Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
Nor did I say you did say anything about anti-Calvinists.I said nothing of anti-Calvinists. So obviously you didn't read my post.
Obviously you misread my post.
Upvote
0
Nor did I say you did say anything about anti-Calvinists.I said nothing of anti-Calvinists. So obviously you didn't read my post.
Then don't quote my posts if you aren't saying anything about it. Goodbye.Nor did I say you did say anything about anti-Calvinists.
Obviously you misread my post.
As I said, and you dodged or ignored, is that v.45 explains v.44. It's only those who have listened and learned from the Father that come to Jesus. It explained it all.Jesus clearly told us that all those given to the Son by the Father are drawn to the Son by the Father and that they will come to the Son. Jesus said it was guaranteed and I believe what Jesus said.
Then why do Calvinists insist that depraved people MUST be regenerated in order to believe? Seems you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.Men are created in the image of God and are able to make intelligent choices. God does not take that ability away simply by giving them a nature which however strongly tends toward making the right choice.
I'm not talking about Adam. I'm talking about everyone else. Born with a sin nature. Again, why do Calvinists insist that depraved people must be regenerated in order to believe?Adam (or anyone else) was free to choose right or free to choose wrong.
No one needs an "ability" to sin. That's just silly. Saying "no" to a command doesn't take an ability. It's a decision, not an ability. I think Calvinism confuses the two.God gave Adam the ability to sin. But He did not "make" Adam sin.
What does "only relative" mean? Natural man is free to believe or reject. Again, it's a decision, not an ability.By the way - Calvinist routinely say that, for the natural man, "freedom to believe" is only relative. You should read some Luther on that. You probably have.
Sure. To be regenerated is the same thing as being born again, and is about the new birth. All biblical words. Specifically, I believe that Adam's being created in the image of God means that just as God is Triune, man has 3 parts: body, soul, and spirit. God's warning to Adam and the woman about eating of the forbidden fruit was this: "in the DAY that you eat of it you shall die". Notice that neither Adam nor the woman fell physically dead that day.1st - please define what you believe "regeneration" means concisely and in what context you are using it.
Marvin said: Receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit and being sealed for eternity by Him is received because of faith.
Do you believe that Calvinists teach that the Holy Spirit opening of the heart of a man or woman is the same as permanently indwelling and sealing them? If so you are wrong.
Did.Define regeneration concisely.
I sure hope not. Because they aren't done before believing.Are you assuming that either Calvinists or I think that permanent indwelling and sealing by the Holy Spirit are done before believing?
I never even suggested such an idea. My point is that based on reformed doctrine that God chooses who will be saved unconditionally by regenerating the chosen ones so they can believe is what would be unfair of God.Men are without excuse for their sin as we are clearly told. You seem to think that God is somehow to be faulted or that it is not fair of God that man was placed under a curse after the fall and that the wrath of God is being revealed in this present age through the abandonment of sinners to more sin - including the sin of unbelief. You need to revisit the first part of Romans on that.
This is true, so I'm still confused why Calvinists believe that depraved man must be regenerated in order to believe.All men receive sufficient illumination of truth so that they are without excuse.
I never said anything about what happened to Paul as being unfair.God's giving some men more illumination (as He did for a sinner like Paul on the road to Damascus and a sinner like me on my bed in Sandy, Oregon) isn't unfair as you charge.
I would have thought that you'd have this salvation by grace part down by now.
But I will say that you need to say more clearly that "it seems to me that Calvinist beliefs amount to" rather than simply say what they are. You, like so many others here, misrepresent their beliefs.
Well, I've asked some explanatory questions for you to answer. Hopefully, you'll answer them and clear up the confusion I seem to have.
God knows you misunderstand mine.
I never said anything about what happened to Paul as being unfair.
I won't play word games with you.If you don't see the unfairness in that, I guess there's no use in further discussion.
I haven't played any word games.I won't play word games with you.
Again, I never said anything about what happened to Paul was "unfair".The fact is that Paul received illumination that others did not.
You want proof that regeneration FOLLOWS faith in Christ? Of course not, but I'll provide it anyway, from Ephesians 2.Call it "enlightening". Call it "opening his heart" as Luke does of Lydia in Acts. Call it "regeneration" as the Calvinists do. Call it "drawing" as both the Lord and I do.
Nonsense. God has revealed Himself to everyone, per Rom 1;19,20. It's up to everyone to respond to that.Call it anything your group wants to call it. It is a special revealing to those who will believe that not everyone on earth receives.
