Quoting Calvin

[Hammster]

true

thank God for regeneration

Christ in us is our only hope - Colossians 1:27

Do you believe that the unregenerate, who is 100% in the flesh, can do anything pleasing to God??

 

[Truthfrees]

Paul is not describing the unregenerate. And Jesus is talking to believers.

imo Jesus is talking to unregenerates - there is no regeneration before the cross

imo Paul is talking to regenerates as he does here: Colossians 1:10, Romans 12:1, Ephesians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:12

 

[Truthfrees]

Do you believe that the unregenerate, who is 100% in the flesh, can do anything pleasing to God??

i believe any man - regenerate or unregenerate - can desire to please God

but any man - regenerate or unregenerate - can't please God in the flesh

i don't know what to think about percentages because God doesn't specify

God can come upon a donkey to speak His words to a prophet, and upon wicked king saul to prophesy, so imo there CAN be an instance where the Holy Spirit causes any man to do something pleasing to God no matter what state they are in

 

[Hammster]

imo Jesus is talking to unregenerates - there is no regeneration before the cross

imo Paul is talking to regenerates as he does here: Colossians 1:10, Romans 12:1, Ephesians 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:12

If there's no regeneration before the cross, then nobody in the OT was saved.

And yes, Paul's letters were to the church.

 

[Hammster]

i believe any man - regenerate or unregenerate - can desire to please God

but any man - regenerate or unregenerate - can't please God in the flesh

i don't know what to think about percentages because God doesn't specify

God can come upon a donkey to speak His words to a prophet, and upon wicked king saul to prophesy, so imo there CAN be an instance where the Holy Spirit causes any man to do something pleasing to God no matter what state they are in

You've described Pelagianism. It's considered heretical in orthodoxy.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Intense grief over this very matter once seized a young Frenchman named Francis de Sales. Unsure of whether he was or was not among the elect, he reportedly cried out to God

"Whatever happens, Lord, may I at least love you in this life if I cannot love you in eternity."

The poet William Cowper, a devout Christian and the author of many hymns, also faced such a dilemna. After hearing about Calvinism, he later had a nightmare that he was not among the elect.

He heard the words 'It is all over with thee, thou has perished'. Despite that he still believed in God, he thought this meant that he was eternally damned. Sorrowfully, he never entered a church or prayed again, for he believed himself lost. He still continued to write in defense of scripture and the gospel though, and compelled others to follow God. Yet, he considered himself a destined wretch, a castaway, outside of the elect, that God would not save him. He gave up his hope of the Resurrection based on belief in Christ in exchange for the bleak terms of Calvanism which he clung to, in which it did not matter if he believed and he could not gain salvation by grace through faith.

Now, any belief can be misunderstood, misconstrued, etc. That any belief can be a stumbling block doesn't make a belief wrong of itself - the gospel itself is a stumbling block, after all.

However, we should take care when adding 'extra' stumbling blocks on top of the gospel.

For example, I have a friend who believed in God, but hadn't yet subjected herself to Christ. Since she had encountered quite a number of Calvinists while studying the Bible, she delayed placing her faith in Christ to show grace was resistible. After about six months she realized that if she died, explaining to God she was disproving Calvanism wouldn't get her out of hell, and that all around worrying what other people thought was a silly thing in comparison to her own future.

Again, any belief can be misused or misconstrued - but there was definitely an unnecessary stumbling block placed in front of her by well-meaning Christians more focused on converting her to their own views than focusing on the gospel.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

You've described Pelagianism. It's considered heretical in orthodoxy.

That's a classic example of a strawman argument. Rejecting the Calvinist idea that the holy spirit must regenerate a person *before* faith is not the same thing as embracing the heresy that man, without any grace from God at all, by his own work or merit, can achieve salvation.

Pelagianism is an ancient heresy going back to the 5th century, started by the monk Pelagian. Ironically, his beliefs were first formed in response to many of the wrong practices and beliefs of the Catholic church - namely, that he did not believe the system of Catholic priests and the Catholic church were necessary for salvation, nor hold to Augustine's doctrine that man could only gain salvation through the church and its sacraments. Yet his views went to the extreme beyond this, to the level of claiming that man was basically good and had the ability to achieve salvation through works and the law.

