[themuzicman]

As much I'd like to go on pontificating as our local buffoon is so fond of doing, the central error of Calvinism really boils down to one thing:

It does not rest upon a solid exegesis of Scripture.

However, unlike the local buffoon, I am going to actually cite a source and then critique it. But it isn't any person here. In fact, it isn't a person at all, but rather the Canons of Dort.


So, without further adieiu...

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

Since we are dealing with the exegesis of Scripture, we'll look at each in light of the claims made.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I left the [h] notation in there, because the NASB has an interesting note about that:

Ephesians 2:8 I.e. that salvation

And they are, in fact, correct. The pronoun "that" is neuter, and Greek grammar requires agreement in number and gender (and usually case) to point to antecedents. "Faith" is feminine. So is grace. Now, there is an exception to this rule that say that the neuter can refer to the main idea of the sentence, but the main verb is "being saved", not faith. Faith is stuck in a prepositional phrase, and thus cannot be the antecedent of the neuter.

So, the claim that "faith" is the gift pointed to in Eph 2:8-9 is simply grammatically impossible.

Phil 1:28 in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

This particular passage exposes the utter vacuousness of the Calvinist position. They claim that "granted" here means that faith is directly given to us. But they fail to understand the implications of that claim.

Notice in verse 28, Paul refers to the opponents of the Philippians. Up further, Paul refers to his imprisonment. What Paul is referring to are those who persecute and oppose the preaching of the gospel, and the suffering that Christians endure as a result of doing so.

But inverse 29, if God directly gives faith, God is also the direct giver of the suffering making God an opponent of His own Church, as Paul calls those who cause this suffering.

Thus, in this context, "granting" refers to granting the ability to believe, and thus exposing them to suffering by those who oppose believers.

So, the claims based upon these verses are falsified by the very verses Calvinist claim support them.

But, just to make sure, we'll show where faith is something we do:

John 6:27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but [work] for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Notice Jesus tells the Jews to work for that food which endures to eternal life. So, in verse 28, the Jews ask Jesus what works to do. And Jesus responds in verse 29 that they are to believe.

Yes. I know Calvinists often cite this verse but to say that faith is God's work from verse 29 only results in the necessary claim that Jesus lied to the Jews in verse 27, telling them that their work would lead to eternal life.

And what we see in verses 28 and 29 is called an ellipsis... An ellipsis is when someone omits repeating some of what a previous person said in order to be brief. In this case, Jesus skips the "that you may do in order to do the work of God." So, the "work of God", then is the work God requires, rather than work that God does.

And that "work" is to believe.

So, in part one of our thread, we see a fundamental element of Calvinism is built upon faulty exegesis.

(Let the beatings begin... )

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

As much I'd like to go on pontificating as our local buffoon is so fond of doing, the central error of Calvinism really boils down to one thing:

It does not rest upon a solid exegesis of Scripture.

However, unlike the local buffoon, I am going to actually cite a source and then critique it. But it isn't any person here. In fact, it isn't a person at all, but rather the Canons of Dort.


So, without further adieiu...

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

Since we are dealing with the exegesis of Scripture, we'll look at each in light of the claims made.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I left the [h] notation in there, because the NASB has an interesting note about that:

Ephesians 2:8 I.e. that salvation

And they are, in fact, correct. The pronoun "that" is neuter, and Greek grammar requires agreement in number and gender (and usually case) to point to antecedents. "Faith" is feminine. So is grace. Now, there is an exception to this rule that say that the neuter can refer to the main idea of the sentence, but the main verb is "being saved", not faith. Faith is stuck in a prepositional phrase, and thus cannot be the antecedent of the neuter.

So, the claim that "faith" is the gift pointed to in Eph 2:8-9 is simply grammatically impossible.

Phil 1:28 in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

This particular passage exposes the utter vacuousness of the Calvinist position. They claim that "granted" here means that faith is directly given to us. But they fail to understand the implications of that claim.

Notice in verse 28, Paul refers to the opponents of the Philippians. Up further, Paul refers to his imprisonment. What Paul is referring to are those who persecute and oppose the preaching of the gospel, and the suffering that Christians endure as a result of doing so.

