Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement Defended - against John Martin

John Martin has also responded to another of my previous posts (link to post, his comments are in the comment box there).

I had written: “The Christian position is that Christ is our substitute.”

JM responded: "If Christ is our substitute and we are impute a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, means"

Christ is our substitute, and we are imputed the righteousness of Christ ... let's examine the supposed implications:

"1 – Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin."

No. The Father has graciously permitted the substitution.

"2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not."

No. It's absurd to say that Father sent the Son to deceive the Father - how could that even be possible? More to the point, the Father sent the Son to die in the place of the elect, so it was known to the Father all along.

"3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified."

Faith is the instrumental means of justification, not a meritorious cause of justification. Thus, faith does not satisfy divine justice, only Christ's work does that.

"4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute."

None of the elect can go to hell (or the Romanist fiction of purgatory), because that would imply double payment.

"5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins."

a) You've lost track of supposed implications. That isn't an implication of the doctrine.

b) It's also not a true allegation. The Scriptures do teach that Jesus was a substitute for the sins of his people. I can provide a more extensive discussion on this, if needed.

"6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived."

This blasphemy is built in the previous false claim that forensic imputation is deception.

"7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT."

This simply shows JM's unfamilarity with the OT sacrificial system. Practically the whole system was one of substitution and imputation. Of course, it was in shadows and types, but Hebrews helps us to see the connection between the shadow and substance.

"8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous."

Repentance is not a meritorious cause of justification. See discussion of faith above.

"9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?"

a) This misrepresentation of Calvinism is possibly the result of reading Dave Armstrong on Calvinism rather than reading Calvinists on Calvinism.

b) "the substitute only has limited value" That's not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is that the value of the substitute is limitless - sufficient for all.

c) "Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute."

The Son, as Priest, only offers himself (as sacrifice) for many (not all). That many is the elect.

"10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?"

a) "we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God"

Scripture's message is clear that we cannot do anything to be justified and pleasing to God. Justification is by grace, through the instrumental means of faith in Christ and His work.

b) "man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God."

Until God's Holy Spirit regenerates him, right. As Jesus said, "Except a man be born again ... ."

c) "What’s a man to do to be justified after all?"

There is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."

Instead, man must place his hope in the works of another so that he may be vicariously justified.

d) "Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!)"

That is the alternative to the Christian view of the atonement. The alternative is that man merits justification by an act that is pleasing to God.

"11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin."

If God received Christ's payment for the sins of anyone and still punished them for those sins, there would be a double punishment. Thus, none of those for whom Christ was offered will go to hell.

-TurretinFan

24 comments:

john martin said...

"1 – Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin."

No. The Father has graciously permitted the substitution.”

Yes, the Father declares sinners just by imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinner, even though the Father and Jesus know the sinner is still intrinsically a sinner and is not righteous. The Father makes the judgment concerning the sinners righteousness and is therefore deceived. Jesus does the substitution act, knowing that the Father is go to be and eventually will be deceived, so Jesus has also been deceived by being sent to do the substitution. Any way you look at it, Jesus and the Father have been deceived if the substitute theory is correct.


"2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not."

No. It's absurd to say that Father sent the Son to deceive the Father - how could that even be possible? More to the point, the Father sent the Son to die in the place of the elect, so it was known to the Father all along.”

The father sending the Son to deceive himself is a logical conclusion of the theory of penal substitution and by you saying its absurd, shows the theory is absurd. Thanks for the backing FT, you’ve really shown the substitute theory to be absurd.

When you say “the Father sent the Son to die in the place of the elect, so it was known to the Father all along.” This means the Father knew all along he would be saying sinners are just even though they are sinners, all along, so the Father is a blind, deceiving deceived deceiver who makes arbitrary judgments about the nature of sinners, buy declaring sinners just, when they are intrinsically unjust. This is yet another absurd conclusion of a failed substitute theory.

"3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified."

FT -Faith is the instrumental means of justification, not a meritorious cause of justification. Thus, faith does not satisfy divine justice, only Christ's work does that.”

Faith is the instrumental means of justification is only a mere mantra repeated so often you believe it yourself. There is no scriptural evidence for faith being the instrumental means of justification. Please present the scriptural evidence.

There are scriptural evidences for faith being a gift from God and an act of man, whereby man believes what God has told man and along with the other two theological virtues of hope and love, he is justified by an infusion of Gods grace and divine life.

"4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute."

None of the elect can go to hell (or the Romanist fiction of purgatory), because that would imply double payment.”

Your answer avoids the point I’m making. If Christ is a substitute then He must be the substitute for all of humanity and not only the elect as a part of humanity. Therefore all of humanity is the elect. Otherwise Christ is not a perfect substitute, but only an imperfect substitute, which mans there is imperfection in the work of God, which means Jesus was not God. Conclusion – according to the theory of substitution, either all men go to heaven or Jesus was not God.

"5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins."

