Mike Winger's "Why I think Calvinism is Unbiblical"

[Mem]

Looks like most of us could use editors. If I look back at my posts, it looks like keys are missing from my keyboard at times. Certainly can't be my typing...

I wish you had more time also. It looks like you've come to some interesting conclusions.

Lol, I almost certain it is a mischievious AIeditor... or that, indeed, my right hand does not know what my left hand is doing.

 

[Magenta]

@FollowerofShiloh : So, you're not saying that we have to be Calvinists, to be saved, are you?

I did see the answer to this question and I knew that is what it was going to be, but I just wanted to add that I did read a post a little while ago (a couple of weeks back, maybe?) that basically asserted that anyone who doesn't believe the 5 points of Calvinism is essentially not saved. That same person said they doubt that anyone who denies Calvinistic thought knows Jesus personally. So there are some who believe that. Sadly...

 

[NEWTOCHRISTIANITY]

I did see the answer to this question and I knew that is what it was going to be, but I just wanted to add that I did read a post a little while ago (a couple of weeks back, maybe?) that basically asserted that anyone who doesn't believe the 5 points of Calvinism is essentially not saved. That same person said they doubt that anyone who denies Calvinistic thought knows Jesus personally. So there are some who believe that. Sadly...

@Magenta : Thank you so much for this, sister; Yes, that is sad, and it's a real pity, isn't it.

 

[Magenta]

@Magenta : Thank you so much for this, sister; Yes, that is sad, and it's a real pity, isn't it.

You are welcome and yes it is! I almost wish I had taken note of who it was that had said it at the time, but perhaps it's best that I forget such things.

 

[Mem]

Perhaps we can untangle the order of faith and believing. It doesn't seem that it is possible to have faith without believing but, apparently, it is possible to believe without having faith. So, these must be distinctly different conditions although they may appear similar on the surface. And, since the central idea at the crux of this argument is the assertion that no one can believe without first being given faith, then examininghow faith and belief work, whether together or separately, might provide a clearer understanding of where belief actually (has to come from? has to go to?) in order for it to be bona fide faith. I mean I can believe something and be wrong and, if I have faith in that belief, then it follows that, according to scriptural definition of faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen- Hebrews 11:1) I would believe it even if I don't actually see it and, at the least, it is evidence of something that I hope for.
Personally, I believe the key to this answer is "in the Name."

 

[studier]

Perhaps we can untangle the order of faith and believing. It doesn't seem that it is possible to have faith without believing but, apparently, it is possible to believe without having faith. So, these must be distinctly different conditions although they may appear similar on the surface. And, since the central idea at the crux of this argument is the assertion that no one can believe without first being given faith, then examininghow faith and belief work, whether together or separately, might provide a clearer understanding of where belief actually (has to come from? has to go to?) in order for it to be bona fide faith. I mean I can believe something and be wrong and, if I have faith in that belief, then it follows that, according to scriptural definition of faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen- Hebrews 11:1) I would believe it even if I don't actually see it and, at the least, it is evidence of something that I hope for.
Personally, I believe the key to this answer is "in the Name."

A big topic! And even after millennia, a topic that most do not seem to have a good understanding of. I've done a lot of focused study on the topic, have looked at every Scripture that uses the word and forms of the word we translate as faith or belief or trust, have a large file of study notes, and still have unanswered questions.

So, a few questions for you:

• You use the words, faith and believe/belief and you view them differently - why?
• You also use the phrase "bona fide faith" which caught my eye. Why do you describe faith as bona fide?
  • I've used and still use the phrase "Biblical Faith" which may be my version of your phrase.
• Will you provide at least a bit of detail on what and why you believe the key to the answer is "in the Name."

FWIW, I no longer see Heb11 as a definition of faith. I see it as one of the descriptions of faith. And I see other such descriptions of faith or how it functions in the Text. IOW, I don't know if it's ever truly and simply defined, but those things that are part of it or that are required for it to work are spread throughout the Scripture.

As I've also spelled out in some detail, I see the NC writings clearly paralleling faith in God to obedience to God which tells me that whatever is involved in faith has to entail things also involved in obedience or submission. So, what does it take to submit to something? I think answering this tells us something about what it takes to believe something, and once we think this through Scripturally, we can begin to describe in some detail, what Biblical Faith - Bona Fide Faith - is. Maybe the definition is in all the details. Maybe in the details is described the process of coming to this Faith.

