Calvinism Refuted

[heymikey80]

So far, in this discussion at least, regeneration has been discussed. There has not yet been a study of the connection or sequence of repentance/regeneration. What are you referring to when you say, 'done'?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=51214379#post51214379

Or do you find faith to be after repentance ...?

 

[archierieus]

As pointed out, you're working with a palin prefix, though, which does talk in different terms from what John / Jesus used. The root itself makes for some semantic problems in Greek, that it becomes hard to tell the difference between "birth" and "genetic kind" in Greek at this point.

So the term may well be an "already/not yet" term, connected with Jesus' use of the term "eternal life" to carry through both the present life and into the Resurrection. But Titus 3 as a punctiliar past operation wouldn't argue well for that meaning, either.

Yes, that is my thinking also. And while at this point it is not a particularly strong case, still IMO there are enough markers showing similarity with the event described in Jn. 3 to make a case for it.

It then comes down to a special use of a term, which wouldn't apply elsewhere in Scripture. It's probably unlikely that "regeneration" would appear outside religious texts too. Maybe myths? I'm unsure where else its breadth could be measured.

I am too lazy right now to break out Kittel from the boxes in the garage. Shooting from the hip lol. But that would be a place to start. BAGD is helpful too, need to dig into that. Procrastination tonight.

Its use in Mt 19:28 would point out it's not going to be a small enough footprint of meaning to sustain a case for precedence. If regeneration can be entirely future and entirely past, we're not going to get any strong conclusions for time precedence from this word.

Agreed grammatically, must go to context.

Well, I'd agree it's past, without reference to how long it took. I'd say it's sustained that the regeneration was completed, yes (though some would dispute even that, I think usage at this point handles that pretty well by default). But as Mt 19 also states, a regeneration is future.

παλιγγενεσίᾳ dative singular feminine. One of those times when context can be especially helpful. Clearly, in Titus, as you have noted, regeneration as mentioned there has been completed. The regeneration in Mt. 19 is indeed future, more along the lines of restoration to the original.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=51214379#post51214379

Or do you find faith to be after repentance ...?

Well, we have just established in Jn. 3 that regeneration, born again pertains to baptism by water and the Holy Spirit, and have tentatively linked Titus 3 to that. The Scriptural reference to new birth/regeneration pertains to baptism. Which comes first according to Scripture, repentance or being born again and baptism? As for the post you linked to, I did not see an exegetical connection between Ezek. 11:19 and Rom. 10:10. I see reference to 'new heart' in Ezek., and reference to 'heart' in Rom. 10, but that does not establish that believing means having been born again or regenerated. I also note your ref. to 1 Jn. 5:1, but take that in conjunction with Lk. 3, Jn. 3, Acts 2, Acts 3 etc. where repentance precedes conversion/new birth. 'Born of God' may indeed parallel Jn. 1, 'as many as received Him (reached out to take hold of Him) to them gave He power to become sons of God, even those who believed on His name . . .' A person is convicted by the Spirit of sin, repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior and is baptized. 'Repent and be baptized,' 'whoso believes and is baptized shall be saved.'

Dave

 

[archierieus]

It is late, and at my advanced age I tend to tire sooner. So I will post a couple of passages connecting repentance with baptism/new birth/regeneration:

Luke 3:3, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins
Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized
Acts 3:19 repent and be converted
Romans 6:1 - 7, which I will quote here:

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Let's start with those. So far, it appears that repentance precedes new birth/conversion/baptism.

Summarizing to this point, then:

1) Repentance
2) Conversion/New Birth/Baptism

We need to also identify the place of belief. Is belief before or after repentance, etc.?



Dave

 

[Hammster]

Well, we have just established in Jn. 3 that regeneration, born again pertains to baptism by water and the Holy Spirit, and have tentatively linked Titus 3 to that. The Scriptural reference to new birth/regeneration pertains to baptism. Which comes first according to Scripture, repentance or being born again and baptism? As for the post you linked to, I did not see an exegetical connection between Ezek. 11:19 and Rom. 10:10. I see reference to 'new heart' in Ezek., and reference to 'heart' in Rom. 10, but that does not establish that believing means having been born again or regenerated. I also note your ref. to 1 Jn. 5:1, but take that in conjunction with Lk. 3, Jn. 3, Acts 2, Acts 3 etc. where repentance precedes conversion/new birth. 'Born of God' may indeed parallel Jn. 1, 'as many as received Him (reached out to take hold of Him) to them gave He power to become sons of God, even those who believed on His name . . .' A person is convicted by the Spirit of sin, repents of sin, accepts Jesus as Savior and is baptized. 'Repent and be baptized,' 'whoso believes and is baptized shall be saved.'



Dave

There is no baptism in John 3, at least not in the sense you seem to mean.

"Truly truly I say unto you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."


That is a huge jump, and takes reading into the text something that just ain't there, to get water baptism out of that.

And same goes for the Titus passage. No mention or hint of baptism.

So I would disagree that we have established this fact.

