What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

The thing I wanted to say with the story was that God could have created an exakt physical copy, body and personality of Jimmy but put the "I" of Clark in the "tank". We are not our body or our personality. We have a body and a personality.

What is that makes "you" aware of your body and thoughts? If God wanted he could make "you" aware of my body and thoughts instead and make "you" as soul, the commander of my body and mind and make "me" as soul the commander of your body and mind.

Saying it's just a flip of names, is reducing the question from spiritual level to a materialistic level.

I'm not saying this is answering the question of free will, but I'm saying the question is very complex.

Perhaps it is more complex than I realize, but I think even if so, it is simpler than our descriptions. All our thoughts are full of presumption, and we complicate issues because of that, in our attempt to whittle down the perifera to get to concise precision.

I agree that the "I" is the part that God will save, but the body and personality is not a separate entity —it's only the temporary, visible. But, for that matter, the same principle as you describe in your story applies to all of us, as the person I am when I die is hardly the same as the person who I was when I was born. The person God takes, is only the person God sees, and whatever you and I see is irrelevant.

As I have told someone, the person who dies in Christ, may not even be as "good a Christian" as they were at an earlier stage of life, less sensitive to the Spirit, less obedient, less constant, more grumpy, arrogant, self-involved and mean, yet be precisely that person that God will transform into that final member of the Bride. (A note: here too, can be seen, if one considers 'salvation' to refer to the fact of Heaven, that the will of God alone is the operative principle, and that the things that happen in this life, resulting from the will and personality of the human are only definitive of who the person is who is saved, and not of the salvation itself.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you mean by First cause? I think the First cause is soul.

Huh? It's like you are talking a different language.

I'm talking about the first thing to cause anything else. That which logically (via cause-and-effect) caused all other things, and is itself uncaused. The beginning. The source of all newness. Also, logically, singular in number and "with intent". In other words, God.

I don't think "free willers" believe that the environment isn't affecting our choice or that it has to be entirely man's choice. At least I don't believe that, but that there is a free will within choice.

Agreed, but they contradict themselves when they then say that they are not under compulsion or necessity. Not to mention all other impinging causes, their own person and preferences compel them; according to Romans 8 they CANNOT choose God, but will always choose according to their enmity to God, apart from God's work in them. In Regeneration God gives us to prefer him. (He changes our personality, haha, referring back to our other recent subject).

 

[RickReads]

Not to split hairs but your third group above would technically fall under the unbelievers group . So there are two groups . Even the ones who haven’t heard but will also fall under the two groups for they will either become a believer or remain unbelievers.

I believe my third group will be judged based on what they knew, in other words, a different standard.
I have scripture that supports my opinion as well. An extreme example would be aborted babies.

Those who reject the gospel are finished, not necessarily the case for the ignorant.

 

[John Mullally]

Your question is an old one, and it is a common misunderstanding that Reformed Theology teaches that everything happens automatically, with no effort on the part of the elect. In particular this is taken to apply to the Gospel. I can't say that my answer will be typical of Reformed Theology, as there are a couple of things that I think about it that I don't often hear from anyone else. But the question is asked backwards, or in a mistaken way, attributing validity to our POV and being asked from that POV, assuming that our will is the operating principle, if it is at all involved. There is also the fact that if the sentient "free agent" (the human) is not willfully involved, it is still no implication that anything happens "automatically". I perhaps have said the human will is not involved in regeneration, because it is difficult to show someone who believes in the choice of man being the operative principle in salvation, how it is only by Grace. God does regenerate a person by use of all sorts of things, such as the preaching of the Gospel, and life's events, and human emotions and on and on. But these do not constitute regeneration.

Again, the human will is not the operative principle behind regeneration. But regeneration is a different thing from most other "components" of salvation and the subsequent walk of the believer. It is all the work of God, in that it IS the Spirit of God alone that regenerates, and it is done even in some cases without the recipient even being aware that it is being done. God uses all sorts of things, including the human will, both the corrupt desires of the one and the obediences of others to, for example, preach the Gospel and to make the Christian life attractive, but the decision to "accept Christ" or to submit the will to God, and such, are not regeneration nor do they cause it. Submitting to God is continually done, and not immediately habitual, just as is repentance and any other obedience, and in these the will is active, being used of God and directed or compelled by the Spirit of God within. The "new life" is a practice, but the "new birth" is not.



But you want Bible references.

Ephesians 2:1-10 is maybe the first and easiest to point to. But we've already discussed that.

John 3, vs 3, shows that we are unable to see the Kingdom, (which implies more than simply "we will not make it to there", since the Kingdom is also within us), if we are not born again. and vs 8 calls this 'born again', being born of the Spirit.

John 1:13 makes it plain that this regeneration is of children "born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

And of course, my old favorite, Romans 8, which makes it obvious that man can do nothing good apart from being regenerated.

