Calvinism Refuted

[drstevej]

The fellow spent a lot of time presenting his view. Why don't you one time deal with the argument and present the truth as you see it instead of saying every one is wrong because you are right?

Your approach to these discussions is redundant and tiring!

Pot: "That Kettle is soooooo black!"

 

[Hammster]

Setting aside the idea about natural birth (which does not appear credible to this student based on the following information: 1) Jesus nowhere describes physical birth in this way, nor do other NT writers; 2) Jesus and other writers do describe physical birth in a different way, consistently; 3) the person Jesus is speaking about has already been born, Jesus is saying he must be born again; 4) The Gk. word is, as noted above, water in a stream, river, fountain) I would tentatively rule out that option, and look for other options. It would be necessary to go outside the passage IMO to find the answer.



Jesus spoke of water in a symbolic sense in a couple other places in John, identified in ch. 7 or so as the Holy Spirit. However, in ch. 3 He also mentions the Spirit, so in that case water would appear to be something different. Paul the apostle describes the washing of regeneration through the Word, although NOT identifying the Word symbolically as water. BUT Jesus does not so describe the Word. In John's gospel, Jesus describes the Word as the Word, ho logos. Never does He characterize the Word as water. I therefore tentatively rule out both the Spirit and the Word, for those reasons.



Next thing I would look into is any other place in John's gospel where water and the Spirit are specifically mentioned in connection. I find one such place in ch. 1, where Jesus was baptized by water and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. I do not recall any other places in John. I would then inquire if baptism by water pertains to being regenerated. I do not find a discourse on that subject presented by Jesus, only the charge to His disciples to go into all the world, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I therefore must go outside John's gospel to find such a discourse. I do find one on it by Paul, in Romans 6. Paul says:







I see here described, dying to the old life and starting a new life, that is, a regeneration. And I see this regeneration, this beginning a new life, connected by Paul with baptism. Without a doubt, then, baptism is connected Scripturally with a regeneration, ending or dying to the old life, and beginning a new life, with Christ living in us and through us. Is this the same regeneration that Jesus spoke of? Is there more than one regeneration? This might be a question to look at.



To summarize, then:



1) Jesus spoke of regeneration by water and the Spirit, Jn. 3:5.

2) Water baptism is connected with regeneration, Rom. 6:1 - 7, and with the outpouring of the Spirit, , Jn. 1--thus water and the Spirit.



Are these one and the same events, or is there more than one regeneration? I see the following match-up:



Regeneration ====== Regeneration

Water =========== Water

Spirit ============ Spirit



Seems so far like one and the same event.



Dave

First, thank you for your response. It is very interesting, although I disagree with your take.

First thing that jumps out is that Jesus' baptism is not mentioned in John. So to go and make that connect is to make one that isn't there. Now we do know that He was baptized, but for some reason John does not mention it. And I would agree that we use other scriptures to interpret scripture, I would think that before we do that we should have warrant to do so. So far we don't. But what would cause us to go beyond John, at least initially is his mention of Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus for not understanding what He was saying. This would lead me to want to check the OT. And since we are speaking of new birth, or new life, that is what leads me to Ezekiel 36:25-27. It speaks of cleansing by sprinkling of water, and a new heart of flesh.

Another reason I would rule out baptism the use you gave in Romans 6. It speaks of being baptized into Christ, not baptism to become saved. Plus, if the actual baptizing was what saved, Paul would have not only mentioned it, but one would think he wouldn't have displayed like he did in 1 Corinthians. This in no way downplays the significance of baptism, but to say you can get salvation through baptism in John 3 is reading into it something that isn't there.

Instead, if you just read the text, God saves sinners and until they are born again they cannot see, or enter, the kingdom of God.

 

[MamaZ]

The fellow spent a lot of time presenting his view. Why don't you one time deal with the argument and present the truth as you see it instead of saying every one is wrong because you are right?

Your approach to these discussions is redundant and tiring!

I see that he has spent alot of time presenting his view.. And I as a follower of Christ know the voice of my shepherd and will not follow mans view of scripture. So back the the scripture He set aside. Why set it aside? It is scripture that is right not mans view of scripture.. Your constant deflecting the thread to center on an individual is tiring..

