What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

Ephesians 2 does not teach a regeneration occurring in advance of salvation, nor does it teach irresistible grace. Sorry, but Paul was not teaching tulip. You shove the round peg into the square hole with this one.

You complain that my criticism of Calvin is inadequate. After all my criticism revolves around my two primary issues with Calvinism. But in my opinion, these two problems render the whole concept
useless. The rest of it isn't good theology but I can pinch my nose and let it pass on by.

Clever, but false. Not to mention indicative of poor resources for buttressing your POV. You employ bare assertion and near ad hom. —HOW does Ephesians 2 teach otherwise than TULIP, or in opposition to TULIP? You don't say.

But then, my first two sentences here are in kind, and you may criticize them in like manner.

 

[RickReads]

Does it matter?

Kinda. I refer to Clare as a female, John refers as a male. Seems like Clare would correct one of us.

 

[RickReads]

Clever, but false. Not to mention indicative of poor resources for buttressing your POV. You employ bare assertion and near ad hom. —HOW does Ephesians 2 teach otherwise than TULIP, or in opposition to TULIP? You don't say.

But then, my first two sentences here are in kind, and you may criticize them in like manner.

I`m not sure how to be more clear about that than I was. It does not address the flaws in TULIP because man had not invented TULIP yet.

I`ll repost yet again on your behalf,

Ephesians 2 does not teach a regeneration occurring in advance of salvation, nor does it teach irresistible grace.

 

[AVB 2]

Piper & MacArthur teach that God decrees all things that happen on earth - even the evil (including rape, murder, people going to hell), and yet purport that God desires all to be saved. That is better than what?

There isn't anything better than God is 100% in charge, God is absolutely sovereign and if some people don't like that that is too bad because that is what the scriptures say

Free will to choose your respond, is it in the bible? Matt 11:27 All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” The Lord is inviting all who are weary and burdened, and He will give them rest. Then it seems to say to me, TAKE my yoke upon you and learn from ME, so I ask, is this a command or request for whoever is weary and burdened to come to Him and He will give whoever rest, He gave the invite, and only by faith, WHOEVER comes or not, why did WHOEVER COME OR NOT, was it their decision whether or not to come is in this passage, THAT IS THE QUESTION OF THE AGES, is it not? One comes and one doesn't who's choice is it, whoever was invited, but some of the whoever do not exercise faith, and never get relief from their burdens! What a terrible response to cast all their care upon Him. My understanding, your decision or not, which is it? Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for they that come to Him, must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder to those who trust in Him. Peace in the heart or just continue to handle your own burdens, as I understand, you are the one to decide, do you accept His invitation, by grace through faith-------------------------THAT IS THE QUESTION--------------------

Can a dead person respond to anything? No. So do the scriptures say that the natural man is dead? Eph 2:1 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." and 2:5 "even when we were dead in trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" and Col 2:13 "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Prior to our conversion by the Lord Jesus Christ we were all dead. It is only by God's grace (and not our free will) that we are alive.

If it is only because we give God the authority to convert us (He cannot violate our free will remember) then that means that we have more power than God! If this is true we need to stop singing about God's grace and start singing about our wonderful and powerful free will. I suggest new words to Amazing Grace. Here we go:

Amazing free will how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me, I once was
lost but now am found twas blind but now I see.

Surely some 7-11 praise song writer can take this and run with it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, I'll try to ask better questions.

You say: "—he MADE Jimmy for the exact purpose of Jimmy's position as that particular member of the Bride of Christ that he is /will be."

What is the reason God has a fixed position in the Bride that he made Jimmy fit for, instead of having a another fixed position in the Bride He made Clark fit for?

God made Jimmy for the purpose for fit of the Bride and God didn't make Clark for the fit of the Bride. Why did God have this purpose for Jimmy instead of Clark? Couldn't God shape the Bride the way He wanted her? Did the Bride need to be in one certain way? In that case, why?

Basically, I see little difference from your first question, in your rephrase. You may as well ask why the universe is as it is. God is not possessed of random inclinations. The universe is what it is because God made it so, "according to his good pleasure". So the Bride.

But there is something else: I have, since I was little, puzzled over the question of how it is possible for God to create anything that is other than himself. But that that creation should be capable of rebelling against, or attempting to work in opposition to God, is to my mind staggering, outrageous, even non-sensical, monstrous! But he did it, so that his particular creation (as the completed construction—the Bride of Christ) is exactly the ONLY creation that can be counted worthy of being ONE WITH GOD, in a way that no other creation —not even the angels— can be. That narrows down considerably, the options we perceive as possibilities.