I agree that being born-again and saved, which I view as the same thing, are God's idea and that the Holy Spirit draws. I don't find any indication in those passages that man's cooperation is not involved. God has included man in the process by giving him the authority to preach the Gospel and to respond to it. Peter's preaching style in Acts 2 and Paul's confrontation with Festus in Acts 25, and what is stated in 1 Corinthians 9:22 are examples of trying to convince by all reasonable honest available means a human will.

1 Corinthians 9:22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
​

God’s offer of salvation goes out to all people, Jesus died for all people, and God loves the whole world and desires the salvation of all people; nevertheless, only some will choose to respond to God’s saving grace and be saved. And those saved realize they have received a gift and thus have no reason to boast.

​

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree that being born-again and saved, which I view as the same thing, are God's idea and that the Holy Spirit draws. I don't find any indication in those passages that man's cooperation is not involved. God has included man in the process by giving him the authority to preach the Gospel and to respond to it. Peter's preaching style in Acts 2 and Paul's confrontation with Festus in Acts 25, and what is stated in 1 Corinthians 9:22 are examples of trying to convince by all reasonable honest available means.

1 Corinthians 9:22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
​

God’s offer of salvation goes out to all people, Jesus died for all people, and God loves the whole world and desires the salvation of all people; nevertheless, only some will choose to respond to God’s saving grace and be saved. And those saved realize they have received a gift and thus have no reason to boast.

​

What it boils down to is this, regardless of your or my terminology: Do you agree that Salvation is all of Grace? That is, regardless of whether you decide anything or not, is it all of God's doing, or does something you do, of your own, merit or even cause the gift? Is it your decision upon which your eternity hinges, or God's decision?

 

[Clare73]

I'm not sure either.

Just because we don't intellectually understand how free will works doesn't mean it's chance or randomness. I don't think that is fair either.

What about--man's disposition preferring self, which is what man chooses until God gives him to prefer his will which, because man now prefers God's will, he freely and willingly chooses it--do we not understand?

But I'm not even sure we mean the same thing when we say free will.

Scripture everywhere presents the operation of free will to be the power to choose voluntarily, without external control or constraint, what one prefers, likes, and to reject what one does not prefer or like (1 Corinthians 2:14). . .which coincides perfectly with human experience.
What about that do we not understand?

 

[John Mullally]

What it boils down to is this, regardless of your or my terminology: Do you agree that Salvation is all of Grace? That is, regardless of whether you decide anything or not, is it all of God's doing, or does something you do, of your own, merit or even cause the gift? Is it your decision upon which your eternity hinges, or God's decision?

When portions of the Bible are played out on film, it is always a drama, with God and men having their parts to play. So man's plays a part in his own redemption. God's grace is given freely; but in a different sense receiving it will cost us everything - as in repentance we commit our will to His. He honors our decision to repent by giving salvation and the new birth (Acts 2:38-39). The cost of the decision in the Acts 2 audience was especially apparent - as baptism was expected to result in being ostracized.

 

[Clare73]

In other words, if your contention is true (and I do agree that it is, depending on what you mean by 'seeding') that the "seeding by the gospel" MUST happen in terms of logical sequence 'prior' to salvation, how is it possible that it can bring about salvation apart from God's 'awakening', 'making alive', 'regenerating' the spiritually dead, since faith is necessary? What do you think regenerating is? And where do you think salvific faith comes from?

I don't see a whole lot here that relates to the scriptures so not much entertainment value in trying to figure out what all this is supposed to mean. I`ll pass on responding because this is just a whole lot of bulk with very little substance.

Getting back to topic,I only have two major problems with Calvinism, maybe limited atonement as a third but I see that as a by-product of the two primary errors. I've been through my issues on this thread multiple times so I`m tired of the repetition and the lack of scripture in some of your posts i.e. this one.

You mean like 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8; John 3:3-8; Luke 19:42; Hebrews 11:5-6; Matthew 13:11; Acts 13:48?

 

[Clare73]

I believe the Holy Spirit convicts people during the presentation of the Gospel but it is still up to them to respond. We see evidence of that in Peter's Acts 2 preaching style where he effectively promises salvation to those who repent & get baptized, and he implores the audience to "Save yourselves". If man's will is not involved, then why would Peter (being led by the Holy Spirit) strive so hard to get those in the audience to repent and be baptized?

I am looking for an example in scripture where the Holy Spirit (or God) changes a persons nature and that alone accounts for their positive response to God. If
John 3:3-8 or any other passage conclusively says it happens that way that suffices.

The change of nature is of the spiritual nature, from spiritual death to spiritual (eternal) life.
Eternal life is not a matter of the flesh, it is only of the spirit, which wars with the flesh.

John 3:3-8 - "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (which rebirth is 100% not your doing, just as natural birth is 100% not your doing, both being 100% the work of the "birther").

