The Calvinism Debate: Phil Fernandes vs Chris Comis - "Rebuttal" part 2 of 4

[R1K2G3]

Fernandes: "faith precedes regeneration...Jn.1:12" Why not include v.13, which destroys your argument, Dr. Fernandes? "(12) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (ESV). Is John really teaching that faith precedes regeneration in this passage?

Seems as if John is actually denying what Dr. Fernandes is claiming.

[Brightstar27]

@R1K2G3 Perhaps because it does not destroy his argument. Because "the will of man" does not regenerate you--God does. But that says nothing about whether or not God has placed down a prerequisite CONDITION by which he has chosen to regenerate. And the Bible does teach this--by BELIEVING we have life in his name (see John).

[R1K2G3]

@Brightstar27 So you believe that "faith precedes regeneration"?

[R1K2G3]

@Brightstar27 So, then, you seem to put a universal ability in the hands of fallen men to come to saving faith in Christ. Of course, Jesus Himself denies that fallen man has this ability: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (Jn.6:44).

Therefore, it is the Father's drawing which results in human beings actually coming to Him (that is, believing on Him). Therefore, it is the Father's drawing which precedes faith.

[Brightstar27]

@R1K2G3 No I have not put a universal ability in man by which we can come to salvation in and of ourselves. That requires God's grace. What I am saying is that, biblically and logically, the human response of faith to the Gospel by grace precedes New Life, because New Life is effected when we are joined to Christ the Vine. But we are not joined to Him until we believe; i.e., we are joined to Him by faith (Eph. 1:13-14) and by virtue of this we receive life. New Life is BY BELIEVING (Jn. 20:31).

[DougCameraMan]

Arminianists play to man's pride, the idea that men decide. Calvinists say it is God that decides and as Paul says it gives men no room to boast, as Arminians boast that it was their wise decision that made the difference between them and those that failed to make the right decision. What did Jesus say? He said that the unbelievers could NOT believe him. Why? Because the unbelievers were not his sheep. His sheep believe because we are his sheep; we are not his sheep because we believe.

[DougCameraMan]

According to Arminianists, God gives all men the same amount of ability to believe and have faith and that it is some men's failure to believe that causes them to be lost. If that were true, then the question becomes why do some men believe and others don't believe if all men have the same amount of ability to believe. Why are some men defective while others are not? It all boils down to who chooses who. Does God choose men or do men choose God? In the end, who is sovereign over humans?

[LampPlaceThing]

30:15-30:38 "I think we should take a second look at Jacob Arminius, he was a little unsure about the 5th point. I believe we're secure in Christ. But I believe Arminius was God centred in his theology, not man centred. he didn't seek to defend human freewill, he sought to defend God's goodness and God's justice, and he thought that unconditional election caused that into question."

I often think Calvinists DO NOT understand my heart when I reject some of their theology.I seek after God's heart

[LampPlaceThing]

@LampPlaceThing It's not about my own comfort level per say.

[atdcross1]

I like what Fernadez says. 

[atdcross1]

Chris is really silly with that covenantal nonsense. That's like giving a kid ice-cream than beating the heck out of him afterwards. Besides, an unbeliever, no matter how you look at it, is no way in the covenant. Furthermore, if we are under any covenant, it is the Noahic covenant, I believe, shown in Jesus saying God blesses both the evil and good.

[atdcross1]

Re: pre-regeneration salvation, Mr. Comis posits no scripture to support his view. He rather gets involved with some nonsense of "covenantal side of salvation", e.g. all are under the covenant, the one who obeys and the other who disobeys. How can one be "under the covenant" if he disobeys it?

[atdcross1]

(1) Free will is not "self-salvation". The fact that historically Jesus made atonement for sin, and not faith, is determinative for salvation; a man can believe all he wants but if Christ did not die, he would never find salvation. (2) It is the Calvinist view that makes the Cross unnecessary. God's choice/decree determines who are saved, not the Cross. That makes the Cross irrelevant.

[atdcross1]

What happened with free will regarding the perseverance of the saints? Although no one can "snatch" the believer out of salvation (God's hand, John 10:29), that leaves the believer himself as the only one who can forfeit salvation by ceasing to believe.

[atdcross1]

If one believes in the Calvinistic notion of "unconditional election", there is no difference between hyper and moderate Cavinsim, regardless of what is affirmed regarding evangelism. FYI, the Calvinist who believes "we don't have to evangelize" is consistent in his Calvinistic beliefs; the one who disagrees is being inconsistent.

[msb0000]

Not much of a debate--the Calvinist guy got stomped.

[chapmaned]

What's the diff between a Calvinist and a hyper Calvinist? Almost makes me think that one has drank too much coffee, while the other chose decaff. I dunno?

[philosophizer149]

@chapmaned Pretty much, Hyper Calvinists just go to an extreme and say that we don't have to evangelize because everyone who God wants to be saved will be saved despite anyones actions. Where as most calvinists and arminians would say whom God wants to be saved will be saved because of everyones actions.

[chapmaned]

@philosophizer149 So where did the word hyper come from? As one who is beginning to study the history of what we are supposed to call Christianity, there are a ton of strange words out there that just don't make any sense at all. I have been a diligent studier of the Bible for many years, and have never came across these strange words before, some of which I can't even pronounce. It is extremely mind boggling and I scratch my head and ask, "What does this have to do with Christianity?"

[PuyallupHero]

I was attendance for this "debate" and it really was unfortunate the way that Chris went about this debate. It seemed like he tried to introduce a new concept which many of us did not understand and was not defined or explained clearly. Phil absolutely owned him in this debate, I will have to admit.