Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Regeneration And Believing.


DaveW

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Trying to understand this guys 'mind' I had to think 'without the common sense of scripture'.

This verse came to my mind while reading the OP.

John 3:3.

Maybe the guy was referring (in a perverted sense) to when Jesus said 'except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God'?

If you make a little twist to the verses and do not consider any info in that verse, maybe he got 'that' out of this?

 

Other than that, I have never heard this discussed before,from anyone.

I am curious on how he came to this 'knowledge'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Yes he did discuss portions of John 3, but would not discuss vs 16 - as soon as I tried to point to it he moved off to other subjects.

The "discussion" has motivated me to return afresh to the subject of Calvin's pernicious Ways (2 Pet 2:2) and I am doing several different studies about different aspects.
This particular study is grinding to a halt as I have found so little evidence to argue against.

I still have other studies around this to continue with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From a more general perspective --

 

Any portion of God's Word that might be used in this doctrinal debate concerning the "order of salvation," whether it is faith unto regeneration or regeneration unto faith, must contain at least three ingredients, as follows:

 

1.  The passage must contain the element of "faith" (through whatever terminology God's Word might employ).

2.  The passage must contain the element of "regeneration" (through whatever terminology God's Word might employ).

3.  The passage must present the two elements of "faith" and "regeneration" in some form of order, such that one or the other is presented as being the precedent to or the prerequisite of the other.

 

If any given portion of God's Word does not contain these three ingredients, that passage is not actually a legitimate passage to be in this doctrinal debate. 

 

(As an example of my meaning, consider Titus 3:4-7.  Although Calvinists often refer to this passage with regard to their doctrinal view concerning the "order of salvation," this passage is not actually a legitimate passage for the particular doctrinal debate over whether it is faith unto regeneration or regeneration unto faith.  The reason -- because although the element of "regeneration" is certainly found within this passage, the element of "faith" is not found anywhere within the passage; therefore, the passage cannot actually reveal anything concerning the Biblical order between the elements of "faith" and "regeneration.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As an additional and more specific thought --

 

Ephesians 2:1-10 actually does contain all three of the required elements that I have presented above.  Indeed, Calvinists often seek to employ this passage as a supporting passage for their doctrinal position.  Yet when this passage is handled in a specifically grammatical manner, it actually teaches that the element of "faith" is prerequisite for the element of "regeneration."

 

On the other hand, Romans 8:29-30 is also often employed by Calvinists as a supporting passage for their doctrinal position.  Yet neither the element of "faith" nor "regeneration" are presented in this passage (although the element of "adoption," which is very closely related to the element of "regeneration," is found in this passage -- even though most people do not recognize the existence of this element of "adoption" in the passage.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I will add the passages - thank you.

Your premise that faith comes before regeneration was not proposed by me, nor do I subscribe to such.
What you suggest there is a classic "straw man" argument. Propose something not suggested and refute it.

 

What I wrote was: "If a person has faith before regeneration, is he saved while being unregenerate? And if he is regenerated before faith, is he saved by grace without faith?" If you want to reject what I write, try to understand it. I posted 2 questions to ask to show the whole argument is foolish.   

The order of things was suggested by the gentleman, in just the way you have done.

By the way, there is no such thing as hyper Calvinism. It is true Calvinism.

If you want to argue against Reformed doctrine, you should try to understand it. The "calvinist" Spurgeon argued strongly against "hypercalvinism." The essential difference is that the true "calvinist" reasons from Scripture, while the "hypercalvinist" develops his arguments by the logical developments from "calvinism." James Ach takes the same approach, taking his attack on "calvinism" beyond anything a "calvinist" or Calvin ever wrote. He specialises in "straw man" arguments.

 

But the forum policy is against "calvinism" so I am not going to promote it, just encourage people to be better informed.    

As far as it being a foolish question - I agree.
But this man organized an appointment with me (under false pretenses I might add) and he was the one who proposed such and argued these points.

It is incumbent upon me to return to my study and assure myself of the truth of the Bible.
If I have someone coming in and trying to influence the people at our church with false doctrine I need to protect them.
As such I want to and need to study this - and your suggesting that it is not important is rubbish in light of these events.