FT- a) You've lost track of supposed implications. That isn't an implication of the doctrine.

b) It's also not a true allegation. The Scriptures do teach that Jesus was a substitute for the sins of his people. I can provide a more extensive discussion on this, if needed.”

Yet again FT as had a chance to produce the scriptural evidence for substitution, but has not done so. Please present the scriptural evidence and show us from the context Jesus was a penal substitute for men’s sins.
. . .

john martin said...

"6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived."

FT- This blasphemy is built in the previous false claim that forensic imputation is deception.”

And this blasphemy is itself the theory of penal substitution. FT avoids the obvious conclusion that both the Father and Jesus are deceived deceivers according to the penal substitution theory. The theory states Jesus took the punishment for sin due to the sinners of the world by dying on the cross and entering into hell and then rising form the dead to overcome the penalty due to sin. The righteousness of Christ is then imputed (and not infused) to the sinner by the Father, when the sinner makes and act of faith in Christ.

Conclusions – Justification is an imputed righteousness of Christ’s righteousness whereby the sinners account in heaven has Christ’s righteousness, while the sinner remains a ontological sinner.

The Father declares a sinner to be just even though the sinner remains an ontological sinner.

Therefore the Father is deceived by the Son, whereby the Son agrees to have His righteousness used to impute justification to sinners.

And also therefore the Father deceives himself by declaring men just when they are not intrinsically just.

And also therefore the Father deceives us by making us think were are just when we know we sin.

There are all logical conclusions to the penal substitution theory and yes they are absurd, because the theory is absurd.

"7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT."

This simply shows JM's unfamilarity with the OT sacrificial system. Practically the whole system was one of substitution and imputation. Of course, it was in shadows and types, but Hebrews helps us to see the connection between the shadow and substance.”

Ok if the OT was full of substitution and imputation then an animal was good enough as a substitute for sin, so we didn’t need Jesus to be our substitute, for all we need do is become Israelites, sacrifice an animal under the Mosaic law and have our sins forgiven. Yes this is the natural consequence of believing the OT teaching sacrificial substitute and imputation system. Nevertheless we know from the scriptures that Christ had to be a sacrifice for sins to take away all sins of all men. Therefore the understanding of the OT as a sacrificial substitute and imputation system is false.

Also if the OT is a sacrificial substitute and imputation system, then the persons of the OT received and imputed righteousness of the animal and not Christ, for it is the animal and not Christ that is the substitute, yet such an imputation of the animals righteousness is absurd and metaphysically not possible.

The reality of the OT is that the OT sacrifices were instituted to take away the sins of those who offended the Father. These sacrifices are part of the natural religion of the Patriarchs and the positive law system of the Mosaic/Davidic covenants. It was because the Father ordained that these sacrifices were to be done, that they were efficacious. Yes they were also a type of the true sacrifice of the Son because the wrath of the Father was satisfied and grace was infused into men to make them intrinsically righteous. This is a very far cry from the reformation understanding of sacrifice being a substitute and justification being purely a declarative act of God.

. . .

john martin said...

"8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous."

FT- Repentance is not a meritorious cause of justification. See discussion of faith above.”

Nothing was argued for faith being anything other than a meritorious cause of justification. You only asserted it was an instrument and didn’t make an argument to back your claim.

"9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?"

a) This misrepresentation of Calvinism is possibly the result of reading Dave Armstrong on Calvinism rather than reading Calvinists on Calvinism.”

And as expected there is nothing from FT to back his claim.


FT- b) "the substitute only has limited value" That's not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is that the value of the substitute is limitless - sufficient for all.”

And the Calvinist position is that the substitute is only applied to some men so it didn’t merit the application to all men, meaning the substitute was not perfect, but imperfect. Maybe Jesus should come on down and try again and merit enough of a substitute for his action to be applied to all men so it’s a perfect substitute. Or then again, just maybe Calvinists should review their novel theory of the atonement and recognise the inherent deficiencies of the substitution theory.

c) "Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute."

FT- The Son, as Priest, only offers himself (as sacrifice) for many (not all). That many is the elect.”

Many can mean all. That is the fact. There when scripture says the son came to save men it means it is for all men. See below texts as some of the evidence.

Save the lost – and the lost are all men

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost. (cf. "sinners": Matt 9:13; Mk 2:17; Lk 5:32; 1 Tim 1:15)

Sins of the world infers all men, for all men are sinners

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The world might be saved refers to all men.

John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Saviour of the world includes all men.

John 4:42 They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world."

. . .

john martin said...

Life to the world refers to all men

John 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.

I shall give for the life of the world refers to all men.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

I am the light of the world means Jesus is the light for all men.

John 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

I am the light of the world means Jesus is the light for all men.

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

“ . . . will draw all men to myself” refers to all men.

John 12:31-33 "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; [32] and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." [33] He said this to show by what death he was to die.

There are also many other passages to back the truth as against the falsity of Calvinism.

"10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?"

a) "we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God"

Scripture's message is clear that we cannot do anything to be justified and pleasing to God. Justification is by grace, through the instrumental means of faith in Christ and His work.”

