Scriptures that Refute Calvinism

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I do. As do many Reformed/Calvinist believers here. I do not think that you will be able to sling the mud of Biblical ignorance against Calvinists and have it stick.

For historical interest, check out some of the Reformed Standards with Scriptural proofs and tell me honestly that the authors were just plain ignorant of what the Bible says.

Calvinists preach false doctrine. I read the Bible, Therefore, I get my truth from it rather than from your Calvinist propaganda. See what I mean? I doubt it?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not interested in "Reformed Theology or Calvinism." You're not gonna sell me on that false doctrine. Thanks anyway Duck.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Was Bruce Lee?

Folks, the previous use of the Jackie Chan meme is meant to mean "I'm Confused". Has nothing to do with Buddha. It is a known meme for confusion.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Monergism only relates to regeneration, in which the person is passive given that the person is spiritually dead. By spiritually dead is meant the person possesses no moral ability to choose to rightly. These persons are only able to sin more or sin less. Hence, they will never choose rightly unless God reaches down and does something to them (Eze. 36:26) so they are now able to choose to sin or not to sin. All are just as passionate as the other. All belive their interpretation of Scripture are set in stone, correct?

But, once regenerated the man becomes active...spiritually alive. At this instant of regeneration the inevitable exercise of faith in receiving the righteousness of Christ for justification is the person's own act. Strictly speaking, therefore, not even justification is monergistic. It is best to restrict the terms monergism and synergism to the controversy over regeneration and nothing else.

So, yes, most will remember a moment at which they were born anew and made the only choice possible at that moment. It is really no different than the non-Calvinist. The quibbling that is going on relates to the understanding of what is actually going on "under the hood" as it were.

The Arminian will say that "aha!" moment of regeneration was something that came from within them via persuasiveness (wooing) by the Holy Spirit, and they made the right choice.

The Calvinist will say that "aha!" moment of regeneration came from without, in that the Holy Spirit enlightens the mind and renews the will, and thus they made the only choice possible.

God does not give a new mind or new will in regeneration. The man has the same human powers of mind and will; but as regenerate the man is endued with spiritual life and is thereby able to think, will, feel, and act spiritually. The faculty of the will cannot be removed and substituted. The same old will (which was enslaved) is renewed and liberated. A freed person who was once a slave does not need to be made an entirely new person; he merely needs to be freed.

Our new life—our love for and trust of the Savior—flows from the new birth, not vice versa. This is clearly taught in John 3:3 where Jesus tells us we cannot even see the kingdom of God unless we are first born again. If we cannot see the kingdom, we certainly cannot enter it; thus, regeneration precedes faith. In regenerating our hearts, the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, making us able to obey in faith.

AMR

What you're basically saying is, Calvinists have come up with a "theory" of how they came to Christ and that "theory" is different than what the Arminian's believe? Therefore, you cannot be dogmatic about your "theory" and will only find out after you leave this world. Is that not so? The problem being, Calvinist's,
Arminian's and Grace Gospel Believers all interpret those Scripture verses differently than one another. Yet, we all stand or fall on our own beliefs, do we not?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Folks, the previous use of the Jackie Chan meme is meant to mean "I'm Confused". Has nothing to do with Buddha. It is a known meme for confusion.

AMR

It was successful.

 

[glorydaz]

What you're basically saying is, Calvinists have come up with a "theory" of how they came to Christ and that "theory" is different than what the Arminian's believe? Therefore, you cannot be dogmatic about your "theory" and will only find out after you leave this world. Is that not so? The problem being, Calvinist's,
Arminian's and Grace Gospel Believers all interpret those Scripture verses differently than one another. Yet, we all stand or fall on our own beliefs, do we not?

Which reminds me of what a brother shared with me years ago.

