Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Clare73]

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."

Since there were no NT Scriptures, to what particular word do you think Jesus might be referring in his use of "water" in Jn 3:5?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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?

Why is the water without question not actually water - as in baptism? I am not asking why it may be the water used in "the washing of the new birth and renewing of the Holy Spirit" I am wondering why it cannot be water (H2O)?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why is the water without question not actually water - as in baptism? I am not asking why it may be the water used in "the washing of the new birth and renewing of the Holy Spirit" I am wondering why it cannot be water (H2O)?

I can't answer for @DialecticSkeptic but I say that it cannot be referring to physical baptism because contextually it is incongruous, as it would imply that Baptism is necessary in order to see the Kingdom of God, which is by several ways unbiblical.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can't answer for @DialecticSkeptic but I say that it cannot be referring to physical baptism because contextually it is incongruous, as it would imply that Baptism is necessary in order to see the Kingdom of God, which is by several ways unbiblical.

John's gospel is a wonder of composition, it is simple and complex all at once. It is full of very deep theology and yet simple ideas. Chapter one has this to say (among other things)

The Testimony of John the Baptist​

Joh 1:19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou? ​

Joh 1:20 And he confessed and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ. ​

Joh 1:21 And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered: No. ​

Joh 1:22 They said therefore unto him: Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? ​

Joh 1:23 He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias. ​

Joh 1:24 And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. ​

Joh 1:25 And they asked him and said to him: Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet? ​

Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying: I baptize with water: but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not. ​

Joh 1:27 The same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me: the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose. ​

Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. ​

Behold, the Lamb of God​

Joh 1:29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. ​

Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me. ​

Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. ​

Joh 1:32 And John gave testimony, saying: I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven; and he remained upon him. ​

Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptiseth with the Holy Ghost. ​

Joh 1:34 And I saw: and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.​

What had Nicodemus heard, as a Sanhedrin member, and the teacher of Israel? These are the incidents that were reported back to the Sanhedrin. Nicodemus may have had this baptism of John on his mind. I think he did. But that is my perspective.

You Must Be Born Again​

Joh 3:1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ​

Joh 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. ​

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. ​

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? ​

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ​

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ​

Joh 3:7 Wonder not that I said to thee: You must be born again. ​

Joh 3:8 The Spirit breatheth where he will and thou hearest his voice: but thou knowest not whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit. ​

Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said to him: How can these things be done? ​

Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? ​

Joh 3:11 Amen, amen, I say to thee that we speak what we know and we testify what we have seen: and you receive not our testimony. ​

Joh 3:12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not: how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things? ​

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. ​

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: ​

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.​

Yet perceptions vary from one reader to another.

Nicodemus reveals knowledge of Jesus' signs, yet John has not yet told the stories of any save one, the wedding at Cana. Turning water into wine. It's interesting how John constructs this.

 

[Clare73]

Why is the water without question not actually water - as in baptism? I am not asking why it may be the water used in "the washing of the new birth and renewing of the Holy Spirit" I am wondering why it cannot be water (H2O)?

Salvation past (remission of sin) is faith. . .not works (of baptism). (Eph 2:8-9)
Salvation present is obedience leading to holiness, sanctification. (Rom 6:16, Ro 6:19)
Salvation future is the resurrection. (Ro 13:11, Heb 9:28, 1Pe 1:5)

Most references to "salvation" in the NT are to salvation past.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Salvation past (remission of sin) is faith. . .not works (of baptism). (Eph 2:8-9)
Salvation present is obedience leading to holiness, sanctification. (Rom 6:16, Ro 6:19)
Salvation future is the resurrection. (Ro 13:11, Heb 9:28, 1Pe 1:5)

Most references to "salvation" in the NT are to salvation past.

I am not sure how that answers my question about water, can you clarify?

 

[Clare73]

I am not sure how that answers my question about water, can you clarify?

The issue is the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Salvation past (rebirth) excludes work.
Salvation present (sanctification) does not depend on any single work.
Salvation future (resurrection), like salvation past, is not by our work.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The issue is the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Why is that an issue. In my vocabulary baptism is "born from above". Isn't the new birth necessary for salvation?

 

[jameslouise]

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.

