What's calvinism?

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

You know better than this. How long have you and I been going at it over Calvinism? I know Calvinism better than most Calvinist!
If my logic is flawed then show me how. Otherwise, say "Good point Clete, I hadn't ever thought of that before!"
Besides that, if you’re right then God has predestined me to believe in free-will. But you can't tell if that is so or not, can you?
Aren't you forced to assume that I am not predestined to believe what I believe? Aren't you, who believe in predestination, forced to act just as I, who believes in free-will? That is, I get on this web site and try to convince people that what they believe is incorrect because I believe that they might come around and see the error of their ways. Aren't you compelled because of your inability to determine who is and who is not "elect", to do the very same thing?
Your chastisement of me for being ignorant is evidence that you do not even think in a manner consistent with your own beliefs. Which is, I think, the point that God_Is_Truth was trying to make when He said that I had been predestined to say what I had said, which you then promptly agree with!
Do you not see the conflict in your own thinking? How can you not? Unless God predestined that you would not see it, then of course you'd be no more responsible for your ignorance than I am for mine, right?

Resting in Him,
Clete





Resting in Him,
Clete

You are far more obsessed with what is NOT important. Before you can understand predestination, you need to understand your salvation. I could care less what you think about predestination, or how I'm suppose to think about predestination. Lay off it for a while and let's talk about what's more important; our salvation. Predestination will follow.

Personally, I could care less about your thoughts on predestination. Whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant. You can sit in your corner all day and whine about how since God predestined it already, there is no need for you or anyone else to do anything. But sitting in your corner pouting about it doesn't upset God. Nor does it change the fact that His purposes will be accomplished, with or without you. Predestination is a fact, and just because God has already determined it does not mean we can sit back and do nothing. But, if that is what you'd rather do, or believe is the only logical thing to do, than go ahead and do it. Your not hurting my feelings, and your definitly not hurting God's. His purpose will be carried out nonetheless.

Now, let me ask you a question Clete, and let's see if you can answer this question correctly:

What is required from us to be saved?

Be careful with what you say. I'll be looking forward to your response. God bless.

:zman:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by helmet84

GIT. Take to the time to read the above very carefully. Forgive me for not using my own words, but this save me a lot of typing

-- helmet84

well, i read it through a couple of times but most of it didn't make sense to me. i didn't agree with how he defined predestination and didn't quite follow why we would still be responsible, but an interesting read none the less.

perhaps next time you could sort that into more paragraphs as it gets hard to read when some sections are big blocks.

 

[helmet84]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

well, i read it through a couple of times but most of it didn't make sense to me. i didn't agree with how he defined predestination

How do you disagree with his definition of predestination?

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
perhaps next time you could sort that into more paragraphs as it gets hard to read when some sections are big blocks.

I realize that, but that was how the author wrote it. It was written back in the 1800s. Back then they used long sentences and paragraphs.

-- helmet84

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

You are far more obsessed with what is NOT important. Before you can understand predestination, you need to understand your salvation. I could care less what you think about predestination, or how I'm suppose to think about predestination. Lay off it for a while and let's talk about what's more important; our salvation. Predestination will follow.

Very well, but isn't it interesting that you, by definition, must believe that such a discussion was predestined to happen, right? As is what I'm "obsessed" with and whether or not I understand salvation. You really must stop contradicting yourself.

And before we get into a discussion on salvation, I simply can't resist...

Personally, I could care less about your thoughts on predestination.

Is this because you've decided on your own that you don't care or was it God who predestined you not to care?

Whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant.

Anything we do or believe is irrelevant in a Calvinist world for it was all predestined before any of it ever came to be.

You can sit in your corner all day and whine about how since God predestined it already, there is no need for you or anyone else to do anything.

I can't sit there and pout unless God has predetermined that I would do so, in which case it is you who have no room for complaining about it.

But sitting in your corner pouting about it doesn't upset God.

Well of course it doesn't, He predestined it, right?

Nor does it change the fact that His purposes will be accomplished, with or without you.

Wow there! Now you’re sounding like me! This isn't a very Calvinistic thing of you to say. After all, I will personally accomplish precisely the number of things God has predestined me to accomplish, no more, no less. Right?

Predestination is a fact, and just because God has already determined it does not mean we can sit back and do nothing.

Come on now, Z Man, I know your capable of clearer thinking than this! Is it not painfully obvious the contradiction that is present in this sentence?
What if God predestined that we sit back and do nothing? Can we do it then?

