Is Calvinism a heresy?

[bbbbbbb]

I am confused

While I agree that the creation utters speech and declares 'there is a God', are you saying that just viewing nature is enough to be offered Christ? that the Holy Spirit is not needed for this?
I am of the opinion that ONLY The Holy Spirit can lead us to the Truth of the Gospel. So,the people who reject Christ of John 12:48 must have had an 'interaction' with The Holy Spirit, otherwise they have not had a 'valid' offer. It kinds makes you wonder why The Holy Spirit did not regenerate their spirit too?
(Regenerate our will not in the Bible)


I am confused again. So, you say, God does not force us to choose against our will? But if our will is regenerated and I did not ask for it to be regenerated and did not want Christ before hand is that not forcing by another name? How is a regenerated will our will? Did I give God permission to regenerate my will. When? There would seem to be a timeline issue here? My will needs to be regenerated before I can agree to accepting Christ as my saviour but God cannot 'do' anything until I am saved. Which comes first?
(Regenerate our will-not in the Bible)

Just a quick comment regarding the order of regeneration. In the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 Jesus stated that one must be born of water (physically) and be born from above by the Spirit as a second birth. The order is quite clear - physical birth precedes spiritual birth. Although God has predestined some people for salvation, they are not regenerated prior to physical birth. If one assumes that human life begins at birth and that humans do not have any form of personal existence prior to birth, then regeneration cannot occur prior to physical birth. As an aside, that would exclude individuals who die before birth.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Just a quick comment regarding the order of regeneration. In the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 Jesus stated that one must be born of water (physically) and be born from above by the Spirit as a second birth. The order is quite clear - physical birth precedes spiritual birth. Although God has predestined some people for salvation, they are not regenerated prior to physical birth. If one assumes that human life begins at birth and that humans do not have any form of personal existence prior to birth, then regeneration cannot occur prior to physical birth. As an aside, that would exclude individuals who die before birth.

To me it looks like Baptism comes first (born of water) but that is more an order in grammar and perhaps logic than in time because Jesus says, "and the Spirit", so we have, "a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost".

 

[Clare73]

To me it looks like Baptism comes first (born of water) but that is more an order in grammar and perhaps logic than in time because Jesus says, "and the Spirit", so we have, "a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost".

Must be born again of water (spiritually cleansed) and the Holy Spirit (eternal life of God imparted by the Holy Spirit to one's spirit).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Must be born again of water (spiritually cleansed) and the Holy Spirit (eternal life of God imparted by the Holy Spirit to one's spirit).

If I am reading your statement correctly, in your vocabulary, "spiritually cleansed", means cleansed without the use of water.

 

[Clare73]

If I am reading your statement correctly, in your vocabulary, "spiritually cleansed", means cleansed without the use of water.

Yes, water baptism is not necessary for salvation (new birth) as it was not necessary for the thief on the cross.

In 1 Jn 5:5-6, where John is reacting to Gnosticism's assertion that Jesus' divinity was only temporary, descending on him at his baptism and departing him before the cross, John is insisting that Jesus was the Son of God at both his baptism and his death.
The divine Son of God "came by both water and blood" (v.6). "Water" here being in response to Gnostic assertions specifically in regard to Jesus' baptism, and not being a statement regarding the necessity of water baptism to salvation.

In Jn 3:3-8, where being spiritually "born from above" is about spiritual cleansing and impartation of spiritual eternal (God's divine) life to one's spirit by the Holy Spirit, water refers to spiritual cleansing, and is not a statement of the necessity of water baptism to salvation.

In Ro 6:1-14, NT baptism is about dying to sin and living a new life in Christ.

Yes, water baptism is to be administered to the Christian, but it is not necessary for salvation, just as it was not to the thief on the cross.
Water baptism is the NT correspondence (dying to sin as Christ died for sin, Ro 6:1-14) to the OT circumcision (Col 1:11-12)
of cutting off (dying to) the (sinful) flesh.