My comments are directed at the WHOLE Calvinist doctrine of election.You have consistently told me that such special treatment for one person and not for another would give that later person a legitimate complaint concerning salvation come judgment day.
My problems with reformed theology is that they cannot provide any verses that support their TULIP claims.You've made it clear that that's your problem with Reformed theology.
Rom 1:19,20 PROVES that God has already done that for every sinner.You obviously think that God owes every sinner exactly the same amount of enlightenment or drawing or opening of the heart or regeneration.
I've proven my view from Scripture. And I never said that God owes us anything. However, Rom 1:19,20 proves that no one has any excuse because God HAS revealed Himself to everyone.You are wrong. God owes us nothing.
Look, everyone deserves hell. No question about it. But since God has revealed Himself to everyone, no one has any excuse for going there.It is perfectly just of God to extend special grace (call it what you want to call it) to some who are guilty enough to go to Hell and withhold such special treatment from others who are equally guilty enough to go to Hell.
Nonsense. Regeration is being born again, the new birth. I play no word games.You can play word games about the meaning of regeneration all you want.
I've never said otherwise. What I've done is show what Scripture says, which is different than what Calvinism says.Do it with someone else. The fact is that God is perfectly just to do anything He deems proper to any guilty sinner.
[Staff edit].You are wrong to conflate the term regeneration with being born again. You are wrong even if most post Christians commit the same error.
I've said it before to you and I'll say it again here.
As natural generation is not the same as natural birth - spiritual regeneration is not the same as being born again spiritually.
Yep. Just more word games.Being born (or born again) is the "result" of life being given not life itself being given.
This is just weird.Jesus used the specific illustration and term for a reason. When you conflate the generation of life with birth - you, like the abortionist, fail to see that life begins in the secret places sometime before birth - not at birth as you and the abortionists claim.
Certainly Jesus made none, but the Calvinists have made many.Jesus made no such mistake and neither do I.
What or who causes one sinner to have faith and another to not have faith?
Calvinism has it exactly as you stated. No Calvinist would tell you that election and the process of drawing a person to Christ is salvation. It is, instead, just that - a preccess that leads up to faith in the Word of God which is in turn the vehicle for being born again and starting our new life in the Kingdom of God upon the reception of the gospel truth .Salvation IS conditioned on faith in Christ. Calvinism has it exactly backwards.
God has not done for every sinner what He does for another. Not every sinner on earth has or will receive a blinding visit from the Lord and hear His audible voice proclaiming the truth of the gospel.Rom 1:19,20 PROVES that God has already done that for every sinner.
That's the problem. You are so bent on refuting all of Calvinism that you won't receive even what is right in Calvinist thinking.My comments are directed at the WHOLE Calvinist doctrine of election.
Of course. Every Calvinist believes and teaches that salvation comes through faith.The words "through faith" clearly state that faith precedes salvation.
Again - the word regeneration is perhaps misplaced by Calvinists when referring to the drawing process. I know that it is with you when referring to being born again.But, the Calvinist way of thinking seems to be "you have believed through regeneration".
Your reasoning is circular. You set up a straw man and kick him around and think no one will notice.Further, there is zero evidence in Scripture that a regenerated person (has been made alive) isn't saved, or a saved person isn't regenerated (born again). So, they go together, at the exact same time. One does NOT follow the other.
No - the first phrase merely illustrates the truth of the last phrase.You want proof that regeneration FOLLOWS faith in Christ? Of course not, but I'll provide it anyway, from Ephesians 2.
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
The last phrase, in red, explains the first phrase, also in red. iow, to be "made alive" is synonymous with "you have been saved". There's no other way to explain why Paul added the last phrase to his sentence.
As they say in the Geico commercials - everyone knows that.we know from many many Scriptures that salvation IS CONDITIONED on faith in Christ.
The U in TULIP refers to election not to salvation.So the "U" in TULIP is rendered null and void by that FACT.
You have repeated stressed that every man has received the same enlightenment and that is why they are without excuse. It is perfectly true that every man has received enough enlightenment that he is without excuse. It does not follow logically that therefore no man receives more enlightenment than others. Paul is merely an inescapable example of that from the scriptures.Again, I never said anything about what happened to Paul was "unfair".
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.I said:
"I never said anything about what happened to Paul as being unfair.
If you don't see the unfairness in that, I guess there's no use in further discussion."
Of course. I understand it's theology, and have shown why it's unbiblical.Calvinism has it exactly as you stated.