But inverse 29, if God directly gives faith, God is also the direct giver of the suffering making God an opponent of His own Church, as Paul calls those who cause this suffering.

Thus, in this context, "granting" refers to granting the ability to believe, and thus exposing them to suffering by those who oppose believers.

So, the claims based upon these verses are falsified by the very verses Calvinist claim support them.

But, just to make sure, we'll show where faith is something we do:

John 6:27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but [work] for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Notice Jesus tells the Jews to work for that food which endures to eternal life. So, in verse 28, the Jews ask Jesus what works to do. And Jesus responds in verse 29 that they are to believe.

Yes. I know Calvinists often cite this verse but to say that faith is God's work from verse 29 only results in the necessary claim that Jesus lied to the Jews in verse 27, telling them that their work would lead to eternal life.

And what we see in verses 28 and 29 is called an ellipsis... An ellipsis is when someone omits repeating some of what a previous person said in order to be brief. In this case, Jesus skips the "that you may do in order to do the work of God." So, the "work of God", then is the work God requires, rather than work that God does.

And that "work" is to believe.

So, in part one of our thread, we see a fundamental element of Calvinism is built upon faulty exegesis.

(Let the beatings begin... )

It really surprises me that you have not improved your rote argument after all these years.

Don't you have anything new to add?

Since you want to find fault with the Canons of Dort, it would be wise to include the argument that produced the First Head, Article V, against the erroneous teachings of the Remonstrants:

". . Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness.

And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by Him who calls (Romans 9:11-12); All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); He chose us in Himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4); You did not choose Me, but I chose you (John 15:16); If by grace; not by works (Romans 11:6); In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son (I John 4:10)." Rejection of the Errors to Which the Dutch Churches Have for Some Time Been Disturbed, V

Emphasis, mine.

So it seems, in order to sell your Pelagian views and denials of the Total Depravity of all men by trying to convince others belief unto salvation is a work, contingent upon a supposed and inherent virtue leading to decisions of sinners to be holy under their own powers, there is a lot more "exegesis" on your part to accomplish. You could start by proving your views using the Scriptures presented by the Synod of Dordt in the above article.

At least seeing you attempt to do so, would be different and something new.

For anyone interested in reading the complete Canons of Dordt along with the Remonstrants' theological errors that prompted the Synod: see here.

Nang

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

It really surprises me that you have not improved your rote argument after all these years.

No need to improve what hasn't been refuted.

Don't you have anything new to add?

Nothing necessary. Dort makes these assertions and, as demonstrated, they are wrong.

Since you want to find fault with the Canons of Dort, it would be wise to include the argument that produced the First Head, Article V, against the erroneous teachings of the Remonstrants:

". . Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness.

So, because they use bad exegesis to fight supposedly bad exegesis, that makes it OK?

And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by Him who calls (Romans 9:11-12);

Romans 9 is about two groups, Israel who did not embrace the messiah, and the remnant who did. It's isn't about individuals.

All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48);

The word "appointed" is not well understood in the Greek, and can be taken any number of ways, and shouldn't be used as a proof text for anything, especially without context.

He chose us in Himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4);

Chose "us." That's corporate election, not individual. When one removes the Calvinist colored glasses, this verse simply does not support Calvinism.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you (John 15:16);

Spoken to and about the disciples.

If by grace; not by works (Romans 11:6);

In Romans, when Paul talks about works, he is referring to works that would merit salvation, and Paul is clear that faith does not merit salvation.

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son (I John 4:10)."

Which says nothing about election.

So it seems, in order to sell your Pelagian views and denials of the Total Depravity of all men by trying to convince others belief unto salvation is a work, contingent upon a supposed and inherent virtue leading to decisions of sinners to be holy under their own powers, there is a lot more "exegesis" on your part to accomplish. You could start by proving your views using the Scriptures presented by the Synod of Dordt in the above article.

