John Calvin Had It All Wrong

[Winman]

Hi Calvary. Since you say I haven't studied the writings of 'actual Calvinists' enough to understand their teachings, I'll lay out what I have done in the interests of sharing. About seven years ago, before I was saved, and when I first learned there was such a thing as Calvinism (the Baptist church I was being taken to by a friend was reformed and I did not know it until I read their declaration), I decided to read up on it. I found out about Institutes and knew that I would never get through it, so I did a bit of searching on the net for books that Calvinists themselves were recommending and the title that came up again and again was Loraine Boettner's 1932 book Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. So I bought it and I read it. And after I read it, I tested it by looking on the net to see what other Calvinists were saying about reformed theology and for the most part I found that the book agreed with what they were saying.
 
I believe the way I summarised reformed teaching on free will in my earlier post is consistent with what Boettner says about it and what I've OBserved others who say they are Calvinist claim. Example from Boettner:
 
"...we believe that, without destroying or impairing the free agency of men, God can exercise over them a particular providence and work in them through His Holy Spirit so that they will come to Christ and persevere in His service. We believe further that none have this will and desire except those whom God has previously made willing and desirous; and that He gives this will and desire to none but his own elect."
 
Example from the Westminster Confession:
 
"All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace."
 
Now I just googled the three paragraphs you quoted above and the first two contain within those same paragraphs an affirmation that man is brought to a state where he freely chooses God (and it is all from one writing). Here are the ends of the first two paragraphs you quoted:
 
1. "He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."
 
2. "A dead person is lifeless and not able to do anything. If you wish to move a dead person without any assistance, from one end of a place to another you must drag him. That is exactly what the Holy Spirit has to do to sinners to bring them to salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates the unregenerate by turning a spiritually dead will that is in rebellion against God to one that is spiritually alive and willingly accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord."
 
So I think the way I've defined Calvinist teaching on free will is consistent with one of the major reformed confessions, with a work that Calvinists 'on the ground' recommend (example) as a staple on the subject, and with the source you yourself decided to use in this discussion.

 

Yes, Calvinism teaches that the sinner is free to choose, but he will always chose according to his nature, and thus will always choose against God. Calvinism also teaches that God regenerates the sinner so that he "most freely" chooses Jesus. 

 

The prOBlem is that scripture easily refutes that a sinner is unable to trust Jesus. 

 

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.

 

In Romans 6:16 Paul shows that men have the ability to "yield" themselves "whether" (option) of sin unto death "or" (option) of OBedience to righteousness, both sin and righteousness being personified here. This utterly refutes Total Inability. 

 

This is further proven in verses 17 and 18. In verse 17 Paul says these Romans "were" the servants of sin, nevertheless they OBedyed the form of doctrine delivered them (the gospel). Verse 18 says "Being THEN" made free from sin, ye "became" the servants of righteousness. 

 

Again, this scripture utterly refutes the T of TULIP. This scripture directly says men who were slaves of sin OBeyed the gospel, and that AFTER OBeying the gospel they were THEN made free from sin and became servants of righteousness. 

 

Total Inability is absolutely false doctrine easily refuted directly by scripture. 

[Alimantado]

That´s what I said, brother, I did not say that you don´t understand them on your own. I am stating that my understanding of classic reformed theoloigy is right on the money.

Well if you're 'on the money' and I'm saying you’re wrong, then clearly I don't understand them on my own do I? Both can't be true at the same time. For what it’s worth I wasn't trying to imply you were belittling me in any way, nor do I think that, and I'm really enjoying our exchange.
 

You still seem to backpeddle a bit on what the true classic reformed doctrine teaches. Irresisitble grace is not a softening of the heart, a breaking down of the defenses of man´s free will

As to the charge of backpedalling, here is my very first sentence to you:

"Every explanation I've ever read of Calvinism specifically addresses this OBjection and says that what happens is that a man's inclinations are changed so that he freely chooses Christ and has no desire to do otherwise, not that his free will is removed."

Here's the second para of my last post:

"I would argue that you mischaracterise the Calvinist position in point (2). They claim that 'therefore' the drawing of the Holy Spirit changes man's inclinations so that he now freely chooses God, not that he ends up with no free will."

How has my position changed?

Now you've twice tried to say that I ascribe to Calvinism this idea of a gentle yielding or 'softening of the heart', as opposed to the 'overthrowing' that you speak of, as if I'm trying to characterise irresistible as resistible. But I've nowhere said this. What I've said is that Calvinists claim that the 'overthrowing' is of a man's inclinations and desires, not his ability to make choices. Now if you want to argue 'so what's the difference?' then we're onto point [C] in my previous post.
 