And because faith is an act of man, then faith is an act that merits eternal life. There is no way out of this for the Calvinist.

Further there is no logical reason within the penal substitute theory for why any man needs to have faith, for not to have faith is to sin, but Jesus is the perfect substitute for all men to forgive all sin, so no man needs faith, because a lack of faith is already forgiven through the substitute. But scripture says men must have faith to be saved. QED Calvinism is false through internal inconsistencies with itself and inconsistencies with scripture.

b) "man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God."

FT- Until God's Holy Spirit regenerates him, right. As Jesus said, "Except a man be born again ... ."

Calvinism teaches no man can keep the law, even when he is regenerated, hence the reference to no man being justified through works of the law. Therefore even when a man is regenerate, he still cannot do works that are pleasing to the Lord according to Calvinism.

Yet Calvinism also teaches men are justified by faith alone and somehow this human act is pleasing enough for Jesus to apply His righteous act to the sinners account. So we have a problem –

If faith is not an act of man that is perfectly acceptable to God, then according to Calvinism,

1. - Jesus must be a substitute for the imperfection in faith as a sin, yet faith is said to justify as the instrument of justification. So we have an act itself as the instrument of justification that needs to be atoned for with a substitute, which is to atone for the very act which is said to justify. But this is absurd, so Calvinism is absurd.

2. – If the instrument of faith is perfect, then Calvinism is falsified, because Calvinism teaches man cannot do a perfect work pleasing to God and faith is an act done by man.

. . .

john martin said...

3. - Calvinism teaches man cannot do a perfect work pleasing to God. If faith is an imperfect work then faith is an act by man that is imperfect and therefore is a sin n the eyes of God. So according to Calvinism, if faith is not perfect and is therefore seen by God as a sin, then sin is the instrument of mans justification. Therefore an act that is sinful is the instrumental cause of mans justification, which is absurd.

Either way, if faith is a perfect act or an imperfect act, Calvinism is internally inconsistent and is invalidated.

“c) "What’s a man to do to be justified after all?"

FT- There is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."

Instead, man must place his hope in the works of another so that he may be vicariously justified.”

So now we have the Calvinist use double speak of firstly denying a man can do anything to be justified and secondly to say man must do an act hope to be justified. This is also contrary to the reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Evidently reformed theology is internally inconsistent and unscriptural.

The Calvinist now has stated that man must have faith and hope, which are two acts men do to be justified. Therefore men must do acts that are pleasing to God to be justified.

“d) "Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!)"

That is the alternative to the Christian view of the atonement. The alternative is that man merits justification by an act that is pleasing to God.”

The fact is there is an abundance of scriptural evidence for men do acts to merit Gods favor through the mysterious interaction of God giving gifts of faith hope and love and men using those gifts to please God and thereby merit the reward of an inheritance.

Faith as an instrument of mans justification is a myth derived largely from false understandings of verses in the difficult passages found in Romans and Galatians.

“"11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin."

If God received Christ's payment for the sins of anyone and still punished them for those sins, there would be a double punishment. Thus, none of those for whom Christ was offered will go to hell.

-TurretinFan”

Scripture says some do go to hell, you can see the judgment at the last day in Matt 25 for details. Therefore the substitute didn’t work for all men, even though Jesus died for all men as has been shown in the above scripture quotes. Therefore the father demands double payment from the damned that already had their sins paid for by the substitution. Again, Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture and logically absurd.

All of your answers have been found to be problematic and further internal and external inconsistencies have been found with Calvinism. How many problems does it take with a theory such as the penal substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness for you to drop the theory as an bad invention of man and reconsider the truth as found in the one holy Catholic and apostolic faith?


JM

natamllc said...

TF,

quite amazing.

JM, you are deceived.

I certainly can give testimony to the moment I was "touched" by the Spirit of Grace realizing just how deceived I was.

I was deceived. I was confused. Partly why was because of my beliefs in the RCC.

Once I picked up a Bible and read these words:

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

I knew something was removed from my conscience at that time. I instantly understood "I was lost", "I was deceived" and now someone other than me brought me understanding of my prior condition of being lost and deceived.

I am grateful to God for Christ Jesus. I am grateful for several people who personally have laid down their personal lives by being gracious to me and accepting me the way I was and working faithfully with me in God's Sted.

I am grateful to God for such clarity of mind that came upon me.

I now understand what happened.

I believe you are not far from having a similar experience where the same Spirit of Grace touches your heart and mind.

It is indeed torturous to read your understanding and quite refreshing to read TF's responses.

I will make a prediction about you JM. Soon you also will cry out to God in the Name of the Lord Jesus: "EUREKA!"

:)

john martin said...

There’s nothing here to refute my arguments.

A subjective experience combined with a scripture quote unrelated to any of my arguments does nothing to answer the many problems found with faith alone theology and its theme of penal substitution.

My prediction is there will be no direct answers to the many problems, but possibly only more scripture quotes taken out of context or answers that miss the point being made. This is what has occurred so far from FT and Nat.

