The Christological deficiency of Calvinist regeneration

[cjab]

He’s not a Calvin idolater. Another false claim made by you. Why must you perpetually hit below the belt?

To have disagreed with Calvin was associated with "being arrogant." It cannot be arrogant to disagree with a mere human being. To assert that it is, is to put Calvin on a pedestal.

 

[cjab]

I’m still waiting for your proof I’ve stated even once Calvinistic writings are inspired. I’m sensing an untruthful spirit within you.

When did I ever assert that you stated that "Calvinistic writings are inspired." I’m sensing an untruthful spirit within you. (And who is Calvin anyway that anyone should call themselves a Calvinist?)

 

[cjab]

It may be associated with those things, but what is it? What does begotten of God mean? (I am not asking for the information, I have it. I am asking what in the world you think it means?) Here is a clue.

John 1: 12-13 But to all who did receive him, who belkieved in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Who else would it be for? Your statement is illogical to me. Here is what 1 Cor 2:14 says about sinners (remember from Eph 2 how Paul expresses it as dead in our sins and in need of being made alive? And who it is who made us alive?) The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man is the one described in Eph 2 and the gospel is foolishness to him. 1 Cor 6:11 is not a proof text for your position. It is written to those who are already believers and it concerns believers, not unbelievers.

That is not the key point of 1 Cor 6:11 at all. But to address this post; faith comes by hearing. It stands to reason that we cannot believe something we have never heard. You have skirted the issue. What is with all the red herring posts? None of what you said is teaching that faith comes before the new birth. And it in no way deals with election.

I don't recall anyone saying that they did. I do not even recall that being the discussion.

Read that with more care. by grace, through faith, which is a gift of God and not of yourselves. It is grace that any are saved. It is through faith-----God which we do not have as we are dead in our sins and the cross and resurrection and ascension are foolishness to us. (Do your Remember a time when it was foolishness to you?)

I do agree. I seldom read Calvin but I read my Bible everyday---and more than read, but study. If I am not mistaken, you are the one who brought up Calvin, not me.

The word is in erudite and it means unlearned; ignorant. The fact that you apply it to Calvin shows that the one it applies to is the one using it. Let's see an example of his in erudite waffling. I already showed you with his own words that you were wrong about the first claim you made against him.

Believe what you want. But Jesus says you can't see the kingdom unless you have been born again. Which means you can't have faith unless you have been born again. That doesn't exclude faith coming by hearing because it is the person and work of Jesus we must have faith in, and we have to hear it to know that. The thing is, if we have been born again, when we hear it we believe it.

Spoken like a genuine brother in Christ!

The only point I have, is one I have made before, on many occasions. You Calvinists have major problems in understanding the biblical distinction between apostates, "natural men", "sons of the devil" etc, etc, i.e. those who have conscionably chosen to reject the gospel and / or Moses, and the ordinary sinner who is ignorant of the gospel. And yet you always bring in the former (many of whom are by no means ignorant of Moses and / or the gospel) to promote a doctrine that has no biblical provenance, which is that it is impossible for the Word of God, by itself (although "of God" and communicated by the Spirit) to convert any body. That contention I reject; and for that reason, there is nothing further to discuss. Cite Calvin all you want - it's irrelevant.

 

[SovereignGrace]

When did I ever assert that you stated that "Calvinistic writings are inspired." I’m sensing an untruthful spirit within you. (And who is Calvin anyway that anyone should call themselves a Calvinist?)

Whoa there buckaroo. Come down off your high horse. You were the one who said "Thanks for conceding that Calvinistic writings are uninspired. I couldn't have put it better myself." I never stated any of their writings are inspired, so I really did not have anything really to concede to begin with.

 

[SovereignGrace]

When did I ever assert that you stated that "Calvinistic writings are inspired." I’m sensing an untruthful spirit within you. (And who is Calvin anyway that anyone should call themselves a Calvinist?)

I'm as truthful as the day is long. Calvin was just a man and I don't know where those who hold to his theology got that name. I'm guessing it was a perjorative of the dissenters of the truth. I call myself so that ppl know what my beliefs are, reformed to the core.

 

[preacher4truth]

Whoa there buckaroo. Come down off your high horse. You were the one who said "Thanks for conceding that Calvinistic writings are uninspired. I couldn't have put it better myself." I never stated any of their writings are inspired, so I really did not have anything really to concede to begin with.

