What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[misput]

Understood in the light and context of the whole NT,
all those born of Adam (in Adam) do receive imputed guilt, and
all those born of Christ (in Christ) do receive imputed righteousness.

The whole context being. . ."because all sinned" is the necessary (and unexplained) conclusion of "all died," unexplained conclusion because there was no law with the death penalty in force at the time to cause their deaths.
I understand, but what you consider the main point of the sentence is not necessarily the basis nor the main point of my response.
My highlights indicate precisely to what I am responding, which is often the wheel on which the argument turns, everything else depending on it, so that when there is no wheel, there is really no argument.

So the response to me becomes to show the Biblical error of my argument, thereby showing that your argument remains valid.

Thanks for your patient reply, it is helpful but leaves several unanswered questions which I do not intend to get bogged down in as most threads tend to become headaches instead of learning experiences and entertainment.
PS: Editing someones post is risky biscuits : ) PPS: You did finally answer the two words of my post you edited but in another post, so I suppose it got on your "wheel" somehow : )

 

[zoidar]

But HOW does Martin realize that the life he is living is wrong? Or maybe I should say, HOW does Martin realize that the life he is living is more than regrettable? Mere conscience (which, btw, is also by God's grace) may convict him too, or the Spirit may, but either way, that too is the work of God; yet Martin will rebel, even if he has a pretty good intellectual grasp, he will not understand the depth of his guilt. And if he thinks he repents, he doesn't realize he is too weak. It is only by the Spirit of God, that one's repentance is real, i.e, valid.

You have no way of bypassing this mountain: The natural man cannot please God, will not and cannot submit to God's law, has no true faith and does not comprehend spiritual things.

The depth of guilt, btw, is beyond even the intellectual grasp of the regenerate, but not beyond the grasp of the Spirit of God in the regenerate. To me, THAT, (the merit or ability of the Spirit of God alone to realize the Gospel), is the ultimate principle behind the Reformed doctrine of regeneration, and my notion of, indeed, that same salvific grace and salvific faith remaining and effecting all virtues of the Redeemed for the duration of the life of the Redeemed. We do so, because God does it in us.




It can appear to occur all of a lump. I don't even deny the order as it appears in the Scriptures that @Jesus is YHWH presents. What I deny is that regeneration is not 'begun' or effected before conviction and repentance. The logical sequence need not be shown, by way of cause-and-effect, to come up with the time sequence those verses show. I think that the new life is the continuing of the new birth. To put it crassly, more Spirit control is not more-valid Spirit, but more of the Spirit.

BTW, @Jesus is YHWH, the verses such as you show, and there are many more, that give an apparent time sequence, don't necessarily demonstrate even a time sequence. But it is nice, that you at least admit to the every-time need for rebirth. You just don't seem to understand what causes it. After all, it is an Arminian thing to say Calvinism teaches it is automatic, but now you teach an automatic Spirit involvement upon repentance/confession/acceptance.

How Martin got convicted? I can tell you how I got convicted. It happened over months of different "coincidences". I finally got to the conclusion what had happened over the years couldn't be merely coincidences. I was very confused, but started to believe in the Bible and I realized being a sinner. But since I had been into Buddhism etc. I thought I wasn't welcome to God. I got home from work one day convinced I wasn't going to heaven (truly convicted). So I prayed in despair to God that if He would forgive me I would give Him my life. And right there and then I experienced regeneration, God forgiving me and changing my heart. I was a new person.

You will most likely say God did it all and free will had no part in it. How can I prove free will was involved? I can't! I just believe it was. You will probably say I was regenerated already when I realized I was a sinner? I don't believe that. Though what we can agree on is that I was lead by God to salvation, and I wouldn't have gone there on my own. Exacly how God did it, and what battle between forces of evil and forces of good had taken place over my life, I can never know. I'm just thankful God was merciful to me that day and forgave me.

This of course is the very short story cutting out a lot of details.

 

[Clare73]

Of course God can influence people; so can Satan; so can you; so can I.
It does not negate their free will.