Also, in keeping with God's nature, that is not subject to principles from outside himself, and so is not subject to our supposed "randomness" or "chance", EVERYTHING he does is specific. The Bride is no haphazard conglomeration of random cells.

But I guess I'm more or less repeating myself with this answer, just as it seems to me you were doing with your expanded question.

Maybe all you are asking Romans 9, is why he made Clark. It was for the purpose of making Jimmy into that member of the Bride. But I continue to repeat myself.

 

[AVB 2]

Ephesians 1:1-6 addresses the faithful in Christ Jesus - they are the ones chosen to be blessed with every spiritual blessing.

Ephesian 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Redemption in Christ3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
​

The fact that God has no need to consult His creation does not prove He does not do that.

Why are we the faithful in Christ Jesus? Was it because we exercised our free will after we were physically born of a woman, or was it God who "chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world" as you quoted above? We are the faithful in Christ Jesus because He chose us, and now we are "holy and blameless before Him in love."

There are over 60 passages of scripture in the NT only that says that God (or Jesus) chooses us, has chosen us, or has elected us to salvation. There are zero that says we chose Him, or seek for Him by an act of our free will. Our free will is diametrically opposed to God's revealed will. Eve used her free will in the Garden and left the mess we are in now. David used his free will to have an affair with Bathsheba, then used his free will to have her husband murdered. Joseph's brothers by their free will sold Joseph into slavery and lied to their father. Jonah used his free will to go east instead of west rather than following God's will.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

How long would I last?

A couple hours lol. It’s ridiculous there now .

 

[zoidar]

Basically, I see little difference from your first question, in your rephrase. You may as well ask why the universe is as it is. God is not possessed of random inclinations. The universe is what it is because God made it so, "according to his good pleasure". So the Bride.

But there is something else: I have, since I was little, puzzled over the question of how it is possible for God to create anything that is other than himself. But that that creation should be capable of rebelling against, or attempting to work in opposition to God, is to my mind staggering, outrageous, even non-sensical, monstrous! But he did it, so that his particular creation (as the completed construction—the Bride of Christ) is exactly the ONLY creation that can be counted worthy of being ONE WITH GOD, in a way that no other creation —not even the angels— can be. That narrows down considerably, the options we perceive as possibilities.

Also, in keeping with God's nature, that is not subject to principles from outside himself, and so is not subject to our supposed "randomness" or "chance", EVERYTHING he does is specific. The Bride is no haphazard conglomeration of random cells.

But I guess I'm more or less repeating myself with this answer, just as it seems to me you were doing with your expanded question.

Maybe all you are asking Romans 9, is why he made Clark. It was for the purpose of making Jimmy into that member of the Bride. But I continue to repeat myself.

That is not what I'm asking. My question is why God created Jimmy for the purpose of member of the Bride, but not Clark.

I see you give two answers to this:

1. God could only create the universe this way to be worthy of being one with God. In other words God could only create Jimmy for heaven and Clark for judgement for the creation to be worthy of being one with God.

It could be so, but I see no reason for why that would be the case.

2. God created Jimmy for heaven for His purpose and Clark for judgement for His purpose. Why we don't know (more than it was for His pleassure) unless 1. is correct.

 

[RickReads]

A couple hours lol. It’s ridiculous there now .

That hurts man, but in my defense, I want to point out to ya that I've been thrown out of much classier forums than that place.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That hurts man, but in my defense, I want to point out to ya that I've been thrown out of much classier forums than that place.

It was no insult to you as I last 1-2 days . I post the same here . It’s 100% biased against all non Calvinists.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He does things like this:

1. Obnoxiously says "Good for you" and "you don't know the scriptures".
2. Asks for bible commentary on a list of scriptural passages and requires "the whole council of God".
3. Purports to give commentary by attaching a laundry list of scriptures without explanation.
4. Constantly demands to know how arguments made from Acts and NT Epistles relate to terms in Christ's parable (wheat, tare, sheep, goat). They don't - neither the book of Acts nor the NT Epistles reference Christ's parables.
   • Calvinist's understanding of Christ's use of wheat, tare, sheep, goats does not prove OSAS and does not prove that God chose to decree who would and would not be saved from before the foundation of the world. You cannot interpret NT Epistle scriptures by interjecting it - they don't relate!
   • This comes across as mockingbird style. Not showing any interest in understanding the other's point of view or to honestly debate it.
5. Pretends to answer from a purely objective point of view when he is obviously a staunch Calvinist. He sounds like Calvin, but says I only study Paul. This comes across as posing.