It’s no surprise, simply because Calvinism is not the apostolic faith, but an invention of a man who bought into nominalism and rejected the sound philosophy of scholasticism.

Calvin was not a clear thinker. He did not understand the nature of man, God, sin, the redemption, salvation, faith, grace, Christ and the sacraments. In brief he was an inventor of many false ideas not found in scripture and certainly not found in the church fathers or the Catholic Church councils.

Calvin was a renegade who found abuses in the church and decided to go it alone and form his own ecclesial body based upon his new world view and his own subjective authority. He cannot be taken seriously by those who have a knowledge of church history, scripture, philosophy and theology.

Calvin’s theory of penal substitution doesn’t stand up to rigorous examination, which has been shown on this thread and another thread by FT. There will be no rigorous answers forthcoming to answer the many problems found with Calvinism.

Calvinist’s have had there day and there are no Calvinists left in Geneva and the majority of Christians do not take his theology seriously any more. Many claim to be Calvinists, but do not hold to the five points of TULIP, just as many claim to be Lutherans, but do not hold to Luther’s views on several issues such as the Papacy, some NT letters, Mary and the sacraments. This is clear evidence that the self proclaimed authorities of the reformers is just that; self proclaimed. If they can do it, then anybody can do it and that’s why anybody does do it and its being done today with new sects popping up every week claiming to have the faith inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The reformation is really a humanist movement of unbelievers who couldn’t come to terms with the claims of the one true Church from the apostles, which has the power to teach, govern and sanctify, in spite of the sins of its members. The reformers did not believe a sinner could truly keep the commandments, even with the grace of God. For them a sinner is always and forever a sinner and even when justified, remains a sinner. Of course this is antithetical to the true Gospel of grace as an infusion of the divine life into the soul to make the soul and its moral actions pleasing to God and thereby allow the soul to graciously merit eternal life as a child of God receiving its reward of an inheritance in heaven.

Imputed righteousness is only the good ol’ nominalist God, who can say to man do this eg murder, and do that eg commit adultery, arbitrarily, even though its against the nature of man and God to do so. In like manner Luther and Calvin’s nominalism allows them to teach God justifies man by merely stating he is just according to a divine fiat, without any transformation occurring in the soul of the justified. Nominalism is based upon the false understanding of mans intellect who it is said cannot know the natures of things and therefore can only place labels on things. Therefore any concept of God is only a label and so too, any concept of justification is a label.



JM

john martin said...

Nominalism says God is unknown to man, so his will is also unknown, therefore he can say anything he wants and it is true, no matter how absurd it is because man doesn’t know the nature of God or truth. Therefore according to nominalism, God can call man anything, even though man is not so – this is the doctrine of imputed justification. God calls man just, even though he is not intrinsically just. Therefore God is a liar, but that’s ok, because we don’t know the nature of God. Therefore both Calvin and Luther were nominalists.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"Nominalism says God is unknown to man, so his will is also unknown, therefore he can say anything he wants and it is true, no matter how absurd it is because man doesn’t know the nature of God or truth. Therefore according to nominalism, God can call man anything, even though man is not so – this is the doctrine of imputed justification. God calls man just, even though he is not intrinsically just. Therefore God is a liar, but that’s ok, because we don’t know the nature of God. Therefore both Calvin and Luther were nominalists."

Nominalism is the idea that universals and abstract objects don't exist. It's not what you think it is.

Furthermore, neither Luther nor Calvin thought God was a liar.

Finally, the idea that it makes God a liar when he imputes Christ's righteousness to man is simply absurd.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"There’s nothing here to refute my arguments."

See above.

"A subjective experience combined with a scripture quote unrelated to any of my arguments does nothing to answer the many problems found with faith alone theology and its theme of penal substitution."

ok

"My prediction is there will be no direct answers to the many problems, but possibly only more scripture quotes taken out of context or answers that miss the point being made. This is what has occurred so far from FT and Nat."

That's an inaccurate depiction.

"It’s no surprise, simply because Calvinism is not the apostolic faith ... "

If we judge by Scripture, it is part of the apostolic faith, whereas if we judge by Scripture Romanism is innovation in many respects.

" ... but an invention of a man who bought into nominalism and rejected the sound philosophy of scholasticism."

William of Ockham, one of the scholastics, is thought of as one of the pioneers of nominalism.

"Calvin was not a clear thinker."

Sure he was. That's why he's so famous.

"He did not understand the nature of man, God, sin, the redemption, salvation, faith, grace, Christ and the sacraments."

Big claims that haven't been substantiated.

"In brief he was an inventor of many false ideas not found in scripture and certainly not found in the church fathers or the Catholic Church councils."

He demonstrated that his ideas were both Scriptural and historical.

"Calvin was a renegade who found abuses in the church and decided to go it alone and form his own ecclesial body based upon his new world view and his own subjective authority."

Apparently you're unfamiliar with Calvin's biography.