Precisely. . .they choose what they prefer. . .but still having a limited free will which is not able to choose to be sinless in thought, word and deed.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for your patient reply, it is helpful but leaves several unanswered questions which I do not intend to get bogged down in as most threads tend to become headaches instead of learning experiences and entertainment.
PS: Editing someones post is risky biscuits : )

You lost me. . .what did I edit (change)?

PPS: You did finally answer the two words of my post you edited but in another post, so I suppose it got on your "wheel" somehow : )

I have no idea what you are talking about, if you care to explain.

 

[RickReads]

You lost me. . .what did I edit (change)?

I have no idea what you are talking about, if you care to explain.

Then I suggest you review the last 29 pages on this thread then maybe you know what's goin on.

 

[Clare73]

Paul already had a heart for God, that wasn't what his problem was.

Not according to Jesus.

Paul was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), with a Pharisee's heart, which Pharisees Jesus did not view as having "hearts for God," but rather as sons of the devil--that murderer from the beginning (John 8:8, John 8:44), and that same Paul put Christians in prison and voted for their deaths (Acts 26:9-10).

In the halls of glory, that is not considered a "heart for God."

Paul was a know not according to his own testimony.

All who reject Jesus are know-nots according to 1 Corinthians 2:14, including Paul (Saul) himself.

I thought you knew the epistles Hmmmm.

Indeed, I do!

Would that you knew the book of Acts.

See ya' in glory!

 

[Mark Quayle]

He wasn't teaching automatic Spirit involvement. This is just another example of you injecting an issue that isn't addressed into the text.

Methinks thou protesteth too much!

 

[Clare73]

Ok, so throw stones because my language wasn`t strong enough for a Calvinist taste.

Poor baby! . . .nobody loves him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, you copied my post twice and your post doesn't make much sense.

I addressed the term new birth which refers to everything the Spirit does at the moment God receives a person as His child. The washing away of sin is one of several things that happen and you mocked me for saying so I found that odd even for a Calvinist.

No, I don't mock you for saying that regeneration involves among other things the washing away of sin. I mock you, if anything, for saying that there are only two references to regeneration, and that all the other ones that people might think are the same thing are invalid from which to draw doctrine concerning regeneration.

 

[Clare73]

Then I suggest you review the last 29 pages on this thread then maybe you know what's goin on.

Workin' in the vineyard gettin' to ya?

I'm thinkin' it's a good thread.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No one is guilty of sin until they sin.

We are all condemned by Adam's guilt imputed to us (Romans 5:12-18)

As "unfair" as anyone might see such a thing, (and any other thing that we don't feel comfortable with concerning God's acts, such as wiping out whole tribes including the weak and infants, and as ect and creating a person he knows will be there, for the purpose of God's own Glory, and so on) God has the absolute right of ownership, but even better, the absolute knowledge of how and why, which we absolutely do NOT have.

If God says he imputed Adam's sin-guilt upon us, he did. Our feelings about it affect it none.

 

[RickReads]

Workin' in the vineyard gettin' to ya?

All this recent Ad Hominem could make me seem cross in future

 

[Clare73]

How Martin got convicted? I can tell you how I got convicted. It happened over months of different "coincidences". I finally got to the conclusion what had happened over the years couldn't be merely coincidences. I was very confused, but started to believe in the Bible and I realized being a sinner. But since I had been into Buddhism etc. I thought I wasn't welcome to God. I got home from work one day convinced I wasn't going to heaven (truly convicted). So I prayed in despair to God that if He would forgive me I would give Him my life. And right there and then I experienced regeneration, God forgiving me and changing my heart. I was a new person.

You will most likely say God did it all and free will had no part in it. How can I prove free will was involved? I can't! I just believe it was.

Why does "free will" keep rearing its ugly head?

It's a non-starter. . .never an issue in Scripture. . .all choose either to accept or reject God. . .which is not to say that is the whole story.

You will probably say I was regenerated already when I realized I was a sinner? I don't believe that. Though what we can agree on is that I was lead by God to salvation, and I wouldn't have gone there on my own. Exacly how God did it, and what battle between forces of evil and forces of good had taken place over my life, I can never know. I'm just thankful God was merciful to me that day and forgave me.

