John Calvin Had It All Wrong

[DaveW]

But we're not discussing the Bible at the moment, are we, Dave? We're discussing Calvinism. Whether or not Calvinists like Sproul are using the term Biblically, they mean something when they say it, so it's fair to ask what that is.

But that is exactly my point.
If they redefine words - which every cult does - then their argument changes.
This is exactly what the Calvinist does with free will and how you end up on the roundabout.
The BIBLE defines what it means, and if a man puts a different definition on a word for the purposes of an argument, then that man has an agenda which is likely to be less than truthful.

Do the study, figure out what the Bible says about regeneration, then read the Calvinists comments in light of Biblical definitions.

In light of biblical definitions the Calvinist says you must be saved before you can believe or have faith, and that happens when God by His choice makes you alive - therefore salvation actually has nothing to do with the blood of Christ - it is done before the blood is applied.

And that is another Gospel which is not another.

Biblical definitions are important.

[AVBibleBeliever]

 

9) Believes that the AV has a built in Dictionary to Define the English words used in the AV text

10) Believes that the AV has a divine built in cross-reference for establishing Bible Doctrine

Dave is on the right track.  Calvinism is not using rightly defined terms of the Bible.  Definition of all words used in a bible believers doctrines should be defined from the Bible because it has its own built in dictionary. these definitions are there for us to rightly divide and rightly come to sound doctrine.

 

If Calvinist use a plethora of English and Greek dictionaries to establish the meaning of words then those meanings are not necessarily of God or of His Word the AV Holy Bible.

 

First establish the meaning from God's word then establish your doctrine from those meanings and contexts.  If they are not there in God's words then they are not the Doctrines of God.

 

Jesus said it this way, John 7:16, 17 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.   If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.   Calvinism cannot make its own doctrine it must be of God's word.  the way to determine is to study out (God's will for us is to study), the words in context and define the meaning from those words contexts.   The way to know if it is of God and see if it is of the word of God, is to rightly divide and define those words from Scripture context.  When we do this, we see that Calvinism is of man and not of God because it fails to study out the meanings in the Bible and its context.  the proponents of Calvinism (like JW's) go to Greek and English Dictionaries to establish the meanings and ignore God's words, found in the ONLY Book of his word's, the AV Holy Bible.  The link I posted earlier to the article on Calvinism the person who wrote it does just that.  Studies the words according to God's word and establishes the contextual meaning and set forth sound doctrine that Calvinism is not Biblical in any way.

 

Take time to go back and click the link and read through the article.

 

 

Biblical definitions are important.

They are not just important they are the basis upon which we build sound doctrine without them we are teaching the doctrine of men and devils.

[Alimantado]

But that is exactly my point.
If they redefine words - which every cult does - then their argument changes.
This is exactly what the Calvinist does with free will and how you end up on the roundabout.
The BIBLE defines what it means, and if a man puts a different definition on a word for the purposes of an argument, then that man has an agenda which is likely to be less than truthful.

Do the study, figure out what the Bible says about regeneration, then read the Calvinists comments in light of Biblical definitions.

In light of biblical definitions the Calvinist says you must be saved before you can believe or have faith, and that happens when God by His choice makes you alive - therefore salvation actually has nothing to do with the blood of Christ - it is done before the blood is applied.

And that is another Gospel which is not another.

Biblical definitions are important.

 

Bible definitions are important for finding out what the Bible says; to find out what a man is saying, you have to look at their own definitions, if they provide them. I agree with you that some people continually redifine their own terms, making that task fruitless, but not everyone we disagree with does that.

 

It's just plain common sense that if you want to understand a person's own arguments, you need to look at their own definitions of their words, if they expand on them, which verbose puritan/Calvinist writers tend to do. That goes for anything, not just Bible discussions. If I start talking about urban regeneration, you'll be totally off-track if you use the Biblical definition of regeneration to try to understand what I'm talking about.

[Alimantado]

Calvinism is not using rightly defined terms of the Bible.  Definition of all words used in a bible believers doctrines should be defined from the Bible because it has its own built in dictionary. these definitions are there for us to rightly divide and rightly come to sound doctrine.e.