Wow. Well, I'm not going to say @Clare73 does no such thing. But I would have to go back through the posts to see where, for example, "4. Constantly demands to know how arguments made from Acts and NT Epistles relate to terms in Christ's parable (wheat, tare, sheep, goat)." is accurate. I have wondered at least once, how the wheat and tares subject came up, but have not seen it in such frequency as what I could call a methodology. But I will say that we all do such things as all 5 of your objections.

1) Read, for example, @RickReads, or me, or even yourself, to find personal criticism, condescension and arrogance. Sometimes we do it from mere habit, and some of us do so because of our personality type, (which, granted, is no excuse), and some of us do it in reaction to the same projected at us.

2) The whole council of God, impossible to show on this format, is nevertheless a valid (the valid(?)) judge of any doctrinal claim. Clare is right to invoke the principle. And are Scripture's passages not to be studied, explained, applied, interpreted, used? I'm not sure what your objection is here.

3) I will claim this fault myself, when, for example Ephesians 2:1-10 clearly says exactly and more concisely than I can, what I have been trying to get across. But so do all of us do that, sometimes with no more commentary than to say, "this means that we cooperate with God", or, "this means that we do choose" as though the implication is plain that our choosing implies no specific predestination. I think, too, that you will have to admit that sometimes the explanation or commentary runs so much longer than the text that it is counterproductive to include it.

4) Already answered above, in my first paragraph

5) FWIW it is a matter of principle that the Reformed try to be Reformable. But I have to say, it is something all of us do, that when we love something (such as the pure meaning/implications of Grace or of "Freewill"), we do have a tendency to insulate ourselves from opposing-sounding communications, or to be antagonistic towards them. Also, I too debated with myself early on whether to label myself Reformed, for that very reason. I claim 'Reformed' only because Reformed Theology most closely resembles what I think, and so that others who think like I do would more quickly know what I think by common reference. I don't think it is fair to accuse Clare of posing, or of being Calvinistic for Calvinism's sake —certainly no more than how others do what they do, perhaps by clinging to the name of Baptist or Methodist or whatever other denomination they think they can, instead of outright naming themselves "freewiller" which "is [what they] obviously [are]" and defend.

In Clare's defense (yes, no doubt, I am biased) I have yet to hear something she has posted that was merely pointless or petty. I think more often the angry responses she gets are the result of the frustration of people who don't know how to defend their opinions against the plain reason of her attacks on them. Also, I have seen this: that we all have a POV problem with any other person, whose statements are as often as not taken to imply things they simply had not meant.

 

[Clare73]

Concerning Arminianism it's the question Mark Quayle posted. Something like why A is "choosing" Christ but not B. What is it with A that makes him do the better choice, is A better than B? Is it chance? The answer is, I have no idea why, other than I believe free will is involved.

I may be wrong, but I think Mark was trying to get you to see the only answer is the one Scripture gives: the sovereign choice of God for his purpose and pleasure.

So I see that as a similar dilemma as we have in Calvinism where we don't know why God creates A for heaven but not B.

For me it's not a dilemma, it is simply God's sovereign will.

 

[RickReads]

It was no insult to you as I last 1-2 days . I post the same here . It’s 100% biased against all non Calvinists.

I`m just kidding. If I can't be me then I would have no interest in contributing content. I don't see online forums as a good place to win souls so that isn't the purpose of my remarks in these situations.

 

[RickReads]

Wow. Well, I'm not going to say @Clare73 does no such thing. But I would have to go back through the posts to see where, for example, "4. Constantly demands to know how arguments made from Acts and NT Epistles relate to terms in Christ's parable (wheat, tare, sheep, goat)." is accurate. I have wondered at least once, how the wheat and tares subject came up, but have not seen it in such frequency as what I could call a methodology. But I will say that we all do such things as all 4 of your objections.

1) Read, for example, @RickReads, or me, or even yourself, to find personal criticism, condescension and arrogance. Sometimes we do it from mere habit, and some of us do so because of our personality type, (which, granted, is no excuse), and some of us do it in reaction to the same projected at us.