This man - clearly a Calvinist, and his wife, attended our church with one intent - made clear by his following actions.

And his love of Calvin's doctrine is what led him to this devious attempt to corrupt our church.
Strong language? Sure but I assure you that it is accurate. I was involved every step of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

[The above is what Covenanter said, not Dave] If there's one thing that this forum has shown in the last year, it's that it really doesn't make any difference what forum policy is, you are going to post what you want to post anyway, so why stop now?

 

And as I predicted (and as I have ALWAYS maintained about Calvinists) that every time someone disagrees with a Calvinist, the first thing out of their mouth is "you don't understand Calvinism". [For recent proof of my consistent position on this, >see the end of my post here in refuting Covenant Theology] and this response to Dave is no exception.

 

Spurgeon by today's standards would not be considered a real Calvinist. According to James White, and MOST modern day Calvinists, if you are not a 5 point Calvinist (or 7 if you go by Piper's standards) you are not really a true Calvinist. In fact, James White uses this argument frequently against those who profess to have been "ex-Calvinists". He maintained this position recently against Austin Fischer, the young man who wrote "Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed", and every Calvinist from Mohler to JD Hall agreed with White that Fischer was not truly a Calvinist because he did not fully embrace all 5 points, and was just as on the fence about limited atonement, free will, and preterition (or double predestination) as Spurgeon was.

The only reason that Calvinists cite Spurgeon AT ALL is because they are aware of the accusations that Calvinism eventually strangles evangelism once a person realizes that Calvinism boiled down to its most logical conclusion leaves one hopeless if he can not prove that he was chosen by God and hopeless in "soul winning" endevours if God has not chosen those whom he is preaching to. As William Carey's mentor said to him when Carey ( another inconsistent "Calvinist") spoke about using "means" in salvation: "Sit down son, if God wants to convert the heathen he will do so without your help or mine". The only "converts" modern day Calvinist churches have are the members they've stolen from other Baptist churches. Show me ONE Baptist church in the United States (or ANYWHERE) where a Calvinist started a church from scratch and got their own converts. It's impossible. Why? Because to a Calvinist THAT'S NOT EVANGELISM because confrontational soul winning requires a person to make a DECISION and Paul Washer calls that "Decisionism".

 

So even though modern day Calvinists have NOTHING in common with Spurgeon but the few inconsistent positions that Spurgeon held, the Calvinist needs Spurgeon to make the claim that they are "evangelical" because they have no other modern day examples to point to.

 

And ALL CALVINISM IS HYPER CALVINISM. First of all, Calvinists can't even decide among themselves just what a Hyper Calvinist is. When Phil Johnson attempted to define it, and all Calvinists agreed with it and touted it as the best article ever on defining Hyper Calvinism, Dr. David Allen proved how Johnson's definition fit James White to a T. James White got furious and then Phil Johnson and "Turretin Fan" made a clarification that completely OBscured Johnson's article. And now, James White and others will argue what a Hyper Calvinist is NOT, but they refuse to give a clear definition of what it *IS*, and the very best definition they can give of what it is not is- "NOT ME".

 

Calvinism stands and falls with whether or not God has determined and caused the salvation of every individual that is saved which therefore leaves the non elect to have either been passed over (infra) or purposely chosen for damnation(supra) which is precisely what the Westminster Confession and the Dortion canons state. It is not possible for God to have 'passed over' anyone whereby the non elect become damned by default as a passive neglect on God's part. I have already proven this in our article on "Would God Have ReprOBated Perfect Humans?" (which also proves that Calvinism makes God the author of sin regardless of how they claim to wiggle out of it in the WCF).

Essentially, the soteriological system of Calvinism ONLY WORKS if God truly determines ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER COME TO PASS (as stated in the Westminster Confession III,3). Calvinism has made a futile attempt at blaming sin and human responsibility on secondary causation while at the same time trying to maintain God's sovereignty over all events that demand His complete control. If God determines all things, then that OBviously includes all of the secondary causes and collateral events and there are truly no  uncaused events that are not caused by the mind of God before the foundation of the world. 