 

[MamaZ]

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

So in this you beleive that to be born again one must be baptised? Is this safe to state? That Batpsim of water is needed to be born again?

 

[Benefactor]

Agreed, if they are teaching truth. But what bugs me about a lot of these guys is what I consider, if not outright dishonesty, at least misleading tactics. Amen to that That is, quoting Scripture passages, then running away from their content, going beyond the content, yet with no 'marker,' no disclaimer, no separation of their own opinions from Scripture. THAT I find offensive. I could give you fifty examples from the articles linked to on this thread.

I wonder if the pressure to sell books has anything to do with some of the misleading tactics. No response solicited in this statement. The discussion at this point is on track and where it should be.

And I believe that some have the calling of sorting through teachings and distinguishing Scripture from statements of opinion or error. I don't see that as my personal calling. I want to stick with the infallible Word of God. But I covet peer review, and have frequently made the appeal to rip my work product apart. I welcome it in the cause of finding truth.

Dave

.

 

[MamaZ]

Being born again is not of baptsim of water. Baptism is not even mentioned in John when Jesus tells Niccodemus one must be born again.

 

[Hammster]

.

Great point Bene. I love how you worded that...another It is all very clear to me now. ;-)

 

[Hismessenger]

Look at the book of Ezekiel in the story of the dry bones. Something for you to take note of is that the bones have no choices of their own to make. Everything which happens to them is by the authority of God. Everything which they become is by the direction of God through Ezekiel. Shall the dry bones live. God is the giver of all life and being. So with this in mind, what thought can you have that God is not the author of.

How does a script writer write His script. The characters have no knowledge of what he intends for them to do and be. Do you think it a coincidence that our lives are the same way? We don't know what God has in store for us but if we yield to His leading, our lives will be in accordance with His will and purpose for Us.

God did not create a purpose for us but rather created us for a purpose, His purpose. In saying that, it must be acknowledged that in order to fulfill that purpose, their must be direction in order to bring about that which is purposed. God is that director for those who understand.

hismessenger

 

[Hammster]

So in this you beleive that to be born again one must be baptised? Is this safe to state? That Batpsim of water is needed to be born again?

I sues if one can get water baptism out of John 3, it wouldn't bee too much of a stretch to get speaking in tongues as a sign of salvation. After all, Jesus and Nicodemus spoke a language that I can't speak, yet I understand them completely.

(I just do this stuff to make myself laugh)

 

[Hammster]

I wonder how what Archie's supporters think about his baptism statement and will remain quiet?

 

[JDS]

JDS, I have a question, but first let me preface it by saying that I am not a Calvinist. However, I firmly believe in Election.

We hear a lot about the Eternal Now of God, it is beyond comprehension and for me a truth that causes me great comfort. For me Absolute Knowledge equals Absolute Eternal Security which is Absolute Election based upon me freely accepting the Grace of God. My free choice of His Grace is Absolute because what God knows will come to pass, must come to pass. It makes you want to shout, glory and I do not jokingly say that.

Now, I don't know if you believe in Election and actually I don't have to know, but I was wondering if you do believe in Election and if so in what manner?

I view election from the model of God electing those He foresaw believe, and we know the Calvinist don't, knowing new there.

I will go one step further: In my "Correct Model" a little needling there, the one called CURE, God sees me in Christ. Man can feely believe the Truth of their dispensation and be saved, for us it is the Gospel of Christ. My election is in Christ and the only way for me to be in Christ is to believe in Him. God saw that and because He exist in the eternal NOW and He does not have His hands tied behind his back he can have any kind of plan that does not violate His Holiness. Therefore, if He planned to elect on the basis of foreseen faith, he can, and that is exactly what He does.

That's it. You see Calvinist and Arminians think they are right but in the end they will be told that CURED is correct. In the mean time we debate and I have to say I have enjoyed reading the post.

I do believe in election. It is a biblical doctrine, but I believe election according to the foreknowledge of God is a NT doctrine, a church doctrine, if you will. I believe election is not fundamentally about salvation from sin and I think the Calvinists can not make a case for their view from scripture that God has arbitraily chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world while being true to context and applying a single rule of interpretation for their argument. If they could, I would believe it because I am about believing what God says.

I will tell you, because this thread is about refuting Calvinism, that the reformed have a skewed view of the church of Jesus Christ, particularly those who believe in replacement theology. If they begin with the premise that most of of the prophetic proclamations of God that cannot be proven to have already been fulfilled literally are therefore allegorical and the truths found in them subjective in their system of theology, how can they understand doctrines that must be studied and applied objectively, such as the doctrine of election. Jesus said this:

Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

These Jews had already made up their minds as to what kind of Messiah they would accept and the evidence presented about Jesus had no ability to change them.

One who has a consistent and literal method of interpretation can understand biblical election because they believe the texts no matter how they feel about them. One who is governed by this rule can be corrected because the words are more important than presuppositions.

I am out of time, Church time now, but I will give you how I arrive at my view on election later.

 

[MamaZ]

replacement theory?

 

[Hammster]

replacement theory?

Remember, JDS doesn't know anything about Calvinism except that he doesn't like it.