I'll point you to one thing I just noted. See my comments re: belief per the 4 Soils Parable. Note it seems to be based upon the Word getting into (by hearing) and being in a useful and high quality heart and held long enough to root. So there is a sequence and some time involved in believing (aka faith?). Then there is the necessity of endurance as also noted. So, in one parable we have some details re: believing (aka faith?).

 

[notmyown]

In context, what do you see as the focus, however wide or narrow of repentance here?

Good verse, BTW. Clear command.

i'd have to say it certainly applies to all who fall under the sound of the Gospel preached. God may have a broader application; i don't know.

did i properly understand your question?

 

[studier]

i'd have to say it certainly applies to all who fall under the sound of the Gospel preached. God may have a broader application; i don't know.

did i properly understand your question?

Yes, I think you did understand me. Thanks for answering and saying what you see.

As I see it Paul is saying it's time for all men to repent/turn from the ignorance about God he's been discussing, which includes idolatry, and also, since he mentions judgment and resurrection, he is including the resurrected judge, so Jesus Christ, and all He will judge men for. But I see this as beginning in turning from ignorance. If we know who the one God is, we can end up in the one God commands us to believe in. Note how the resurrection statement caused some to follow Paul and believe.

I think repentance here includes quite a bit just from close context.

 

[Mem]

A big topic! And even after millennia, a topic that most do not seem to have a good understanding of. I've done a lot of focused study on the topic, have looked at every Scripture that uses the word and forms of the word we translate as faith or belief or trust, have a large file of study notes, and still have unanswered questions.

So, a few questions for you:

• You use the words, faith and believe/belief and you view them differently - why?
• You also use the phrase "bona fide faith" which caught my eye. Why do you describe faith as bona fide?
  • I've used and still use the phrase "Biblical Faith" which may be my version of your phrase.
• Will you provide at least a bit of detail on what and why you believe the key to the answer is "in the Name."

FWIW, I no longer see Heb11 as a definition of faith. I see it as one of the descriptions of faith. And I see other such descriptions of faith or how it functions in the Text. IOW, I don't know if it's ever truly and simply defined, but those things that are part of it or that are required for it to work are spread throughout the Scripture.

As I've also spelled out in some detail, I see the NC writings clearly paralleling faith in God to obedience to God which tells me that whatever is involved in faith has to entail things also involved in obedience or submission. So, what does it take to submit to something? I think answering this tells us something about what it takes to believe something, and once we think this through Scripturally, we can begin to describe in some detail, what Biblical Faith - Bona Fide Faith - is. Maybe the definition is in all the details. Maybe in the details is described the process of coming to this Faith.

I'll point you to one thing I just noted. See my comments re: belief per the 4 Soils Parable. Note it seems to be based upon the Word getting into (by hearing) and being in a useful and high quality heart and held long enough to root. So there is a sequence and some time involved in believing (aka faith?). Then there is the necessity of endurance as also noted. So, in one parable we have some details re: believing (aka faith?).

first question: while faith is inherent in belief, I don't think belief is necessarily inherent in faith, i.e. faith endures in belief in spite of attempts to discourage it while belief ebbs wanes and even falters without faith.

second question: a better term might be 'solid' faith, belief in the right thing, faith that is in the truth. Even if one doesn't understand it at the moment, the hope for it is present, along with (and not without) the desire to search out the understanding, that is taking hold of it.

third question: demons believe in God (existence) and tremble (acknowledge His power and influence) but do not believe "in His Name", they've mischaracterized Him and have slandered it.

re: your comments per the 4 soils parable
-the seed is the Word and the soil is a man's heart; this is explicitly explained within the reading
-the road is believing the word on the surface, but the birds have easy access, so is illustrating the ease in dismissing the word which has been cast upon these hearts
-the rocky ground holds water which allows the seed to sprout roots (hence joy at the prospect), but provides no place to secure them (I think this is where faith is required that it should enter)
-among the thorns, illustrating the cares and anxieties of the world which work to discourage faith, these continual give such things consideration to affect a firm grasp, ouch, and the apprehension(?) of faith
-good soil, guards the word from birds, holds it in hope of its potential, and strips the thorns that work to hinder its growth. And I think it interesting, and highly significant, agriculturally speaking, that 'broken' ground is ideal for a good harvest

 

[Inquisitor]

Perhaps we can untangle the order of faith and believing. It doesn't seem that it is possible to have faith without believing but, apparently, it is possible to believe without having faith. So, these must be distinctly different conditions although they may appear similar on the surface. And, since the central idea at the crux of this argument is the assertion that no one can believe without first being given faith, then examininghow faith and belief work, whether together or separately, might provide a clearer understanding of where belief actually (has to come from? has to go to?) in order for it to be bona fide faith. I mean I can believe something and be wrong and, if I have faith in that belief, then it follows that, according to scriptural definition of faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen- Hebrews 11:1) I would believe it even if I don't actually see it and, at the least, it is evidence of something that I hope for.
Personally, I believe the key to this answer is "in the Name."