I will certainly continue to expose the errors of Dort. I simply wasn't intending to do them all in one post. There's enough error there (as you show in your erroneous use of these proof texts) to go on for a while.

At least seeing you attempt to do so, would be different and something new.

The new part is going directly after the Canons of Dort, so there is no question that this is core to Calvinism.

For anyone interested in reading the complete Canons of Dordt along with the Remonstrants' theological errors that prompted the Synod: see here.

Nang

Which is fine. Keep reading this thread to see more errors from Dort.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Dort makes these assertions and, as demonstrated, they are wrong.

This is disingenuous on your part. The Canons of Dordt are not "assertions," but direct rebuttal to Remonstrant (Arminian) errors; each specific error that the Synod dealt with being listed after each section.

IOW's, the Canons cannot be proven wrong, until all the errors which were being challenged, are proven right.

For the Article you chose to begin with, the onus is upon you to prove how fallen sinners conjure up faith and holiness and love for God (thereby escaping the curse of enmity against God and men) on their own power, according to worthiness and inherent virtues, apart from the grace of God.

Can you do that? Can you prove the heresy of Pelagianism to be good and theologically correct? Are you sure you want to even try?

So, because they use bad exegesis to fight supposedly bad exegesis, that makes it OK?

First Head, Article Five is a summation of the entire scriptures, Rejection of Error V, presenting just some of many on the premise that election occurs according to the grace of God, and election is not the result of any good works on the part of sinners.

You cannot develop an entire systematic theology upon exegesis of a handful of verses. The entire Scriptures must withstand the scrutiny of your thesis that God foresaw virtue and worthiness in some men, and not others, and elected the ones for salvation that did the good "work" of believing the gospel.

Romans 9 is about two groups, Israel who did not embrace the messiah, and the remnant who did. It's isn't about individuals.

This is just your opinion and a common Arminian assertion, which does violence to Paul's teachings in Romans Chapters 9-11.

The word "appointed" is not well understood in the Greek, and can be taken any number of ways, and shouldn't be used as a proof text for anything, especially without context.

Is this little tid-bit, a sample of your learned and superior gift of exegesis? Doesn't impress me much . . .

And neither does your commentary following (which is not exegesis, either!):

Chose "us." That's corporate election, not individual. When one removes the Calvinist colored glasses, this verse simply does not support Calvinism.



Spoken to and about the disciples.



In Romans, when Paul talks about works, he is referring to works that would merit salvation, and Paul is clear that faith does not merit salvation.

If faith does not merit salvation, are you saying faith does not lead to salvation? And if faith does not merit salvation, what does?

Upon what basis are sinners saved?

I will certainly continue to expose the errors of Dort. I simply wasn't intending to do them all in one post. There's enough error there (as you show in your erroneous use of these proof texts) to go on for a while.

Again, the Canons are direct rebuttals to Remonstrant errors based upon the entirety of Holy Scripture; some of which are provided in the Rejection of Errors, but they can hardly be called "proof texts."

At least not any more so, than you posting your usual opinions and assertions, using just a couple of verses from Ephesians 2 and John 6.

The new part is going directly after the Canons of Dort, so there is no question that this is core to Calvinism.



Which is fine. Keep reading this thread to see more errors from Dort.

Yes, the Canons of Dordt, in rejecting the errors of the Remonstrants (Arminians), is the foundation of the five doctrines of grace, AKA "TULIP"

To declare war on the Synod of Dordt is indeed to declare war on Calvinists. Which is quite presumptious on your part, seeing how Arminians have been declaring Calvinists wrong since Jacob Arminius sat at the feet of his teacher, John Calvin centuries ago, and none have ever succeeded in destroying the biblical doctrines of grace.

So, your work is cut out for you, and I would suggest you start at the beginning and work your way through the Canons including all the Rejections, giving us full exegesis of every Scripture referenced in the work.

You will not prove anything to any Calvinist, but perhaps you will learn something along the way.

Nang

[bling]

Themuzicman, I agree with most of what you present and would even add to it, but I have a problem with this concluding statement of yours:

“Romans 9 is about two groups, Israel who did not embrace the messiah, and the remnant who did. It's isn't about individuals.”