He doesn't have much material left.

 

[cjab]

Whoa there buckaroo. Come down off your high horse. You were the one who said "Thanks for conceding that Calvinistic writings are uninspired. I couldn't have put it better myself." I never stated any of their writings are inspired, so I really did not have anything really to concede to begin with.

Your high horse. Don't forget you were originally agreeing with, and answering, one who appears to see Calvin's writings as inspired. The context was a three-way conversation.

Seeing Calvin as inspired is reasonably imputed to anyone holding tenaciously to his idea that "faith flows from regeneration" where Eph 2:8,9 (contradictorily) infers regeneration (salvation) is through faith. For if faith "flows" from regeneration, then regeneration does not flow from faith". Yet Christ said "if anyone believes in me, streams of living water will flow from deep within him." Jn 7:38.

Yet as no-one can doubt that faith is consequential on receiving the new life and promises conveyed in the gospel (Rom 4:16 etc) it may be Calvin is just using the wrong word. But there is more, for there is another apparent contradiction in Calvin's "faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit" which is opposed by Jesus in John 6:28,29, where faith is imputed as a work assigned by God to be performed by men [cf. Pulpit Commentary: "There is 'one work' which God would have man do" and many other commentaries also.].

Rather, vis-a-vis the Holy Spirit, God saves us by the washing "of regeneration and of renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

To label someone as "arrogant" just for pointing out the contradictions is Calvin-idolatry to my mind.

 

[preacher4truth]

Whoa there buckaroo. Come down off your high horse. You were the one who said "Thanks for conceding that Calvinistic writings are uninspired. I couldn't have put it better myself." I never stated any of their writings are inspired, so I really did not have anything really to concede to begin with.

But...but...you agreed with someone who seems to think his writings are inspired, so, you're guilty by association.

 

[Rescued]

The only point I have, is one I have made before, on many occasions. You Calvinists have major problems in understanding the biblical distinction between apostates, "natural men", "sons of the devil" etc, etc, i.e. those who have conscionably chosen to reject the gospel and / or Moses, and the ordinary sinner who is ignorant of the gospel

If that is the position you take with which to accuse, then perhaps you should enlighten us. Where does the Bible equate "natural men" with apostates?

There is no such thing as an ordinary sinner and a sinner who is not ordinary. A sinner is a sinner. Those who are ignorant of the gospel are just as much subject to the judgment on sin and sinners as any other sinner not found in Christ through faith. Your confusion and need to untangle the confusion in any way you deem possible, is from the very place that a great many confusions and apparent contradictions within the Bible come.

A failure to let God be God. A refusal to acknowledge God according to His own self revelation. You cannot abide a God who would save some and not save all. You do not believe that this image of God you have, (which to you is the real and only image) would be so unfair as to take away your liberty in any way shape or form. You cannot abide that He would regenerate a person by the Holy Spirit in order to give to him what is necessary to be placed in Christ ---which is a belief and trust in the person and work of Christ. That old man in Adam within still wants to do it his way.

And yet you always bring in the former (many of whom are by no means ignorant of Moses and / or the gospel) to promote a doctrine that has no biblical provenance, which is that it is impossible for the Word of God, by itself (although "of God" and communicated by the Spirit) to convert any body. That contention I reject; and for that reason, there is nothing further to discuss. Cite Calvin all you want - it's irrelevant.

Nothing quite like shifting the subject smack in the middle of a sentence.

And you shifted it to something that was not ever mentioned in the entire conversation.

It is probably wise that you put down the shovel and stop digging.

 

[RandomGuy25]

I sincerely doubt that they teach humanism.

Do you know the difference?

 

[cjab]

If that is the position you take with which to accuse, then perhaps you should enlighten us. Where does the Bible equate "natural men" with apostates?

Natural men are men who have pre-eminently rejected God. Paul describes the Gentile variety in Rom 1.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.​

Jesus was pre-occupied with the Jewish variety. There is sinning, and there is rejecting God. The two are in separate categories. Not every Gentile falls into the Rom 1 category. Not every Jew falls into the Rom 3:11ff category.

This distinction can be put another way: the distinction between faithlessness in 2 Tim 2:13 and apostacy in 2 Tim 2:12.

There is no such thing as an ordinary sinner and a sinner who is not ordinary. A sinner is a sinner.