 

[Hammster]

I do believe in election. It is a biblical doctrine, but I believe election according to the foreknowledge of God is a NT doctrine, a church doctrine, if you will. I believe election is not fundamentally about salvation from sin and I think the Calvinists can not make a case for their view from scripture that God has arbitraily chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world while being true to context and applying a single rule of interpretation for their argument. If they could, I would believe it because I am about believing what God says.



I will tell you, because this thread is about refuting Calvinism, that the reformed have a skewed view of the church of Jesus Christ, particularly those who believe in replacement theology. If they begin with the premise that most of of the prophetic proclamations of God that cannot be proven to have already been fulfilled literally are therefore allegorical and the truths found in them subjective in their system of theology, how can they understand doctrines that must be studied and applied objectively, such as the doctrine of election. Jesus said this:



Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?



These Jews had already made up their minds as to what kind of Messiah they would accept and the evidence presented about Jesus had no ability to change them.



One who has a consistent and literal method of interpretation can understand biblical election because they believe the texts no matter how they feel about them. One who is governed by this rule can be corrected because the words are more important than presuppositions.



I am out of time, Church time now, but I will give you how I arrive at my view on election later.

And yet, not a single refutation to be found on our view ef election.

 

[MamaZ]

Remember, JDS doesn't know anything about Calvinism except that he doesn't like it.

Oh ya..

 

[Benefactor]

So in this you beleive that to be born again one must be baptised? Is this safe to state? That Batpsim of water is needed to be born again?

This is not new but lets look again: John 3:3-7 use these words, v3-born from above (gennhqh anwqen)

Nicodemus: respons by refering to human birth verse 4

Jesus now responds, in verse, 5 different from 3. Verse 3 did not use "Water" but as we see water and spirit are used here.(udatoV) and (pneumatoV). (of water and of spirit)


Jesus states inverse 6, as I see it, that "born of water" is the same as "having been born of the flesh flesh is" verse 7, followed by the same reasoning concerning the spirit birth "having been born of the spirit spirit is"

It is not difficult to see "born from above" the same as "born of spirit", but can be as sure that water and flesh mean natural birth.

verse 5(apekriqh o ihsouV amhn amhn legw soitean mh tiV gennhqh ex udatoV kai pneumatoV ou dunatai eiselqein eiV thn basileian tou qeou)



verse 6(to gegennhmenon ek thV sarkoV sarx estin kai to gegennhmenon ek tou pneumatoV pneuma estin)

Now this is something I believe we need to consider: Notice that verse 7 returns to the same statement as verse three.

Verse 7(mh qaumashV oti eipon soi dei umaV gennhqhnai anwqen)



For me these verses (immediate context) support the view that "water" and "flesh" are synonymous in meaning or referring to natural birth. Some posit that "water" refers to "the word" but in saying this takes us outside the immediate context. Can anyone make a case that water and flesh have no relationship in these verses? Is there any solid reason why one should not see them as meaning natural birth?

 

[Hammster]

This is not new but lets look again: John 3:3-7 use these words, v3-born from above (gennhqh anwqen)



Nicodemus: respons by refering to human birth verse 4



Jesus now responds, in verse, 5 different from 3. Verse 3 did not use "Water" but as we see water and spirit are used here.(udatoV) and (pneumatoV). (of water and of spirit)





Jesus states inverse 6, as I see it, that "born of water" is the same as "having been born of the flesh flesh is" verse 7, followed by the same reasoning concerning the spirit birth "having been born of the spirit spirit is"



It is not difficult to see "born from above" the same as "born of spirit", but can be as sure that water and flesh mean natural birth.



verse 5(apekriqh o ihsouV amhn amhn legw soitean mh tiV gennhqh ex udatoV kai pneumatoV ou dunatai eiselqein eiV thn basileian tou qeou)







verse 6(to gegennhmenon ek thV sarkoV sarx estin kai to gegennhmenon ek tou pneumatoV pneuma estin)



Now this is something I believe we need to consider: Notice that verse 7 returns to the same statement as verse three.



Verse 7(mh qaumashV oti eipon soi dei umaV gennhqhnai anwqen)







For me these verses (immediate context) support the view that "water" and "flesh" are synonymous in meaning or referring to natural birth. Some posit that "water" refers to "the word" but in saying this takes us outside the immediate context. Can anyone make a case that water and flesh have no relationship in these verses? Is there any solid reason why one should not see them as meaning natural birth?

Yep.

In the OT (Jesus' bible. And Nicodemus', too) there are references to water and Spirit are together indicating the pouring out of God's Spirit.

A good argument could be made that Ezekiel 36:25-27 is in reference here because Jesus comment on Nick's not understanding what He was talking about. So one way or another there must be some connection to the OT.

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

"Replacement Theory" is the dispensationalists way of referring to, and at the same time insulting Covenant theology.

What they fail to grasp is that there is no "replacement" of one covenant by the other, or of the Israel by Gentiles.

Rather there is continuation and inclusion.

But if they call it "replacement" they can poison the well.