For the most part Paul is explaining His answer to an imaginary student (the use of diatribe) in addressing the question and answer to: “…What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!...”

Who in the group Paul is addressing would be asking such a question and why?

Why could an individual not ask that question after Paul’s statements in Rm. 9: 6-13?

Paul talks about God having “mercy”: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” The “whom” suggest an individual and in fact the who idea goes back to individuals Jacob and Esau were individuals which God differentiated as individuals and not as nations. Later Paul brings up the individual Pharaoh and speaking of about an individual says: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual and this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

[godrulz]

Yum, long posts to cause brain freeze, indigestion....

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

This is disingenuous on your part. The Canons of Dordt are not "assertions," but direct rebuttal to Remonstrant (Arminian) errors; each specific error that the Synod dealt with being listed after each section.

IOW's, the Canons cannot be proven wrong, until all the errors which were being challenged, are proven right.

False dichotomy. One can attempt to correct errors with different errors. (See a JW trying to correct a Mormon, for instance. In that case, we could point out the errors of the JW without affirming the correctness of the Mormon.)

For the Article you chose to begin with, the onus is upon you to prove how fallen sinners conjure up faith and holiness and love for God (thereby escaping the curse of enmity against God and men) on their own power, according to worthiness and inherent virtues, apart from the grace of God.

I'm not dealing with a positive argument, but rather only pointing out the errors in the Canons of Dort.

We can address that in another thread.

Can you do that? Can you prove the heresy of Pelagianism to be good and theologically correct? Are you sure you want to even try?

Again, false dichotomy. The chioces are't simply Augustine and Pelagian. Both, in fact, are in error and represent the extreme options. A semi-Augustinian position is far for tenable from Scripture.

But, again, that's a subject for another thread.

First Head, Article Five is a summation of the entire scriptures, Rejection of Error V, presenting just some of many on the premise that election occurs according to the grace of God, and election is not the result of any good works on the part of sinners.

Well, if they handle the other Scriptures as poorly as they handle the two they cited, then it's pretty clear that they were in error.

You cannot develop an entire systematic theology upon exegesis of a handful of verses. The entire Scriptures must withstand the scrutiny of your thesis that God foresaw virtue and worthiness in some men, and not others, and elected the ones for salvation that did the good "work" of believing the gospel.

Again, given the poor exegesis of the few they cited, we ought not have high hopes that they handled all of Scripture any better.

This is just your opinion and a common Arminian assertion, which does violence to Paul's teachings in Romans Chapters 9-11.

Actually, it only does violence to Calvin's teachings on Romans 9-11.

Is this little tid-bit, a sample of your learned and superior gift of exegesis? Doesn't impress me much . . .

If you want, I can do an extended discussion on the word, here, and why using it as a proof text is a bad idea.

And neither does your commentary following (which is not exegesis, either!)

Just do you know, you cited the verse. I just told you why it was a bad idea to use it.

If faith does not merit salvation, are you saying faith does not lead to salvation? And if faith does not merit salvation, what does?

You are obviously clueless as to what "merit" means. "Merit" does not mean "lead to." It means to earn as correct compensation for work done. One "merits" a diploma from having completed the work required to claim that one is educated to a certain level. One "merits" a paycheck for fulfilling the responsibilities of a job for an employer or customer.

Faith does not "merit" anything.

Upon what basis are sinners saved?

Christ's propitiation made for all sin, creating the condition in which all who place their faith in Christ are saved.

Again, the Canons are direct rebuttals to Remonstrant errors based upon the entirety of Holy Scripture; some of which are provided in the Rejection of Errors, but they can hardly be called "proof texts."

Hey, the Canons cited individual texts as "proof" of their claims. Thus the term "proof text."

At least not any more so, than you posting your usual opinions and assertions, using just a couple of verses from Ephesians 2 and John 6.

Which are more than enough to refute the Calvinist position

Yes, the Canons of Dordt, in rejecting the errors of the Remonstrants (Arminians), is the foundation of the five doctrines of grace, AKA "TULIP"

That's fine.