- it is fact clearly bleieved by reformed theologians to be exactly what I presented it to be - a complete overpowering of the will, by a precursor regeneration that elads to salvation - a process that the BIble nowhere teaches, nieher by verse nor example.

 

On the contrary, I think that this claim of yours is undermined by the numerous quotes I've provided of Calvinists stating that God's overthrowing of a man's desires doesn't violate his free will. If you want to argue that this is logically inconsistent, fine, or if you want to argue that anyways neither position is supported by scripture, fine too! But right now we're talking about what Calvinists claim about their own beliefs.
 

Let´s try John Piper -
The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

That’s exactly what calvinism teaches. God´s grace is imposed upon the sinner as it is apparent that he has no free will to do the right thing, due to TOTAL DEPÄVITY. - in fact one cannot discuss the TULIP points or 5 pillars of reformed theology without crossing over the lines of each tenant as they all stand together or all fall by one being removed.

 

I agree that we need to cross-reference the five points to discuss them in detail and I'd go further and say that we need to discuss all of what Calvinists say about each of the five points. Calvinists very clearly state that they don't believe man's free will is negated by irresistible grace. That needs acknowledging in order to give Calvinism a fair hearing, even if it is only to argue that the claim is logically inconsistent with the other beliefs held.
 

Again, John Piper -
Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures

John Piper understands classic calvinism perfectly and he presetns the truest sense of the meaning of Irresistible grace - a grace that negates the free will of man, thereby requiring a "willing spirit" to be forced upon the unwilling reciepient of God´s grace. Irresisitible grace is only true oif (and I say IF) Total depravity is true, as defined by calvinism.

 

Providing more sources isn't going to help if we haven't dealt with the ones we have so far and it is my contention that you are selectively quoting Calvinists' words and not directly dealing with some of what they say. All I'm doing is acknowledging that Calvinists claim that free will isn't negated when God ‘regenerates’ a man by changing his character/inclinations, directly resulting in his choosing God--it's plainly OBvious that they claim this, as shown in the quotes I've already provided.
 

The previous aticle I quoted, (and there really is no need to quote endless sources, that site is succint in rpesenting the clearest definition of reformed doctrine) continues to say, -

 

The reason I provided one other source was because you tried to claim that I hadn't studied the writings of actual Calvinists sufficiently to question your claims. I was responding to that charge by being open about the extent of my studies.

Plus, it’s not as if I’m responding to you by just providing quotes of my own and never responding to yours—that would be talking past one another and is something that annoys me too. On the contrary, I've examined your quotes and directly responded by including the bits I feel you need to acknowledge—i.e. that Calvisists claim that free will is left intact while inclinations are wholly changed.
 

The Apostle John speaks of those for whom some would make the claim were drawn and yet refused this offer of grace. He says of them in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." As this passage indicates, one can appear to be a Christian, to be "of us," and not actually be as he seems. What is the one thing we learn from this passage? It is that genuinely born again people, drawn to Christ by the Father, never fall away. They remain. But those who refuse God's grace by turning from Him, no matter how authentic they may have appeared, prove that they were never truly born again to begin with.

Again, the IG cannot stand upon its own merits as it is dependent upon the "perserverance of the saints" (and that does not mean once saved always saved for a minute)
Exactly as the TD must have IG to lean upon, the PofS must be an outcropping of the IG, and on it goes., The 5 pillars are inter dependent, take one away, it all crumbles as the man made doctrine it is.

 

Agreed, but nothing to do with what we are discussing, which is what do Calvinists specifically say about irresistible grace? Do they claim that free will is preserved when it occurs? Yes they do, even in your own source.
 

Your further quote of a source I presented does nothing to diminish the reality of the theological clap trap that the reformed doctrines comprise. It solidifies the nonsense.

 

No, but what those quotes do is refute (i.m.o) your original claim that Calvinists believe free will is eradicated by irresistible grace; that Calvinists do not claim this has been my point all along.

 

Sorry for the long post

 

Carl

[Alimantado]

Yes, Calvinism teaches that the sinner is free to choose, but he will always chose according to his nature, and thus will always choose against God. Calvinism also teaches that God regenerates the sinner so that he "most freely" chooses Jesus.