 

Let's assume Calvinists get every single Biblical word wrong. Let's assume that when they use the word 'regeneration' they actually mean 'camel', as in 'I loaded up my regeneration with goods to sell at the market'. That a person doesn't use words properly may be a valid criticism, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to understand that person properly you have to examine what they mean when they say things.

[John81]

Yes, it's important to note what a person's actual definition is, as they see it, of any given word or term.

 

As an example of this, years ago when discussing Christianity with a Black Muslim, he kept getting hung up on the Christian concept of not being part of the world and aspects of that. My first attempts to deal with this met with frustration from him. At that point I asked him what he thought was meant by "the world". That's when we were able to make progress. He was thinking of the physical world, in terms of creation and all the things in the world; which is very much different than the Christian definition as relates to particular passages of Scripture.

 

Once we came to an understanding of where each was coming from, we were able to make progress in our discussions.

[Winman]

But that is exactly my point.
If they redefine words - which every cult does - then their argument changes.
This is exactly what the Calvinist does with free will and how you end up on the roundabout.
The BIBLE defines what it means, and if a man puts a different definition on a word for the purposes of an argument, then that man has an agenda which is likely to be less than truthful.

Do the study, figure out what the Bible says about regeneration, then read the Calvinists comments in light of Biblical definitions.

In light of biblical definitions the Calvinist says you must be saved before you can believe or have faith, and that happens when God by His choice makes you alive - therefore salvation actually has nothing to do with the blood of Christ - it is done before the blood is applied.

And that is another Gospel which is not another.

Biblical definitions are important.

Actually, Calvinists make a distinction between regeneration and salvation and therefore would claim you misrepresent them. Getting them to explain the difference between being regenerated and saved is another matter altogether, good luck with that. 

 

Some Calvinists believe that the moment a person is regenerated they will automatically believe, and so are saved that very moment. Still they will insist regeneration had to occur first. 

 

Other Calvinists like R.C. Sproul say a person can be regenerated for years, even decades before they actually believe on Jesus. This would be a person who is "spiritually alive" according to these particular Calvinists, and yet is "dead in sins" at the same moment! Logically impossible, but that is what they believe. 

[DaveW]

Let's assume Calvinists get every single Biblical word wrong. Let's assume that when they use the word 'regeneration' they actually mean 'camel', as in 'I loaded up my regeneration with goods to sell at the market'. That a person doesn't use words properly may be a valid criticism, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to understand that person properly you have to examine what they mean when they say things.

The prOBlem with this is that they are talking about theological issues using theological terms but applying their own definitions to them.

Your analogy falls apart because of this.

If they use their own definitions in a context where the definitions independently established, they do so falsely.
Why would you redefine a word that has an established meaning?
It is surely only for the purpose of twisting the understanding of the situation.

This is what a Mormon does when you ask them if they are saved. They will happily say yes, but they don't mean what the Bible means.
So also the Calvinist, if he means something other than the Biblical meaning of regeneration, he is not talking about biblical things - but he insists that he is talking about biblical things.
So, he is either wrong about his thoughts on regeneration, or he is using terms amiss.
Why then use terms that have an established meaning in theology to teach something different to that meaning?

If they mean something different to the biblical meaning, and insist on using that term with a different meaning in a theological context, they are deceitful.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Let's assume Calvinists get every single Biblical word wrong. Let's assume that when they use the word 'regeneration' they actually mean 'camel', as in 'I loaded up my regeneration with goods to sell at the market'. That a person doesn't use words properly may be a valid criticism, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to understand that person properly you have to examine what they mean when they say things.

God uses all his words properly, and your presenting a sophist argument therefore I will not play with you (see underlined). 

 

I don't want to know a person like John Calvin words I want to know God's words, for his words are true, are whole, are just, are pure and they teach the simple.

 

I do not want to know John Calvin's, your's or any other man's doctrines.  I want to know the doctrines of God.

 

Like I said go read the article I linked too and you will see they got the word meanings wrong.