But, if that is what you'd rather do, or believe is the only logical thing to do, than go ahead and do it. Your not hurting my feelings, and your definitely not hurting God's. His purpose will be carried out nonetheless.

:dizzy: You're making me dizzy! :dizzy:

Now, let me ask you a question Clete, and let's see if you can answer this question correctly:

What is required from us to be saved?

Be careful with what you say. I'll be looking forward to your response. God bless.

:zman:

Okay, hmm, let's see. :think:
If God has predestined me to answer the question correctly then I believe this would be it...

Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."* 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Forgive my sarcasm, I'm in a bit of a squirrelly mood this evening and I just couldn't resist having a little fun. I promise to tone it down.


God bless!

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Okay, hmm, let's see. :think:
If God has predestined me to answer the question correctly then I believe this would be it...

Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."* 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Forgive my sarcasm, I'm in a bit of a squirrelly mood this evening and I just couldn't resist having a little fun. I promise to tone it down.


God bless!

Nice passage of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. Or, if you think you did, let me see if I understand your answer correctly. Are you suggesting that to be saved, one *MUST* do the things spoken of in Romans? Or, are you suggesting that to do those things means that one is/will be saved?

What requirement is there to be saved?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by helmet84

How do you disagree with his definition of predestination?
I realize that, but that was how the author wrote it. It was written back in the 1800s. Back then they used long sentences and paragraphs.

-- helmet84

he said "Objection 3. "But does not Predestination, as explained, destroy free-agency, and make men mere machines?" No, on the contrary, it establishes free-agency"

and i suppose if you argue that one only has compatablistic free will and that God predestined that will from eternity then you could say predestinatino establishes free agency. but i don't hold to the compatabalistic view. i hold to the libertarian view and thus i disagree that predestination establishes free agency.

that article was from the 1800's? :shocked: wow, old stuff!

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Nice passage of scripture, but you didn't answer my question. Or, if you think you did, let me see if I understand your answer correctly. Are you suggesting that to be saved, one *MUST* do the things spoken of in Romans? Or, are you suggesting that to do those things means that one is/will be saved?

What requirement is there to be saved?

Romans 10:
9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

I'm not trying to be difficult but there simply isn't any clearer way to say it than to quote this passage of scripture. What is there about it that is in any way cryptic or hard to understand? It directly answers the question no less than five times in five verses. Paul basically repeats himself five times (5 happens to be the symbolic number for Grace) so as to make sure that his point cannot be missed.
If you’re going to launch into a debate about total depravity, this is going to be where you'll have to start. This is my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Romans 10:
9 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

I'm not trying to be difficult but there simply isn't any clearer way to say it than to quote this passage of scripture. What is there about it that is in any way cryptic or hard to understand? It directly answers the question no less than five times in five verses. Paul basically repeats himself five times (5 happens to be the symbolic number for Grace) so as to make sure that his point cannot be missed.
If you’re going to launch into a debate about total depravity, this is going to be where you'll have to start. This is my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

I understand the passage perfectly clear and what it says. But I want to know how you interpret it yourself. Is Paul saying that doing these things is what saves us, or is he just merely stating the obvious - that those who do profess are/will be saved?

To help clarify my question, here is a quote that could be used in agreement with Romans 10:

The elect are whosoever will; the non-elect are whosoever won’t.
HENRY WARD BEECHER (1813–1887)

I understand what Paul is stating in Romans 10. Henry Beecher does a good job of summing it up. Paul says if an individual professes and believes in their heart, then they're saved (or will be, since technically, salvation in and of itself has not happened for anyone alive yet...). But those that do confess and believe are the elect; the non-elect will never confess or believe. There are some people who fake it and say they believe, but if they're not producing fruit, then they really aren't a "good tree". John says in 1 John 2:19 that those who leave the church after being with them for a while were never really apart of the fellowship of the believer's to begin with because they left! If they had believed, they would have never left!

Anyways, again, my question directly to you is what is required to be saved? Yes, I know what Paul states in Romans 10, but in doing those things he speaks of in that passage of scripture do we then become saved? What is the requirement for salvation, in your own words?

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Your interpretation doesn't square with this passage of scripture.
It is not saying that we believe and confess because we are/will be saved. It says the reverse. We believe UNTO righteousness and confess UNTO salvation. The belief and confession come BEFORE salvation, not after.