2) The whole council of God, impossible to show on this format, is nevertheless a valid (the valid(?)) judge of any doctrinal claim. Clare is right to invoke the principle. And are Scripture's passages not to be studied, explained, applied, interpreted, used? I'm not sure what your objection is here.

3) I will claim this fault myself, when, for example Ephesians 2:1-10 clearly says exactly and more concisely than I can, what I have been trying to get across. But so do all of us do that, sometimes with no more commentary than to say, "this means that we cooperate with God", or, "this means that we do choose" as though the implication is plain that our choosing implies no specific predestination. I think, too, that you will have to admit that sometimes the explanation or commentary runs so much longer than the text that it is counterproductive to include it.

4) Already answered above, in my first paragraph

5) FWIW it is a matter of principle that the Reformed try to be Reformable. But I have to say, it is something all of us do, that when we love something (such as the pure meaning/implications of Grace or of "Freewill"), we do have a tendency to insulate ourselves from opposing-sounding communications, or to be antagonistic towards them. Also, I too debated with myself early on whether to label myself Reformed, for that very reason. I claim 'Reformed' only because Reformed Theology most closely resembles what I think, and so that others who think like I do would more quickly know what I think by common reference. I don't think it is fair to accuse Clare of posing, or of being Calvinistic for Calvinism's sake —certainly no more than how others do what they do, perhaps by clinging to the name of Baptist or Methodist or whatever other denomination they think they can, instead of outright naming themselves "freewiller" which "is [what they] obviously [are]" and defend.

In Clare's defense (yes, no doubt, I am biased) I have yet to hear something she has posted that was merely pointless or petty. I think more often the angry responses she gets are the result of the frustration of people who don't know how to defend their opinions against the plain reason of her attacks on them. Also, I have seen this: that we all have a POV problem with any other person, whose statements are as often as not taken to imply things they simply had not meant.

I plead innocent of all the charges

 

[John Mullally]

There isn't anything better than God is 100% in charge, God is absolutely sovereign and if some people don't like that that is too bad because that is what the scriptures say

I don't believe He is controlling everything at this time. In Matthew 6:10, Christ tells His disciples to pray "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." The mere fact that Christ asks them to pray it means that Matthew 6:10 is in fact God's perfect Will. But we do not see heaven on earth yet. Therefore, some of God's perfect Will is not being done at this time. The fact that Christ asks His disciples to pray that, means they have a role in some of that being done.

Can a dead person respond to anything? No. So do the scriptures say that the natural man is dead? Eph 2:1 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." and 2:5 "even when we were dead in trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" and Col 2:13 "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Prior to our conversion by the Lord Jesus Christ we were all dead. It is only by God's grace (and not our free will) that we are alive.

If it is only because we give God the authority to convert us (He cannot violate our free will remember) then that means that we have more power than God! If this is true we need to stop singing about God's grace and start singing about our wonderful and powerful free will.

If the Holy Spirit draws men during the preaching of the Gospel to repentance, then from the non-Calvinist POV they are saved and born-again at the same time. Are you saying the Holy Spirit cannot do this? Acts 2:38-39 promises remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and are baptized in response to his preaching. Those two things may be considered as being equivalent to being both born-again and saved.

I suggest new words to Amazing Grace. Here we go:

Amazing free will how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me, I once was
lost but now am found twas blind but now I see.

Surely some 7-11 praise song writer can take this and run with it.

Nice song

 

[Clare73]

The Bible does not provide a detailed substantive meaning or detailed understanding of free will. There’s no single verse or amalgamation of verses providing to the reader a meaning or understanding of free will is X, Y, and Z, where the letters are elements of the meaning/understanding.

There isn’t a single verse or amalgamation of verses for the notion “Men are possessed of a limited free will, in that they do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices, e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed.”

I agree with the overall sentiment, phrased differently though. People have the power, as power has the meaning of ability to decide to and/or do or able to decide to perfom all moral acts/all actions which aren’t sinful, and ability decide to refrain and able to decide to refrain from all immoral acts/all actions that are sinful and the ability to decide to and/or able to decide to perform all immoral acts/sinful acts, both individual decisions or some collection of decisions, conservatively, or intermittently. People, however, will at some point exercise their power, they will exercise their ability to decide and able to decide to perform some immoral act(s)/sinful act(s).

People aren’t sinless and aren’t devoid of immorality because they exercise their power to choose sin and to choose immorality, and will do so, as opposed to the notion “cannot choose to be sinless.”