John 6:65 - "No one can come to me unless the Father enables him."

How many times must Jesus state it before it is true?

.

 

[RickReads]

You mean like 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8; John 3:3-8; Luke 19:42; Hebrews 11:5-6; Matthew 13:11; Acts 13:48?

Feel free to explain to me how these verses pertain to Mark's points in the post I was addressing.

 

[Clare73]

Feel free to explain to me how these verses pertain to Mark's points in the post I was addressing.

It seems that you rejected Mark's presentation of the total depravity of man--that regeneration is required in order to believe--because of lack of Scriptural support.

The following Scriptures present the total depravity of man: 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8; John 3:3-8; Luke 19:42; Hebrews 11:5-6; Matthew 13:11; Acts 13:48?

Do you need me to show how they do?

 

[RickReads]

It seems that you rejected Mark's presentation of the total depravity of man, that regeneration is required in order to believe.

The following Scriptures present the total depravity of man: 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8; John 3:3-8; Luke 19:42; Hebrews 11:5-6; Matthew 13:11; Acts 13:48?

Do you need me to show how they do?

I don't recall making an issue of depravity so I really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Clare73]

I don't recall making an issue of depravity so I really don't know what you're talking about.

What is Mark's topic, point in the following?

Feel free to explain to me how these verses pertain to Mark's points in the post I was addressing.

Mark's points were:

In other words, if your contention is true (and I do agree that it is, depending on what you mean by 'seeding') that the "seeding by the gospel" MUST happen in terms of logical sequence 'prior' to salvation, how is it possible that it can bring about salvation apart from God's 'awakening', 'making alive', 'regenerating' the spiritually dead, since faith is necessary? What do you think regenerating is? And where do you think salvific faith comes from?

I don't see a whole lot here that relates to the scriptures so not much entertainment value in trying to figure out what all this is supposed to mean. I`ll pass on responding because this is just a whole lot of bulk with very little substance.

It seems that you rejected Mark's presentation of the total depravity of man--that regeneration is required in order to believe--because of lack of Scriptural support.

The following Scriptures present the total depravity of man: 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8; John 3:3-8; Luke 19:42; Hebrews 11:5-6; Matthew 13:11; Acts 13:48?

Do you need me to show how they do?

 

[RickReads]

What is Mark's topic, point, following?

You have to learn who Jesus is, confess Him and repent, Believe in your heart then you can get washed by the Holy Spirit and get circumcised in the heart which is Biblical regeneration.

Mark of course as you already know is blustering about in favor of Calvin's unbiblical idea of regeneration.

I have nothing new to add so I`m just trying to exit the roundabout.

 

[RickReads]

What is Mark's topic, point in the following?

Mark's points were:

Ok, thanks for explaining his opinions to me with your edits.

 

[AVB 2]

That is the Arminian view and it conflicts with the Calvinist view you profess to believe in.

So please tell me how Calvinists think people attain salvation.

 

[Clare73]

You have to learn who Jesus is, confess Him and repent, Believe in your heart then you can get washed by the Holy Spirit and get circumcised in the heart which is Biblical regeneration.

That does not answer my question: "What is Mark's topic, point in the following?"
He mentioned none of the above.

And pardon me for saying so, but for one who complains about lack of presentation of Scripture, I'm not seeing any Scriptural defense of your assertions, including yours above which are

not according to the NT:

Repent (metanoeo) is turning of mind and heart (meta = after, noeo = to perceive), from unbelief and sin to belief and obedience.

Washing (louo) of rebirth (palingenesia) is, of course, removal of sin in/by regeneration.

Circumcision of the heart is NT baptism (Colossians 2:11-12) where, just as the flesh was cut off in circumcision, so we put off the flesh in our baptism into Christ's death, where we die to sin as Christ died for sin.

None of which are presented as regeneration, and all of which occur after we are brought from spiritual death to spiritual (eternal) life in:

Regeneration (palingenesia) is re-birth (palin = again, genesia = birth).

Mark of course as you already know is blustering about
in favor of Calvin's unbiblical idea of regeneration.

In light of the above, it is not Mark who lacks Biblical support for the meaning of Biblical regeneration.

I have nothing new to add so I`m just trying to exit the roundabout.

Round about over. . .distinction, difference, conclusion presented.

And exiting the roundabout while you're behind might be a good time to do so.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, thanks for explaining his opinions to me with your edits.

Yes, I brought some additional posts forward in post #2033 to give a unified record of the conversation. . . makes it easier for others to understand.

 

[Clare73]

So please tell me how Calvinists think people attain salvation.

Maybe post #2034. . .

 

[RickReads]

So please tell me how Calvinists think people attain salvation.

Forgive me for saying so but we've been through all that already quite a few times on this thread and I`m not really interested in speaking for Calvinism.

I just wanted to point out to you that the post of yours that I responded to is compatible with the Arminian viewpoint.