 

[nobdysfool]

The fellow spent a lot of time presenting his view. Why don't you one time deal with the argument and present the truth as you see it instead of saying every one is wrong because you are right?

Your approach to these discussions is redundant and tiring!

Ever consider that your own approach is viewed by others as redundant and tiring? The fact is, that is exactly how your approach is viewed, so the pot-kettle-black description is rightly applied. Add to the the general disdain with which you have treated MamaZ, at least in part because she's a woman, and the fruit of your insistent posts that you are right and all of us are wrong, is seen in its proper light.

 

[MamaZ]

I think that you need to re-read the original post.

I think this was answered earlier in this thread ..

 

[MamaZ]

So if Baptism is part of what saves a man then what can we say about the Ministry of Paul. For Jesus did not send Paul to baptize but to preach the Gospel..

 

[JDS]

First, thank you for your response. It is very interesting, although I disagree with your take.

First thing that jumps out is that Jesus' baptism is not mentioned in John. So to go and make that connect is to make one that isn't there. Now we do know that He was baptized, but for some reason John does not mention it. And I would agree that we use other scriptures to interpret scripture, I would think that before we do that we should have warrant to do so. So far we don't. But what would cause us to go beyond John, at least initially is his mention of Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus for not understanding what He was saying. This would lead me to want to check the OT. And since we are speaking of new birth, or new life, that is what leads me to Ezekiel 36:25-27. It speaks of cleansing by sprinkling of water, and a new heart of flesh.

Another reason I would rule out baptism the use you gave in Romans 6. It speaks of being baptized into Christ, not baptism to become saved. Plus, if the actual baptizing was what saved, Paul would have not only mentioned it, but one would think he wouldn't have displayed like he did in 1 Corinthians. This in no way downplays the significance of baptism, but to say you can get salvation through baptism in John 3 is reading into it something that isn't there.

Instead, if you just read the text, God saves sinners and until they are born again they cannot see, or enter, the kingdom of God.

Good comments Hammster. I would go even further and say that no one has seen the kingdom of God even yet.

Lk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Ro 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

The kingdom of God must be in the heart before it is in the physical.

 

[JDS]

I see that he has spent alot of time presenting his view.. And I as a follower of Christ know the voice of my shepherd and will not follow mans view of scripture. So back the the scripture He set aside. Why set it aside? It is scripture that is right not mans view of scripture.. Your constant deflecting the thread to center on an individual is tiring..

Good, lets not just be against the views of others without a reason except we think we are right and lets try to persuade them by presenting a good scriptural argument why we think they are in error.

I have shown Arch that baptism is in connection with the Jews and the kingdom message. It has nothing to do with the gentile believers and their being born again according to some texts I used for my proof.

I expect he will tell me why I am wrong if he thinks I am.

 

[JDS]

The bible is more than a Jewish book JDS. The bible is the very breathe of God for all His believers. Jew and Gentile.. When one has been born anew from the Spirit of God He is born of the very Spirit of the God of Isreal.. For there is only one God.

Salvation is of the Jews, Jesus said, and if we keep that in mind we will appreciate the wonderful privilege that we have through them of being a partaker of their spiritual promises and blessings and we would get a better handle on what God is doing in the earth now and will do later.

 

[MamaZ]

Salvation is of the Jews, Jesus said, and if we keep that in mind we will appreciate the wonderful privilege that we have through them of being a partaker of their spiritual promises and blessings and we would get a better handle on what God is doing in the earth now and will do later.

Religion blinds the minds to the scope of great truths while creating tunnel vision.

We are a partaker of the Spiritual blessings through Christ. Because those who are born again are joint heirs with Christ . I understand the wonderful privilage to Gods blessings because before I was He has forknown me and Chosen me to be one of His.. What a humbling experience this is for those whom believe.. I also understand what is going on with the World today through the scripture. Tunnel vision is through Christ not the assemblie one attends. For we are told to keep our Eyes upon Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith.. This is tunnel vision friend..

 

[MamaZ]

For My Father is the very God of Isreal.. He is the great I Am.. His word is for all His children. This is the food we are to live on and breathe in and live by. For all His word is amen and amen.. For God has declared it so therefore He shall do it.