What? If election or choice isn't about being chosen, elected for salvation, then just what are "the elect" chosen FOR? Please explain.No Calvinist would tell you that election and the process of drawing a person to Christ is salvation.
Oh, so it's just a choice by God that leads "up to faith". Which is, of course, nothing other than salvation.It is, instead, just that - a preccess that leads up to faith in the Word of God which is in turn the vehicle for being born again and starting our new life in the Kingdom of God upon the reception of the gospel truth .
Rom 1:19,20 says otherwise.God has not done for every sinner what He does for another.
Do you really understand what Jesus even said to Paul on that dusty road? It WAS about election, but what was the subject? What was Jesus electing Paul FOR?Not every sinner on earth has or will receive a blinding visit from the Lord and hear His audible voice proclaiming the truth of the gospel.
If Paul is an example, sounds as if ALL the select, elect have been personally visited by Jesus in a blinding light. Are you kidding?!Paul is a simple example from the scriptures of the special grace that is given to the elect above and beyond what is given to those who are not among the elect
That's the problem.
Hardly. I know that Calvinists do understand the good news that Christ is the Son of God, died for all sins, and saves those who believe in Him for it. However, then they get into the weeds in their confusion over election, etc.You are so bent on refuting all of Calvinism that you won't receive even what is right in Calvinist thinking.
I have. But election ain't one of them.I don't receive all that Calvinists teach. In fact I openly speak against it - particularly concerning limited atonement. But I receive what is obviously correct and so should you.
Yet, all 5 pointers believe that election is to salvation. And from that, the obvious conclusion is that election is being chosen to believe.Every Calvinist believes and teaches that salvation comes through faith.
No it isn't. We are a "new creation" or "new creature" per 2 Cor 5:17 by means of regeneration. It's also called the new birth.Again - the word regeneration is perhaps misplaced by Calvinists when referring to the drawing process. I know that it is with you when referring to being born again.
Your reasoning is circular. You set up a straw man and kick him around and think no one will notice.
There is nothing "circular" in my post. Can you prove that regeneration and salvation are separate issues and a person can be one without the other? Please answer, and we'll see whether my statement is circular.
Either they go together or they can be separated. You tell me.
It isn't obvious. That's just a reformed talking point; one that can't be shown from Scripture. It's a construct only.The drawing, enlightening, opening the heart of, goading by the Holy Spirit - or whatever you want to call it obviously comes before being born again by believing the gospel.
You've proven nothing from Scripture that supports your claims.The word regeneration is only used a couple of times in the scriptures and yet it is assumed by both sides that it applies to a particular thing that they hold to.
God created Adam trichotomous, just as God is Triune. That is what is meant by "in the image of God". When Adam rebelled, he literally died "on that day", but the death wasn't physical; it was spiritual. His human spirit is what died. That's why everyone born physically is spiritually dead. Their human nature is dead, non-functional. That's why they need to be born again. Their human spirit needs to be born again, a new birth, a regeneration. Which makes the believer a new creature/creation.
Jesus told the Samaritan woman that those who worship God "must worship Him in spirit and in truth". I am convinced He was speaking of having a living functioning human spirit in order to worship God.
So, to be born again, or to be regenerated, all of which is the new birth, is literally the dead human spirit being regenerated so that the believer can worship God according to God's plan.
If true, please cite the verses and explain what the word should be translated.It is even translated wrongly "born again" in some translations of the book of Titus.
You've agreed with me then. The last phrase is equal to the first phrase. Thanks.No - the first phrase merely illustrates the truth of the last phrase.
All elections are FOR something. You need to explain for what purpose God chooses people.The U in TULIP refers to election not to salvation.
I've never used your word "enlightenment". I have used the biblical words found in nRom 1:19,20, which SAYS that no one has any excuse.You have repeated stressed that every man has received the same enlightenment and that is why they are without excuse.
I never even suggested such.It is perfectly true that every man has received enough enlightenment that he is without excuse. It does not follow logically that therefore no man receives more enlightenment than others.
Those who pay attention to God's teaching, will come to Christ, per John 6:45.
"It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."
iow, everyone has been taught, per Rom 1:19,20, but only those who responded to the teaching will come to Christ.
He is an example of what election is about, sure. But why do you keep bringing Paul up when I NEVER said anything about unfairness in regard to him?Paul is merely an inescapable example of that from the scriptures.
I never said anything about UNFAIRNESS concerning Paul's election.Don't play games by telling me you did not refer to Paul or that his case isn't pertinent to the special grace Calvinists talk about in the doctrine of unconditional election.