Ok, Winman. That's what Calvinism claims, according to you and me. But Calvary denies that Calvinism includes the bit I've highlighted, and that's what I've been arguing with him about.
 

The prOBlem is that scripture easily refutes that a sinner is unable to trust Jesus. 
 
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.
 
In Romans 6:16 Paul shows that men have the ability to "yield" themselves "whether" (option) of sin unto death "or" (option) of OBedience to righteousness, both sin and righteousness being personified here. This utterly refutes Total Inability. 
 
This is further proven in verses 17 and 18. In verse 17 Paul says these Romans "were" the servants of sin, nevertheless they OBedyed the form of doctrine delivered them (the gospel). Verse 18 says "Being THEN" made free from sin, ye "became" the servants of righteousness. 
 
Again, this scripture utterly refutes the T of TULIP. This scripture directly says men who were slaves of sin OBeyed the gospel, and that AFTER OBeying the gospel they were THEN made free from sin and became servants of righteousness. 
 
Total Inability is absolutely false doctrine easily refuted directly by scripture.

I deny total inability, though I wouldn't have been able to refute it scripturally so precisely as you have done there.

Btw, thanks for your other very enlightening response. I'll try to respond ASAP, hopefully this week.

[DaveW]

You have to be careful of the doublespeak.
They claim that man's freewill is preserved but deny that man can go against the will the will of God. That is what irresistible grace means......
It can not be resisted......

This is a roundabout that they spin endlessly on, going round and round using different meanings to make each of two opposing concept "fit" when they simply don't.

Secondly, in dealing with total depravity, they rest on an illustration (which is a dangerous thing - illustrations support concepts, they do not establish them) of a dead man being unable to do anything.

The prOBlem is that this use of the illustration - which someone has posted in this thread - is an incorrect use age and an over application of the illustration.

In a Biblical sense a dead man can indeed do things - for instance:
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

A saved person is "dead to sin" and yet;
1 John 1:8  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

So although the Bible says we are dead to sin, yet we do still sin.
How is this possible if to be dead means that you are incapable of doing anything?

These passages tell us that even though we are dead to sin, we are still capable of sinning.

The Biblical usage of death goes against the application of the illustration of death to mean total inability.

In every conversation I have personally had face to face with any Calvinist about these issues they always fall back onto this illustration as to why a man must be made alive before he can believe.
But it is a false premise based upon an unbiblical application of an illustration.

[Winman]

Ok, Winman. That's what Calvinism claims, according to you and me. But Calvary denies that Calvinism includes the bit I've highlighted, and that's what I've been arguing with him about.
 

I deny total inability, though I wouldn't have been able to refute it scripturally so precisely as you have done there.

Btw, thanks for your other very enlightening response. I'll try to respond ASAP, hopefully this week.

Sorry, I am not familiar with your argument yet. 

 

Different Calvinists say different things. The WCF says men "most freely" accept Christ and that God does not violate man's free will.

 

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

 

On the opposite end, R.C. Sproul has written of "the holy rape of the soul" in the past. That absolutely sounds like FORCE to me. 

 

So, it is hard to nail Calvinists down, they say many contradictory things. One Calvinist might believe quite different from another, and you will always be accused of misrepresenting Calvinism, even if you quote their creeds or teachers verbatim. 

[heartstrings]

Yes!

 

 

John 5:25

 

It doesn't say they dead shall be made alive, before they hear: It says the dead shall hear the voice of the son of God.

 

Lazarus was dead when he heard the voice of Jesus; the same, majestic, powerful voice of Psalm 29.

[Alimantado]

Sorry, I am not familiar with your argument yet. 

 

Different Calvinists say different things. The WCF says men "most freely" accept Christ and that God does not violate man's free will.

 

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

 

On the opposite end, R.C. Sproul has written of "the holy rape of the soul" in the past. That absolutely sounds like FORCE to me. 

 

So, it is hard to nail Calvinists down, they say many contradictory things. One Calvinist might believe quite different from another, and you will always be accused of misrepresenting Calvinism, even if you quote their creeds or teachers verbatim. 

 

My 'argument' has only been that every Calvinist writing I've read affirms what you've just highlighted from WCF and that therefore if we want to talk about what Calvinists claim about free will, that needs dealing with.

 

Sure there will be a range of views from Calvinists--nothing news there--but we can always focus on the most common. It's not as if I've just set my wits about me looking for a source that claims to be Calvinist but says something different to that of most other Calvinists so that I can play 'gotcha' with folk.