The answer as to why they will sin, be immoral is, in part, 1.) the power, ability, able, aspect of humanity is predisposed to desiring some sinful conduct, wanting to perform some sinful conduct, as a result of humanity’s sinful nature and sinful flesh. 2.) our flesh will grow too weak at times to always abstain from sin such that we will decide to sin because it is easier at the moment to sin than resist C.) our perfect unity with God, which A and E initially possessed and experienced, isn’t perfect because of Adam’s sin as Adam’s sin resulted in spiritual alienation from God in a world of sin and sinners (Jesus in part restored this this unity with God but it isn’t what it was before A and E’s transgression in part because we are still transgressing and sin has entered the world itself) D.) with innate sinful desires, sinful apetites, and there existing, perhaps at times perceived at times real, a physical benefit and/or gratification, etcetera, people will by their own power, able to, ability, choose to sin. (Where “choose to sin” appears one could apply “immorality”

So, I agree with the overall sentiment, albeit phrased differently for me, that humans will not always choose to do what is morally correct, will not always choose to abstain from sin. Which is to also say humans will not always choose to abstain from sinful/immoral conduct.

Paragraph 1 and 2 result in a very interesting inference.
1they do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices, e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed.”
2. “ man has free will…the power to choose voluntarily, without external force or constraint.”

My bad, I inadvertently left off the ending, "the power to choose without external force or constraint, what he prefers, likes," which is self.
To deny such is to deny Romans 3:9-18, Romans 8:7-8, Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Likewise, man does not have the power to choose to be sinless; i.e., to never sin in thought, word or deed.
To deny such, is to deny the plain facts of humanity.

The word “cannot” is not consistent with the word voluntary or “voluntarily.”

An inference to be drawn from one and two is the very first occasion to sin or not to sin, the person must sin because “man cannot choose to be sinless.” Which means the decision to sin for the first time isn’t “voluntary” or “voluntarily” done.

Man's condemnation for sin is based on more than the "occasions of sin."
All are condemned from birth by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18).

This is an inference and this inference is apparent because where the first decision to sin was voluntary and voluntarily done, but the second decision to sin was not, renders your first paragraph of “man cannot choose to be sinless” irrelevant, moot, pointless.

So, John is confronted for the first time with the decision to sin or not to sin. If John’s decision here to sin is voluntary and voluntarily done, then “do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices, e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed,” is pointless. John chose on this occasion to sin voluntarily, and by doing so voluntarily chose to not be sinless.

If humanity can sin by a voluntary act and voluntarily act to sin when confronted for the first time to do so, then your point they “cannot choose to be sinless” is pointless.

For the notion “man cannot choose to be sinless” to have relevance must mean for this very first occasion to sin or not to sin, they must choose sin and it cannot be a voluntary act or voluntarily done.

Unless you have some way to resolve the paradox of “man cannot choose to be sinless” and the first occasion to sin or not to sin is voluntary and voluntarily done.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I`m not sure how to be more clear about that than I was. It does not address the flaws in TULIP because man had not invented TULIP yet.

I`ll repost yet again on your behalf,

Ephesians 2 does not teach a regeneration occurring in advance of salvation, nor does it teach irresistible grace.

That reasoning is a cop-out, and somewhat arrogantly or disrespectfully done, I think. You know well the Calvinist points, referred to as TULIP, are not considered man's invention, though the expression of them and the systematic inclusion of them into a group can be considered man's invention, and certainly the acrostic reference "TULIP" is man's invention. Besides that, YOU are the one who brought up TULIP. I hadn't mentioned it in my post quoting Ephesians 2.

But to your points:

1) "Ephesians 2 does not teach a regeneration occurring in advance of salvation"

After no mention of man's choice (except towards evil) verse 5 says that God "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved". Do I need to say that that, (God making the dead alive), is regeneration?? Or is that not obvious? And do you claim that the dead in sin are already saved, while still dead in their sins? And since no passage is to be interpreted by itself only, do you understand what imputation is within the context of salvation?? "Saved" necessarily implies all these things, which you take to be acts of the human will, and God says are not. To be sure, God does not say that the human will does not decide, but that it is not the operative principle behind the success or actuality or reality of what has happened.

Also, I do not teach that Regeneration necessarily occurs in advance of Salvation as a time sequence, but that salvation, (and all other facts and virtues related to being born again), is a result of the "installation" (my word) by God of his Spirit into us, who were dead in sin. And that 'installation' is, or is the immediate cause of, regeneration. That indwelling, (not simply "possession of" as can be said of demons), that making his home in us, is permanent, and changes the nature of person indwelt. Unlike "free will" and its necessary "prevenient grace", this is not a mere theological construction we add to Scripture. It is what Ephesians 2 (and many other places) plainly teaches.