 

[bbbbbbb]

To me it looks like Baptism comes first (born of water) but that is more an order in grammar and perhaps logic than in time because Jesus says, "and the Spirit", so we have, "a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost".

No physical birth (water), no spiritual birth. It is really, really challenging to baptize anyone who has not been born.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

While I agree that the creation utters speech and declares there is a God, are you saying that just viewing nature is enough to be offered Christ? That the Holy Spirit is not needed for this?

Mark Quayle can answer for himself, but I wanted to say this:

Creation testifies not only of God's eternal power and divine nature but also of man's desperate condition and need, bearing in mind that one's conscience or heart is a part of "what has been made," that is, it's a part of that creation which testifies and makes us aware of God. Remember, the first chapter of Romans belongs contextually with the second and third chapters, where the apostle makes his case that both Jews and Gentiles alike are conscious of and afflicted by their corruption and guilt before God—the unrighteousness of man demonstrates the righteousness of God.

It is through Christ that God provides justification or right standing before him (Rom 3:19-31), which raises the question: While unbelievers are aware of their corruption and guilt before God, nothing in creation tells them of Christ who is able to rescue them. They cannot call upon a Savior they don't believe in, and they can't believe someone they have never heard of. They must be told: "Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ" (Rom 10:17), and the Holy Spirit attends the preaching of the word with power and conviction. General revelation tells man of his need, and special revelation tells man how (or rather in whom) that need is met.

I am confused

You seem to be excessively opinionated for someone so confused.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just a quick comment regarding the order of regeneration. In the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 Jesus stated that one must be born of water (physically) and be born from above by the Spirit as a second birth. The order is quite clear - physical birth precedes spiritual birth. Although God has predestined some people for salvation, they are not regenerated prior to physical birth. If one assumes that human life begins at birth and that humans do not have any form of personal existence prior to birth, then regeneration cannot occur prior to physical birth. As an aside, that would exclude individuals who die before birth.

I don't know from what perspective you are saying this, but I don't think anyone is talking about the unborn here —just about the question of whether or not regeneration —being done by the Spirit of God apart from the will of man— comes logically by cause-and-effect 'before' repentance, submission, obedience etc.

But outside the subject of the Title, (and I hope this will be only a quick detour off topic), we can be sure that, regardless of what we think or speculate concerning the unborn, God will be just concerning the unborn and infants. That is, even if one is not sure the unborn will be saved, we do know that the unborn or infant will not be punished beyond what they deserve. God's justice is only precise and thorough, not capricious.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, water baptism is not necessary for salvation (new birth) as it was not necessary for the thief on the cross.

In 1 Jn 5:5-6, where John is reacting to Gnosticism's assertion that Jesus's divinity was only temporary, descending on him at his baptism and departing him before the cross, John is insisting that Jesus was the Son of God at both his baptism and his death.
The divine Son of God "came by both water and blood" (v.6). "Water" here being in response to Gnostic assertions specifically in regard to Jesus' baptism, and not being a statement regarding the necessity of water baptism to salvation.

In Jn 3:3-8, where being spiritually "born from above" is about spiritual cleansing and impartation of spiritual eternal (God's divine) life to one's spirit by the Holy Spirit, water refers to spiritual cleansing, and is not a statement of the necessity of water baptism to salvation.

In Ro 6:1-14, NT baptism is about dying to sin and living a new life in Christ.

Yes, water baptism is to be administered to the Christian, but it is not necessary for salvation, just as it was not to the thief on the cross.
Water baptism is the NT correspondence (dying to sin as Christ died for sin, Ro 6:1-14) to the OT circumcision (Col 1:11-12)
of cutting off (dying to) the (sinful) flesh.

Why?
Why is baptism to be administered? What does it do?

If I am reading your vocabulary correctly John 3:5 really says, "except a man be born [again,] of water and of [spiritually cleansed by,] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." right? something like that anyway.

