Calvinism Refuted

[Hammster]

And where do you see that regeneration comes after repentance and forgiveness?

 

[Hammster]

And 2 Peter 3:9? You are brave to tote that one out.

 

[cygnusx1]

Acts 2:38 (NIV) Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
2 Corinthians 7:10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

Repentance first - Forgiveness of sin follows

Acts 20:21 have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Repentance first - Faith next

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forfearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Just speaks of Repentance


2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Repentance first not perish second

Mark 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins

Repentance first Forgiveness next for Mark and Luke

Luke 5:32 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins

still waiting for you to answer
"Now it's your turn to prove that repentance necessarily precedes regeneration."

 

[cygnusx1]

And where do you see that regeneration comes after repentance and forgiveness?

perhaps in haste he mistook regeneration for repentance ..... and thought none would notice ,

 

[Hammster]

still waiting for you to answer

"Now it's your turn to prove that repentance necessarily precedes regeneration."

Aw, show some grace. He did make a case for repentance then forgiveness.

 

[cygnusx1]

Aw, show some grace. He did make a case for repentance then forgiveness.

grace ? what's that ?

Does God take sides ??

 

[drstevej]

It's all instantaneous so we're debating logical order.

 

[Hammster]

I think I will go check Facebook while I am waiting for refutation.

 

[Benefactor]

still waiting for you to answer
"Now it's your turn to prove that repentance necessarily precedes regeneration."

Acts 2:38 (NIV) Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
2 Corinthians 7:10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

Repentance first - Forgiveness of sin follows

Acts 20:21 have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Repentance first - Faith next

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forfearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Just speaks of Repentance


2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Repentance first not perish second

Mark 1:4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins

Repentance first Forgiveness next for Mark and Luke

Luke 5:32 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins


4But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, 5not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

This verse teaches that salvation is by washing of regeneration and renewing of the HS. Salvation and Regeneration and renewing of the HS are companion truth and can not be separated. The verses above show that repentance is first and the previous verses teach that repentance precedes salvation. So the order is repentance, faith and then regeneration / salvation.

 

[Hammster]

It's like deja vu all over again.

 

[student ad x]

This verse teaches that salvation is by washing of regeneration and renewing of the HS. Salvation and Regeneration and renewing of the HS are companion truth and can not be separated. The verses above show that repentance is first and the previous verses teach that repentance precedes salvation. So the order is repentance, faith and then regeneration / salvation.

How do you reconcile your assumption to the fact that faith is the experiential possession of the gift of salvation by God's grace. Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

 

[archierieus]

Instead of playing this game again like you did when I asked about faith/belief, how about we use YOUR statement as a starting point and you can defend it. With Scripture. Please.

This is not a game. Your question about faith/belief puzzled me, since the same Greek word is involved. However, I have noted that Calvinists have a different set of definitions for terms I have understood in the past, so I wanted to find out what you were referring to--hence I asked you, but you did not respond. Same applies to regeneration, which I have understood for years in a particular sense, but recently found out that Calvinists have a DIFFERENT meaning for the term. Understanding terminology is important to resolving questions.

 

[Hammster]

This is not a game. Your question about faith/belief puzzled me, since the same Greek word is involved. However, I have noted that Calvinists have a different set of definitions for terms I have understood in the past, so I wanted to find out what you were referring to--hence I asked you, but you did not respond. Same applies to regeneration, which I have understood for years in a particular sense, but recently found out that Calvinists have a DIFFERENT meaning for the term. Understanding terminology is important to resolving questions.

That is why I posted your quote so you could tell us what you believe and then give support for it. So now we will wait patiently for your reply.

 

[archierieus]

Here is what I mean by 'regeneration':

3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.'

John 3:3 - 6

Greek is γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν verb, aorist passive subjunctive 3rd pers. sing.

I note a couple of points of interest about this. Grammatically, it is aorist, that is punctiliar. Also, in terms of word definitions apparently the Jewish understanding of gennhth anwthen was conversion, hence 'born again' pertains to conversion.

Paul's reference to regeneration is as follows:

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5Not by works of righteusness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Titus 3:4 - 6

Gr. λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας n., genitive singular feminine, new birth.