The beliefs of Pelagian were systematized by his disciple Caelestius, and it is this systematized version that has come to be known as Pelagianism.

The views of Pelagianism:

1) Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. [While Adam's sin led to spiritual death, not immediate physical death, scripture heavily implies that if Adam had not sinned he could have ate of the tree of life as God had allowed, and lived forever (Gen 3:22). As such, the idea that he 'would have died' is speculation at best.]

2) The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race. [The entire human race was punished for the sin of Adam, as well as the Earth itself (Gen 3:17-19).]

3) Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall. [While infants are as sinless as a human will ever be, this does not mean they -are- sinless or that they escape the penalty of Adam's sin. See What is original sin?.]

4) Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ the whole of men rise again. [This is perhaps the most blatantly heretical of Pelagian's beliefs. Scripture states that "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". Basically, Pelagian believed that man could, potentially, be perfectly righteous and thus achieve salvation. Yet scripture says that -no man- could achieve perfection via the law (Rom 8:3, Rom 4:13-15), and hence Christ was necessary. Only Christ was perfectly sinless and righteous. While God often called people who devoutly followed Him righteous ((Luke 1:5-6), this is not the same thing as saying that those people had achieved salvation via their own merit. Furthermore, while it is true not all men will be saved, all who have faith in Christ (or faith in the promise, such as the OT saints), will rise again.]

5) The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does. [While the law did act as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, it has no ability to save us (Gal 1:6).]

6) Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless. [Only Christ was completely sinless. Men cannot be perfect via the law (Gal 3:10-14)]

Semi-Pelagianism is a spin-off system which also had its start in the 5th century by Casseian at Marseilles as an attempted compromise between the views of Augustine and Pelagian.

The basics of semi-pelagianism are:

1) The sanctifying grace that man receives from God can be merited by human effort, unaided by grace [Contrary to the whole of the gospel, wherein salvation itself is by grace through faith].
2) The beginning of faith can be accomplished by human will alone [Contrary to scripture, wherein faith comes by hearing the gospel and by the sacrifice of Christ, not by the works or intellect of man].
3) One a man has been justified, grace is no longer needed [Contrary to scripture, as God is always at work in us, disciplining us, blessing us, strengthening us, and countless other graces. The seal of the Holy Spirit as a down-payment of our future inheritance is also an act of grace].

Ironically, the most common use of these terms today is not by the very few fringe groups who believe them, but as baseless ad-hominem accusations in debates, such as "That's semi-pelagianism!" Or, "You don't believe that man is so fallen he cannot even respond to the gospel in faith without the prior regeneration of the spirit? That's pelagianism!"

What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?

 

[Hammster]

All of the extremely sorrowful anecdotes mean nothing. If Reformed Theology is true, then it's true. How people misconstrue it does not change anything.

 

[Hammster]

That's a classic example of a strawman argument. Rejecting the Calvinist idea that the holy spirit must regenerate a person *before* faith is not the same thing as embracing the heresy that man, without any grace from God at all, by his own work or merit, can achieve salvation.

Sorry, but not a straw man. Pelagianism is the belief that Adam's sin didn't taint man and that man can still choose spiritual good without interference of the Holy Spirit. That's what he stated, in essence.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Do you believe that the unregenerate, who is 100% in the flesh, can do anything pleasing to God??

I'm pretty sure there is already an extensive forum discussion on precisely that topic, "On Free Will."

I won't repost all my posts under that thread here, but here are some brief examples of people pleasing God. (Note that no one can earn salvation or be 'perfectly pleasing' to God without faith, which is another matter entirely.)

Scripture mentions many 'natural men' (that is, without faith in Christ who have not received the Holy Spirit) doing certain things that were spiritually good or glorified God:

Egyptian midwives:... And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own." Ex 1:15-21 (Does God not find the act of fearing Him to be pleasing?)

Ahab's (temporary) humility:...Ahab has humbled himself...I Kings 21:49 (Do you not think that God finds humility in man pleasing?)