To declare war on the Synod of Dordt is indeed to declare war on Calvinists. Which is quite presumptious on your part, seeing how Arminians have been declaring Calvinists wrong since Jacob Arminius sat at the feet of his teacher, John Calvin centuries ago, and none have ever succeeded in destroying the biblical doctrines of grace.

Since I'm not an Arminian, I guess I have an advantage.

So, your work is cut out for you, and I would suggest you start at the beginning and work your way through the Canons including all the Rejections, giving us full exegesis of every Scripture referenced in the work.

I did start at the beginning.

You will not prove anything to any Calvinist, but perhaps you will learn something along the way.

Nang

Or perhaps someone who is considering Calvinism will consider its errors and avoid falling into it.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

As much I'd like to go on pontificating as our local buffoon is so fond of doing, the central error of Calvinism really boils down to one thing:

It does not rest upon a solid exegesis of Scripture.

However, unlike the local buffoon, I am going to actually cite a source and then critique it. But it isn't any person here. In fact, it isn't a person at all, but rather the Canons of Dort.


So, without further adieiu...

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

Since we are dealing with the exegesis of Scripture, we'll look at each in light of the claims made.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I left the [h] notation in there, because the NASB has an interesting note about that:

Ephesians 2:8 I.e. that salvation

And they are, in fact, correct. The pronoun "that" is neuter, and Greek grammar requires agreement in number and gender (and usually case) to point to antecedents. "Faith" is feminine. So is grace. Now, there is an exception to this rule that say that the neuter can refer to the main idea of the sentence, but the main verb is "being saved", not faith. Faith is stuck in a prepositional phrase, and thus cannot be the antecedent of the neuter.

So, the claim that "faith" is the gift pointed to in Eph 2:8-9 is simply grammatically impossible.

Phil 1:28 in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.

This particular passage exposes the utter vacuousness of the Calvinist position. They claim that "granted" here means that faith is directly given to us. But they fail to understand the implications of that claim.

Notice in verse 28, Paul refers to the opponents of the Philippians. Up further, Paul refers to his imprisonment. What Paul is referring to are those who persecute and oppose the preaching of the gospel, and the suffering that Christians endure as a result of doing so.

But inverse 29, if God directly gives faith, God is also the direct giver of the suffering making God an opponent of His own Church, as Paul calls those who cause this suffering.

Thus, in this context, "granting" refers to granting the ability to believe, and thus exposing them to suffering by those who oppose believers.

So, the claims based upon these verses are falsified by the very verses Calvinist claim support them.

But, just to make sure, we'll show where faith is something we do:

John 6:27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but [work] for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

Notice Jesus tells the Jews to work for that food which endures to eternal life. So, in verse 28, the Jews ask Jesus what works to do. And Jesus responds in verse 29 that they are to believe.

Yes. I know Calvinists often cite this verse but to say that faith is God's work from verse 29 only results in the necessary claim that Jesus lied to the Jews in verse 27, telling them that their work would lead to eternal life.

And what we see in verses 28 and 29 is called an ellipsis... An ellipsis is when someone omits repeating some of what a previous person said in order to be brief. In this case, Jesus skips the "that you may do in order to do the work of God." So, the "work of God", then is the work God requires, rather than work that God does.

And that "work" is to believe.

So, in part one of our thread, we see a fundamental element of Calvinism is built upon faulty exegesis.

(Let the beatings begin... )

That's what the ignorance of Calvinism does to me. Also, it's boring when they drone on like this.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by bling

For the most part Paul is explaining His answer to an imaginary student (the use of diatribe) in addressing the question and answer to: “…What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!...”

Paul is not answering the question "Why does God choose one and not the other?" Modern liberal thinking concerned with poor Esau probably never entered the heads of Paul's readers.

He is answering the question "Why did God choose Israel as his elect people and yet only a few of them are saved?"

Most of the letter is about answering this question and establishing the rule of faith.