 

Calvinism's view of sovereignty, creation, and redemption depend on the assumption of God's all inclusive decree. However, if God made this decree before He created the world, compatibilism can not be true if Adam was given any freedom at all to eat the fruit in the garden. What if Adam chooses to NOT SIN? If that happens, then God made a decree ahead of time for nothing, and not only would God have made a decree for nothing, but it would prove He must not know the future (a casual accusation Calvinists themselves throw against their opponents regarding Open Theism) because if He did, He would not have made a decree to redeem anyone because redemption requires somebody to screw up to bring sin upon mankind, and if Adam fails to sin, then guess what happens to God's decree? Therefore pursuant to Calvinist logic if it is to be consistent, GOD HAD TO GUARANTEE THAT ADAM SINNED IN ORDER FOR HIS DECREE TO COME TO PASS.

 

This dilemma has NEVER been satisfactorily answered by any Calvinist-and it never will be. It is why all Calvinism is "Hyper Calvinism" because the Calvinist who refuses the hyper is simply refusing to carry out his own theology to its utter conclusion, unwilling to face the music about the clear implications of Calvinist determinism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

This dilemma has NEVER been satisfactorily answered by any Calvinist-and it never will be. It is why all Calvinism is "Hyper Calvinism" because the Calvinist who refuses the hyper is simply refusing to carry out his own theology to its utter conclusion, unwilling to face the music about the clear implications of Calvinist determinism.

All Calvin-led theology must be wrong - the true "calvinist" is led by Scripture, not by Calvin or any man-made theology.

 

All attempts to base the understanding of Scripture according to a man-made theology - Calvinism, Dispensationalism, whatever -ism, is imposing a system on Scripture. Scripture MUST be our only authority, and Scripture teaches covenant theology centred on Jesus, who lived under the old covenant, died suffering the penalty of OUR breaking the covenant, and established the new covenant in his own blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All Calvin-led theology must be wrong - the true "calvinist" is led by Scripture, not by Calvin or any man-made theology.

 

All attempts to base the understanding of Scripture according to a man-made theology - Calvinism, Dispensationalism, whatever -ism, is imposing a system on Scripture. Scripture MUST be our only authority, and Scripture teaches covenant theology centred on Jesus, who lived under the old covenant, died suffering the penalty of OUR breaking the covenant, and established the new covenant in his own blood.

The ironic thing is that you claim to not want to be labeled, but always run to the defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology anytime that it is questioned, so you can take that pious sounding "it's based on Scripture" elsewhere. You chose to identify with an Independent Baptist KJVO forum when you signed up, and I'm pretty sure your information did not say, "I'm just following the Bible". No, you CHOSE to identify with Independent Baptists, either that, or you have deceitfully wormed your way into this forum. Since you likely will not admit to the latter, then if it's the former, it's rather convenient then for you isn't it, to get to pick and choose when you want to follow a label, and when you don't to follow one when said label gets trampled on by sound Biblical and logical arguments.

 

Furthermore, you cry about shunning labels and yet choose the screen name "COVENANTer" which identifies you with a specific system of theology.

 

Now all of the rhetoric you just posted is all fine and dandy if that's what you REALLY believed, but we both know that it goes further than just the simple surface bumper sticker slogans you post when you need to back up, regroup, attempt to get people to agree with you on levels of theology they accept first, and then make additional attempts later (preferably after I'm visibly offline) to try the sucker-punches again. Sorry, not while I'm watching :knuppel:

 

Anytime you care to answer my previous post feel free (or feel casually determined, doesn't matter to me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Covenant or - I have studied Calvinism.

This is the third time I have seriously investigated it.

I can assure you that what you call a hyper calvinist is one who follows what Calvin wrote.

And what you call reformed doctrine is based in the writings of Calvin.

I have met many Calvinist who use the name reformed and many reformed who follow Calvin.
In my experience the two are synonymous - in spite of the denials by either side.

And my studies of the Bible have shown over and over that the things Calvin taught and that reformed theologians follow is not supportable from scripture.

You have shown that in this very thread where I asked for some scriptures that might be relevant to the argument given, and whilst saying that you subscribe to his position you presented to or three passages that are certainly not clear and in fact appear to me to have no relevance to what you say is an unimportant concept, but which is fact vital to reformed theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All Calvin-led theology must be wrong - the true "calvinist" is led by Scripture, not by Calvin or any man-made theology.
 