We find ourselves in a room where there is a door with a sign at the top that says, "Enter for eternal life." After we walk through the door, we look back and see this written over the top of the door, "Chosen in Christ from the beginning."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Calvinists preach false doctrine. I read the Bible, Therefore, I get my truth from it rather than from your Calvinist propaganda. See what I mean? I doubt it?

GM,

This just being provocative. Are you saying that you never read anything anyone has to say on matters of the Scripture? A commentary? A Bible dictionary? A Bible background encyclopedia? Are you saying no one is capable of summarizing teachings of Scripture? Yes, men are given to being wrong when so writing all these types of materials. That said, not each and every thing they write is erroneous. In fact, men are capable of making infallible statements...sometimes. So to say "I read the Bible" as if no one else but you reads it is a wee bit high-minded. And to say you are not occasionally moved by what others have to say or write, is disingenuous, else why bother discussing Scripture at all with others?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What you're basically saying is, Calvinists have come up with a "theory" of how they came to Christ and that "theory" is different than what the Arminian's believe? Therefore, you cannot be dogmatic about your "theory" and will only find out after you leave this world. Is that not so? The problem being, Calvinist's,
Arminian's and Grace Gospel Believers all interpret those Scripture verses differently than one another. Yet, we all stand or fall on our own beliefs, do we not?

In other words, we all have theories, correct?

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

In other words, we all have theories, correct?

AMR

If your theory is in conflict with scripture then you should change your theory so that it is compatible with the Bible.

There are so many scriptures that refute Calvinism, such as John 3:16, plus many, many others.

I find that it is one of the easiest false doctrines to refute.

 

[Crucible]

I realize there will never be a meeting of the minds between "Grace Believers" and Calvinists. There can't be.

TULIP

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

I don't understand what you all are talking about when y'all make that dichotomy, and I also do not see any real refutation of the rest :idunno:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If your theory is in conflict with scripture then you should change your theory so that it is compatible with the Bible.

Indeed, Robert, you should. It begins with first acknowledging the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scripture. On that point alone, you have no seat at the table where serious discussion and argumentation is expected.

There are so many scriptures that refute Calvinism, such as John 3:16, plus many, many others.

How would you know given your low opinion of Holy Writ? What tells you the difference between the many errors in Scripture that you think exist and the non-errors?

I find that it is one of the easiest false doctrines to refute.

You have made this assertion often, yet you will not stand still and actually be examined and defend your views substantively. All you have ever offered up is cherry-picked Scripture with some boldface formatting masquerading as exegesis. And when confronted with exegetical analysis contrary to your opinions you resort to complaining about how wordy those that disagree with you are or that these same folk are lost, hell-bound, and sin bent. In other words, you really have nothing to say that passes for an actual argument, much less a refutation.

As most anti-Calvinists do, you have merely expressed your personal disapproval of this or that. That's an autobiographical statement of your feelings. There's nothing for the Calvinist to respond to at that level. It's like telling me you do not like rhubarb pie. You folks need to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to you, that creates no presumption that your perception is correct. Folks like you need to become cognizant of how often you beg the question. You and, more lately, GM, are serial offenders in that regard. You usually shield yourselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing your views in a venue where hasty retreat behind the guise of complaints about using "big words", too complex responses, or "your mind is made up." If you never are going to actually justify your opinions with serious heavy-lifting and cross-examination until all matters are brought to light, all you are doing is but attention seeking. Mission accomplished. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Brother Ducky]

Not interested in "Reformed Theology or Calvinism." You're not gonna sell me on that false doctrine. Thanks anyway Duck.

Did not think I could. But it points out that you really do not have free-will in this area.

If you think that you have free-will and that that free-will will allow an unsaved person to freely become a Christian prove it from Scripture. You often assert free-will, and yet you have not attempted [to my knowledge] to show free-will salvation from Scripture. The Bible is your sole source of truth? Go forth and prove.

 

[Robert Pate]

Indeed, Robert, you should. It begins with first acknowledging the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scripture. On that point alone, you have no seat at the table where serious discussion and argumentation is expected.