And the "Great Commission"? What does it mean? what exactly is this baptism about?

---

This part is not specifically about Calvinism

Is the great commission properly translated "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising [submerging] them [in water] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:19-20

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am confused

While I agree that the creation utters speech and declares 'there is a God', are you saying that just viewing nature is enough to be offered Christ? that the Holy Spirit is not needed for this?
I am of the opinion that ONLY The Holy Spirit can lead us to the Truth of the Gospel. So,the people who reject Christ of John 12:48 must have had an 'interaction' with The Holy Spirit, otherwise they have not had a 'valid' offer. It kinds makes you wonder why The Holy Spirit did not regenerate their spirit too?
(Regenerate our will not in the Bible)


I am confused again. So, you say, God does not force us to choose against our will? But if our will is regenerated and I did not ask for it to be regenerated and did not want Christ before hand is that not forcing by another name? How is a regenerated will our will? Did I give God permission to regenerate my will. When? There would seem to be a timeline issue here? My will needs to be regenerated before I can agree to accepting Christ as my saviour but God cannot 'do' anything until I am saved. Which comes first?
(Regenerate our will-not in the Bible)

I thought I had answered this, but I can't find the answer anywhere. So I will try again, though I really wish I could see you backing off the notion that God is not particular.

Not only is the Holy Spirit absolutely needed for regeneration and salvation, but the Holy Spirit is active in more ways than we can know in anyone's life, including the lost. I agree that only the Holy Spirit can lead us to the truth, but that does not mean that he doesn't use many different means to do so, including Scripture, the Gospel, Nature, Logic concerning Existence and reasoning (and failing to reason) concerning many other things.

However, the fact that, in Romans 1, "they are without excuse", does not mean that they have been presented the Gospel. It can mean simply that they were presented with enough that they should have known God, (and in fact, as Romans 1 says, they DID know, but repressed that knowledge), and should have responded with submission instead of rebellion. That fact, in and of itself, constitutes validity, quite apart from any "offer" that we might require of God for our concept of justice.

IN FACT, even for those of us to whom the Gospel has been delivered, and who have some understanding of it —of its tenets and concepts— our knowledge and understanding still falls short, if God has not regenerated us; yet we remain (already) without excuse. IN FACT, even those of us who have been regenerated and are given the "mind of Christ", are not in and of ourselves, in and of our own knowledge and understanding, sufficient of the precepts and concepts of the Gospel to be able to do it justice. ONLY the Spirit of God can do this in us.

God doesn't force a choice against our will. Not even when he coerces us to choose to do something we would not otherwise want, such as he did with Jonah. But with the subject at hand —regeneration— he doesn't consult our will, but gives us re-birth, no more requiring an act of will on our part than was required for our first birth. And this, he does, only to those to whom, from the foundation of the world, he chose to show mercy.

Was your will that came by your first birth not yours? Then why not the will that comes by your re-birth? Does your first will have more true status than your second? Vehemently, I say NO! —in fact, only by the reality of the work of the Spirit of God that changed your will does even your 'second will' have any integrity. Your first will is vanity and fruitlessness, producing only sin—and you want IT to make your decisions?

What in the world makes you say, "God cannot 'do' anything until I am saved". God can do whatever he pleases.

You want an equal opportunity God. You're not going to get one.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:[God] made each person ever born for the precise purpose to which he has subjected them—for his use
I agree but the end of the role He chose for us is salvation and back home to Him in Heaven, anything else is unthinkable for a loving father to do. You greatly misrepresent Him if you say otherwise.
(God chooses roles that includes their condemnation to hell-not in the Bible)

You don't take it far enough. We know several specifics about what it means to be home with him in Heaven, and to what end we are there. We are predestined (before time) to become during time not just mature and to do good works, but to become the being that in Heaven will be transformed into that particular member of the Bride of Christ, and of the Body of Christ, and of the Dwelling Place of God.