His answers in a nutshell are

1) The gospel is not about works but about faith and this rule applies to both Jew and Gentile.
2) Being a Jew had advantages even though it did not bring automatic salvation.
3) God's election was not an election to salvation but an election of the nation of Israel as his chosen instrument in history (principally in being the progenitors of the Messiah.)
4) God's election of Israel was totally independent of whether Jacob (Israel) was a good or bad man. He could have been a bad man and it would have made no difference to the subsequent Messianic line or to God's bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt.
5) Following on from 4, being Jewish was nothing to boast about (i.e. you weren't a better class of Christian than the gentile Christians). However, being Jewish and being a believer meant that you started from a respected position of being the original stem from which salvation came. This did not make you superior because faith levels all, and all were members of one extended family of faith in which boasting was rendered obsolete by either side.
6) The election of Pharaoh was not an election to damnation. (And the same applies to Esau.) Pharaoh just served a political purpose in highlighting how powerful God was. The first 4 plagues were intended to do this, were only signs and not judgements and Pharaoh had the chance to recognise God by letting the people go. It was only after the fourth plague when this was explained to Pharaoh that he made a conscious decision to turn against God and the subsequent plagues were real judgements against him.

[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Again, given the poor exegesis of the few they cited, we ought not have high hopes that they handled all of Scripture any better.

Technically, formulating a confession or creed, is a summation, not an hermenuetical exercise. The summation of the teaching of Ephesians 2:1-10, is that Christians are the workmanship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation is not the work of spiritually dead sinners at all, which is the context and teaching of the entire Holy Scriptures.

Christ's propitiation made for all sin, creating the condition in which all who place their faith in Christ are saved.

Then the sinner's decision to exercise faith and to place that faith in Jesus Christ's work on the cross, "merit's" his salvation. You are teaching salvation is conditional upon each and every soul doing so, or else they go to hell despite Christ's death on the cross. Such is a denial of the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of all men.

Nang

[Nang]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Paul is not answering the question "Why does God choose one and not the other?" Modern liberal thinking concerned with poor Esau probably never entered the heads of Paul's readers.

He is answering the question "Why did God choose Israel as his elect people and yet only a few of them are saved?"

Most of the letter is about answering this question and establishing the rule of faith.

His answers in a nutshell are

1) The gospel is not about works but about faith and this rule applies to both Jew and Gentile.
2) Being a Jew had advantages even though it did not bring automatic salvation.
3) God's election was not an election to salvation but an election of the nation of Israel as his chosen instrument in history (principally in being the progenitors of the Messiah.)
4) God's election of Israel was totally independent of whether Jacob (Israel) was a good or bad man. He could have been a bad man and it would have made no difference to the subsequent Messianic line or to God's bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt.
5) Following on from 4, being Jewish was nothing to boast about (i.e. you weren't a better class of Christian than the gentile Christians). However, being Jewish and being a believer meant that you started from a respected position of being the original stem from which salvation came. This did not make you superior because faith levels all, and all were members of one extended family of faith in which boasting was rendered obsolete by either side.
6) The election of Pharaoh was not an election to damnation. (And the same applies to Esau.) Pharaoh just served a political purpose in highlighting how powerful God was. The first 4 plagues were intended to do this, were only signs and not judgements and Pharaoh had the chance to recognise God by letting the people go. It was only after the fourth plague when this was explained to Pharaoh that he made a conscious decision to turn against God and the subsequent plagues were real judgements against him.

One would wonder, reading your lists of beliefs, if the bible was a spiritual book at all, and whether it contained any spiritual teachings at all.

In fact, throughout the O.T. physical and political realities were used to type spiritual truths that would be revealed in and through the incarnation of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

A passover lamb typed the spiritual "Lamb of God."

An elect nation called Israel, typed the elect church and spiritual "Kingdom of God."

King David typed the King of the universe, who would die for the sins of His people, and resurrect to heaven to spiritually rule forever and ever.

Etc, Etc . . .

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Nang

In fact, throughout the O.T. physical and political realities were used to type spiritual truths that would be revealed in and through the incarnation of the Savior, Jesus Christ.