Unfortunately, faith and belief, are the same word in the Koine Greek, pistis.

It may not be possible to apply two different translations to pistis.

 

[Cameron143]

Unfortunately, faith and belief, are the same word in the Koine Greek, pistis.

It may not be possible to apply two different translations to pistis.

What Greek words are used in Hebrews 4:2? It clearly speaks here of belief not mixed with faith as being unprofitable.

 

[Inquisitor]

What Greek words are used in Hebrews 4:2? It clearly speaks here of belief not mixed with faith as being unprofitable.

The word 'pistis' of course.

Hebrews 4:2
For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with faith.

Hebrews 4:2
For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with belief.

You can use both translations, faith or belief, when pistis occurs in the text.

 

[Inquisitor]

So, a few questions for you:

• You use the words, faith and believe/belief and you view them differently - why?
• You also use the phrase "bona fide faith" which caught my eye. Why do you describe faith as bona fide?
  • I've used and still use the phrase "Biblical Faith" which may be my version of your phrase.
• Will you provide at least a bit of detail on what and why you believe the key to the answer is "in the Name."

Hello studier.

You use the words, faith and believe/belief and you view them differently - why?

The answer to this dual translation, I believe, is the background theology they have been taught.

The translators of the Bible also follow an inherent theological basis.

 

[Cameron143]

The word 'pistis' of course.

Hebrews 4:2
For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with faith.

Hebrews 4:2
For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with belief.

You can use both translations, faith or belief, when pistis occurs in the text.

Thanks. How about when it speaks of the demons who believe?

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks. How about when it speaks of the demons who believe?

Here is the text below.

James 2:19
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

The translation of pistis above, obviously refers to 'believe' and not faith.

Demons could never walk the path of faith.

 

[Cameron143]

Here is the text below.

James 2:19
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

The translation of pistis above, obviously refers to 'believe' and not faith.

Demons could never walk the path of faith.

So your point isn't that belief and faith is the same thing, but that context is necessary for understanding which is in view?

 

[Inquisitor]

So your point isn't that belief and faith is the same thing, but that context is necessary for understanding which is in view?

The context often can be open to debate on which to choose, belief or faith.

The Koine Greek word 'pistis' can be translated as faith or belief.

Belief and faith are somewhat different in meaning.

The underlying theology to which the translators follow will drive the translation
of pistis for you.

The option in translation is not clear cut and never is.

 

[Cameron143]

The context often can be open to debate on which to choose, belief or faith.

The Koine Greek word 'pistis' can be translated as faith or belief.

Belief and faith are somewhat different in meaning.

The underlying theology to which the translators follow will drive the translation
of pistis for you.

The option in translation is not clear cut and never is.

Thanks. I appreciate the lesson.

 

[maxamir]

And I thought I was the only one that had trouble communicating my logic. Do you mean to say that, "Those who consistently deny Calvinism are not yet saved and are still under the curse below?

why do you twist what I said?

If any person trusts in their faith rather than the person and work of Christ then they are still in their sin and not yet saved no matter how holy they may claim to be as Christ confirmed in Matthew 7:21-23 of those who called Him Lord but He did not have any intimate relationship with Him.

Many today will miss Heaven by 18 inched, which is the distance between their head and their heart. These are those who have religion and churchianity and may know a lot of spiritual things and say they know Christ but do not love Him and are still accursed.

1Co 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!

 

[maxamir]

Sounds like you are saying faith is a condition of salvation and faith is not a condition of salvation.


Demons do not have faith in God. Honestly, people ought not to say such foolish things.
If they had faith in God they most likely would not have rebelled in the first place.
Believing God exists and having faith in Him are two completely different things.

You don't seem to understand the difference between being a condition of salvation and a condition unto salvation. God commands all to repent and believe for without these things God has decreed that none can be saved, therefore He has made it a condition of salvation but it is grace which saves a person and not the instruments which God gives. A person believes because they are saved and not to be saved as a condition unto salvation for Christ Himself said that this was impossible for men to do (Mark 10:26-27) Was He wrong?

Demons believed that Christ was the Son of God and openly proclaimed this and are not saved just like many today who call Christ Lord but are not saved as they do not love Christ and only seek the benefits that come from Him but not Christ Himself.