But you seem unwilling to explain to what Paul was chosen for.
I said:
"I never said anything about what happened to Paul as being unfair.
If you don't see the unfairness in that, I guess there's no use in further discussion."
The words are clear enough. btw, each sentence was in a different context, and in your post, you conflated them together as if they were said together. Slick.I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.
Did Jesus meet you on some dusty road and blind you for 3 days?But Paul's special enlightenment above and beyond that enlightenment extended to most other men is not unfair - it is grace pure and simple.
It's all clear from Rom 1:19,20 and John 6:45 about who comes to Jesus.All men who come to Christ do so by similar if different acts of grace used by the Father to draw them to the Son.
Do you think I believe that election is not about salvation? Where did you get that?What? If election or choice isn't about being chosen, elected for salvation, then just what are "the elect" chosen FOR? Please explain.
Leading up to faith is not salvation. Faith in the gospel is salvation.Oh, so it's just a choice by God that leads "up to faith". Which is, of course, nothing other than salvation..... So, still playing word games, I see.
What has God's enlightenment of all men have to do with His further enlightenment of the elect?Rom 1:19,20 says otherwise.
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
All the red words lead up to the conclusion of the last 6 red words.
This was done for everyone. Not just a select, elect few.
It doesn't matter if Paul was being elected to be the most prolific apostle in the writing of the scriptures or whether he was being elected to be the head janitor at Joel Osteen's church. It's immaterial to the discussion at hand.Do you really understand what Jesus even said to Paul on that dusty road? It WAS about election, but what was the subject? What was Jesus electing Paul FOR?
Of course - what's your point?Yet, all 5 pointers believe that election is to salvation. And from that, the obvious conclusion is that election is being chosen to believe.
Your logic is flawed. You are also continuing with the teaching that birth is generation. It is not."Further, there is zero evidence in Scripture that a regenerated person (has been made alive) isn't saved, or a saved person isn't regenerated (born again). So, they go together, at the exact same time. One does NOT follow the other."
Well, that's my point. You DO believe that election IS about being chosen for salvation. And don't forget that the "U" in TULIP means Unconditional election, meaning there are no conditions upon which God chooses who to save.Do you think I believe that election is not about salvation? Where did you get that?
I was using your own words, about "leading up to faith". And I never said leading up to fatih is salvation, but you can't deny that "leading up to faith" IS "leading up to salvation", so you'are still playing word games.Leading up to faith is not salvation. Faith in the gospel is salvation.
It gets their attention as to the FACT of who God is and that He exists, and that they should be thankful to Him.What has God's enlightenment of all men have to do with His further enlightenment of the elect?
Actually, it's the very essence of the discussion. It's about WHAT election is really about.It doesn't matter if Paul was being elected to be the most prolific apostle in the writing of the scriptures or whether he was being elected to be the head janitor at Joel Osteen's church. It's immaterial to the discussion at hand.
Did you get this special visitation by God? How many of your Calvinist friends got this special visitation by God?Paul did not believe. In fact he hated the gospel and all it stood for. Paul was saved through a special visitation by God that the non elect do not get.
Of course I understand the discussion. And I reject your so-called special revelation. The matter is real simple. God has revealed Himself and His divine attributes. Those who pay attention (Rom 1:19,20), listen and learn (John 6:45) are drawn to Christ.It was not "unfair" of God to give Paul that special revelation and it is not fair that He gives all of the elect special revelation in order to save them - while passing many others by.
My point is that election is not to salvation. And you can't provide any verse that says that it is.Of course - what's your point?
You keep missing my point. Show me any example of anyone in Scripture who was either regenerated but not saved, or saved but not regenerated.Your logic is flawed. You are also continuing with the teaching that birth is generation. It is not.
Well, we then disagree. Then explain the difference between the "new birth" and regeneration, since you see them as so different.I will say one more time since you seem to have missed it the first time. I do not believe that what the Calvinists label as regeneration is an instantaneous one time event. I believe it is a process that can include anything from conviction leading to kicking against the goads for a time to an appearance on the road to Damascus.
Can you explain what specifically has been born again?However I do believe that being born again is a well defined one time event and the vehicle for that rebirth is the Word of God just as Peter tells us.
Look - I have said that I look at the regeneration sequence as a process and not necessarily as a one time spark of life as Calvinists seem to want to present it.You keep missing my point. Show me any example of anyone in Scripture who was either regenerated but not saved, or saved but not regenerated.
[Staff edit].Election itself has to do with whom the Lord will enlighten enough to bring him to that place of salvation through faith.
