John Calvin Had It All Wrong

[Alimantado]

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.

Actually it supports my point: if they are applying their own definitions to standard theologial terms then the only way to understand them is to learn their definitions. Now will this work if a person is constantly redefining their terms? No it won't, as you've pointed out and as I've already acknowledged.
 

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.

I've already agreed that if a person is using words in a non-standard or unBiblical way then that reflects poorly on them. But that's got nothing to do with trying to understand what they are saying.
 

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.

Therefore to get what they do mean when they say they are saved, you must apply their own definition to their own words.
 

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.

So then establish that their own meaning is different to the Biblical one and expose it. But if they don't mean the same thing you mean when they say 'regeneration', there's no point proceeding as if they do, which is what Linda was doing and is what I responded to.

[Alimantado]

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. 

 

Yeah, but there's a context here, Winman, which is that I brought this whole point up in response to Linda, who was arguing that because Calvinists must mean salvation when they say 'regeneration', that therefore they are being logically inconsistent by saying it precedes salvation, since a thing can't precede itself.

 

If they do mean salvation when they say regeneration, then Linda has picked up on a formal fallacy in Calvinistic reasoning, but if they don't then that argument is wrong, even if Calvinists are nevertheless wrong about regeneration and salvation for a plethora of other reasons. You have given many Biblical refutations so far that I've agreed with, and I agree with the ones in your latest post too.

[DaveW]

They define regeneration as God making a person alive so that they may then believe and be saved.

But the established biblical definition of regeneration is salvation.

They are not separate things.

I have had many such discussions with Calvinists who say they are separate but they happen so close together that they can not be distinguished.
This is the doublespeak that I mentioned before.
They define them as different but say they are the same.

If the meaning of a term is already established and someone changes that meaning they do so because they have an agenda.
The agenda of the Calvinist is to allow them to force the making alive from the dead a separate matter to salvation so that they can twist Scripture to avoid answering the question of the basis of salvation.
The Calvinist says a man must be regenerated by God before he can believe and be saved.
The Bible says:
Eph 2
 8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Saved by faith.
Now you can try to understand all you like what the calvinist means by regeneration, but the fact is that he redefines regeneration away from the biblical definition for the purpose fitting his total depravity and unconditional election in between a supposed two step salvation which does not exist in the Bible.

[Alimantado]

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....if you are serous about knowing about Calvinism just go read the article....

 

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.

 

The points you are making to me are self-refuting, AVBB. I've said I'm trying to understand Calvinists' own arguments. You respond by telling me that's a waste of time, but then in the very next sentence you start talking about doing a 'serious study of TULIP in the light of true scriptures'. You are talking about doing a compare and contrast, but how is that possible without reading what Calvinists say? You said in your last post that you didn't want to know what John Calvin or any man was saying, but then you invite me to read an article about Calvinism.

[Winman]

Yeah, but there's a context here, Winman, which is that I brought this whole point up in response to Linda, who was arguing that because Calvinists must mean salvation when they say 'regeneration', that therefore they are being logically inconsistent by saying it precedes salvation, since a thing can't precede itself.

 

If they do mean salvation when they say regeneration, then Linda has picked up on a formal fallacy in Calvinistic reasoning, but if they don't then that argument is wrong, even if Calvinists are nevertheless wrong about regeneration and salvation for a plethora of other reasons. You have given many Biblical refutations so far that I've agreed with, and I agree with the ones in your latest post too.

No two Calvinists are alike. Spurgeon said that regeneration and salvation were one and the same, others like Sproul say that regeneration is not the same thing as salvation. 

 

Nevertheless, almost all Calvinists will insist that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe, so that would be the best definition, a change in disposition that allows a person who was once contrary to the gospel to accept and believe it. 

 

The prOBlem is, Calvinists insist that regeneration means spiritual "life" which is impossible before faith. Until you believe you are "dead in sins". No person can have spiritual life until AFTER they first believe. 

 

Calvinism is not biblical, plain and simple. 

[Alimantado]

No two Calvinists are alike. Spurgeon said that regeneration and salvation were one and the same, others like Sproul say that regeneration is not the same thing as salvation. 

 

Nevertheless, almost all Calvinists will insist that a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe, so that would be the best definition, a change in disposition that allows a person who was once contrary to the gospel to accept and believe it. 

 

The prOBlem is, Calvinists insist that regeneration means spiritual "life" which is impossible before faith. Until you believe you are "dead in sins". No person can have spiritual life until AFTER they first believe. 

 

Calvinism is not biblical, plain and simple. 

 

As for the 'no two Calvinists are alike', I've already responded to you and acknowledged that point in post 127. If Calvinism is so Chamelionic that there is nothing distinguishable about it other than a name that people sometimes call themselves, then there isn't anything to discuss--no 'TULIP', nothing. But if it does have some distinctives, and I think it does and it looks like you do too, then we might discuss those, and the existence of someone somewhere who claims to be a Calvinist but doesn't hold to a given distinctive can be put to one side in favour of the majority view.

 

As to the other points, I think I've already said, multiple times, including in the post you quoted, that I also believe Calvinism is not Biblical. The particular OBjection to it that you raise this time, which I also agree with, is not the same as Linda's, which is what I responding to.

[LindaR]

Alimantado...

 

Did you read that entire article?  If not, please don't make assumptions about my OBjections, of which you have no clue. 