Further, your reasoning that those who turn from the faith were never part of it to begin with makes your position unfalsifiable and therefore fundamentally meaningless.

Further still, TODAY is the day of salvation, not tomorrow or next year, or when I die. TODAY! I am as saved today as I will ever be, "technically speaking" or otherwise.

And as for my own words, I can't say it in any other way.

If we confess with our mouths, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved.

I honestly do not know how else to say it! That's the Gospel, isn't it? What else do you want?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Your interpretation doesn't square with this passage of scripture.
It is not saying that we believe and confess because we are/will be saved. It says the reverse. We believe UNTO righteousness and confess UNTO salvation. The belief and confession come BEFORE salvation, not after.

Wrong. For two reasons:

1) If these actions are what saves us, then you believe in salvation by works.

2) Your going waaaay out on a limb here to say that the word "unto" means that the belief and confession come BEFORE salvation. "Unto" simply means to, or in this case, to the extent of or degree; toward a given state. For instance, one could say in the same context:

I loved her unto distraction.

or

I nursed her back unto health.

In the same way, we believe and confess unto, or towards, righteousness and salvation. It doesn't mean that our belief and confession suddenly create within us salvation. It's always been there since Christ died on the cross. Our belief and confession is an act that leads us towards what always has been.

You don't believe and confess to BECOME saved; to believe and confess means you ARE saved.

Further, your reasoning that those who turn from the faith were never part of it to begin with makes your position unfalsifiable and therefore fundamentally meaningless.

Ok, this makes no sense to me at all, but I really don't care, because it's not vital to the discussion.

Further still, TODAY is the day of salvation, not tomorrow or next year, or when I die. TODAY! I am as saved today as I will ever be, "technically speaking" or otherwise.

I agree. Even though we are not actually in our glorified, saved state, we can count on God's promises to mean exaclty what they mean. He said if we believed, we would have eternal life. So, it is right for us to claim salvation now, because we truely are saved. That's just a confirmation of God's perserverance of the saints. Good, we got the "P" down.

And as for my own words, I can't say it in any other way.

If we confess with our mouths, the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved.

I honestly do not know how else to say it! That's the Gospel, isn't it? What else do you want?

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's ok. I don't mean to be confusing or anything. Here, I'll help you out. The answer to my question:

What is required from us to be saved?

is....

NOTHING!

There is nothing required from us to be saved! What could man ever do to earn salvation to begin with? And if we could do something to merit salvation, then Christ would have never took the trouble in coming to earth to get beat up and killed.

I'm not surprised that you did not know this answer. And I wouldn't be even more surprised if you came back screaming NONSENSE because you believe salvation is of man. One of the most impressive notions that I remember being enlightened to after I came to realize that the doctrine of God's Soveriegnty was true was that Grace truely was amazing. There was nothing I did to earn it, and there is nothing I can do to lose it. It's all from God. That was a paradigm shift, because I use to believe the way you do; that we somehow, someway contribute to our salvation. You know why people think that way? Because God's Grace is too amazing! It's mind boggling to think that God saves us 100%, considering our depravity.

This may sound harsh, but don't take this the wrong way, because it's not meant to portray that. Your perception of grace is no different from those that do not believe in Christ. When you ask a non-believer if they're going to heaven, thier response usually is, "Of course I am. I'm a good person." In the same way, if on Open Theist is asked why they are going to heaven, their response is, "Of course I am. I repented and believe. I do my best to love God." What's the difference in that and what, say, someone who believes like I do would say? Well, if asked if I'm saved, my response would be, "Of course I am. God saved me and loved me enough to die for my sins."

See the difference? In your view, it is believed that man must love God either by service or some other way; and through their outward acts such as repentance and confession, then they are saved. However, in my view, there is nothing man can do to be saved. I don't believe that for someone to merely "accept" Christ as their Savior at an alter oneday, asking for forgiveness, is what saves an individual. Saying a cute prayer, or going to the alter to ask for forgiveness, or stating that you've accepted Christ as your Savior does not save. Christ's blood that was shed on the cross is what saved us. When a person repents, it's not to recieve salvation, but to affirm their salvation.

You don't love God so that He will then save you. To love God IS to be saved. It is a gift, not an achievement. You can make yourself moral. You can make yourself religious. But you can't make yourself love. "We love," John says, "because he first loved us."
(1 John 4:19). -Frederick Buechner

 

[God_Is_Truth]

why are you guys arguing semantics from the KJV? that's a horrible translation as king james lacked many of the manuscripts we have today. how about you use either NASB or NIV, both of which are more accurate and true to the greek than the kjv (NASB more so).

here are the alternate translations:

NIV
Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

NASB
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

or you can totally blow me off and keep using the KJV although i don't recomment it. but hey, it's your choice. or is it....