A key biblical distinction is between the sinner who receives the truth and the sinner who receives not the love of the truth, that they might be saved viz. 2 Thess 2:10. So sinners are differentiated by their "love of the truth."

Those who are ignorant of the gospel are just as much subject to the judgment on sin and sinners as any other sinner not found in Christ through faith. Your confusion and need to untangle the confusion in any way you deem possible, is from the very place that a great many confusions and apparent contradictions within the Bible come.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the bible says. Every man will be judged by the (a) the law = Jews pre-Christ, (b) their conscience = Gentiles without the law, (c) whether or not they accept the gospel.

(You might be more credible if you cited the bible.)

A failure to let God be God.

What are you even waffling on about?

A refusal to acknowledge God according to His own self revelation. You cannot abide a God who would save some and not save all.

God's judgements are just. God's wrath on the sinner who rejects the truth is just that they are incapacitated from faith 2 Thess 2:10.

You do not believe that this image of God you have, (which to you is the real and only image) would be so unfair as to take away your liberty in any way shape or form. You cannot abide that He would regenerate a person by the Holy Spirit in order to give to him what is necessary to be placed in Christ ---which is a belief and trust in the person and work of Christ. That old man in Adam within still wants to do it his way.

Nothing quite like shifting the subject smack in the middle of a sentence.

And you shifted it to something that was not ever mentioned in the entire conversation.

You're so far off what the bible actually says it's laughable. And of course you will never be able to cite a single biblical precedent that states that the Holy Spirit is given to the unrepentant and unbelieving. So you have to rely on Calvin.

What God has given men, is by Jesus Christ. The Spirit "is freely given to those who believe in him" Acts 5:32 so that "we may understand what God has freely given us [in Christ]" 2 Cor 2:12.

It is probably wise that you put down the shovel and stop digging.

I am a student of the bible. I see not a single bible verse quoted by you. Instead you quote Calvin. Says it all.

 

[cjab]

The two are in separate categories.

That said, it is perfectly possible, and very reasonable, that men shift from one category to another. Movement in either direction is possible: as with the prodigal son, who changed from apostate to being faithless and finally repentant. Paul records people moving in the opposite direction. Jesus came to save both types of sinner, obviously, as he calls all men, but those who remain in, or who fall into, the apostate/completely-deluded category are in a serious condition vis-a-vis the gospel.

 

[Caroljeen]

The reason we're "unable to follow Fltom's reasoning" is because it isn't Biblical.



So you are projecting your theology onto the text.
Got it.

You are assuming this.

Questions for you:

1) Why do you ASSUME that "receiving" and "believing" are willful decisions, rather than simple descriptions?

John is describing what some people did prior to their new birth of God. When they heard the gospel, they received and believed it. Believing and receiving are not passive. There were others who did not believe and receive Jesus after hearing the gospel. These describe decisions people made to reject the gospel when they heard it.

But many of those who heard the word believed, and they numbered about five thousand. Acts 4:4

But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8;12

When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed, but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 At that point Paul left them. 34 But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. Acts 17:32-34

2) Why do you ASSUME that John 1:12f allegedly shows "causation", rather than merely "correlation"?

I'm not assuming causation nor am I saying that belief and reception of Jesus' name are causes of anything. I am saying that to believe and receive Christ are deliberative decisions made by the hearers. When someone becomes a believer, they are given power or the ability to become born of God. The new birth does bot happen before they believe.

3) What is your reason for ASSUMING that "born ... of God" comes AFTER "receiving" and "believing", especially when it can be VERY easily understood that "born ... of God" happens PRIOR to "believing"?

If John meant to say that the new birth comes BEFORE someone receives/believes in Jesus, then he would have said so. He would not have chosen the words "to become" which indicates something that happens in the future AFTER they received/believed.


12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

4) Why do you IGNORE the fact that v.13 explicitly teaching that our being "born ... of God" is NOT "by the will of man", which you seem to be contradicting, if you think that regeneration is the result of the "will of man" choosing to "believe"?

I'm not ignoring anything. My argument has to do with when the new birth takes place (after one believes /receives Jesus) and not with how one is born again which is a work of God.

Eph. 1:4 does NOT teach that faith comes before regeneration.
You are simply (yet again) ASSUMING it.

Did I write that it did?