[DaveW]

Actually, Calvinists make a distinction between regeneration and salvation and therefore would claim you misrepresent them. Getting them to explain the difference between being regenerated and saved is another matter altogether, good luck with that.

Some Calvinists believe that the moment a person is regenerated they will automatically believe, and so are saved that very moment. Still they will insist regeneration had to occur first.

Other Calvinists like R.C. Sproul say a person can be regenerated for years, even decades before they actually believe on Jesus. This would be a person who is "spiritually alive" according to these particular Calvinists, and yet is "dead in sins" at the same moment! Logically impossible, but that is what they believe.

Exactly - a biblical study of regeneration shows it to be salvation - the Calvinist redefines it, and then argues around it.
Change definitions and you can make any sentence true no matter how nonsensical it is in normally defined language.

[John81]

The biblical definition is the final authority yet before we can get to the point of zeroing in on the biblical definition of a word or term, we need to know the starting position of whoever we are talking with; whether they be a Calvinist, Muslim, Mormon or the Baptist sitting next to you in the pew.

 

Once we know their definition of a word or term we can KNOW what they are trying to say when using that word or term. At that point we can determine if their definition is biblically correct, partially correct, wholly wrong, or just way out there. At which point we can attempt to help them see the difference (if any) between their definition and what we see Scripture saying.

 

Without a common point of reference (both parties understanding what the other is trying to say) there will be no meaningful discussion.

 

As several have pointed out above, not all who fall into the category of Calvinists share the same definitions or views on various words and terms. It does one no good to argue a point that doesn't even fit with the one we are speaking with.

 

What Alimantado has been trying to get at is a basic point of good communication. This applies across the board whether in a debate, conducting diplomacy, sharing the Gospel or having a simple conversation.

[Winman]

Exactly - a biblical study of regeneration shows it to be salvation - the Calvinist redefines it, and then argues around it.
Change definitions and you can make any sentence true no matter how nonsensical it is in normally defined language.

You are absolutely correct. They constantly redefine words. 

 

The only real weapon against Calvinism is scripture. Romans 6 shows that persons who are not regenerated and servants of sin have the ability to OBey the gospel, and the moment they do they are made free from sin and become servants of righteousness. 

 

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to OBey, his servants ye are to whom ye OBey; whether of sin unto death, or of OBedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have OBeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

 

Calvinism falsely teaches that unregenerated men are slaves to their sinful nature, and therefore can only choose against Jesus Christ. But this scripture shows that these Romans who "were the servants of sin" have OBeyed from the heart the gospel. Game over. 

 

In fact, it is only AFTER believing that these "servants of sin" being THEN made free from sin "became" the servants of righteousness. 

 

No Calvinist will even attempt to answer this scripture because they KNOW it refutes their false doctrine. 

 

You have to fight with the sword, which is the word of God. 

[Alimantado]

God uses all his words properly, and your presenting a sophist argument therefore I will not play with you (see underlined). 

 

I don't want to know a person like John Calvin words I want to know God's words, for his words are true, are whole, are just, are pure and they teach the simple.

 

I do not want to know John Calvin's, your's or any other man's doctrines.  I want to know the doctrines of God.

 

Like I said go read the article I linked too and you will see they got the word meanings wrong.

 

In a discussion about Calvinism I do want to know what Calvinists are saying, and that's what I'm seeking to do. If you don't want to have that conversation that's absolutely fine--simply don't take part in the discussion. Don't read my posts and don't reply to them. You talk as if I've accosted you with this discussion when in actual fact it's you that's started talking to me.

[Alimantado]

The biblical definition is the final authority yet before we can get to the point of zeroing in on the biblical definition of a word or term, we need to know the starting position of whoever we are talking with; whether they be a Calvinist, Muslim, Mormon or the Baptist sitting next to you in the pew.

 

Once we know their definition of a word or term we can KNOW what they are trying to say when using that word or term. At that point we can determine if their definition is biblically correct, partially correct, wholly wrong, or just way out there. At which point we can attempt to help them see the difference (if any) between their definition and what we see Scripture saying.

