Calvinism Refuted

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Yeah, I asked that, too. I guess if you just sum up what someone else said, that's okay. BUT DON'T QUOTE THEM.

Evidently we must reinvent the wheel every time we approach a doctrinal locus.

It is entirely inadequate to cite the example of someone who has already done the work and reference their labors.

But even so, I find the very idea that these are "man's ideas" and therefore somehow disqualified repugnant.

Theology is faith seeking understanding. It is a dialogue with revelation.

 

[Benefactor]

Did Esau have free will to either eat and give up his birthright or not to?

If I may posit the following:

Lets ask the writer of Hebrews what we should believe about Esau. OK

15. See to it that no

• one comes short of the grace of God;
• that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it any be defiled;
• 16. that {there be} no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a {single} meal. 17. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

Three separate issues but the third is the one we are interested in:

Readers are warned to be sure they are not like Esau who:

1. sold his birthright for a meal
2. was rejected because he did not repent
3. by which we are told that his sorrow was not form a contrite heart. His weeping was of regret not from repentance. Repentance was not found in him.





So what do we have here?

• We have a man who is a sinner committing sin
• We have a man who's sin was called immoral and godless
• We have a man who despised his birth right on the grounds of on the spot greed
• We have a man whose sorrow was over regret of a stupid act verse godly repentance.

What does all this mean?

First, God saw every detail of Esau's life but his sinful acts and good works, if he had any, were not the reason for rejection.

Second, we learn that Esau freely did what he did but we know also that bad or good acts have no standing with God so were is the dividing line between Jacob and Esau. It is from the heart that recognizes ones sin and repents. Esau knew he was a sinner but he did not have a contrite heart and repent.

God is not going to elect anyone of whom He foresees that will never repent. God sees all who will, having heard the truth, and those that would if they were presented with the truth, and on that basis provides a witness.

All who would shall.

All who will do.

Message, Conviction, Repent, Believe, Regeneration, Rapture is next if you don't kick the bucket first before the Rapture.

 

[archierieus]

lol

Come now what are we doing here if not unpacking Scripture and using human words and human reason to form an intelligible argument?

What is the difference between what Turretin did in the link I gave and what you do every day here?

If the issue is Scriptural support for a doctrine, then speaking for myself, I would make every effort to limit it to Scripture and any exegetical issues. The place to start is the Scriptures. It certainly is well to comment and discuss the Scriptures presented, the focus is still the Scriptures. I have seen too many position statements, over the years, which start with a position statement and include Scriptures. That is quite backwards IMO. Can you cite here one or two key Scriptures in support of what you said earlier?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All who will do.

Message, Conviction, Repent, Believe, Regeneration, Rapture is next if you don't kick the bucket first before the Rapture.

LLOJ pops in.......

I do not believe in a future "rapture"

LLOJ pops back out.......

 

[Hammster]

Evidently we must reinvent the wheel every time we approach a doctrinal locus.



It is entirely inadequate to cite the example of someone who has already done the work and reference their labors.



But even so, I find the very idea that these are "man's ideas" and therefore somehow disqualified repugnant.



Theology is faith seeking understanding. It is a dialogue with revelation.

I am with you, Brother. Mike quoted Calvin and Archie gave that same response. I guess he never reads anything, nor attends church where there is preaching.

I, personally, like the idea of standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[archierieus]

Yeah, I asked that, too. I guess if you just sum up what someone else said, that's okay. BUT DON'T QUOTE THEM.

Best, most accurate, to list the Scriptures and let them speak for themselves as far as possible. Issues in understanding what those Scriptures are saying are important to address, no question about it.

 

[Benefactor]

LLOJ pops in.......

I do not believe in a future "rapture"

LLOJ pops back out.......

To bad because we get to partake regardless

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

If the issue is Scriptural support for a doctrine, then speaking for myself, I would make every effort to limit it to Scripture and any exegetical issues. The place to start is the Scriptures. It certainly is well to comment and discuss the Scriptures presented, the focus is still the Scriptures. I have seen too many position statements, over the years, which start with a position statement and include Scriptures. That is quite backwards IMO. Can you cite here one or two key Scriptures in support of what you said earlier?

No, Archie, no, I can't. Or rather, I could, but you've demonstrated that, like JDS, you're only interested in dealing with us on your terms.

Please leave this issue be.

The point is that regeneration precedes repentance and that the only way a sinner can begin to want to choose to believe is if God changes his heart. He does this by the ordinary means of hearing the Gospel preached.

 

[archierieus]

Yeah, I asked that, too. I guess if you just sum up what someone else said, that's okay. BUT DON'T QUOTE THEM.

The goal is to reduce as far as possible man's opinions and let the Scriptures speak. Whether it is a link posted, or someone's opinions posted, opinion is opinion, but Scripture is Scripture.