2) "Ephesians 2 does not... ...teach irresistible grace".

But in fact, it does. As I mentioned above, without any reference to man's choice, except towards evil, before God regenerates us, it shows God's grace being given us apart from any qualifying choice on our part. We do not even know he is changing us, until we see a difference. There is no mention of him asking our permission to regenerate us, any more than there is any mention of his asking our permission to give us life to begin with.

GRACE by definition means it is not by any action of ours, but all done by God, and that can't be made any more clear than Ephesians 2 makes it. "8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."

 

[Mark Quayle]

The fact that God judges men means they must be able at some point to respond positively to Him.

This is it, in a nutshell. THIS is humanocentric, human reasoning. God says no such thing. It is only your judgement that claims it.

The question is not whether the command implies the ability to obey. The question is whether the person does or does not choose, according to their inclinations or desires —that is, according to their will. The Bible shows that they ALWAYS do.

 

[John Mullally]

Wow. Well, I'm not going to say @Clare73 does no such thing. But I would have to go back through the posts to see where, for example, "4. Constantly demands to know how arguments made from Acts and NT Epistles relate to terms in Christ's parable (wheat, tare, sheep, goat)." is accurate. I have wondered at least once, how the wheat and tares subject came up, but have not seen it in such frequency as what I could call a methodology. But I will say that we all do such things as all 4 of your objections.

1) Read, for example, @RickReads, or me, or even yourself, to find personal criticism, condescension and arrogance. Sometimes we do it from mere habit, and some of us do so because of our personality type, (which, granted, is no excuse), and some of us do it in reaction to the same projected at us.

2) The whole council of God, impossible to show on this format, is nevertheless a valid (the valid(?)) judge of any doctrinal claim. Clare is right to invoke the principle. And are Scripture's passages not to be studied, explained, applied, interpreted, used? I'm not sure what your objection is here.

3) I will claim this fault myself, when, for example Ephesians 2:1-10 clearly says exactly and more concisely than I can, what I have been trying to get across. But so do all of us do that, sometimes with no more commentary than to say, "this means that we cooperate with God", or, "this means that we do choose" as though the implication is plain that our choosing implies no specific predestination. I think, too, that you will have to admit that sometimes the explanation or commentary runs so much longer than the text that it is counterproductive to include it.

4) Already answered above, in my first paragraph

5) FWIW it is a matter of principle that the Reformed try to be Reformable. But I have to say, it is something all of us do, that when we love something (such as the pure meaning/implications of Grace or of "Freewill"), we do have a tendency to insulate ourselves from opposing-sounding communications, or to be antagonistic towards them. Also, I too debated with myself early on whether to label myself Reformed, for that very reason. I claim 'Reformed' only because Reformed Theology most closely resembles what I think, and so that others who think like I do would more quickly know what I think by common reference. I don't think it is fair to accuse Clare of posing, or of being Calvinistic for Calvinism's sake —certainly no more than how others do what they do, perhaps by clinging to the name of Baptist or Methodist or whatever other denomination they think they can, instead of outright naming themselves "freewiller" which "is [what they] obviously [are]" and defend.

In Clare's defense (yes, no doubt, I am biased) I have yet to hear something she has posted that was merely pointless or petty. I think more often the angry responses she gets are the result of the frustration of people who don't know how to defend their opinions against the plain reason of her attacks on them. Also, I have seen this: that we all have a POV problem with any other person, whose statements are as often as not taken to imply things they simply had not meant.

At least when I am debating with you, you will own positions from which I can counter. Not so, when the other person uses tried and true asymmetrical Calvinist debate tactics and will not admit to being a Calvinist, rather referring to them self as "I study Paul" - give me a break. He even asks you not to bring up Calvinism when addressing Him. Good debate requires transparency.

 

[AVB 2]

So none pre-Christ were 'born again'?

The term "born again" (or "born from above" which I prefer) is used for the very first time in scripture in John 3:3. The response of Nicodemus is indicative of his surprise at Christ's statement. He had never heard the phrase prior to that night.

I'm not sure if the OT saints were "born from above" in the New Testament sense or way, but I do believe they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world as stated in Ephesians 1:4.