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

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.

@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...

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

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."

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?

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?).

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.

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

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."

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.