...

King David typed the King of the universe, who would die for the sins of His people, and resurrect to heaven to spiritually rule forever and ever.

Etc, Etc . . .

Thanks, Nang, very insightful.

So you are saying that Jesus was a type of adulterer, (the stories about Mary Magdalene are true after all!) a type of murderer, (ah, yes, advocating that all his followers get crucified?) and I suppose the church represents his many wives, like Calvinists, Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Pentecostals, JWs, etc. ?

I suppose that's easy enough to understand and anyone would agree with this, especially as there are types of everything thoughout the Old Testament. One thing that I don't understand though is why Jesus would rule spiritually? Does that mean just 'rule' (and 'spiritually' is just redundant bravado) or does it mean 'rule in a non-physical way' like David, or in a non-physical way, not like David or rule over 'spiritual matters' like (funnily enough I can't think of examples, maybe you can? or maybe matters like Sunday worship - no connection with David organising the singers and musicians of course).

Ah, wait, I think I've got it now. 'Rule spiritually' means stand up and look as if you are giving orders to everyone to do what they are already bound to do anyway.

[bling]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Paul is not answering the question "Why does God choose one and not the other?" Modern liberal thinking concerned with poor Esau probably never entered the heads of Paul's readers.

He is answering the question "Why did God choose Israel as his elect people and yet only a few of them are saved?"

Most of the letter is about answering this question and establishing the rule of faith.

We can go through Romans chapter by chapter and that will not be seen as even a question being addressed.

Paul does use Esau and Esau was not a Jew and Jacob was.


Did Paul write this to the lost Jews?


Where there Gentile Christians in Rome?


I feel Paul was compelled to write this letter to the Roman church (a place he had never been to), because he was the most familiar with their problem of all the Christians at that time. Paul write extensively on the Jew/Gentile and especially the Jewish Christian/Gentile Christian issue.

His answers in a nutshell are

1) The gospel is not about works but about faith and this rule applies to both Jew and Gentile.

Where is the lost Jews in that address?

2) Being a Jew had advantages even though it did not bring automatic salvation.

You are not showing: “Paul is not talking about difference between Jews” but you are showing the differences between the Jews and the gentiles?

Where there also not disadvantages to being Jewish and did Paul not bring some of those out?

3) God's election was not an election to salvation but an election of the nation of Israel as his chosen instrument in history (principally in being the progenitors of the Messiah.)

Again, that is something the Gentile Christians might like to hear and know as they deal with their fellow Jewish Christians.

Do you really feel the Jewish Christians wondered: “why other Jews were not part of the elect”??? These Jewish Christians had probably spent lots of time trying to teach their fellow non believing Jews the truth and these non-believing Jews had repeatedly rejected the message (and probably rejected them personally).

The “problem” is not “helping the Jewish Christians to accept the lost of their fellow non-believing Jews, but the Gentiles (vessels made for a common purpose) understanding that they were not slighted by God because God had a special purpose for the Jewish people (vessels made for an honorable task). Special and common vessels can still be used in the Kingdom and both can easily be broken (destroyed). Salvation has nothing to do with how (Jew or Gentile) you were first made (common vessel or honored vessel), but if you accept God’s charity where ever you are at.

4) God's election of Israel was totally independent of whether Jacob (Israel) was a good or bad man. He could have been a bad man and it would have made no difference to the subsequent Messianic line or to God's bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt.

Jacob was a bad person for most of his written history, but God could work with Jacob, where God could not seem to be able to work with Esau (who seemed the better guy). Just as we are to hate our parent and yet Love them, God could hate Esau and yet Love him and Esau in the end could have been saved.

5) Following on from 4, being Jewish was nothing to boast about (i.e. you weren't a better class of Christian than the gentile Christians). However, being Jewish and being a believer meant that you started from a respected position of being the original stem from which salvation came. This did not make you superior because faith levels all, and all were members of one extended family of faith in which boasting was rendered obsolete by either side.