 

[Hammster]

Salvation is of the Jews, Jesus said, and if we keep that in mind we will appreciate the wonderful privilege that we have through them of being a partaker of their spiritual promises and blessings and we would get a better handle on what God is doing in the earth now and will do later.



Religion blinds the minds to the scope of great truths while creating tunnel vision.

There is truth in what you say. And if you are thinking that Calvinism is religion, that maybe where some if the issues lay.

Calvinism isn't religion. All it is is a way to explain the truths found in Scripture. It isn't 5 steps to get to God.

I know you disagree with Calvinism, and that is fine. But I still say that you need to see why we have understood Scripture the way we do so that you may show us why you think we are wrong for doing so.

I know that tempers flair on both sides. I think I even got mad once.

But I think sticking to Scripture and trying to understand each others doctrines will serve us greatly.

 

[JDS]

There is truth in what you say. And if you are thinking that Calvinism is religion, that maybe where some if the issues lay.

Calvinism isn't religion. All it is is a way to explain the truths found in Scripture. It isn't 5 steps to get to God.

I know you disagree with Calvinism, and that is fine. But I still say that you need to see why we have understood Scripture the way we do so that you may show us why you think we are wrong for doing so.

I know that tempers flair on both sides. I think I even got mad once.

But I think sticking to Scripture and trying to understand each others doctrines will serve us greatly.

Very well, but Spurgeon is quoted as saying "Calvinism is the gospel", and if it is, I don't know why it is not fundamental to the Christian faith and how non Calvinists are Christians. Men must believe the gospel to be saved. I have brought this up before and no one has given a good answer.

 

[JacobHall86]

Very well, but Spurgeon is quoted as saying "Calvinism is the gospel", and if it is, I don't know why it is not fundamental to the Christian faith and how non Calvinists are Christians. Men must believe the gospel to be saved. I have brought this up before and no one has given a good answer.

The Gospel is that God, through Grace in Christ, Saves People, not that man saves himself. Calvinism teaches that, and is the only theological system that teaches it consistently.

 

[MamaZ]

The doctrine of Election is how God has always done things.. We cannot see through any scripture that when God called a person that they successfully resisted God and His calling and choosing of them. Gods creation is His own and He is the master over all things created. Even men.

 

[MamaZ]

Very well, but Spurgeon is quoted as saying "Calvinism is the gospel", and if it is, I don't know why it is not fundamental to the Christian faith and how non Calvinists are Christians. Men must believe the gospel to be saved. I have brought this up before and no one has given a good answer.

Just as any human birth. The baby is born and does not understand its birthing process but yet is still born. Does this mean just because they don't understand it that they are not born?

 

[Hammster]

Very well, but Spurgeon is quoted as saying "Calvinism is the gospel", and if it is, I don't know why it is not fundamental to the Christian faith and how non Calvinists are Christians. Men must believe the gospel to be saved. I have brought this up before and no one has given a good answer.

I understand your frustration. Been ther, done that. But so that we can maybe we can be on the same page, could you tell me what you think are the five points we discuss? That way we can clear up any misconceptions, if there are some. That way, when we are discussing this, we will at least have a common point of reference, and the Calvinists aren't trying to defend against false notions (by that I mean ideas we do not hold).

 

[Bulstrode Whitelock]

JDS,

You've been given a perfectly good answer but you didn't like it.

I'll try again, but I'll add some things and I will space it out a bit:

Spurgeon was not a systematician. He was a preacher. He was not making a categorical pronouncement about the absolute equivalency between the message of salvation and Calvinism.

What he was saying, in the context of a sermon, is that Calvinism is the fullness of biblical doctrine about sin, redemption, salvation and eternal life and even more than these.

As an evangelist, his emphasis will have been on the Gospel as an earnest call to repent and believe, but I think we make a mistake if we import 21st century ideas about the limitations of what the Gospel is into a discussion on what a 19th century preacher would have meant when he used the word.

Just as "salvation" means far more than just "getting saved" so too, when we deal fully with the idea, the Gospel is far more than just information about how we get a gracious God. It touches upon ideas having to do not merely with soteriology proper but with hamartiology, anthropology, eschatology and teleology as well.