But since you presume a merely kindly god that is not particular just who somehow gins up the integrity to choose God, you probably can't see how his demonstration of the power of his purity and justice concerning the reprobate, will affect the objects of his mercy who are instructed by the indwelling Spirit of God, in growing in the knowledge of God, and being prepared by it to be what he has in mind for them to be, in Heaven.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't know from what perspective you are saying this, but I don't think anyone is talking about the unborn here —just about the question of whether or not regeneration —being done by the Spirit of God apart from the will of man— comes logically by cause-and-effect 'before' repentance, submission, obedience etc.

But outside the subject of the Title, (and I hope this will be only a quick detour off topic), we can be sure that, regardless of what we think or speculate concerning the unborn, God will be just concerning the unborn and infants. That is, even if one is not sure the unborn will be saved, we do know that the unborn or infant will not be punished beyond what they deserve. God's justice is only precise and thorough, not capricious.

Thanks. I did not intend to derail the thread. I do understand your perspective as being apart from the limits of time.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't know from what perspective you are saying this, but I don't think anyone is talking about the unborn here.

Yeah, I am perplexed by people who think "water" refers to physical birth, for they would have Jesus saying, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they exist and are born of the Spirit." It's so obvious that for a person to experience salvation she must first exist, being born into the world, that it boggles the mind they could think that's what Jesus meant.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeah, I am perplexed by people who think "water" refers to physical birth, for they would have Jesus saying, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they exist and are born of the Spirit." It's so obvious that for a person to experience salvation she must first exist, being born into the world, that it boggles the mind they could think that's what Jesus meant.

Well, you are in very good company then as it completely boggled Nicodemus' mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah, I am perplexed by people who think "water" refers to physical birth, for they would have Jesus saying, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they exist and are born of the Spirit." It's so obvious that for a person to experience salvation she must first exist, being born into the world, that it boggles the mind they could think that's what Jesus meant.

I still think (and am not yet myself convinced of either) that it could be talking about our first birth, in contrast to the second, as a rhetorical method of emphasizing the second. —"Not only must one be born the first time, but born again!" or "One doesn't inherit the Kingdom of God by their first birth, but by their second!"

But if it is not referring to the first, it is certainly not referring to water baptism, which is not effectual for Salvation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I still think (and am not yet myself convinced of either) that it could be talking about our first birth, in contrast to the second, as a rhetorical method of emphasizing the second. —"Not only must one be born the first time, but born again!" or "One doesn't inherit the Kingdom of God by their first birth, but by their second!"

But if it is not referring to the first, it is certainly not referring to water baptism, which is not effectual for Salvation.

Yes, I agree with you on this.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I still think (and am not yet myself convinced of either) that it could be talking about our first birth, in contrast to the second, as a rhetorical method of emphasizing the second. —"Not only must one be born the first time, but born again!" or "One doesn't inherit the Kingdom of God by their first birth, but by their second!"

We had discussed John 3 recently in a men's Bible study and I floated a couple of ideas which, surprisingly, were not immediately shot down. (Dutch Reformed are notoriously conservative, so, being a relatively new member, I was hesitant to suggest ideas not found in our confessions.) One of those ideas was that by water Jesus was referring to the word of God (a suggestion which presupposes a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, so bear that in mind). I mean, this water quenches spiritual thirst (John 4:13-14), is a picture of the new birth (1 Pet 1:22-23; Jas 1:18; Ps 119:50; John 6:63), and cleanses from spiritual uncleanliness (John 15:3; Eph 5:26; Ps 119:9). Christ saves us "not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through (a) the washing of the new birth and (b) the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). "You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God" (1 Pet 1:23). Faith comes through hearing, right?

(Ephesians 5:26 is what triggered this idea for me, which says that Christ sanctifies the church "by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word.")

But if it is not referring to the first, it is certainly not referring to water baptism, which is not effectual for Salvation.