How would you know given your low opinion of Holy Writ? What tells you the difference between the many errors in Scripture that you think exist and the non-errors?

You have made this assertion often, yet you will not stand still and actually be examined and defend your views substantively. All you have ever offered up is cherry-picked Scripture with some boldface formatting masquerading as exegesis. And when confronted with exegetical analysis contrary to your opinions you resort to complaining about how wordy those that disagree with you are or that these same folk are lost, hell-bound, and sin bent. In other words, you really have nothing to say that passes for an actual argument, much less a refutation.

As most anti-Calvinists do, you have merely expressed your personal disapproval of this or that. That's an autobiographical statement of your feelings. There's nothing for the Calvinist to respond to at that level. It's like telling me you do not like rhubarb pie. You folks need to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to you, that creates no presumption that your perception is correct. Folks like you need to become cognizant of how often you beg the question. You and, more lately, GM, are serial offenders in that regard. You usually shield yourselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing your views in a venue where hasty retreat behind the guise of complaints about using "big words", too complex responses, or "your mind is made up." If you never are going to actually justify your opinions with serious heavy-lifting and cross-examination until all matters are brought to light, all you are doing is but attention seeking. Mission accomplished. :AMR:

AMR

The Bible throughly and completely refutes Calvinism.

You apparently believe that there is something wrong with the Bible. Words like "Gospel" or "Justification" are absent from your vocabulary. Probably because you see no need for either one, you think that you have been predestinated.

Another word that you avoid is "Reconciled". "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD unto himself" If God has reconciled the world unto himself by Jesus Christ then no one needs to be predestinated. There are so many holes in the doctrine of predestination that it is one easy ship to sink.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Bible throughly and completely refutes Calvinism.

Like I said, this is just your opinion without anything that resembles an argument that can be examined. Moreover, when you receive a proper response to your assertions, the rejoinder is but more opinion laced with invectives, as will be demonstrated by clear evidence linked below.

You apparently believe that there is something wrong with the Bible. Words like "Gospel" or "Justification" are absent from your vocabulary. Probably because you see no need for either one, you think that you have been predestinated.

Nice try, Robert, especially having the temerity to claim I have a problem with the verbal, plenary, inspired Scripture. :AMR1:

I suspect it smarts each time I remind you and the reader of your low view of God's special revelation. In obvious desperation, you now try to move the focus from yourself. Sigh.

As for the remainder of your boasts at my expense I direct you to but a few examples that show your claims to be lacking in truthfulness...

Justification in AMR's vocabulary:
Here are at least 100 posts for your careful review:
http://theologyonline.com/search.php?searchid=19645

Gospel in AMR's vocabulary:
Here are at least 100 posts for your careful review:
http://theologyonline.com/search.php?searchid=19648

Q.E.D.

Another word that you avoid is "Reconciled". "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD unto himself" If God has reconciled the world unto himself by Jesus Christ then no one needs to be predestinated. There are so many holes in the doctrine of predestination that it is one easy ship to sink.

More from me for you to review on the matter of reconciliation:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nated-Elected-Man/page2&p=4633557#post4633557
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...here-Between&p=4571053&viewfull=1#post4571053
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...st&p=4542144&highlight=reconciled#post4542144

Maybe a few folks will see what is going on here. Robert makes wild claims and accusations. At every turn he is met with detailed responses. Robert does not interact with the responses, but just moves on and repeats himself. Robert, a man who considers all churches prostitutes with pimps behind the pulpit—yes the very churches that many of us attend and worship together—sits alone somewhere, full of contempt, belching out one repetitive, vile, screed after another. Shamefully, few take Robert to task. It is as if his value as entertainment at the scandalous expense of the brothers and sisters he would claim as but foul customers of houses of ill-repute outweighs the obligation to rebuke him for the glory of God. Sigh.