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

You've as good a job of stating the Calvinist position as I've seen anyone on this site do. However, the following statement shows the primary weakness of the Calvinist position on this issue...

I had said...

Further, your reasoning that those who turn from the faith were never part of it to begin with makes your position unfalsifiable and therefore fundamentally meaningless.

You responded...

Ok, this makes no sense to me at all, but I really don't care, because it's not vital to the discussion.

It is so totally vital that it can hardly be overstated!
We have two issues that have been brought up...
1. The Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.
2. the Calvinist position that one believes and confesses BECAUSE we are saved not in order to be saved.
Both are non-falsifiable.
This is incredibly important because things that cannot be falsified, cannot be verified either. They are meaningless in a pursuit of what is true.

I really want for you to understand this concept and so at the risk of insulting you, which is certainly not my intention, allow me to try and explain what it means to be falsifiable.

You may have never heard of it before but in philosophy there is an idea known as Solipsism. In philosophy, solipsism is, in essence, non-falsifiable. Solipsism has it that the Universe exists entirely in one's own mind. This can straightforwardly be seen not to be falsifiable, because whatever evidence one might adduce that is contrary to solipsism can be, after all, dismissed as something that is "in one's mind." In other words, there is no evidence that one could possibly adduce that would be inconsistent with the proposition that everything that exists, exists in one's own mind.*

Much of Calvinism is in this exact same category. Take perseverance of the saints (hence forth referred to as "POS"). POS says that no one could ever lose their salvation because their election was decided before they even existed and was not decided with any input from the individual that is elected and can therefore not be opted out of by that individual either. Well the only way that this could ever be falsified is if one was ever observed having been saved at one point and then at another point having walked away from the faith. The problem with that is that Calvinists dismiss such a person as having never been elect to begin with. This renders the whole position non-falsifiable because there is no condition that can exist in which evidence could be produced to prove the position incorrect.

Our second issue is equally non-falsifiable for similar reasons. There can be no evidence that your assertion that I believe because I was elected to believe is correct because the only way you have of knowing that I won't one day walk away from the faith is to wait until I die and see if I make it or not. But then it's too late because once dead, no one can come back to testify as to whether or not you were right. It is non-falsifiable and therefore non-verifiable and therefore meaningless in any pursuit of the truth and therefore useless in Christian theology; for what good is it to our theology if we have no way of confirming objectively if our interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Taken from www.wikipedia.org

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Solipsism sounds like what Berkely believed except he believed that everything existed only in the mind of God.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Solipsism sounds like what Berkely believed except he believed that everything existed only in the mind of God.

Hmm, Theistic Solipsism, that's a good one. I hadn't ever heard of that one before.
I wonder if our ability to think would be enough philosophically to falsify such an assertion? :think:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Why are you guys arguing semantics from the KJV? That’s a horrible translation as King James lacked many of the manuscripts we have today. How about you use either NASB or NIV, both of which are more accurate and true to the Greek than the kjv (NASB more so).

here are the alternate translations:

NIV
Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

NASB
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

or you can totally blow me off and keep using the KJV although I don't recommend it, but hey, it's your choice. Or is it....

Clever post GIT! I prefer the Bibles translated from the majority texts; those being the KJV and the NKJV. There are many reasons but pretty much any translation will do for this topic. It seems both of the ones you quote lean even more heavily in my favor but that could just be me reading into it.
Did you know that the translators of all of the modern translations including the NKJV were all Calvinists? Most of them hard core 5 point Calvinists at that. And much of their theology comes shining through in their translations.
I hope one day to be able to read the Bible in the original languages. Being able to do so would really be helpful here because I'd be willing to bet that the Greek words translated "unto" in the NKJV would leave no doubt as to which of our interpretations are correct.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

You've as good a job of stating the Calvinist position as I've seen anyone on this site do. However, the following statement shows the primary weakness of the Calvinist position on this issue...

I had said...


You responded...


It is so totally vital that it can hardly be overstated!
We have two issues that have been brought up...
1. The Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.
2. the Calvinist position that one believes and confesses BECAUSE we are saved not in order to be saved.
Both are non-falsifiable.
This is incredibly important because things that cannot be falsified, cannot be verified either. They are meaningless in a pursuit of what is true.