 

Without a common point of reference (both parties understanding what the other is trying to say) there will be no meaningful discussion.

 

As several have pointed out above, not all who fall into the category of Calvinists share the same definitions or views on various words and terms. It does one no good to argue a point that doesn't even fit with the one we are speaking with.

 

What Alimantado has been trying to get at is a basic point of good communication. This applies across the board whether in a debate, conducting diplomacy, sharing the Gospel or having a simple conversation.

[Winman]

In a discussion about Calvinism I do want to know what Calvinists are saying, and that's what I'm seeking to do. If you don't want to have that conversation that's absolutely fine--simply don't take part in the discussion. Don't read my posts and don't reply to them. You talk as if I've accosted you with this discussion when in actual fact it's you that's started talking to me.

You could go to a Reformed site like Monergism dot com and type in "regeneration". They came up with 325 articles on the subject. I am sure they all define regeneration the same exact way. 

 

Here is the first on the list;

 

General Information

Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so that he/she can respond to God in Faith, and live in accordance with His Will (Matt. 19:28; John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5). It extends to the whole nature of man, altering his governing disposition, illuminating his mind, freeing his will, and renewing his nature.

 

Hang on to your hat, here comes the "Advanced Information". 

 

Regeneration

 

Advanced Information

The word Regeneration is only found in Matt. 19:28 and Titus 3:5. This word literally means a "new birth." The Greek word so rendered (palingenesia) is used by classical writers with reference to the changes produced by the return of spring. In Matt. 19:28 the word is equivalent to the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21). In Titus 3:5 it denotes that change of heart elsewhere spoken of as a passing from death to life (1 John 3:14); becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17); being born again (John 3:5); a renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:2); a resurrection from the dead (Eph. 2:6); a being quickened (2:1, 5).

 

This change is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. It originates not with man but with God (John 1:12, 13; 1 John 2:29; 5:1, 4). As to the nature of the change, it consists in the implanting of a new principle or disposition in the soul; the impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature "dead in trespasses and sins." The necessity of such a change is emphatically affirmed in Scripture (John 3: 3; Rom. 7:18; 8:7-9; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; 4:21-24).

 

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

 

Note that this advanced information says that regeneration is the "impartation of spiritual life to those who are by nature dead in trespasses and sins"

 

The prOBlem here is that we are justified by faith, nOBody is spiritually alive until they believe. Unless you believe you will die in your sins. 

 

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

Calvinism teaches that you must be imparted spiritual life to have the ability to believe, but Jesus said you must believe or you will die in your sins. 

 

Calvinism says the exact opposite of scripture. 

[AVBibleBeliever]

In a discussion about Calvinism I do want to know what Calvinists are saying, and that's what I'm seeking to do. If you don't want to have that conversation that's absolutely fine--simply don't take part in the discussion. Don't read my posts and don't reply to them. You talk as if I've accosted you with this discussion when in actual fact it's you that's started talking to me.

to discuss doctrines of men and their words is like taking a long walk on a very short bridge.  It leads to no where.  Calvinism is wrong and a serious study of the TULIP in light of true scriptures prove it so.  Wasting time in such fruitless battle over words does not make you a mature Christian, it does make you like the rest of the world, who are arguing over many secular topics on numerous forums throughout the Internet.  Like when people use Sophist reasonings (as pointed out above) to try and lure people into fruitless discourse over such nonsense as OBama's Administration, The Right vs Left, or on Christian sites arguing over un-biblically sound beliefs, all of that that is of this world and not from above.

 

Fact, Calvinism used 80 verses to prove it is correct and they are out of context and have meanings God did not intend but man put on them to support their personal private interpretation.

 

The article I linked you too has 800 verse that prove it is wrong and every word is in context and that article makes for sound doctrine unlike Calvinism.

 

If you are serous about knowing about Calvinism just go read the article. At the end it also has a chapter on the un-biblical attitude and character of John Calvin.

 

I have as much right to post in this thread as you especially on such nonsense as I have read over the last 8 pages.