All attempts to base the understanding of Scripture according to a man-made theology - Calvinism, Dispensationalism, whatever -ism, is imposing a system on Scripture. Scripture MUST be our only authority, and Scripture teaches covenant theology centred on Jesus, who lived under the old covenant, died suffering the penalty of OUR breaking the covenant, and established the new covenant in his own blood.

 

At the risk of sounding hackneyed, since the topic of whether to to read others' claims about the Bible was done to death a couple of months ago, if you're proposing that Calvin's writings about the Bible must necessarily be wrong because they are Calvin's writings and not scripture, surely that means we ought not to read your own posts either, and in the spirit of that principle you ought not to write them, since in your posts you make claims about what scripture says (underlined).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At the risk of sounding hackneyed, since the topic of whether to to read others' claims about the Bible was done to death a couple of months ago, if you're proposing that Calvin's writings about the Bible must necessarily be wrong because they are Calvin's writings and not scripture, surely that means we ought not to read your own posts either, and in the spirit of that principle you ought not to write them, since in your posts you make claims about what scripture says (underlined).

What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it"

 

It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors. 

This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right?

 

Don't try cashing that check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

 

Sir I beg to differ, you do teach it, proclaim it, defend it, and steadfastly I might add. No one on this board could accuse you of not defending it to the bitter end. It does not matter which or how many scriptures disagree with covenant/replacement theology you hold true. Doesn't matter who gives you those verses nor how kind or harsh they respond with them, you hold fast. Its easy to see you are here to proselytize us Independents and I must tip my hat to you because of your hard labor. Covenanter you are no flash in the pan and you don't quit. If you ever see the truth, and the error of Calvin teachings and turn against them, they will have a warrior on their hands. 

 

All Calvin-led theology must be wrong - the true "calvinist" is led by Scripture, not by Calvin or any man-made theology.

 

All attempts to base the understanding of Scripture according to a man-made theology - Calvinism, Dispensationalism, whatever -ism, is imposing a system on Scripture. Scripture MUST be our only authority, and Scripture teaches covenant theology centred on Jesus, who lived under the old covenant, died suffering the penalty of OUR breaking the covenant, and established the new covenant in his own blood.

 

 

That's Calvinism. You just imposed an ism on Scripture.

 

How are you not teaching covenant theology when you proclaim it's scriptural? You use all verses to try and prove your point and disregard all verses that disagree with your point. Because you are doing this among people who already have a belief against that opinion you are proselytizing. (convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.) 

 

I've waited and listened and prayed that maybe one of the smarter members could shine a light and rescue the covenant/replacement teachers but it seems their eyes are closed. 

 

Has anyone ever been banned for teaching Calvinism? If so, how did they teach it that brought about the banning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One prOBlem with Calvinists is that they tell others who don't agree with them that they don't understand Calvinism, when in fact they do. I use to be a Calvinist for 12 years and today I refute it, and as I read authors that refute Calvinism, I know they understand it since I was in it. Also, while the Independent Baptists can trace their roots all the way to the 1st century church, the Reformed Calvinists can only trace their church roots to the Reformation. Many of them believe only the Catholic church existed before the Reformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

:11backtotopic:    In short.....the doctrine of regeneration.

 

Man was created (generated) in the likeness of God, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Let US make man...)

When man sinned he was separated from God. (De-generated)  (eat thereof ye will surely die....)

When man has faith in Jesus Christ and only after that is he born again and brought back into the relationship (life) with God. ie. (RE-Generated)

 

Salvation MUST COME FIRST before one can be called BORN AGAIN or REGENERATED

 

1 Corinthians 15:21-23

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've waited for someone to point out a particular verse, but I haven't seen it.  If I've overlooked it, please forgive me. First, what is regeneration?

 

Regeneration - the act of producing anew.

 

Maybe I see this as too simple, but I think it's plain and OBvious that one must be saved before regeneration according to this...

 

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

One MUST be "in Christ" in order to be a new creature. One can't be "in Christ" without having accepted his offer of salvation; therefore, belief (or faith) MUST precede regeneration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...