But the word of God definitely is effectual for salvation (when attended by the Spirit of power in the elect). For example, "We know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, in that our gospel did not come to you merely in words, but in power and in the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction" (1 Thess 1:4-5). Also, "My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5).

 

[Clare73]

We had discussed John 3 recently in a men's Bible study and I floated a couple of ideas which, surprisingly, were not immediately shot down. (Dutch Reformed are notoriously conservative, so, being a relatively new member, I was hesitant to suggest ideas not found in our confessions.) One of those ideas was that by water Jesus was referring to the word of God (a suggestion which presupposes a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, so bear that in mind). I mean, this water quenches spiritual thirst (John 4:13-14), is a picture of the new birth (1 Pet 1:22-23; Jas 1:18; Ps 119:50; John 6:63), and cleanses from spiritual uncleanliness (John 15:3; Eph 5:26; Ps 119:9). Christ saves us "not by

works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through (a) the washing of the new birth and (b) the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). "You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God" (1 Pet 1:23). Faith comes through hearing, right?
(Ephesians 5:26 is what triggered this idea for me, which says that Christ sanctifies the church "by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word.")

But the word of God definitely is effectual for salvation (when attended by the Spirit of power in the elect). For example, "We know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, in that our gospel did not come to you merely in words, but in power and in the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction" (1 Thess 1:4-5). Also, "My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5).

With no NT, to what particular word do you think he might be referring that would be the source of faith in him?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

With no NT, to what particular word do you think he might be referring that would be the source of faith in him?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. I mean, when Paul defined it as "the word of faith that we preach" (Rom 10:8), he was drawing from Deuteronomy 30:14 ("But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it"). It almost looks as if he was operating from a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, see all things as anticipating and pointing to Christ—including "the word."

 

[Mark Quayle]

We had discussed John 3 recently in a men's Bible study and I floated a couple of ideas which, surprisingly, were not immediately shot down. (Dutch Reformed are notoriously conservative, so, being a relatively new member, I was hesitant to suggest ideas not found in our confessions.) One of those ideas was that by water Jesus was referring to the word of God (a suggestion which presupposes a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, so bear that in mind). I mean, this water quenches spiritual thirst (John 4:13-14), is a picture of the new birth (1 Pet 1:22-23; Jas 1:18; Ps 119:50; John 6:63), and cleanses from spiritual uncleanliness (John 15:3; Eph 5:26; Ps 119:9). Christ saves us "not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through (a) the washing of the new birth and (b) the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). "You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God" (1 Pet 1:23). Faith comes through hearing, right?

(Ephesians 5:26 is what triggered this idea for me, which says that Christ sanctifies the church "by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word.")

But the word of God definitely is effectual for salvation (when attended by the Spirit of power in the elect). For example, "We know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, in that our gospel did not come to you merely in words, but in power and in the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction" (1 Thess 1:4-5). Also, "My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5).

That is vaguely the same way my mind goes with it, if I reject the notion that 'born of water' is talking about physical birth. But I tend to think more in terms of the work of the Spirit, which seems to be the subject at hand in the discussion with Nicodemus. But yes, definitely by the Word of God; as we know, faith comes by hearing.

I have always loosely assumed, for example, when Jesus is talking about living water, he is talking about the Spirit of God's work in the believer.

One thing that does keep showing up, in one way or another, for me to notice, pretty much everywhere I look, is that God himself seems to place a premium importance on the Scriptures, as the Word of God. It's not just a 'guide'. It's the very Word of God, with full authority, and used by the Spirit of God as the very Word of God. Moses, "These are not just words for you. They are your life."



Edit: @DialecticSkeptic I intended to mention, and forgot to, that if it is true that 'born of water' in John 3 is referring to the first, the natural (physical) birth, that Jesus is probably presenting a play on words for his readers. Because he could have said it much different than to mention water.