"He cannot be taken seriously by those who have a knowledge of church history, scripture, philosophy and theology."

Exactly the opposite is true.

"Calvin’s theory of penal substitution doesn’t stand up to rigorous examination, which has been shown on this thread and another thread by FT."

There have been lost of assertions here, but not rigorous examination.

"There will be no rigorous answers forthcoming to answer the many problems found with Calvinism."

answered above

"Calvinist’s have had there day and there are no Calvinists left in Geneva and the majority of Christians do not take his theology seriously any more."

No Calvinists in Geneva? What a laugh.

"Many claim to be Calvinists, but do not hold to the five points of TULIP, just as many claim to be Lutherans, but do not hold to Luther’s views on several issues such as the Papacy, some NT letters, Mary and the sacraments."

ok

[cont'd in part 2]

Turretinfan said...

[cont'd from part 1]

"This is clear evidence that the self proclaimed authorities of the reformers is just that; self proclaimed."

It was never about them having their own authority - nor were they aiming to start churches in their own name.

"If they can do it, then anybody can do it and that’s why anybody does do it and its being done today with new sects popping up every week claiming to have the faith inspired by the Holy Spirit."

The exaggeration is obvious, but the existence of new sects is only problematic to the extent that their claims are false.

"The reformation is really a humanist movement of unbelievers who couldn’t come to terms with the claims of the one true Church from the apostles, which has the power to teach, govern and sanctify, in spite of the sins of its members."

This is insult, not argument.

"The reformers did not believe a sinner could truly keep the commandments, even with the grace of God."

Perfectly, in this life. Those are important caveats you've omitted.

"For them a sinner is always and forever a sinner and even when justified, remains a sinner."

No, only in this life.

"Of course this is antithetical to the true Gospel of grace as an infusion of the divine life into the soul to make the soul and its moral actions pleasing to God and thereby allow the soul to graciously merit eternal life as a child of God receiving its reward of an inheritance in heaven."

Grace and merit are opposed concepts, Scripturally speaking.

"Imputed righteousness is only the good ol’ nominalist God, who can say to man do this eg murder, and do that eg commit adultery, arbitrarily, even though its against the nature of man and God to do so. In like manner Luther and Calvin’s nominalism allows them to teach God justifies man by merely stating he is just according to a divine fiat, without any transformation occurring in the soul of the justified. Nominalism is based upon the false understanding of mans intellect who it is said cannot know the natures of things and therefore can only place labels on things. Therefore any concept of God is only a label and so too, any concept of justification is a label."

Addressed above.

-TurretinFan

john martin said...

"Nominalism says God is unknown to man, so his will is also unknown, therefore he can say anything he wants and it is true, no matter how absurd it is because man doesn’t know the nature of God or truth. Therefore according to nominalism, God can call man anything, even though man is not so – this is the doctrine of imputed justification. God calls man just, even though he is not intrinsically just. Therefore God is a liar, but that’s ok, because we don’t know the nature of God. Therefore both Calvin and Luther were nominalists."

FT- Nominalism is the idea that universals and abstract objects don't exist. It's not what you think it is.”

I’ve already stated what nominalism is in another paragraph, where I said “Nominalism is based upon the false understanding of mans intellect who it is said cannot know the natures of things and therefore can only place labels on things.”, which is exactly what nominalism is.

FT- Furthermore, neither Luther nor Calvin thought God was a liar.

Finally, the idea that it makes God a liar when he imputes Christ's righteousness to man is simply absurd.

-TurretinFan”

Both taught imputed righteousness, which is itself a lie, so they taught God lies when He justifies.

“"There’s nothing here to refute my arguments."


FT- See above.”

I was referring to my 30 arguments against the substitution theory. No arguments have been presented that have shown my arguments to be false, because I easily answered your arguments and the other poster (Nat) did not propose anything objective against any of my arguments.

“"In brief he was an inventor of many false ideas not found in scripture and certainly not found in the church fathers or the Catholic Church councils."


He demonstrated that his ideas were both Scriptural and historical.”

Calvin taught the penal substitute died only for the elect when scripture says he died for the sins of the whole world. How wrong can Calvin be on such a fundamental truth of scripture? Calvin also taught the penal substitution theory, which has no scriptural basis. Again, how wrong can Calvin be on such a fundamental notion against scripture?

“"This is clear evidence that the self proclaimed authorities of the reformers is just that; self proclaimed."


FT- It was never about them having their own authority - nor were they aiming to start churches in their own name.”

But in practice, that’s exactly what happened. New ecclesial bodies sprung up all over the place in rebellion to the apostolic church. This is undeniable, historical fact.


"If they can do it, then anybody can do it and that’s why anybody does do it and its being done today with new sects popping up every week claiming to have the faith inspired by the Holy Spirit."


The exaggeration is obvious, but the existence of new sects is only problematic to the extent that their claims are false.”

And Calvinism is an old, new sect from Calvin himself. So there is nothing new under the sun with regard to humans making up religions and calling them scriptural. The reformation was and continues to be a humanist movement cloaked in spirituality.