Paul refers to the new birth, and that of or by water and the renewal of the Holy Spirit ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου (gen. sing. fem.)

Looks to this student like a match-up. Jesus spoke in Jn. 3 of the new birth by water and the Spirit. Paul speaks in Titus 3 of the new birth by water and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. Preliminarily, it appears reasonable IMO that the new birth mentioned by Paul is the same as the new birth described by Jesus.

That would be a starting place with respect to 'regeneration.'

Dave

 

[archierieus]

But don't you realize that this is what you do every time you interpret Scripture?

You read it and you process it and you say, "this is what it means".

Couple of differences. What I and other students of Scripture are doing is analyzing a Scripture passage in terms of exegesis. The articles you linked to do two things: 1) they go beyond exegesis and 2) present a position statement as the focus, with supporting Scriptures, instead of presenting Scriptures as the focus. Those are HUGE differences.

I believe that man's state prior to the work of God in regenerating him is such that he is at enmity with God, dead in trespasses and sins and a child of wrath. I believe that this means, among other things, that he cannot turn to God and believe or repent without God first addressing him graciously. I believe that God does so in the Gospel.

Very well, that is a position statement.

I am not going to go through the bible for proof texts of this because I believe it to be taught from the text both by inference and by the whole tenor and weight of God's dealing with His people as we see it in Scripture.

Then there is no assurance of accuracy. A position statement can only be as accurate as its components, and there is no way to validate their accuracy or lack thereof.

So, if you want Scripture to prove this, I can only refer you to the whole counsel of God.

Which can mean different things to different people. This tends to confirm my earlier impression of Calvinists I have interacted with, which is that their belief system is founded primarily upon a philosophy rather than upon Scripture.

I don't believe in proof-texting.

Proof-texting is how we get differing opinions.

When we allow the Word of God to "sit on us" and we take all of it into account, then we begin to see as God sees.

The whole is only as valid as its component parts. An anchor is only as strong as its weakest link.

 

[archierieus]

For the rest, Archie, I humbly beg your pardon if I was insulting or offensive to you, I can only cite frustration as the cause.

Thank you for your kind apology, which is of course accepted. You mentioned frustration. If that is so, I suggest you might want to reflect on that frustration. Given the nature of the inquiry, ordinarily such frustration would not be anticipated, rather the questions and desire for accuracy and Biblical authenticity would be welcomed.

Dave

 

[heymikey80]

There's the rub. Therein lies the opportunity for man's teaching to adulterate Scripture. It is a generation or more removed from the pure Word of God.

I think we're all a generation or more removed from the pure Word of God. I also think these guys focus their responses back on the Word of God as delivered to their generation -- as it was also delivered to our generation.

Calvinists are indeed pointing out thoughts from Calvinistic predecessors. It's not hard to consider theological writers as seriously and Scripturally grappling with what's said. It just doesn't start by rejecting their writings on the principle that they're not Scripture.

Tossing other commentary would only be valid if your failing human study of Scripture were considered better than their failing human study of Scripture, would it not? Your neglect of them would neglect any valid comments they had about Scripture, right? And so your view would be more problematic. Essentially, a number of these writers actually carefully cross-referenced and reread their responses conforming to a number of other scholars they respected as well. Their position, being built up in this way, would end up being less problematic than yours. It would handle more pitfalls.

Granted, if an early and general error were made, that'd be quite an issue to correct. And there are likely some issues like that. But to identify those issues should be fairly easy to do -- if we know the source of the error, we could note its neglect in generation after generation of understandings. And we could still benefit from what remains, and avoid the pitfalls of one individual conclusion.

When Corinth attempted to create its own teachings and authority Paul didn't allow them to say, "We're better than they! This message originated with us, only!" The submission to this Paul's response now extends across numerous generations of people who can speak with you now from their generation. Should they be continually reformed, when problems are actually found? Sure. But they can't be neglected.

 

[Hammster]

Here is what I mean by 'regeneration':





John 3:3 - 6



Greek is γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν verb, aorist passive subjunctive 3rd pers. sing.



