Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

John Calvin Had It All Wrong


Calvary

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

:goodpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :icon_confused:

 

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. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.  :icon_confused:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...