. . .

john martin said...

"The reformation is really a humanist movement of unbelievers who couldn’t come to terms with the claims of the one true Church from the apostles, which has the power to teach, govern and sanctify, in spite of the sins of its members."


This is insult, not argument.”

According to the reformers, Gods grace cannot restore man to a state of innocence whereby he can please God. Apparently God is not strong enough to do what should be easy for him to do. This reduces God down to the level of a impotent man, which is a naturalist understanding of God.

According to the reformation, man is what he is and there is nothing even God can do about it. This is the anti supernaturalist humanism of the reformation which is with us today.

According to the reformation, man is the determiner of Gods commandments and redemption by reading some texts and telling us what he thinks it means. This is humanism.

Therefore the reformation was anti supernaturalist, naturalist and humanist.

"The reformers did not believe a sinner could truly keep the commandments, even with the grace of God."


Perfectly, in this life. Those are important caveats you've omitted.”

Scripture says keeping the commandments is easy and the commandments are not a burden. Calvinism says the commandments are impossible to keep, even with the grace of God.

"For them a sinner is always and forever a sinner and even when justified, remains a sinner."


No, only in this life.”

So a sinner is transformed in the next life before he enters into heaven, therefore there must exist an intermediate state of cleansing before entering into heaven. But Calvinism teaches no such thing, therefore it is internally inconsistent with itself.


"Of course this is antithetical to the true Gospel of grace as an infusion of the divine life into the soul to make the soul and its moral actions pleasing to God and thereby allow the soul to graciously merit eternal life as a child of God receiving its reward of an inheritance in heaven."


Grace and merit are opposed concepts, Scripturally speaking.”

There is a strict merit by Christ and a merit through friendship in union with Christ, that’s why Paul can say he suffers for your salvation and makes up for the lack of suffers in Christ. As Paul participates in the sufferings of Christ, then he too is meriting, just a Christ merited. Evidently scripture is far too sophisticated for Calvinism to handle.


"Imputed righteousness is only the good ol’ nominalist God, who can say to man do this eg murder, and do that eg commit adultery, arbitrarily, even though its against the nature of man and God to do so. In like manner Luther and Calvin’s nominalism allows them to teach God justifies man by merely stating he is just according to a divine fiat, without any transformation occurring in the soul of the justified. Nominalism is based upon the false understanding of mans intellect who it is said cannot know the natures of things and therefore can only place labels on things. Therefore any concept of God is only a label and so too, any concept of justification is a label."


Addressed above.

-TurretinFan”

Actually you only restated what I already stated about nominalism. My statements have not been rebutted.

I’m still waiting for you to answer the many outstanding objections to penal substitution and my replies to your answers and the new problems found with Calvinism on this thread.

JM

john martin said...

34- According to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3) and we are not to sin (Matthew 18:8, Mark 10:19) to enter into eternal life –

1 John 5:3 - This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

Matthew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.”

But Calvinism says all man need do to enter into eternal life is to believe and Christs righteousness imputed to his account. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

35- God never asks man to do something he cannot do without Gods help. But God commands that men keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Yet Calvinism teaches man cannot keep the commandments to enter into eternal life, therefore according to Calvinism, God is unjust and doesn’t give enough help for men to keep the commandments. But according to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3), therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

36- Calvinism says men are sinners until they enter into eternal life in heaven. And according to Calvinism and scripture, heaven has no sin, but according to Calvinism there must be something done to the sinner between death and heaven to be transformed from a sinner into a saint who keeps the commandments perfectly. But Calvinism denies and intermediate state between this life and heaven. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself and scripture.

37- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then Jesus must only be declared to be righteous by the Father, because the equivalent value is the same for both Christ and the justified sinner. Therefore Christ is not intrinsically righteous, therefore he did not keep the commandments and therefore he was not God.

38- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then the sinner cannot only be declared to be God, but is God, just as Jesus is God. But sinners are not God, but are creatures. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself concerning the nature of justification and Christ’s righteousness.

. . .

john martin said...

39- The righteousness of God is the divine essence itself, for the divine nature is the eternal law and therefore the divine nature always acts perfectly in accordance with the law, as it is the eternal law. But Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute Gods righteousness to another, is against the nature of God, for God does not impute His own righteousness to himself, but is righteousness itself as the eternal law. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the nature of righteousness of God and its application to a sinner as an imputed righteousness.

40- The righteousness of God is the nature of God as He is supernatural. The saints see Gods righteousness and participate in His righteousness in heaven. Therefore the saints in heaven must participate in the nature of God as He is supernatural for them to see him face to face as children of God. As this vision of God is the final stage of justification, as glorification, then justification must of itself be an infusion of Gods righteousness into the soul of the saint on earth for the saint to see God in heaven. But Calvinism teaches justification is not the infusion of the divine life into the soul of the saint, but only an imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the scriptural truth of saints in heaven seeing God face to face as a supernatural vision of the Trinity.