 

Here is more from that same link....it's a quote from R. C. Sproul himself:
 

R. C. Sproul believes that regeneration precedes faith. But in spite of his doctrine, he once wrote the following: "Once Luther grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn" (R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, 1993 edition, p. 144). He must have written these words in haste because to be consistent with his theology he should have said it this way: "Once Luther was reborn, he grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans."

 

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?|Calvinism's Other Side

Please read the article before making anymore hasty assumptions about my OBjections.

[Alimantado]

Alimantado...

 

Did you read that entire article?  If not, please don't make assumptions about my OBjections, of which you have no clue. 

 

Yeah I did. But even if I didn't, you've still clearly laid out an OBjection in your original post--you've given premises and a conclusion. I've summarised it several times in responses to others, so if you think I've misunderstood it and you want to help me understand it then by all means quote where I've summarised it (post 152, for example) and show me where I'm going wrong. That would be more helpful than a fly-by one-liner telling me I'm clueless.

 

Edited to add: Linda has since altered her own post above so that it is no longer literally one line. Even so, I have read the article. The quoted bit doesn't help as it assumes that Sproul means reborn/saved when he says regeneration; it doesn't show it. That's not a prOBlem for the article since it doesn't major on Sproul but it doesn't help me with the question I asked about one of Linda's premises.

[AVBibleBeliever]

The points you are making to me are self-refuting, AVBB. I've said I'm trying to understand Calvinists' own arguments. You respond by telling me that's a waste of time, but then in the very next sentence you start talking about doing a 'serious study of TULIP in the light of true scriptures'. You are talking about doing a compare and contrast, but how is that possible without reading what Calvinists say? You said in your last post that you didn't want to know what John Calvin or any man was saying, but then you invite me to read an article about Calvinism.

Understand the word and you will understand what is false and refute it but to clash over it as you are here is a Waste of time.

 

I pointed you to a TULIP study but you as far as I know have not read it.  Oh so what, I am a hypocrite because I point you to where you want to go.  I said I want to know the Bible and God not Calvin or you. I have numerous times read and have studied it out to see that the writer is true to the word of God.  However, I have only read the last chapter of the article about John Calvin once.  You know a man best by his actions not his words.

 

I spent the first five years out of Bible college reading and refuting what Calvinist teach.  But of course you knew that already because you are gifted with insight on where each of us are at in our personal walk.  I found I wasted my time because those who hold to it will not let go unless God moves in their hearts as a believer.  and if they are not a true believer then they will continue in it because they can be saved without Faith, the own Will, and by a grace that is not Biblical.

 

You are the one who wants to know ALL you can about Calvinist.  And I am telling you don't waste your time and this thread really has been nothing but back and forth with semantics, sophisims and allegories.  These are called babblings and unfruitful questionings which we are not to participate in it.

[John81]

Why does it seem everyone is missing the very simple point Alimantado is trying to make?

 

The entire point is simply knowing what the person we are talking with is actually trying to say. If we simply go by an assumption, if we happen to be right with this person the conversation may go well but if we happen to be wrong then the potential for a good conversation is likely ruined.

 

Alimantado isn't arguing for or against any particular aspect of Calvinism; only that we need to know where the person we are talking with is coming from, what they mean when they use a particular word or phrase, so we can best know how to proceed in talking with them.

[Alimantado]

I spent the first five years out of Bible college reading and refuting what Calvinist teach.  But of course you knew that already because you are gifted with insight on where each of us are at in our personal walk.

 

AVBB, you make a sarcastic comment here about me apparently presuming to know where each of us are in our walk with God, yet the only one of us two who has been making statements about another's walk is you about me, in post 150. As for the article, everyone's got their own article that they insist everyone else reads--so far I've read Linda's and dipped into Calvary's so it's not as if I'm not trying. I will try to get to yours.

[LindaR]

Why does it seem everyone is missing the very simple point Alimantado is trying to make?

 

The entire point is simply knowing what the person we are talking with is actually trying to say. If we simply go by an assumption, if we happen to be right with this person the conversation may go well but if we happen to be wrong then the potential for a good conversation is likely ruined.

 

Alimantado isn't arguing for or against any particular aspect of Calvinism; only that we need to know where the person we are talking with is coming from, what they mean when they use a particular word or phrase, so we can best know how to proceed in talking with them.

If Alimantado would read that entire article he would not have to try so hard to understand what R. C. Sproul believes about regeneration.  But instead, he made a very hasty assumption about what I quoted...and then bolded a portion of my post that I guess he was trying to emphasize. 

If he isn't arguing, why is he jumping all over me about a simple quote without reading the context of the article himself?

[Alimantado]

First, I have read it. You asked me if I've read it and I've confirmed that I have. Second, what I did was ask a question about one of your premises, not make an assumption about it. And I don't think I'm jumping all over you. If someone makes an argument, even inviting others to comment by phrasing it as a question, then what's wrong with examining that argument, including testing the premises? It's just a discussion.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

T.U.L.I.P. is a lie that originated with the devil and believed by people who are easily deceived.

[Alimantado]

I think this discussion is turning into more heat than light so I'm going to bow out at this point. Thanks in particular to Calvary, Dave and Winman for some enlightening points. Winman, sorry I've not been able to respond to your much >earlier post about evanescent grace--really enjoyed it though as I didn't know anything about this aspect of Calvinism.

 

Ta