Cornelius: "...He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly...The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God." Acts 10:1-4 (God doesn't find generosity, God fearing, and prayer to Him pleasing? Why would it be considered a memorial offering if God did not accept it as an offering?)

Good Samaritan: ... when he saw him, he had compassion on him....“The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”" Lk 10:33-37 (Compassion and mercy are not pleasing to God? What of Matt 9:13, Hos 6:6, etc.?)

Nebuchadnezzar glorifying God: "... It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me. How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation." Dan 4:1-3
... Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever...I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble." Dan 4:34-37 (God does not find praise, and man humbly recognizing His sovereignty, pleasing in any way?)

There are many other specific examples in scripture, and some general comments as well about the general ability of man to obey, seek God, and do right. [None of this contradicts the fact that no human can -perfectly- obey, seek God, and do right, and that all have fallen short of the glory of God.]

Mankind seeking God: Paul said, "... His purpose (will) was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him--though he is not far from any one of us."(Acts 17:26-27)

General ability to do what is right: "And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, 'The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.' If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done." Ezek 33:12-13

General ability to do what is right: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." Rom 2:13-16

Etc.

Posts #275, #285, #311, #312, and other posts under "On Free Will" have more on this topic.

 

[Hammster]

I'm pretty sure there is already an extensive forum discussion on precisely that topic, "On Free Will."

I won't repost all my posts under that thread here, but here are some brief examples of people pleasing God. (Note that no one can earn salvation or be 'perfectly pleasing' to God without faith, which is another matter entirely.)

Scripture mentions many 'natural men' (that is, without faith in Christ who have not received the Holy Spirit) doing certain things that were spiritually good or glorified God:

Egyptian midwives:... And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own." Ex 1:15-21 (Does God not find the act of fearing Him to be pleasing?)

Ahab's (temporary) humility:...Ahab has humbled himself...I Kings 21:49 (Do you not think that God finds humility in man pleasing?)

Cornelius: "...He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly...The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God." Acts 10:1-4 (God doesn't find generosity, God fearing, and prayer to Him pleasing? Why would it be considered a memorial offering if God did not accept it as an offering?)

Good Samaritan: ... when he saw him, he had compassion on him....“The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”" Lk 10:33-37 (Compassion and mercy are not pleasing to God? What of Matt 9:13, Hos 6:6, etc.?)

Nebuchadnezzar glorifying God: "... It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me. How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation." Dan 4:1-3
... Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever...I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble." Dan 4:34-37 (God does not find praise, and man humbly recognizing His sovereignty, pleasing in any way?)

There are many other specific examples in scripture, and some general comments as well about the general ability of man to obey, seek God, and do right. [None of this contradicts the fact that no human can -perfectly- obey, seek God, and do right, and that all have fallen short of the glory of God.]

Mankind seeking God: Paul said, "... His purpose (will) was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him--though he is not far from any one of us."(Acts 17:26-27)

General ability to do what is right: "And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, 'The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.' If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done." Ezek 33:12-13

General ability to do what is right: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." Rom 2:13-16

Etc.

Posts #275, #285, #311, #312, and other posts under "On Free Will" have more on this topic.

What was the motivation for all of this? Hard to say, I know. But we do know that without faith, it's impossible to please God, and those in the flesh cannot do so.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

All of the extremely sorrowful anecdotes mean nothing. If Reformed Theology is true, then it's true. How people misconstrue it does not change anything.

The gospel is 100% true. How people misconstrue that doesn't make it less true.

Theories of man (especially when they, like Calvinism, or Reformed doctrine if you prefer, has many variations and off-shoots) should never place themselves as superior to the gospel. For example, consider all the many teachings which some Christians hold, but often teach as 100% truth vs. disputable matters and binding on all other Christians: one must rest on Saturday, can't eat pork, must believe all 5 'TULIP' points, must hold to 4 point Calvinism, must take communion every week, can only go to a specific denomination, can only read the KJV, etc.

All these theories must be examined on their own merits as to whether they are true in part or whole or are false. None can be declared 100% true by axiom. Nor do any of these sub-teachings get an automatic pass if they are misconstrued, as division in the church is problematic. Rather, the focus should always be on unity in the spirit - that we can hold differing sub-beliefs and traditions, but all are united in faith through Christ alone.