I really want for you to understand this concept and so at the risk of insulting you, which is certainly not my intention, allow me to try and explain what it means to be falsifiable.

You may have never heard of it before but in philosophy there is an idea known as Solipsism. In philosophy, solipsism is, in essence, non-falsifiable. Solipsism has it that the Universe exists entirely in one's own mind. This can straightforwardly be seen not to be falsifiable, because whatever evidence one might adduce that is contrary to solipsism can be, after all, dismissed as something that is "in one's mind." In other words, there is no evidence that one could possibly adduce that would be inconsistent with the proposition that everything that exists, exists in one's own mind.*

Much of Calvinism is in this exact same category. Take perseverance of the saints (hence forth referred to as "POS"). POS says that no one could ever lose their salvation because their election was decided before they even existed and was not decided with any input from the individual that is elected and can therefore not be opted out of by that individual either. Well the only way that this could ever be falsified is if one was ever observed having been saved at one point and then at another point having walked away from the faith. The problem with that is that Calvinists dismiss such a person as having never been elect to begin with. This renders the whole position non-falsifiable because there is no condition that can exist in which evidence could be produced to prove the position incorrect.

Our second issue is equally non-falsifiable for similar reasons. There can be no evidence that your assertion that I believe because I was elected to believe is correct because the only way you have of knowing that I won't one day walk away from the faith is to wait until I die and see if I make it or not. But then it's too late because once dead, no one can come back to testify as to whether or not you were right. It is non-falsifiable and therefore non-verifiable and therefore meaningless in any pursuit of the truth and therefore useless in Christian theology; for what good is it to our theology if we have no way of confirming objectively if our interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Taken from www.wikipedia.org

What kind of mickey mouse crap is this?! I try to have a descent conversation with you, and the best you can come up with is some kind of pyscho philisophical explanation as to why thinking that the universe is only present in the mind is non-falsifiable?!?!?! COME ON!! Give me a break here! You guys have to work with me here!

Solipsism, in this case, could also prove Christianity as a whole non-falsifiable, thus meaningless to pursue the truth. It's limitless in it's application! This all reminds me of the Salem witch hunts. If someone said or did something that someone else didn't like, they branded them as a witch and had them killed. In like manner, I present a valid argument with valid scripture, and because you don't like what it represents and how it diminishes man's free will, you dismiss it as some sort of non-falsifiable argument, thus meaning it is worthless to pursue!!! You try and kill the theology of God's Sovereignty to preserve your selfish "right of will". Please....

Thanks for pretty much avoiding the context of my last post. That verse from 1 John 2:19 was a tangent off from what we were discussing in regards to what was required to be save. I told you what was required, scripturally I might add, and even explained myself in laymen terms. And then you totally ignore the important issue to tell me about Solipsism?!? Give me a break...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

What kind of Mickey Mouse crap is this?! I try to have a descent conversation with you, and the best you can come up with is some kind of psycho-philosophical explanation as to why thinking that the universe is only present in the mind is non-falsifiable?!?!?! COME ON!! Give me a break here! You guys have to work with me here!

Solipsism, in this case, could also prove Christianity as a whole non-falsifiable, thus meaningless to pursue the truth. It's limitless in its application! This all reminds me of the Salem witch hunts. If someone said or did something that someone else didn't like, they branded them as a witch and had them killed. In like manner, I present a valid argument with valid scripture, and because you don't like what it represents and how it diminishes man's free will, you dismiss it as some sort of non-falsifiable argument, thus meaning it is worthless to pursue!!! You try and kill the theology of God's Sovereignty to preserve your selfish "right of will". Please....

Thanks for pretty much avoiding the context of my last post. That verse from 1 John 2:19 was a tangent off from what we were discussing in regards to what was required to be save. I told you what was required, scripturally I might add, and even explained myself in laymen terms. And then you totally ignore the important issue to tell me about Solipsism?!? Give me a break...

I suggest you cool your jets and sit back and think about things before reacting to them.

I suspect that you've misunderstood my argument. Or at least I'm hoping that you have. It is the only rational explanation for your reaction to it.