41- Calvinism teaches faith is an instrument of mans justification whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinners account. However faith is a git of God as an effect of the atonement along with other virtues such as hope, love, patient, humility, chastity and so on. Therefore there is nothing unique about the origin of faith as a gift from God. But Calvinism teaches faith is unique as it alone is required to be justified with God. However as there are many other virtues that are given by God, there is no intrinsic reason why the other virtues cannot please god and justify the sinner. Therefore Calvinism is arbitrary in its appointing faith alone as an instrument for mans justification and is therefore invalidated.

42- Calvinism does not define grace as a thing, but only a favour. Yet Calvinism teaches it is by grace that the will of the sinner is brought from loving a creature to loving the Father above all things. But for grace to act in the will, grace must be more than mere favour, but a physical reality acting inside the powers of the human soul to transform the sinner into a saint. Therefore Calvinism is invalidate according to its internal inconsistency by referring to grace as a mere favour and then as more than a mere favour, as a thing acting in the will.

43- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is the imputation Christs righteousness to his account and sanctification is the life lived after justification to merit a greater reward in heaven. Yet the life lived after justification is not the life of a man who can keep the commandments, so sanctification is a mere fiction, following upon an imputed justification. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent in its understanding of the value of moral acts after justification.

44- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification not found in scripture, therefore Calvinism is unscriptural.

45- Calvinism ignores the testimony of the church fathers, who did not teach a man is justified by faith alone, but by faith and works. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the voice of the Holy Spirit teaching within the church and is therefore inconsistent with church tradition.

JM

john martin said...

46 – Calvinism bases its doctrine on the premise that scripture is the Word of God. However the texts said to be written by God, never define the meaning of the term inspiration, other than in 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. . .
But as “God breathed” is only a metaphor, then all Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text having the quality of a metaphor. But a metaphor does not inform us directly of the nature of the thing being spoken about. Therefore Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text, which we don’t know the intrinsic value of regarding Gods authorship, and as we don’t know, then we don’t know if Calvin’s doctrines are from God or not. Therefore as Calvinism is based upon a negative premise (we don’t know the value of the text), and as nothing positive comes from a negative, then any positive conclusion in Calvinism is illogical, which invalidates Calvinism.

JM

john martin said...

47- Calvinism says there is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."
But Calvinism also teaches faith is required to be justified.
But faith is an act done by man.
Therefore there is an act man can do to be justified, contrary to Calvinism.
Therefore Calvinism teaches man cannot do an act to be justified, but must do an act to be justified.
Therefore Calvinism is self contradictory and accordingly invalidated.

JM

john martin said...

Scripture says God calls the elect by His grace to enter into eternal life. But Calvinism says the elect are so because Gods grace is irresistible and once received, cannot be lost. Yet scripture says the elect can and do resist grace and turn to another gospel in Gal 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel".
Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called. Therefore according to the scriptures, the grace of God for the elect is not irresistible, which contradicts what is taught by Calvinism. Therefore Calvinism is a false doctrine not based upon scripture.

JM

Turretinfan said...

"Scripture says God calls the elect by His grace to enter into eternal life."

On its face, this sounds reasonable.

"But Calvinism says the elect are so because Gods grace is irresistible and once received, cannot be lost."

There's not necessarily conflict.

"Yet scripture says the elect can and do resist grace and turn to another gospel in Gal 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel"."

That doesn't say the elect. Even your own church acknowledges that the elect will persevere to the end. See Trent's discussion.

"Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called."

There is more than one kind of calling. An external calling of the word, and an internal calling of the spirit.

"Therefore according to the scriptures, the grace of God for the elect is not irresistible, which contradicts what is taught by Calvinism. Therefore Calvinism is a false doctrine not based upon scripture."

The conclusion might follow from the premises, but the premises are flawed.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

TF,

in response to JM, you wrote:

"....There is more than one kind of calling. An external calling of the word, and an internal calling of the spirit....".

JM said: "Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called."


I would take liberty and respond to a couple of points.

First is the irony of "repentance".

One need only understand what that means?

The problem is, "knowing" what that means takes an 'act' of God. In other words, "knowing" God is a Gift of God, a gift of Righteousness by receiving the "abundance" of Grace that is available "only" to those being called for that purpose.

In your response to JM you note wisely more than one "kind" of calling.

Jesus, Himself, taught as much and moreso.

I would point to something Jesus taught from John 16 to highlight what in my opinion is important in making such a distinction; the external calling is not the same as the internal calling though both callings come upon the creature from without, from God:


Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Also I would explain a bit on the kinds of "nature" or "relationships" repentance brings about.

Because of the character count, I will end this portion and pick up the explanation in the subsequent comments, following.

natamllc said...

JM said: "Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called."

What is accomplished with "Godly" repentance?

What is a person doing when they are brought to "repentance"?


Paul wrote these words in Romans:

Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
Rom 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Rom 6:21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Jesus, at John 17 "defines" "eternal Life":

Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.


So, what can we establish here?