Great you keep pointing out the topic “being Jewish was nothing to boast about (i.e. you weren't a better class of Christian than the gentile Christians)” which has nothing to do with non-believing Jews. Great we can all understand the Jews were made vessels of honor, but that has nothing to do with salvation.

6) The election of Pharaoh was not an election to damnation. (And the same applies to Esau.) Pharaoh just served a political purpose in highlighting how powerful God was. The first 4 plagues were intended to do this, were only signs and not judgements and Pharaoh had the chance to recognise God by letting the people go. It was only after the fourth plague when this was explained to Pharaoh that he made a conscious decision to turn against God and the subsequent plagues were real judgements against him.

Everything God does can harden or soften our hearts. What god did for Pharaoh just harden his heart because that is what Pharaoh allowed it to do.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by Nang

You cannot develop an entire systematic theology upon exegesis of a handful of verses. The entire Scriptures must withstand the scrutiny of your thesis that God foresaw virtue and worthiness in some men, and not others, and elected the ones for salvation that did the good "work" of believing the gospel.
Nang (emphasis mine)

This bears repeating and repeating over and over.

Hi Muz,

Open Theism simply must stop this tack. Why?

1) You have no systematic theology of your own
Pointing fingers in a vacuum is a vacuum and doesn't really mean a lot, or anything really. Nobody listens to nay-sayers, public hecklers, or negative-all-the-time people.
2) Our (collectively, be it Arminian, Catholic, or other Protestant/Orthodox) Hermenuetics are more consistent than your's, because you have none, well unless you bought Enyart's. Everybody else?
This reflects back to #1 - If you can't say something nice...and You have nothing of your own. Every TOL OVer will stand against any other hermenuetic, then quibble and gripe in a grumble-fest about what you don't have in common after-wards, making all who are left completely miserable with negative vibes and nothing consistent of your own, save that you are 'open' to differing friction of degrees with one another.
3) These interpretation methods have been slammed for at least the last 6 centuries and still hold up against the assertions, stones, and TP-ing. I would acquiesce OV has to reject, but then you've only got your own personal interpretations reflecting a gambit of disagreements.
4) In fact, you didn't not show a central singular error, just peripheral[s], as far as I can see, and then this point is succombed to 1-3 above. You are using an example from this scripture for? You never say, or at tleast is no 'centeral' consideration given clearly that I can see.

With that let me ask a really simple question that will end this "part-1" debate:

1 Corinthians 4:7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Its just that simple and I don't have to be a Calvinist to enter (and end) the debate with it. Don't bother rebuttal,(please, for your own sake and for unnecessarily further taxing our eyes) it isn't necessary for any of us, Not even you. Move on to your next point please. Oh, and please come to the 'central error' quickly? Thanks. (out of curiosity, why didn't you just answer him here?)

-Lon

[Brother Ducky]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

As much I'd like to go on pontificating as our local buffoon is so fond of doing, the central error of Calvinism really boils down to one thing:

It does not rest upon a solid exegesis of Scripture.

However, unlike the local buffoon, I am going to actually cite a source and then critique it. But it isn't any person here. In fact, it isn't a person at all, but rather the Canons of Dort.


So, without further adieiu...

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

Since we are dealing with the exegesis of Scripture, we'll look at each in light of the claims made.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I left the [h] notation in there, because the NASB has an interesting note about that:

Ephesians 2:8 I.e. that salvation

And they are, in fact, correct. The pronoun "that" is neuter, and Greek grammar requires agreement in number and gender (and usually case) to point to antecedents. "Faith" is feminine. So is grace. Now, there is an exception to this rule that say that the neuter can refer to the main idea of the sentence, but the main verb is "being saved", not faith. Faith is stuck in a prepositional phrase, and thus cannot be the antecedent of the neuter.

So, the claim that "faith" is the gift pointed to in Eph 2:8-9 is simply grammatically impossible.

Hi, Muz

I understand the grammar issue regarding the word "faith."
Let's suppose that you are correct in holding that Salvation is indeed the gift.

Does it matter if the faith the leads to salvation is the gift or if the salvation is the gift? If faith is somehow a work, how can salvation be a gift?