This of course is the very short story cutting out a lot of details.

It's always that way with conversion. . .it's a journey.

 

[Clare73]

As "unfair" as anyone might see such a thing, (and any other thing that we don't feel comfortable with concerning God's acts, such as wiping out whole tribes including the weak and infants, and as ect and creating a person he knows will be there, for the purpose of God's own Glory, and so on) God has the absolute right of ownership, but even better, the absolute knowledge of how and why, which we absolutely do NOT have.
If God says he imputed Adam's sin-guilt upon us, he did. Our feelings about it affect it none.

Don't hear anyone complaining about imputing Christ's righteousness to us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Their teaching does not slander God saying that He creates some that He "dooms from the womb".
We agree up to this point and it shows that free will is important.
I did not address this. We agree that man is depraved, in rebellion, and does not seek God. But I don't find where man cannot be reached by the Holy Spirit as is. If being born-again is required before responding to the Holy Spirit is an important truth, there would be scripture to explicitly state that.

The Holy Spirit does what it pleases (John 3), for God's sake, regardless of our doctrines and wishes and judgements. If the Spirit of God enters the mind of a person, causing him to prophesy, he can do so, without regenerating that person. If the Spirit of God wants to enlighten to some degree, the understanding of a person, short of salvific faith, he can do so. He can even break the spirit of one who has been proud, or "coerce" (to use someone's favorite word) a person to giving up and giving in, without regenerating that person. Scriptures have numerous examples of such things, including God inciting someone, through means, to do something wrong, (see Ahab).

Do Arminians want God 'honoring' free will? God leaves a person to their own devices, yet still under his control and restraint, according to their corrupt will, even when his Spirit has broken their hearts, until he raises their dead nature to life. Before that, nothing they do means anything for salvation.

Do Arminians want such a corrupt decision to submit and repent, to be real? The only true repentance and submission is because of the Spirit of God who knows the things of God completely. Not because of our education or supposed integrity.

 

[Clare73]

All this recent Ad Hominem could make me seem cross in future

Nah. . .not you. . .never!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No? As I recollect you claim Paul is summarizing Tulip in Ephesians 2.

Hahaha! Yes, I recall you supposing I did. In fact, when you said I was the one who brought it up, I SHOWED you that all I brought up in that post was the scriptural fact of —what was it— irresistable grace? —I don't remember now. Whatever it was, the principle is not drawn from TULIP, but from Scriptures such as Eph 2. If the occasion is coming back to you now, maybe you can remember that I showed that it was YOU who introduced TULIP into the conversation, though you accused me of it. Odd how you only recollect what you suppose, even after it was proven otherwise to you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Bible does not teach that God decides for us - he grieves when we do not submit to him. Imagine a God grieving for those he chose to damn. Calvinist "grace" is not the grace of the Bible.

Nor do I teach that he decides for us. I teach that he decides, and so do we, according to our inclinations, according to our will. Imagine God "honoring" free will so much that he decided to create the person to whom he gave this 'free will', knowing ahead what that person would do with it, condemning himself!

 

[Clare73]

Their teaching does not slander God saying that He creates some that He "dooms from the womb".
We agree up to this point and it shows that free will is important.
I did not address this. We agree that man is depraved, in rebellion, and does not seek God. But I don't find where man cannot be reached by the Holy Spirit as is. If being born-again is required before responding to the Holy Spirit is an important truth,
there would be scripture to explicitly state that.

As in John 3:3-8:
"No one can see (eidon--know, be acquainted with) the kingdom of God until he is born again. . .
No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water (cleanness, righteousness of Christ) and the Spirit. . .
You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
The wind blows wherever it pleases.
You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going.
So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Best to be careful about requiring how God should state his truth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, show then from scripture that repentance is a deed "ergon". I'll be surprised if you are able to do that.

You are the one who claimed it is not. It is an act, someone one does, and therefore by simple definition, a deed. It need not come from Scripture.

But this does come from Scripture: "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." And again, I submit that repentance pleases God, which the sin nature is unable to do, according to Romans 8; and that repentance is of God's good pleasure, so that it is only by him working in us to will and to do it, that it is done —A deed.