 

[Hammster]

The gospel is 100% true. How people misconstrue that doesn't make it less true.

Theories of man (especially when they, like Calvinism, or Reformed doctrine if you prefer, has many variations and off-shoots) should never place themselves as superior to the gospel. For example, consider all the many teachings which some Christians hold, but often teach as 100% truth vs. disputable matters and binding on all other Christians: one must rest on Saturday, can't eat pork, must believe all 5 'TULIP' points, must hold to 4 point Calvinism, must take communion every week, can only go to a specific denomination, can only read the KJV, etc.

All these theories must be examined on their own merits as to whether they are true in part or whole or are false. None can be declared 100% true by axiom. Nor do any of these sub-teachings get an automatic pass if they are misconstrued, as division in the church is problematic. Rather, the focus should always be on unity in the spirit - that we can hold differing sub-beliefs and traditions, but all are united in faith through Christ alone.

No disagreement from me. That's why these sob stories are pointless.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

how many types of calvinism are there

From what I can tell there are primarily 5-point, 4-point, and hyper-calvinists in the Reformed tradition - however, it can very widely from person to person as to how they define terms so there really are a lot more versions than that. For example, some Calvinists believe that man is so fallen/corrupted by sin that man literally cannot place faith in Christ until their spirit is regenerated. Others believe regeneration happens at the same moment, or just after, placing faith, and that what the Holy Spirit gives is an irresistible conviction of the truth of Christ.

A good write up of 4 vs. 5 point Calvinist, by a Calvinist, is here:
What is Calvinism and is it biblical? What are the five points of Calvinism?

I have a counterpoint to TULIP here: What is Calvinism and is it biblical? What are the five points of Calvinism?

There is also a write-up of Hypercalvinism here: What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical?

Outside of Calvinism, there are many other views as well, such as Molinism, Arminianism, etc.

What is Molinism and is it Biblical?
What is Arminianism, and is it biblical?

There is, of course, no scriptural requirement to accept any one of these theories.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

What was the motivation for all of this? Hard to say, I know. But we do know that without faith, it's impossible to please God, and those in the flesh cannot do so.

I already addressed that in the other thread. The greek term in Rom 8:8 is 'aréskō'.

It means to satisfy or make good on something (so as to please and win favor) because you met their expectation and are in moral agreement with them.

That is far more specific than the English term 'please' - it's referring to a complete satisfaction and moral agreement, so as to earn merit or favor. No one can be in moral agreement with God and gain His favor without faith!

In Heb 11:6, the term is 'euarestéō'

Euarestéō' means to please or gratify by giving what is acceptable. In context, the passage is speaking of salvation - becoming an heir of righteousness. What can we give that is acceptable for salvation and righteousness? Nothing but faith!

This term is also more specific than the English term 'please.'

Furthermore, those passages and others speak of the necessity of faith to well-please God and become heirs of righteousness - none of them are saying that man can't respond to the gospel in faith, or that fallen man can't do anything good that can generally please God.

 

[Hammster]

I already addressed that in the other thread. The greek term in Rom 8:8 is 'aréskō'.

It means to satisfy or make good on something (so as to please and win favor) because you met their expectation and are in moral agreement with them.

That is far more specific than the English term 'please' - it's referring to a complete satisfaction and moral agreement, so as to earn merit or favor. No one can be in moral agreement with God and gain His favor without faith!

In Heb 11:6, the term is 'euarestéō'

Euarestéō' means to please or gratify by giving what is acceptable. In context, the passage is speaking of salvation - becoming an heir of righteousness. What can we give that is acceptable for salvation and righteousness? Nothing but faith!

This term is also more specific than the English term 'please.'

Furthermore, those passages and others speak of the necessity of faith to well-please God and become heirs of righteousness - none of them are saying that man can't respond to the gospel in faith, or that fallen man can't do anything good that can generally please God.

So God has two types of things that please Him? Please explain.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

ok can we start with free will?