I do not like making this point, Robert, but it is high time someone called you on your behavior. You, sir, are a liar, an accuser. Repent of your bearing of false witness and be reconciled with us, brother.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

Like I said, this is just your opinion without anything that resembles an argument that can be examined. Moreover, when you receive a proper response to your assertions, the rejoinder is but more opinion laced with invectives, as will be demonstrated by clear evidence linked below.



Nice try, Robert, especially having the temerity to claim I have a problem with the verbal, plenary, inspired Scripture. :AMR1:

I suspect it smarts each time I remind you and the reader of your low view of God's special revelation. In obvious desperation, you now try to move the focus from yourself. Sigh.

As for the remainder of your boasts at my expense I direct you to but a few examples that show your claims to be lacking in truthfulness...

Justification in AMR's vocabulary:
Here are at least 100 posts for your careful review:
http://theologyonline.com/search.php?searchid=19645

Gospel in AMR's vocabulary:
Here are at least 100 posts for your careful review:
http://theologyonline.com/search.php?searchid=19648

Q.E.D.



More from me for you to review on the matter of reconciliation:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nated-Elected-Man/page2&p=4633557#post4633557
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...here-Between&p=4571053&viewfull=1#post4571053
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...st&p=4542144&highlight=reconciled#post4542144

Maybe a few folks will see what is going on here. Robert makes wild claims and accusations. At every turn he is met with detailed responses. Robert does not interact with the responses, but just moves on and repeats himself. Robert, a man who considers all churches prostitutes with pimps behind the pulpit—yes the very churches that many of us attend and worship together—sits alone somewhere, full of contempt, belching out one repetitive, vile, screed after another. Shamefully, few take Robert to task. It is as if his value as entertainment at the scandalous expense of the brothers and sisters he would claim as but foul customers of houses of ill-repute outweighs the obligation to rebuke him for the glory of God. Sigh.

I do not like making this point, Robert, but it is high time someone called you on your behavior. You, sir, are a liar, an accuser. Repent of your bearing of false witness and be reconciled with us, brother.

AMR

Please do not refer to me as your brother.

Anyone that makes a sham out of the Gospel and justification by faith is not my brother.

What is your explanation for not one scripture in the whole Bible about anyone being predestinated to heaven or to hell?

The word predestination only appears in the Bible 4 times. If it were a true doctrine it would be in the Bible hundreds of times. The words "Believe" and "Faith" appear in the Bible hundreds of times, but not the word predestination.

You are going to be in for a shock in the judgment when you find out that predestination is a Calvinist fairy tale.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvinists do not deny the existence of free-will; we do deny that free-will is absolute. That is to say that there are limits on what a person may actually choose.

A challenge for you. Exercise your free-will and become a Calvinist for 1 week. Choose to believe that which we believe. And not just say that you are, but really become one.

Bet you can't.

Silly example. Are ya sure you don't want to re-think that and use a better scenario?

 

[Crucible]

Predestination- the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God and cannot be changed

People who deny predestination believe, by definition, that God makes mistakes. That the Fall was ultimately due to an ineptitude of the Creator for example.

That is the fallible god of Pateism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The word predestination only appears in the Bible 4 times. If it were a true doctrine it would be in the Bible hundreds of times. The words "Believe" and "Faith" appear in the Bible hundreds of times, but not the word predestination.

The triune God is a true doctrine, Robert. Please find even one instance of the word "trinity". Absence of evidence of a word is not evidence that which the word describes is absent. Take every word of Scripture captive, even the infrequent one's, Robert.

Is God divine, Robert? Find the word "divinity" in the Bible.

You are embarrassing yourself with these amateurish complaints.

AMR

 

[TulipBee]

Pateism is no good.

 

[Robert Pate]

Predestination- the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God and cannot be changed

People who deny predestination believe, by definition, that God makes mistakes. That the Fall was ultimately due to an ineptitude of the Creator for example.

That is the fallible god of Pateism.

You believe that God is a robot who cannot change his mind.