John Calvin Had It All Wrong

[AVBibleBeliever]

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

that is why it is a waste of time.  I have been down the road you are now traveling.  These things can be discussed and depending on what you are trying to prove by discussing it you need to find the right Website.  I do not believe there are Calvinist here and you seem to be pro Calvinism.

[HappyChristian]

There was no jumping done, but there sure have been some assumptions made.  And wrong ones, to boot.

 

Let's get back to topic and stop making this personal.  

[Invicta]

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

 

I have never defined it as that, or believed it and I have never heard anyone mention it till someone posted it on here.

 

We believe in five solas 

• 1  Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
• 2  Sola fide ("by faith alone")
• 3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
• 4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
• 5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

[Standing Firm In Christ]

The word "regeneration" in Titus 3:5 is translated from the Greek "palengenesea.  When applied to man, as in the verse in Titus, it means... New Birth.

New Birth does not precede faith in Christ.  He that believeth not is condemned already (John 3:18)

[mkrishna]

The Calvinists associate spiritual death with physical death. However, you have to hear the word of God in order to repent and believe. According to their logic, if spiritual death is physical death, how can anyone who is dead hear the word? Also, many unbelievers understand the Gospel but reject. How can they do so according to their theology that one who is dead cannot understand the Gospel?? They would have to take the view that someone hears the word and understands it after they are saved, spiritually alive.

[Invicta]

The Calvinists associate spiritual death with physical death. However, you have to hear the word of God in order to repent and believe. According to their logic, if spiritual death is physical death, how can anyone who is dead hear the word? Also, many unbelievers understand the Gospel but reject. How can they do so according to their theology that one who is dead cannot understand the Gospel?? They would have to take the view that someone hears the word and understands it after they are saved, spiritually alive.

 

Joh 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

All will hear His voice and live. 

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

[mkrishna]

This throws out the idea that the unsaved cannot believe and repent and be saved. The Bible does not define spiritual death in these terms.

[Winman]

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

Yes, John Calvin taught that God himself sends a strong delusion meant to deceive a sinner to believe that he has true faith in Jesus and is saved, but this person will finally fall away in unbelief. Calvin taught the purpose of this deception was "the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse". Nice.

 

I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprOBate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprOBate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be OBjected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprOBate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprOBate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprOBate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprOBate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the OBjection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

 

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/calvin/bk3ch02.html

 

Nice huh? God gives some persons just enough grace to believe they are saved, but in the end he allows them to perish. In fact, God deceives these persons "better to convict them, and leave them without excuse". Nice view of God John Calvin had didn't he?? 

 

The prOBlem with trying to discuss anything with Calvinists is that they don't really say anything. Whenever they say something, they will immediately contradict themselves. They will say God ordained all things that come to pass, yet God is not the author sin. Yet, if you ask them if Ted Bundy could have been a good man and not a serial killer they will say, NO, God ordained that Ted Bundy would be a serial killer before the foundation of the world. Ted Bundy could not possibly have been a good man, he HAD to kill people, as that is what God ordained he should do. But then they will tell you God is not the author of sin. So, they constantly contradict themselves. They really say NOTHING at all. This is what DaveW meant by "doublespeak". They talk out of both sides of their mouth, you can't get anywhere with any of them. 

[mkrishna]

One of the worst heresies is God deceiving someone to make them think they are saved but are really not. Some hyper calvinists who believe non-calvinists are not saved believe this. That makes a mockery out of God, and thankfully is not the "god" I serve.

[Ukulelemike]

OFF TOPIC for a moment:

 

    I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'.  Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.

 

  I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion. 

 

Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.

 

I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?

[heartstrings]

OFF TOPIC for a moment:

 

    I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'.  Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.

 

  I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion. 

 

Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.

 

I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?

Unless they have ''reformed'', you still have a couple.

[Covenanter]

The discussion has been largely theoretical with many quotations from Calvinist sources.

 

What hasn't been considered is the practical application by Calvinists in the preaching of the Gospel. Somebody claimed Spurgeon wasn't a true Calvinist because of the message he preached. By the same standard, NONE of the calvinist preachers were "true" calvinists. That includes me - I preach Christ, & the need for repentance & faith in Christ. 

 

The point is that there are two aspects of this - God's call to sinners through the preached Gospel, & God's Holy Spirit working in the hearts of sinners, so the sinner hears, & believes and praises God his Saviour.

 

The prOBlem with this thread has been over analysis. We all have a Gospel to believe & proclaim.

[heartstrings]

Covenanter,

Was it God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel, and be saved?

[Winman]

The discussion has been largely theoretical with many quotations from Calvinist sources.

 

What hasn't been considered is the practical application by Calvinists in the preaching of the Gospel. Somebody claimed Spurgeon wasn't a true Calvinist because of the message he preached. By the same standard, NONE of the calvinist preachers were "true" calvinists. That includes me - I preach Christ, & the need for repentance & faith in Christ. 

 

The point is that there are two aspects of this - God's call to sinners through the preached Gospel, & God's Holy Spirit working in the hearts of sinners, so the sinner hears, & believes and praises God his Saviour.

 

The prOBlem with this thread has been over analysis. We all have a Gospel to believe & proclaim.

There is only one gospel, and that is Jesus died for OUR sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-4)

 

Can you look an unbeliever in the eye and tell him that Jesus died for OUR sins as Paul did?