Hi 7 bs great question. I am going to challenge you and orthodoxy with my answer though. Firstly how is 'born of water' a metaphor for physical birth. Throughout the Bible water is associated with our spirit and spiritual gifts. e.g water form Jesus' side on the cross, streams of living water form our bellies etc. Why does it suddenly mean flesh?
I suggest Jesus is dismissing entirely Nicodemus talk of a physical birth when He said That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. In effect Jesus is saying that is physical birth here we are talking about spiritual birth and there are two of them.
The use of the same word for born (gennao) in Mark 1:20 is the clue to this text. Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (gennoa) in her is of the Holy Ghost.Here it seems to me the implanting of Jesus' spirit together with the production/implanting of a fertilized egg, and this is referred to as being 'born'. Hence the John 3 passage supports my view, we pre-existed as spirits inside God the Father and are knitted to our bodies at or just after conception and this is considered being 'born'. Born once- a birth of our spirit into our physical bodies
When we are saved- our spirit is completely changed and also indwelt with Jesus and The Holy Spirit- a birth into our physical bodies- born again
So three 'borns' are mentioned in John 3 not two. The whole of orthodoxy has gone the way of Nicodemus and thought Jesus was talking about physical birth and he was not?
So, the unborn can be saved with this view after all, they just have to accept Christ
bbbbbbb says Although God has predestined some people for salvation
(this is not in the Bible)-the Roman's 8:28-30 passage describes what God does for those people who chose to be saved it does not mention anything at all about what he did for those who did not make that choice.

 

[Sesame Seed]

The Catholic Church is heretical. I mean just look at Vatican city and its idols...

 

[Clare73]

Why is that an issue. In my vocabulary baptism is "born from above". Isn't the new birth necessary for salvation?

However in NT vocabulary, "born from above" is "reborn, new birth, regeneration;" i.e. re-impartation of eternal (God's divine) life by the Holy Spirit to the human spirit, which divine life Adam lost for us in his rebellion. . . it is not the rite of baptism.

In the NT vocabulary, it is a sovereign act of God, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:5-8).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

However in NT vocabulary, "born from above" is "reborn, new birth, regeneration;" i.e. re-impartation of eternal (God's divine) life by the Holy Spirit to the human spirit, which divine life Adam lost for us in his rebellion. . . it is not the rite of baptism.

In the NT vocabulary, it is a sovereign act of God, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:5-8).

That is your perspective @Clare73, in the NT water is water (not spiritual cleansing) and baptism is baptism (not rebirth), the words are what we are interpreting. You interpret John 3:5 as spiritual cleansing, I as baptism. Neither can change what's written (which is "water") but we interpret.

Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

John 3:5

The verse just says water.

 

[Clare73]

That is your perspective @Clare73, in the NT water is water (not spiritual cleansing) and baptism is baptism (not rebirth), the words are what we are interpreting. You interpret John 3:5 as spiritual cleansing, I as baptism. Neither can change what's written (which is "water") but we interpret.

Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

John 3:5

The verse just says water.

My "perspective" is taken from five things:

1) Water baptism was not necessary for the thief on the cross.
2) Eph 2:8-9 - salvation is through faith, all works are excluded, including the rite of baptism;
3) Jn 3:5-8 - the sovereignty of rebirth is as unaccountable as the wind, and not by any ceremonial rite;
4) Tit 3:5 - "saved through," where "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" both mean the new birth, where
washing cannot mean baptism since Jn 3:5-8 teaches that the new birth is a sovereign act of God, not effected or achieved by ceremonial rite.
5) 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.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Why is the water without question not actually water, as in baptism?

At least to me, it seems unlikely that Jesus could be speaking (John 3:3-15) about a sacrament that he hadn't even instituted yet; it would have been meaningless to Nicodemus. And we have no reason to think he was referring to John's baptism because Jesus nowhere makes John's baptism a requirement for salvation. Moreover, Jesus had reprimanded Nicodemus for failing to understand these things (v. 10), which means he was referencing something that Nicodemus should have understood. Referring back to my suggestion for what he probably meant (i.e., the new birth through the living word), this connection between "water" and "Spirit" was familiar imagery in the Old Testament (being poured out in the eschaton; Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27), as a "teacher of Israel" should have understood. And Jesus did make that a requirement for salvation—including here, if this view is right.

