>>18731810
Its defining feature is God giving true grace to some people while the defining feature of synergism is that God really gives grace to no people.

File: Bible Prophecy + confirmi(...).png (169 KB, 1874x822)

169 KB PNG

>>18731810
Ephesians 1 dismantles that Calvinist argument:

Ephesians 1:4
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:”

Ephesians 1:11
“In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:”

Ephesians 1:12
“That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”

So those who trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation were chosen, but the responsibility to exercise that faith is on the sinner who heard the word of God preached. It is not a Calvinistic election, it's a choice on your part.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:8 and 17)

Faith itself, the ability to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, is a gift from God, not your own work, but that doesn't mean God forced you to exercise that faith. He gave you a chose on your part to either accept salvation or reject it. The lost try to alibi their way out of believing to avoid responsibility in willful ignorance, and that's also the Calvinist trap, because it removes all responsibility from you.

The truth is, if humans did not have any responsibility, they would not be in this mess to begin with. Humans have to make a choice, and God gives that choice to them. Calvinism is a heresy that tricks you into believing that you are just a doll with no free will, and when you die, you never actually accepted The Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour because you wanted to willingly trick yourself you never had that choice to begin with.

Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8, 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10).

You can accept the gift, or refuse it. Your choice.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc

>>18731953
>"It is not a Calvinistic election"
>Quoting Paul as he teaches Calvinism, unprompted.
>"it's a choice on your part."
>In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will
Running straight to your opponent's proof text for support is certainly a move.

>>18731953
>So those who trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation were chosen, but the responsibility to exercise that faith is on the sinner who heard the word of God preached. It is not a Calvinistic election, it's a choice on your part.
There’s nothing about a “responsibility to exercise faith” in this text. Election is presented as the cause of faith, i.e.you were given faith because you were predestined to believe. Certainly the elect must have faith, but the fact of the elect having faith is a far cry from establishing the demands of synergism, i.e. that man chose to believe autonomously, or that man’s believing is the basis of his election. This text in fact establishes precisely the opposite. Nor is it the case that man’s faith is the product of his own will, because before regeneration he was stark dead, so that to be loosed from his chains would be nothing for man unless he was also given life. Faith is not a deed which man commits to merit eternal life, but only a divine instrument created in the elect whereby they receive the righteousness of Christ and being justified they fulfill the decree of election.
>Faith itself, the ability to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, is a gift from God, not your own work, but that doesn't mean God forced you to exercise that faith
God does not “force” the elect to have faith, He rehabilitates their will in regeneration to choose to have faith. If faith is given to you by God, then you did not choose to have faith before He gave you the ability to do so and what separates you from unbelievers is not your moral superiority but the particularity of God’s grace which is given to you and not them, and which was deserved by none.
>The truth is, if humans did not have any responsibility
This entire line of thought is a strawman argument.

>>18731945
>giving gifts isn't gracious if people refuse them

>>18731980
Giving gifts isn’t gracious if it’s contingent on the righteous operation of your will.

>>18731988
What?

>>18731994
You had to “freely choose” to believe. It is this morally righteous action which is the meritorious cause of salvation in a synergist system, that is, it is *by virtue* of man’s faith (rather than merely “through” man’s faith as in a monergist system) that he is saved. It has to be, because otherwise it would not be what separates the elect from the reprobate.
Romans 4:4 “Now to the one who works, his wage is not counted according to grace, but according to what is due.”

While the Calvinist position is that the sole virtue by which a man is saved is the death of Christ on his behalf.

>>18731994
>>18732013
By the way, this very issue is also why the Westminster Confession explicitly denies that man’s faith is what is imputed as righteousness (something which the historical Arminians actually said). It’s Christ’s righteousness which is imputed as the righteousness of the sinner before God.

>>18732013
Why did Jesus constantly praise people's faith if its not meritorious?

>>18732018
How deluded you must be to think that you, a sinner, can merit anything from God except death. Christ praised faith firstly, because it is good in and of itself, secondly, because it is the gift of God. Hence He said to Peter “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

>>18731953
Ephesians 1 is a forgery btw.

>>18732025
>How deluded you must be to think that you, a sinner, can merit anything from God except death
God must then be the most evil being in existance for gifting salvations to sinners who do not deserve it.

>>18732036
Ok Lucifer

>>18732037
If you deserve damnation, accepting salvation is an immoral act, and so is offering it.
You cannot have a God that is both all just and all loving if his act of love contradicts justice.

>>18732040
Non sequitur saar

>>18732025
So why doesn't he ever say "the faith I've given you has made you well"? He seemed to genuinely credit people for having faith. Your bluster and indignation not withstanding. One of us is reading the text plainly, the other's Bible is full of things added by John MacArthur.

>>18732043
>So why doesn't he ever say "the faith I've given you has made you well"?
So your argument now is that He said the words “your faith”, therefore our faith merits eternal life. Did you expect a serious reply to this?
>Your bluster and indignation not withstanding
Prideful fool

>>18732042
Can't come up with a proper response award.

>>18732049
Nobody is saying faith merits eternal life. It seems to merit appropriation of Christ's sacrifice and various gifts, however as per the terms set by God since the abrahamic covenant. Nobody is saying just have faith in [nothing] and recieve eternal life. Its all Christ's sacrifice but its also on whatever terms are set by God which is that the believer must exercise faith. I don't know why Calvin's have such trouble with this concept, as Jesus said, even a toddler can understand it. Now get in back in your cage.