 

[archierieus]

No, Archie, no, I can't. Or rather, I could, but you've demonstrated that, like JDS, you're only interested in dealing with us on your terms. [/quote[

The terms I am interested in dealing with anyone on are Sola Scriptura.

The point is that regeneration precedes repentance

Scripture please. So far, this is only a statement of opinion, unsupported by Scripture. And it is different from what I have found in Scripture. But let's see the Scriptural support.

and that the only way a sinner can begin to want to choose to believe is if God changes his heart.

Once again, Scripture please.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To bad because we get to partake regardless

http://www.tektonics.org/books/leftbrvw.html

I Want to Be Left Behind

 

[Hammster]

I took a brief look at it, and noticed that it appears to be a position paper or sermon. Could you please cite the Bible references on point? I prefer Sola Scriptura.







That occurs after repentance and dying to the old life. The new heart is part of the born again experience.

Scripture please.

 

[Hammster]

Can we choose to ask God to change our nature? Steps as I understand the process:



1) Awareness of a better way;

2) Desire for a better way;

3) Repentance;

4) Acceptance of Christ and Born Again.



We cannot be born again until we have died to the old life. That entails repentance, and repentance follows awareness, desire and choice. Awareness can come through a variety of channels. Desire is awakened by God. Repentance is in response to the work of the Holy Spirit, and involves a choice by the individual. Acceptance is accomplished throuh the influence of the Spirit, but requires a choice. Dying to self involves a decision on the part of the individuual. The Birth is accomplished by God.



Dave

Scripture, please.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Okay, I changed my mind, let it never be said that I was unwilling to let Scripture speak for itself.

The calling is necessary:

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65 - And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

The calling is effectual:

Rom. 9:6-12 - But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The calling is according to His purpose:

2 Tim. 1:8-11a - Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. brought life and

The calling is irrevocable:

Rom. 11:28-29 - Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by archierieus

I took a brief look at it, and noticed that it appears to be a position paper or sermon. Could you please cite the Bible references on point? I prefer Sola Scriptura.
​

I myself prefer "Solo Scriptura"
Btw, did you see this thread on the GT board?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7353336
Was Augustine Sola Scriptura?

 

[Benefactor]

I think that it would be good to first establish where in the Bible Scripture clearly teaches that Regeneration is prerequisite to repentance.

If we could do that then we can logically move to the next item.

So far all I can find is one must believe to be regenerated but perhaps I missed something.

 

[archierieus]

I think that it would be good to first establish where in the Bible Scripture clearly teaches that Regeneration is prerequisite to repentance.

Absolutely.

So far all I can find is one must believe to be regenerated

Agreed.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Regeneration precedes faith or repentance:

Eph. 2:1-6 - And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Here is a good example of a "due and necessary inference"

Notice that before making us alive in Christ we are children of wrath and dead in trespasses and sins.

The inference is clear but I dare not draw it for you, I might be accused of soiling the clear Word of God with the "opinions of men".

So let me just ask, does it not seem clear to you that children of wrath and people dead in trespasses and sins will not repent?

But again, we are not talking about a temporal sequence here. Repentance depends logically upon regeneration for the reason that prior to regeneration the individual is a child of wrath, at enmity with God, disinclined to reconciliation, and dead in trespasses and sins.

The burden of proof would seem to be on you to show that regeneration follows repentance.

 

[archierieus]

Okay, I changed my mind, let it never be said that I was unwilling to let Scripture speak for itself.

The calling is necessary:

John 6:44 - No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

How many did Jesus say He would draw to Himself?

John 6:65 - And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

According to Jesus, to how many is it granted to come to Jesus, and on what terms?

The calling is effectual:

Rom. 9:6-12 - But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
[/quote]

This pertains to the choice of Jacob instead of Esau to receive the birthright. It so states.

The calling is according to His purpose:

2 Tim. 1:8-11a - Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do.

According to THIS SCRIPTURE, to how many is the calling offered?

The calling is irrevocable:

Rom. 11:28-29 - Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

This, once again, speaks of Israel as God's covenant people, rather than salvation. It speaks of that calling. According to Paul in this chapter, what obstacles arose to the calling being carried out?

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

We're talking about what theologians call the Ordo Salutis and it needs to be pointed out again that this "order of salvation" is logically in sequence and not necessarily temporal, it is clear that a good number of the 'steps' occur simultaneously and may even be seen as interdependent.

A good example of this is regeneration and faith, both come by hearing the Gospel preached and they accompany one another, but faith depends logically upon being born again because prior to that we do not have the wherewithal to believe, but again their agency in the salvation of the believer is immediate and ordinarily simultaneous.

But it may even be said that regeneration is the function of faith given to the believer in hearing the Gospel and vice versa as well.

And then comes repentance as the sinner, now made tender by a new awareness of sin brought about by the new birth reckons his sin as God reckons it.