Isa 44:3, For I will pour water on the parched ground and cause streams to flow on the dry land [cf. Isa 32:15]. I will pour my spirit on your offspring and my blessing on your children.

Ezek 36:25-27, I will sprinkle you with pure water and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations.
​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed. . .baptism is not rebirth,
likewise, salvation is not by works.

I cannot help laughing at this reply.

Water is water, is it not? Can you affirm that? It will make my day

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

At least to me, it seems unlikely that Jesus could be speaking (John 3:3-15) about a sacrament that he hadn't even instituted yet; it would have been meaningless to Nicodemus. And we have no reason to think he was referring to John's baptism because Jesus nowhere makes John's baptism a requirement for salvation. Moreover, Jesus had reprimanded Nicodemus for failing to understand these things (v. 10), which means he was referencing something that Nicodemus should have understood. Referring back to my suggestion for what he probably meant (i.e., the new birth through the living word), this connection between "water" and "Spirit" was familiar imagery in the Old Testament (being poured out in the eschaton; Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27), as a "teacher of Israel" should have understood. And Jesus did make that a requirement for salvation—including here, if this view is right.

Thankyou for your reply.

I understand the old testament uses of water in connection with the Spirit and agree that Nicodemus ought to have been familiar with that, and that Jesus says Nicodemus ought to know the things that the Lord spoke about. Yet the water in, "born of water and the Spirit", can be water, it can be water as an analogy of the Holy Spirit as water was in the passages you cited; the water mentioned in Isaiah can be water which refreshes both the people of God and a parched land, and the water can be an analogy of the Spirit who, like water, is "poured out upon us from on high" (Isa 32:15). I believe these things are what Jesus expected Nicodemus to grasp. I see that "born of water and the Spirit" would be a peculiar construction if the meaning were "born of the Spirit and the Spirit" but if it was meant to say, in laboriously spelled out wording, "born of [the] waters [of baptism as an analogy of pouring out the Spirit (Isa 32:15)] and [also by] the Spirit", then Nicodemus ought to have understood it. And in this case the baptism that Nicodemus would know was John's which was a baptism of repentance and the washing away of sins (Mat 3:11), which prefigured the baptism that Christians know.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptise you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost and fire.​

 

[jameslouise]

My goodness this all seems very complicated. We know that the being born again- the second being born- is a re-arrangement of our existing spirit and the placement by The Holy Spirit of our indwellings within our spirit within our bodies. So, why not the first being 'born' being similar. The placement of our 'spirit man' into our bodies also by The Holy Spirit. Knitting us together in our mothers womb. Both births into our bodies. . The water being a reference to our spirit or spiritual components/anatomy of this base spirit. Nothing complicated about that.
PS, also supports my stance that our spirits pre-existed our arrival on Earth. Acts 17:28

 

[jameslouise]

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.

You seem to be excessively opinionated for someone so confused.

You differ a little form what Mark said as he said 'in a sense the creation presented the Gospel'. I am more with you, you also say:
Dialecticskeptic says:General revelation tells man of his need, and special revelation tells man how (or rather in whom) that need is met.
Now that I can work with, I think we have made good progress! You mean this special revelation is from The Holy Spirit, Joh 12:48 describes people who have had this special revelation as they know who Jesus is and have heard his words and rejected both. Why didn't The Holy Spirit regenerate their will too? I suggest they chose to reject Jesus and it was their will to do so. Was the Holy Spirit only going to go 'half way' with these people all along- not quite as far as regenerating.
Would a God who loves all and wants all saved do that? Or is the whole chain dependent on man's will all the way through?
Dialecticskpetic says You seem to be excessively opinionated for someone so confused.
Takes one to know one Di

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You differ a little [from] Mark [who] said, "In a sense, the creation presented the Gospel."

I have a feeling that Quayle probably meant it in the sense of nature being cruciform creation, such that all things ultimately point to the cross of Christ. For example, think of the fact that carbon-based life is dependent on dying stars (where carbon originates)—i.e., a sun had to die in order for us to live.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[T]he baptism that Nicodemus would know was John's which was a baptism of repentance and the washing away of sins (Mat 3:11), ...

Two things: (1) You snuck in that last bit. "I baptize you with water for repentance," John said. (2) Jesus nowhere makes John's baptism a requirement for salvation, which makes that interpretation suspect.