[John81]

I'm not sure how, or if, this fits into the current conversation, but I just came across this quote online.

 

"At the heart of Reformed theology this axiom resounds: Regeneration precedes faith." R.C. Sproul

[LindaR]

I'm not sure how, or if, this fits into the current conversation, but I just came across this quote online.

 

"At the heart of Reformed theology this axiom resounds: Regeneration precedes faith." R.C. Sproul

If regeneration precedes faith, then this would make faith unnecessary since the person would already be saved. If a person is regenerated, then he is born of God, a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life. If you are a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life, then you are already saved. So what need is there for faith?

 

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?|Calvinism's Other Side

[Alimantado]

If regeneration precedes faith, then this would make faith unnecessary since the person would already be saved. If a person is regenerated, then he is born of God, a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life. If you are a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life, then you are already saved. So what need is there for faith?

 

What does RC Sproul mean when he uses the word 'regeneration'? If his interpretation of that word isn't the same as the one you've just given in bold, then your argument (and the whole article you linked to) relies on equivocation.

[Winman]

I'm not sure how, or if, this fits into the current conversation, but I just came across this quote online.

 

"At the heart of Reformed theology this axiom resounds: Regeneration precedes faith." R.C. Sproul

Yes, Calvinism insists that regeneration precedes faith. Calvinism believes unregenerated man is UNABLE to believe. They teach that a man must be made spiritually alive before he can believe, repent, or even will to come to Jesus. 

 

The prOBlem with this view is that until you believe you are DEAD IN SIN. No one can be spiritually alive until AFTER they believe. All scripture supports that a person must first believe before they are made spiritually alive. 

 

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

John 20:31 says you must believe to have life, as do many other famous verses like John 3:16.

 

Calvinism will use many proof texts to support their view that regeneration precedes faith. One famous such verse is John 3:3;

 

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

Calvinists will say unless you are regenerated (born again) you cannot "see" the kingdom of God. They interpret the word "see" to mean "understand". Calvinists will teach that an unregenerated man cannot possibly understand the gospel. They also use 1 Cor 2:14 as a proof text for this view. 

 

But John 3:3 does not say one word about believing or faith.

 

Another favorite passage Calvinists love to quote is Eph 2:1-5;

 

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disOBedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

 

Calvinists will say, "See, you had to be regenerated, you had to be quickened, because you were dead in sin before you could believe"

 

But does this passage mention faith? NOPE. Calvinists simply read that into scripture when it is not there. They will also misinterpret verses 8 and 9 to say that faith is a gift from God, and that unless God regenerates you , you could not possibly believe. 

 

There are a few other verses Calvinism misinterprets to support their false view that regeneration precedes faith, but they are easily refuted. 

 

The word regenerated literally means to be made "alive" "again" as Jesus said in Luke chapter 15 twice.

 

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

 

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

 

When the prodigal son repented, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. This is why I personally do not believe the doctrine of Original Sin that teaches we are born dead in sin. If we are all born dead in sin, then it would not be possible to say we are alive AGAIN, but that is exactly what Jesus said twice. 

 

And that is the literal meaning of "regeneration" to be made alive AGAIN.

[LindaR]

What does RC Sproul mean when he uses the word 'regeneration'? If his interpretation of that word isn't the same as the one you've just given in bold, then your argument (and the whole article you linked to) relies on equivocation.

Regeneration means born again; given new life; spiritually renewed.  Sinners are regenerated when they trust Jesus Christ (Titus 3:5).

 

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

Instead of making assumptions about what R. C. Sproul means by the word "regeneration....why don't you read the entire article?  I just posted a small portion of it.

 

Are we "born again before we are born again"?  No reliance on equivocation.

[Alimantado]

Instead of making assumptions about what R. C. Sproul means by the word "regeneration....why don't you read the entire article?  I just posted a small portion of it.

 

I've not made any assumptions about what RC Sproul means. You've commented on his quote and provided a definition of regeneration which you've presumed in your argument is the one Sproul is using. Your definition of regeneration is synonymous with 'saved', so I'm asking if Calvinists like Sproul mean 'saved' when they say 'regenerated'.

[DaveW]

What does RC Sproul mean when he uses the word 'regeneration'? If his interpretation of that word isn't the same as the one you've just given in bold, then your argument (and the whole article you linked to) relies on equivocation.

That was exactly my point a few posts ago.
Redefinition of words....

But you should do a study on regeneration and see what the Bible says as bout it.

That is where our definitions should come from.

[Alimantado]

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.