The only reason I brought up Solipsism is as an example of something that is really obviously non-falsifiable. I was not comparing Solipsism with Calvinism directly. In other words I was not trying to say that Calvinism is only in your head or anything like that. I was merely pointing out that Calvinism, or at least the two aspects of it that have come up in the last few posts are non-falsifiable. You seemed not to understand the concept of falsifiability and why it is important so I gave an example of something that was really super easy to see why its non-falsifiable in hopes that you would not only see why I say that Calvinism is not falsifiable but understand why it is an important issue.
The fact that you gave a "biblical" response is at this point irrelevant because we are past that point. You and I both have the exact same proof text (Rom. 10). The discussion now has to do with our respective interpretation of that text. You gave your interpretation after I had given mine, then I demonstrated how your interpretation is meaningless because it is non-falsifiable.

Further, Solipsism could not prove anything to be non-falsifiable. It wasn't presented in order to prove anything but merely as an example of something that is undeniably non-falsifiable.

You know as well as anyone (or you ought to know) that Christianity is falsifiable in about a dozen different ways, not the least of which would be to prove that the resurrection did not happen. If that where done, by whatever means, then Christianity would be debunked permanently, without remedy.

Calvinistic soteriology, (to get back to the discussion at hand), cannot make any such claim. The following is a break down of the basic points of Calvinistic soteriology...

1. God has elected those who will believe by fiat, that is without cause, arbitrarily, or because it suited is will to do so.
2. If we genuinely confess Christ we do so because of this election and solely because of it.
3. If one leaves the faith, then this is proof that they are not elect, unless they return to it, then that's proof that they are elect so long as, when they die, they haven't left it again and not come back (again).

You may not have put it in the exact terms but I think that's a far representation of the Calvinist position.
Now to prove my point, I'll ask you to answer a single question.
What aspect of this theology of salvation could ever be proven false and by what means?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

What aspect of this theology of salvation could ever be proven false and by what means?

Why?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Why?

Because if there is no aspect of it that can even hypothetically be proven false then it is meaningless.

If Calvinism left out the part about if a man leaves the faith then he was never a part of it to begin with, then you would have a means by which the theology could be falsified but by including the caveat then you render the theology meaningless because you have in effect said that now matter what circumstance you can come up with, what I say is true is true. Any evidence to the contrary will not disprove my theory but only cause me to modify my theory in such a way as to account for whatever exception that seem to be evident.

In other words, If we start with the following premise...

Only those who are predestined to be saved will confess Christ.

and this is how we leave it then we have a falsifiable premise because all one must do is find someone who believed at one time and now doesn't. So Zakath would be sufficient to falsify this premise.
If, however, we do not allow this evidence to debunk our thesis but make the mistake of assuming that Zakath was never saved to begin with despite all evidence to the contrary then we are suddenly left with a theory that cannot be either proven or disproved. It is non-falsifiable. By adding the addition statement you cut the legs out from under the theological position by rendering it meaningless.

The point is, that there is no requirement either contextually or grammatically to interpret Rom. 10 the way you do. The only thing that requires such an interpretation is your own theology, which I have hopefully shown sufficiently to be non-falsifiable and is therefore an insufficient reason to compel such an interpretation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Whatever.

I'm not here to "prove" or "disprove" who's saved or not. I just wish you would realize the context and truth of Scripture.

In all actuality, no one is "technically" saved yet. And by that I mean that no one is running around in their glorified state right now as perfect beings. However, just because no one is like that now doesn't mean that no one really is saved. The reason I can say that I am saved now is because I put my trust and faith in Christ and what He said. He promised that if I believe and confess, then I am saved. Those who believe have been granted eternal life. That's my hope. Of course I'm not saved "now", physically or anything, but God already saved me on the cross. It was finished. There is nothing I did to earn eternal life, and there is nothing I can do to lose it. The reason I believe is because God granted me faith.

1 John 2:19 specifically says that those who leave the faith cannot be considered saved, or a part of the "group", because if they were truely saved and born-again, and had a genuine believing faith that only comes from God, they would have never left in the first place. Now I know there are people out there who play "Christian" a lot, and may be in church one week, and out partying the next, only to go back to church the following week. I wouldn't be ignorant enough to tell someone that they're not saved, and yet, I wouldn't say they are saved either just because they attend church and said a cute prayer some time ago. The evidence of a true believer in Christ is the fruit they produce. If there is no fruit, then their faith should be questioned.

Going to church does not prove anyone's salvation, and neither does not attending church disprove it. What really matters is thier fruit. We don't have to wait until someone dies to see if they really endured or not; and quite frankly, we shouldn't be occupying our free time going around deceiding who is saved and who isn't. That's not our job.