I note a couple of points of interest about this. Grammatically, it is aorist, that is punctiliar. Also, in terms of word definitions apparently the Jewish understanding of gennhth anwthen was conversion, hence 'born again' pertains to conversion.



Paul's reference to regeneration is as follows:





Titus 3:4 - 6



Gr. λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας n., genitive singular feminine, new birth.



Paul refers to the new birth, and that of or by water and the renewal of the Holy Spirit ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου (gen. sing. fem.)



Looks to this student like a match-up. Jesus spoke in Jn. 3 of the new birth by water and the Spirit. Paul speaks in Titus 3 of the new birth by water and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. Preliminarily, it appears reasonable IMO that the new birth mentioned by Paul is the same as the new birth described by Jesus.



That would be a starting place with respect to 'regeneration.'



Dave

As far as I am concerned, the verses you quoted will do. I have no idea what all that other explanation was. It was all Greek to me... (You know someone has to say it.)

It will help me is, when you explain what the Greek is, if you would also explain what you mean it to mean, and what you take from the tex. Also, if you think you have a different interpretation, that would be good to know.

 

[archierieus]

I think we're all a generation or more removed from the pure Word of God. I also think these guys focus their responses back on the Word of God as delivered to their generation -- as it was also delivered to our generation.

I did not find that to be the case when I scanned a number of the linked articles. If they had consisted of exegesis, for example, then I would have been interested. However, in each case I examined, the writer very noticeably had his agenda, with proof texts to support that agenda. That is not being faithful to the pure Word of God.

Tossing other commentary would only be valid if your failing human study of Scripture were considered better than their failing human study of Scripture, would it not?

Nope, apples and oranges. I would ordinarily be interested in exegesis and faithfulness to the text. But the writings I have been referred to, and which have been presented as authority, pointed to AS authority, such as John Gill, and the several Calvinist expositors, intermixed unsubstantiated opinions with Scripture, thus distorting Scripture. that is anathema to this student, totally unacceptable and I would not give such the time of day. Even if they had separated Scripture from their commentary, I could live with that, but they mixed it all together so as to give the impression of Scriptural authenticity. Absolutely unacceptable.

Your neglect of them would neglect any valid comments they had about Scripture, right?

Separate their comments from the Scripture.

Essentially, a number of these writers actually carefully cross-referenced and reread their responses conforming to a number of other scholars they respected as well. Their position, being built up in this way, would end up being less problematic than yours. It would handle more pitfalls.

Not necessarily at all. 'They respected,' that is, other scholars within the Calvinist camp. Thus self-authenticating within the Calvinists.

avoid the pitfalls of one individual conclusion.

Absolutely. Thus the importance of peer review. But peer review of honest exegesis, not Bible verses mixed with commentary and cited as color of authority.

When Corinth attempted to create its own teachings and authority Paul didn't allow them to say, "We're better than they! This message originated with us, only!" The submission to this Paul's response now extends across numerous generations of people who can speak with you now from their generation. Should they be continually reformed, when problems are actually found? Sure. But they can't be neglected.

Sounds similar to the RC position re the Church's magisterium. There are extremes both sides. As I have said before, I highly value discussion and peer review. But that pertains to Scripture, not batting opinions back and forth.

Dave

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

Thank you for your kind apology, which is of course accepted. You mentioned frustration. If that is so, I suggest you might want to reflect on that frustration. Given the nature of the inquiry, ordinarily such frustration would not be anticipated, rather the questions and desire for accuracy and Biblical authenticity would be welcomed.

Dave

Dave,

I seriously considered that.

I earnestly asked myself if the reason why I was so frustrated and, frankly, angry with you was because you were right and I was wrong.

It's not why. I was frustrated because I believed you were dodging me. See, I put a lot of thought and effort into what I write, and if I reference another person's thought it's because I have put a lot of thought and work into ascertaining that I agree with them at every point. So, to have you tritely request "scripture please" was odious to me and I was quick to assume that it was an effort on your part to avoid dealing with my argument.

Be that as it may, you have my explanation, any further requests for Scriptural support, for what amounts to proof-texting will see me referring you to the whole Bible.

But I do appreciate your kindness and forgiveness here and for my part will try very hard not to take any further irritation out on you.

Thanks,

Mike