John 10:28
And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand.


Fundamentally, the gospel is the power of God. It is the power of God to save all who believe (Rom. 1:16). Saving and then losing is not power. It is the antithesis of power. The "power" in that verse is God's. not the unregenerate sinner's fleshly will. When Jesus stated he had all power and authority that includes any and all power over both sin and human volition. This is the chief source of error in the synergist's understanding of Calvinism: Calvinism is monergistic!!! That means God is the sole cause source of whatever aspect of salvation is being discussed. Calvinism, being monergistic NEVER concerns itself with what humans do or don't do because Calvinism teaches Total Depravity. Any and all synergists, like yourself, must first abandon the prejudice of synergism if Calvinism's monergism is going to be correctly understood.

Where you read human volition into scripture 1) scripture never states any such volition and 2) Calvinists don't read what is not stated.

God saves.
God alone saves.
God alone saves based on His will, His purpose, and His action.
God is not dependent in any way at any time on anything done by the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner who has only his or her own corrupted flesh by which s/he might do anything. God need none of it.
The only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved.
God does not use sin to save from sin.
God is almighty and NOTHING can wrest a person from His grasp if He has, in fact, laid hold of a person.

John 6:37-40
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. This is the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day."

Am I of the opinion Jesus might cast out someone who comes to him? If the person has come to Jesus through the power of God then Jesus has unequivocally answered that question in the negative, no, he will not cast them out. If, however, they have "come" to him in their own hubris, the belief their sinfully dead and enslaved flesh can and does empower them to do the coming salvifically, then the answer is yes, he not only might do so but he will do so. At best his confession is nothing more than intellectual assent of the flesh and not a Spirit-driven whole change of the sinner such that the dead sinner no longer lives but has been crucified with Christ - by God the volition and work of God and not the volition and work of the sinful flesh.

John 6:37 is the only place in scripture in which scripture explicitly states anything specifically about "cast out" and that verse unequivocally states he will NOT cast out those who come to him if their coming meets all the stated criteria in the rest of the text and does not assume criteria never stated.

Given all that scripture states the "lukewarm" Christian that gets "spewed out" was never a Christian in the first place.

LOOK at the whole text in the Rev 3 passage to which you want to hold ad justify your volitionalism.

Revelation 3:15-22
'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore, be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"

To what does the angel attribute their lukewarmness? Their belief they are wealthy and need nothing. Their belief stands in stark conflict with the reality they are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. This is reminiscent of the rich young ruler who trusted in his adherence to the last half of the Decalogue. What was impossible for him is possible with God.

Synergism makes worthless the blood of Christ. It implicitly says the sinful human will, the fleshly human might can forfeit the price God paid to purchase the sinner and make impotent the purchase.

No. if God actually applied the purchase price and you are not your own, then you will not be cast out.

 

[Josheb]

I can take scripture at face value and believe it for what it says in its most general sense.

That has yet to be demonstrated.

For example, when I read John 6:37, I can determine that Christ will not reject a man over his "not being of the elect"...

And you just proved your prior statement incorrect. The word "elect" is nowhere to be found in John 6:37. You added "elect" to the verse and did NOT take the scripture at face value!

If he desires to walk in through the door into salvation, the door is open to him...

Again, there is no mention of "desire." That is being added and the addition disproves the claim of "face value."

And Christ will in no wise cast him out.

That's right. Jesus will no wise cast out the one God gives him. No mention of the sinner's unregenerate fleshly desire.

I can take scripture at face value and believe it for what it says in its most general sense.

Your own post proves otherwise.

Even when trying to discuss what is explicitly stated you resort to euphemisms like "face value."

 

[justbyfaith]

True enough, but irrelevant to his point. Get on with it.

Actually, very relevant to his point; because it contradicted it.

 

[justbyfaith]

And so you demonstrate, and quite clearly, at that, what @Josheb just said. The Scripture reference does not say even one of those sentences you just wrote as though it does say them.

What I have stated is a way of looking at the scriptures in question, in which man becomes responsible for his decision to either receive or reject Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

None of these 4 references are about the actions of unregenerate penitent faith.

They are about a penitent faith that results out of a free will decision made by someone who is being drawn to Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your opponents do not claim, nor even imply, that anyone is kept out that wishes to come in. That is your own inference, and is untrue and unnecessary.

I do not state that my opponents claim it. I state that it is a logical misconception that may result out of believing in Calvinism that needs to be clarified.

 

[justbyfaith]

You have yet to prove that, and since the entire thread is built on a straw man (what you think is Calvinism is not Calvinism) no proof will be forthcoming as long as the errors understanding Calvinism accurately remain uncorrected.

Limited Atonement is the concept that the Atonement applies only to the elect; and Unconditional Election is the concept that those who are included in that Limited Atonement are included because of the predetermined counsel of God.

This indicates very clearly to me that the misconception is logical and forthcoming out of Calvinistic philosophy,

That a person might say, "I may not be of the elect; and if that is the case, I cannot be saved."

That I may come to Christ and yet He may cast me out over the fact that I was not chosen by the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God.

 

[justbyfaith]

Stop adding to scripture. The facts of the text are that the letter was written to the Chruch and NOT to people who were not already saved. You have abused the verse and after having been shown the verse was written to bondservants of Christ in the church you are still defending an indefensible error.

Stop it!

Stop abusing scripture and stop defending the abuse.

Those whom Christ spues out of His mouth are most assuredly saved. My bad.

 

[justbyfaith]

That has yet to be demonstrated.