Similarly, Calvinism is far more than just the doctrines of grace. Earlier in the conversation you indicated that you were confused about this as well.

So, what Spurgeon is saying is that Calvinism is the true Biblical doctrine about all of God's relations with His fallen creation, not limited to but certainly inclusive of His plan of redemption for the same.

He is certainly boasting in Christ that this is what the Bible teaches. But again, he is not making a categorical identification of Calvinism with the call to repentance and belief or even to the particular details of what makes that call effective and how it works.

I will now presume to speak for all Calvinists and this will probably annoy you but it is important for me to say it because it is of a piece with what Spurgeon said, are you ready?

In heaven we will all be Calvinists. And even more, we who are now Calvinists will be even moreso.

It is an accident of history that this system of doctrine bears John Calvin's name. It is the same doctrine held by Augustine, Paul, Jesus, David, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, Noah, Seth and Adam.

But all of these men, and we all too, stand on a line, none of us at the terminus of perfection in doctrine. Paul knew more than Moses because he lived and wrote after what Moses hoped for had been accomplished. But this does not mean that there is always a necessary progression. We all stand in relation to truth as we have the capacity, talent and maturity to receive it. Some closer, some further away.

But none of us may claim absolute privilege of intimacy with Truth. We all stand around it.

There are things we know to be true and that we share in common whatever our confession. There are other things about which we have freedom to disagree without consigning one another to hell on the one hand or on the other insisting that only we are the elect of God in Christ.

We do truly believe that Calvinism stands closer to Glory than any other system named by men.

I would hope that you feel the same way about whatever shape your particular set of beliefs and propositions may take. Anything less would betray the meaninglessness of ones confession.

When you say that those who disagree with your eschatology are less spiritual, for example, you show that you do.

 

[beloved57]

The doctrine of Election is how God has always done things.. We cannot see through any scripture that when God called a person that they successfully resisted God and His calling and choosing of them. Gods creation is His own and He is the master over all things created. Even men.

Amen, your at times a breath of fresh air..

 

[archierieus]

First, thank you for your response. It is very interesting, although I disagree with your take.

First thing that jumps out is that Jesus' baptism is not mentioned in John. So to go and make that connect is to make one that isn't there. Now we do know that He was baptized, but for some reason John does not mention it.

That is what I get for relying on my memory! I should have checked to confirm. John does mentioned seeing the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus, but does not include his baptizing Jesus. My mistake.

And I would agree that we use other scriptures to interpret scripture, I would think that before we do that we should have warrant to do so. So far we don't. But what would cause us to go beyond John, at least initially is his mention of Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus for not understanding what He was saying. This would lead me to want to check the OT. And since we are speaking of new birth, or new life, that is what leads me to Ezekiel 36:25-27. It speaks of cleansing by sprinkling of water, and a new heart of flesh.

Good connection. Definitely a reference to water.

Another reason I would rule out baptism the use you gave in Romans 6. It speaks of being baptized into Christ, not baptism to become saved.

'Saved' is not a word that appears in either Rom. 6 or John 3. However, both passages do speak of regeneration. Jesus says that a person must be regenerated to enter the kingdom of God. Paul describes dying to the old life and being raised up to a new life, that is, regenerated. One question which would arise then, are they speaking of the same event, or of different regenerations?

Plus, if the actual baptizing was what saved,

I don't know if the actual baptizing was what saved, but I do see the significance Paul attaches to it in the passage.

but to say you can get salvation through baptism in John 3 is reading into it something that isn't there.

I don't see the word 'salvation' mentioned there, but we do see the phrase, 'see,' 'enter' the kingdom of God.

Instead, if you just read the text, God saves sinners

Not mentioned in Jn. 3:3, 5

and until they are born again they cannot see, or enter, the kingdom of God.

Agreed. Regeneration. So, is the regeneration described in Jn. 3 the same as the regeneration described by Paul, dying to the old life and being raised up to new life (regenerated) in Christ? Or do you think they are two different events? And regarding the Ezekiel passage, do you see that as referring to what Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus in Jn. 3? Do you see it referring to or being reflected in baptism?

Dave