>>18731810
The whole system is somewhat contrived. You either take it as it is or you leave it.

>>18732042
How is he wrong?
>If God's perfect justice is maintained, then X receives eternal damnation
>X does not receive eternal damnation (X gets salvation instead)
>Therefore, God's perfect justice is not maintained (it is violated)
This is a standard Modus Tollens

>>18732058
>Nobody is saying faith merits eternal life. It seems to merit appropriation of Christ's sacrifice and various gifts
Which means you are saying faith merits eternal life.
>It seems to merit appropriation of Christ's sacrifice
So, the difference between you and the unbeliever is that you’re just so much more spiritual, moral and wise than them. You are better than them and it because of your natural moral superiority that you did the work by which you were saved.
Romans 9:16 “So then it does not depend on the one who wills or the one who runs, but on God who has mercy.”
One of us believes the plain teaching of the bible. The other believes his own unbiblical man-centered philosophy
>Its all Christ's sacrifice but its also on whatever terms are set by God which is that the believer must exercise faith.
What is it that Christ’s sacrifice accomplished? Why does His sacrifice allow anyone to be saved? What did He purchase by His death? It is very important to know where you’re coming from on the atonement in order for the conversation to proceed.
>Now get in back in your cage.
Impudent swine

>>18732065
It is wrong because the punishment merited by the elect was satisfied on the cross.

>>18732073
Which of the premises in the argument are you denying exactly? It seems like you don't agree that according to God's perfect justice we deserve eternal damnation

>>18732077
I am denying that the sins of the elect were unpunished.

>>18732082
>P1 (Premise 1): If P, then Q (If God's perfect justice is maintained, then X gets eternal damnation)
>P2 (Premise 2): Not Q (X does not get eternal damnation)
>C (Conclusion): Therefore, not P (Therefore, God's perfect justice is not maintained)
Since you seem to be confused I labeled it for you as explicitly as I can. Which of the premises are wrong? P1? P2? You already know what rule of inference is being used and it's Modus Tollens (denying the consequent) so unless you do that his argument is undefeated

>>18732090
You are a complete pseud pretending not to understand what I am telling you “BUT MUH PREMISES SAVE ME REDDIT!!”
I am inclined to leave you with mockery and dismiss you but for now I’ll humor you. Premise 1 is defective. If we change it to say “If God's perfect justice is maintained, then the punishment merited by the sins of X is satisfied” then it becomes acceptable but at the cost of no longer proving anything.

>>18732096
Okay so we don't deserve eternal damnation according to God's perfect justice. The sin Chicken Jesus absorbed our sins like a sponge and he gets punished instead. Cool!

>>18732098
Matthew 7:6

>>18732099
>the human sacrifice of an innocent is actually sacred bro
filthy pagan

>>18732099
>Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces
So Jesus did not follow his own teaching as he threw pearls (salvation) before swines (sinners who deserve hell).

If Calvinism isn't true, then salvation depends on free will (ei could have chosen otherwise). It would then be possible that nobody would chose salvation, meaning that Jesus could have died for nothing.
An innocent suffering for no reason is unjust and God cannot commit an injustice so at least one person must have accepted salvation. Therefore Calvinism is true.

>>18732125
You have no idea what transcendental numbers are

>>18732154
Like pi or the square root of two ? Did you see "transcendant" in the name and assume it meant "number you can solve metaphysical equation with" ?

>>18732172
my bad, square root of two isn't a transcendental number.

File: Calvanism.png (89 KB, 530x524)

89 KB PNG

>>18731958
>>18731975
>>18732030
https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors/errors-of-calvinism/

https://youtu.be/Xdjkgr7RPZ4?si=67lHi5T7jf0iupxR

https://youtu.be/a3Wzf5N6DDA?si=wmFCtviD_NzntP6K

>>18732332
This entire chart is bogus, but P is particularly confused and at the same time the clearest part, because it makes it obvious that the author is clueless about the theological system he’s attempting to critique.

>>18732678
And I just noticed the filename is “Calvanism.png”, checks out

File: IMG_6443.jpg (156 KB, 1024x559)

156 KB JPG

>>18731810
The prideful like yourself don't deserve grace, you still have time to accept it.

>>18732686
You're more prideful because you assume things about people. You still have time to accept it.

I wish I could kill anyone discussing morals about god. It always ends up with the christcuck having to juggle with the fact that at the same time god is good, and yet he has done horrible things (by the metrics of our morals). so they have to cope by saying that humans cannot understand god's morals and as such god can commit atrocities that actually are very moral in the divine scheme of things. but then the same can be said for the devil. the devil clearly is superhuman so how do you know he isn't doing "bad" stuff that in the end results in good? then let'a not even get started in the fact that the bible doesn't cover nearly all decisions a person might have to take in their lifetime, leaving a shit ton of things to, guess what, personal interpretation. so even if I believe that every single word in the bible is the word of god, I still have to inteeprets his commandments because they are intentionally vague. so where the fuck is this objective morality?

>>18732040
Not if he takes the payment that the justice demands

>>18732765
yes but in christcucks' defense, that's only a valid critique of Protestants. Catholics and Orthodox claim you need the church and priests to explain the more subtle details in a coherent manner. Obviously they fail, but it's 1% less retarded than Sola Scriptura,

>>18732773
But still, the cathechism and the priest will not cover all the decisions you take on a daily basis. And even then, you'd have to memorize hundreds and hundreds of laws and commandments and recall them perfectly. Who does that? Nobody