I call it the repentance of God's understanding He is establishing the notion of "no freedom" with in us by being born again into His Righteous slavery!

We are either a slave of sin or a slave of God.

Repentance establishes something with Someone.

What is established here? A relationship is establish by God through Jesus Christ by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit, with us. It is not the other way around. God is turning towards us. We are not turning towards Him. Nor can we, nor could we!

Who then is establishing this relationship? God is. Notice though, He is establishing several relationships. Each of them are "with" Him. And each of them are "eternal" relationships.

JM uses the phrase, "loss of Grace".

There can be no loss of something one doesn't have.

The only loss there can be is a loss of possession by one's rightful owner of us seeing we are not our own nor ever will be. We are always slaves in this life to someone else. We either are a slave to sin or we are a slave to Righteousness.

What Paul was establishing there at Gal. 1:6 wasn't an "internal spiritual" connection, but rather acknowledging there had gone forth an "external word" calling forth to all humanity, those hearing the words of repentance leading them to a turning from one relationship, slavery to sin and turning them to another relationship, slavery to the Righteousness God in Christ.

natamllc said...

When you examine what is being taught at John 16, cited above, you might realize then the "three" things being established by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Grace sent out with the Word of the Gospel.

The first thing is this, the unrepentant ones receive a call but they are those who stand in their "self" righteousness disregarding God's Word, as taught in both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is how the Apostle Paul teaches it basing it upon his own Ethnic group:

Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known."
Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

These words apply to all humanity not just to the Jews.

It is like this. When a person in the United States is arrested and charged with a crime, in our jurisprudence of justice, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;

Here we see one kind of calling. This word, or "calling" is rejected by some.

We know, those of us that know, that there is none righteous before God, no not one.

These here at John 16:9 argue their case in the Court, pleading that they are innocent and not guilty of the charge against them, the Word against them, that calling that they are not righteous before a Righteous God no matter how righteous their deeds are!

Sadly for them when the trial is over, these unrepentant ones will be turned over to the prison to serve out their "righteous" sentence, eternal damnation!

The next group, when they hear the same Word, the calling that goes forth, hearing it, they believe it and understand that there is no one righteous living before God no matter how righteous their lives have been before God or ever will be before God in this world.

Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;

natamllc said...

Here is the mystery! The unrighteous ones are declared justified and are acquitted of all their unrighteousness! Why? Because of the Faith given to them as a gift with the Grace to understand that it is Christ's equitable deed imputed upon them. God can give them this justification and they can accept it from Him because they believe Christ has gone back to the Father from Whom He came so as to establish that relationship with Them, Eternal Life, as a gift, for which cause Christ died.

Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then there is the last Word, or calling.

Ironically, it is the "first" word or calling of God. In it we understand His decree. It is a decree against the Devil and his angels and it is a decree against all those whose name is not found written in the book of Life on the day of Judgment:

Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

We are either a slave of sin or a slave of God.

Repentance establishes something with Someone.

Repentance is God turning towards sinful mankind, who, because of the Adamic nature, were born slaves of sin subject to the god of this world.

The Word of God calls out and some who "hear" the Word reject it and some who "hear' the Word accept it.

There is no "loss" of grace; but there is available an abundance of Grace and the gift of Righteousness to everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord!

As Paul wrote:

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Eph 2:17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

john martin said...

"Yet scripture says the elect can and do resist grace and turn to another gospel in Gal 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel"."

That doesn't say the elect. Even your own church acknowledges that the elect will persevere to the end. See Trent's discussion.”

The elect are inferred from the text where it says “who called you in the grace of Christ” for according to St Paul in Romans 8:30 - And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So according to Romans the called are called because they are predestined and the predestined are justified and then glorified, therefore the called are the elect. Therefore in Galatians, the calling refers to the elect being called by the grace of Christ.

"Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called."

FT- There is more than one kind of calling. An external calling of the word, and an internal calling of the spirit.

But the grace of Christ is not an external call because grace is acting internally to all the persons Paul is talking to, who once lived the Gospel and have now turned to another Gospel. To live the Gospel is to be under the grace of Christ. Therefore to under the grace of Christ, according to Calvinism is to be the elect. However the scriptures say those who were once living the gospel have fallen away, meaning they were once the elect, but have now resisted the grace of God and fallen. Therefore irresistible grace is not taught in Gal1:6 and Calvinism is falsified.

"Therefore according to the scriptures, the grace of God for the elect is not irresistible, which contradicts what is taught by Calvinism. Therefore Calvinism is a false doctrine not based upon scripture."

The conclusion might follow from the premises, but the premises are flawed.

-TurretinFan”

Your answer regarding the distinction over external and internal calling has been answered so my argument stands. Calvinism is invalidated by Gal1:6.

The truth is that the Gospel is more mysterious than Calvin permits. Calvinist theology is notorious for creating strict theological categories that are not taught in scripture when all the verses are taken into account. Such categories include the justification/sanctification categories and the elect/non elect categories without including free will. Calvinism has some internal logic only if we ignore the subtleties of scripture.

JM