I am not going to continue here in debate mode and in a frame of mind wherein I find that I am having to prove myself to others.

It is written in Jeremiah 4:3-4 that we ought not to sow among thorns and therefore I prefer to sow my seed in places where it may find root and be able to produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

In other words, I prefer to sow seed in open hearts...

Not in places where my treasure might be discounted as invaluable and trodden under foot of men.

 

[prism]

I am not going to continue here in debate mode and in a frame of mind wherein I find that I am having to prove myself to others.

It is written in Jeremiah 4:3-4 that we ought not to sow among thorns and therefore I prefer to sow my seed in places where it may find root and be able to produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

In other words, I prefer to sow seed in open hearts...

Not in places where my treasure might be discounted as invaluable and trodden under foot of men.

Nevertheless, it's good to put our interpretations before the scrutiny of others to see if they are worth their weight in salt.

 

[justbyfaith]

Nevertheless, it's good to put our interpretations before the scrutiny of others to see if they are worth their weight in salt.

My interpretations are certainly worth their weight in salt...

However, I think that Matthew 7:6 tells me not to cast my interpretations in front of people who might be inclined to reject them and then turn again and rend me.

 

[Binyawmene]

My interpretations are certainly worth their weight in salt...

However, I think that Matthew 7:6 tells me not to cast my interpretations in front of people who might be inclined to reject them and then turn again and rend me.

Context is important. If you read Matthew 7:1-6, then the context is about judging and not about interpretation.

I would like to see you demonstrate that regeneration proceeds faith is a false doctrine. Based on these particular verses (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), I seriously doubt you would be able to do it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Context is important. If you read Matthew 7:1-6, then the context is about judging and not about interpretation.

I would like to see you demonstrate that regeneration proceeds faith is a false doctrine. Based on these particular verses (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), I seriously doubt you would be able to do it.

In what manner do you see those verses as teaching that regeneration precedes faith? I do not see them teaching that; but then, I am not privy to your logic and reasoning. However, I am interested in it.

I think that Romans 10:9-13 specifically shows that faith precedes regeneration; while some may not be able to see that.

Also, Romans 5:1-2 tells me that we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and are we not regenerated because of grace?

Therefore, based on a general reading of these verses, I conclude that faith precedes regeneration and that regeneration does not precede faith.

For there is an initial faith by which we have access into grace, and by which we are regenerated;

And there is a continued, supernatural faith that comes as a fruit of the Spirit.

As for Matthew 7:1-6, it should be clear that we often judge other people when we bring to bear on their lives the scriptures that apply to their sins.

Therefore, it is not taking Matthew 7:6 out of context to apply it as saying that we ought not to bring forth an interpretation that would draw the attention of swine...so that they would devalue the treasures that we are setting forth as judgments and then turn again and rend us.

 

[makesends]

In what manner do you see those verses as teaching that regeneration precedes faith? I do not see them teaching that; but then, I am not privy to your logic and reasoning. However, I am interested in it.

I think that Romans 10:9-13 specifically shows that faith precedes regeneration; while some may not be able to see that.

Also, Romans 5:1-2 tells me that we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and are we not regenerated because of grace?

Therefore, based on a general reading of these verses, I conclude that faith precedes regeneration and that regeneration does not precede faith.

For there is an initial faith by which we have access into grace, and by which we are regenerated;

And there is a continued, supernatural faith that comes as a fruit of the Spirit.

As for Matthew 7:1-6, it should be clear that we often judge other people when we bring to bear on their lives the scriptures that apply to their sins.

Therefore, it is not taking Matthew 7:6 out of context to apply it as saying that we ought not to bring forth an interpretation that would draw the attention of swine...so that they would devalue the treasures that we are setting forth as judgments and then turn again and rend us.

Romans 10:9-13 "..you will be saved.", there —σωθήσῃ— is in the future passive indicative. The Koiné is not like the English, from which you infer a result of salvation due to the confession, nor does even sequence indicate cause. The same thing can be seen in John 3:16, where all those that believe in him shall be' saved. Notice that John 3:18 does not say, 'shall be' condemned —it says 'is already' condemned. We know that believing is causal, because the Bible also says that salvation is by faith and through faith. But the confessing with your mouth is not what produces your faith, but rather, it is what faith produces. 'Shall be saved' in the Koiné identifies the confession with the salvation; think, "this goes with that". And that is affirmed with the preposition, 'unto' —εἰς— which can indicate many things: In the English: in, into, toward, about, concerning, in keeping with, purpose, position, timing, etc. Notice that the phrase before it, "belief unto righteousness", is best understood 'belief concerning righteousness' or the like, and not, 'belief producing holiness'. The grammatical construction of "confession unto salvation" is precisely the same.

Romans 5:1-2 "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God." This is about the enmity between the sinner and God being removed. I haven't a clue how you take this to support your thesis. We are indeed regenerated because of Grace, but the regeneration and the faith produced are both of grace by the gift of the Spirit of God 'taking up residence' within us. There is no hint of sequence between the two, in this verse. But we know from the larger context (the whole of Scripture) that the un-regenerated cannot have salvific faith. At the most, all you can suppose from this is that the two —faith and regeneration— are simultaneous.

Your notion of two different faiths is merely a construction. The faith by which we are saved, and the faith by which we stand and grow, are of one and the same nature and of the same source. They are one and the same faith. I do not say they cannot be affected by the one in which the faith has been engendered by the Spirit —they can; we can grow our faith— but the nature and the source of it is of God (the Holy Spirit), and all of grace.