There is wide variance in how people use the term, so it can be difficult to discuss the issue. Most people, Calvinist or not, actually believe in some form of limited will. Even God cannot go against His own character, yet he has a will that more free than any created thing. Man is bound by his moral and physical limitations. Animals are bound by instinct. Angels seem to only have the choice of obedience following God or disobedience following Satan. Nature can only act within the restrictive limits it is given. Etc.

So, no one generally means 'free will' as referring to 'being able to make any choice whatsoever without limit.'

The Calvinist theory of total depravity holds that man is so corrupt he has no actual ability to respond to the gospel in faith, so a select few are either given faith directly, spiritually regenerated so that they can have faith, or their senses and intellect otherwise so compelled by the spirit that they cannot do otherwise than have faith. (The particular method seems to vary for individual Calvinists.)

Arminians believe that men are 'totally depraved', much like the Calvinist belief, and could not respond to the gospel of their own power. However, unlike Calvinists, Arminians believe that God in His common grace has given all men the ability to respond in faith to the conviction brought by Christ's death, and add that the holy spirit gives everyone (not just a few) the ability to respond.

Others hold to the view that man can respond in faith - but only due to the offer of faith by the presentation of the gospel and work of Christ, so this too is a general grace of God that allows man to respond to the gospel

There are a few other cult views (like Pelagianism) that believe man, without the aid of any grace of God such as the revelation of Christ, nor even the necessity of faith, can work or earn his own salvation.


Here are some of my write-ups on free will, salvation, the sovereignty of God, and how it is all related if you are interested. I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminian nor any other systemized theory on the topic.

How does God's sovereignty and mankind's free will work together in salvation?
How are we to understand the sequence and part that man plays in his salvation?
Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?
How are predestination and election connected with foreknowledge?
What does it mean in Rom 3:27 that boasting is excluded because of the law that requires faith?
If God predestines people to be saved, does it mean that he will not save those he has not chosen even if they seek him?
Do we contribute anything to our own salvation?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

So God has two types of things that please Him? Please explain.

He has many things that please Him (mercy, sacrifice, obedience, praise, humility, doing good, etc.) He only has one thing that well-pleases Him to grant us salvation, fully satisfying Him so as to grant us His favor so as to make us heirs of righteousness (living in faith.)

The English term 'please' simply means to act according to the pleasure, wish, or will of someone. There are many examples of people in scripture doing things that God approves of or asked for, and examples of mankind, in general, to seek Him or obey (but never perfectly.)

 

[Hammster]

He has many things that please Him (mercy, sacrifice, obedience, praise, humility, doing good, etc.) He only has one thing that well-pleases Him to grant us salvation, fully satisfying Him so as to grant us His favor so as to make us heirs of righteousness (living in faith.)

The English term 'please' simply means to act according to the pleasure, wish, or will of someone. There are many examples of people in scripture doing things that God approves of or asked for, and examples of mankind, in general, to seek Him or obey (but never perfectly.)

Okay. I don't think you can support that. The only thing I've seen where it states He's well pleased is in relation to His Son. But if you can show where He's pleased by anything the unregenerate does, I'll certainly look it over.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Okay. I don't think you can support that. The only thing I've seen where it states He's well pleased is in relation to His Son. But if you can show where He's pleased by anything the unregenerate does, I'll certainly look it over.

I already posted many passages of people doing things that God found pleasing (the midwives fearing Him, Cornelius's prayers ascending to Him like a memorial offering, etc.)
I posted more examples in the other thread "On Free Will." Any action that is in accordance with God's will or desire is 'pleasing' to Him by the general English definition of the term. (And I assume we are all speaking English in this forum.)

But if you were meaning only to assert that fleshly man could not satisfy God unto salvation without faith, then I and most every other non-Calvinist would agree. Or, if you merely meant to propose that a man's whole self cannot be pleasing to God without faith, then I and almost every other non-Calvinist would agree with that as well.

However, the thrust of your argument seemed to be far broader than that, claiming that unregenerate man could do nothing whatsoever that was pleasing.

There is a large difference when speaking of a specific action (obedience, feeding the hungry, etc.) or state of heart (humility) that someone might have/do that God finds pleasing, and having one's whole life/existence found 'well-pleasing' to God. We, as a whole person, cannot be well-pleasing to God outside the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is only imputed to us due to faith.