"Who" is God - the author of our faith.What or who causes one sinner to have faith and another to not have faith?
The biblical answer to Phoebe Ann's question is whether a person has listened and learned" from God, per Jesus in John 6:45 - It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."Who" is God - the author of our faith.
"What" is the drawing of some guilty people to the Son by the Father - and His opening their hearts in a way that is not universally experienced by the guilty people of this world.
This Calvinistic explanation has God saving some by mercy, yet justly passing others by.Salvation for the elect of God is by grace through a faith brought about by an act or acts of a merciful God - even as He justly passes others by with such merciful acts above and beyond His previously administered universal enlightenment to the guilty people of this world.
Not exactly. This statement from above is incorrect. Let's look at Eph 1:4 -"Salvation for the elect of God"
In fact, there are NO verses in Scripture that say that anyone is elected to salvation. There are many verses that clearly indicate that election is to service, which was clearly laid out in post #54.We know that such special extended grace for His elect is the case because of the testimony of Jesus and the many examples in the scriptures.
The question of why God only chooses to save some when He could have well saved all is a question to be addressed to God when we meet Him face to face and to be posed alike by Calvinists, Arminians, cultists, and whatever you are calling yourself these days. The question is not just for Calvinists to struggle with.the question that Calvinists cannot answer is why God would save some by "mercy", yet be "justified" in passing others by.
It is that simple. That's why all manner of evangelicals including Calvinists know it and preach it.The answer is simple. In God's plan of salvation of mankind, He determined that all who place their faith/trust in Christ for salvation WILL be saved. It's that simple.
There were no believers in Him for Him to choose before the foundation of the world when His choice was made.So, there you have it. God "chose believers in Him...to be holy and blameless".
Choosing someone who will eventually fall into sin to acceptably serve God in this life or for eternity in His presence includes choosing them to receive His forgiveness through the justification process. Which process includes drawing them, opening their hearts, and justifying them through their belief on Christ.In fact, there are NO verses in Scripture that say that anyone is elected to salvation. There are many verses that clearly indicate that election is to service
No one needs to struggle with why God chooses to save some and not all. The Bible tells us clearly why He saves anyone.The question of why God only chooses to save some when He could have well saved all is a question to be addressed to God when we meet Him face to face and to be posed alike by Calvinists, Arminians, cultists, and whatever you are calling yourself these days. The question is not just for Calvinists to struggle with.
Oh, you mean God isn't omniscient? C'mon, mon. He could easily choose before the foundation of the world to save everyone who believes. Which is what the verse says anyway. I proved that the "us" are believers.There were no believers in Him to choose before the foundation of the world when His choice was made.
Eph 1:4 says clearly that He chooses believers to be holy and blameless. This isn't about getting saved, but living a life that is holy and blameless.Choosing someone who will eventually fall into sin to acceptably serve God in this life or for eternity in His presence includes choosing them to receive His forgiveness through the justification process. Which process includes drawing them, opening their hearts, and justifying them through their belief on Christ.
No - He could easily choose before the foundation of the world those who will believe. Enough with your silly word games.He could easily choose before the foundation of the world to save everyone who believes.
Silly words games, huh? So, how's "save everyone who believes" different than "those who will believe"??No - He could easily choose before the foundation of the world those who will believe. Enough with your silly word games.
I never said otherwise.There was - before the foundation of the world - absolutely NO chance that everything God knew would occur would not indeed occur.
Actually, not. The error from Calvinism is to equate sovereignty with omniscience. Or worse, elevate God's sovereignty over His other attributes. They are all equal. Not some being "more equal" than others.The doctrine of the omniscience of God demands the doctrine that all things which occur in history were predestined to occur from before the foundation of the world.
No, it doesn't. Where do you get your ideas? God's omnipresence means that God is present everywhere. That doesn't "demand" anything. Beyond His being everywhere.The omnipresence of the God in whom we have our being demands that God act in particular ways or nothing will occur in His creation
What is this "aseity of God" doctrine? Never heard of it.The doctrine of the aseity of God shows that God is not constrained to act in any way He does not choose to act.
Said by whom? If in Scripture, please provide the verse address.He is, therefore, said to be the One Who predestines all things.
Right. Basic Calvinism 101.This is all rather basic stuff.
Well, how have I bashed your theology? By asking for verses that actually say what Calvinism claims? That's not bashing in any sense.It seems that you've either missed it in your deliberations or perhaps just set it on the shelf while you bash some straw men.