Why I am a [Calvinistic] Christian – Part 1 – The Bible Says So

[Skala]

This is synergism.

No it's not.
Also, did you read the rest of the statements?

 

[Ignatius21]

No it's not. Also, did you read the rest of the statements?

No, it's consistent with synergism.

Do you accept these same statements' teaching about the grace of regeneration coming through baptism? That's just as much a part of their soteriology as the statements on the will.

 

[Skala]

No, it's consistent with synergism.

Do you accept these same statements' teaching about the grace of regeneration coming through baptism? That's just as much a part of their soteriology as the statements on the will.

I wasn't aware what kind of baptism they are referring to. Spiritual baptism? Being dunked in water?

I assume they believed the words of John 3 which states that regeneration is the work of the Spirit alone, and can't be controlled or programmed by men's actions. It, like the wind, "blows where it wishes".

 

[Ignatius21]

I wasn't aware what kind of baptism they are referring to. Spiritual baptism? Being dunked in water?

I assume they believed the words of John 3 which states that regeneration is the work of the Spirit alone, and can't be controlled or programmed by men's actions. It, like the wind, "blows where it wishes".

They were referring to sacramental baptism in water, performed as a rite of the church. If you can find any other form of "baptism" that the early church held to be synonymous with "regeneration" I would be fascinated to learn of it.

Baptism has never been about men controlling God's grace. That's frankly a pretty odd way to state it.

 

[Skala]

They were referring to sacramental baptism in water, performed as a rite of the church. If you can find any other form of "baptism" that the early church held to be synonymous with "regeneration" I would be fascinated to learn of it.

Baptism has never been about men controlling God's grace. That's frankly a pretty odd way to state it.

If you baptize a person, are they guaranteed to be regenerated?

 

[AndOne]

Would you care to demonstrate that.

Have you read it?

 

[AndOne]

Your statement is thoroughly anachronistic. The council was thoroughly Augustinian, including the emphasis on regeneration and the liberation of the will coming through baptism. That can also be backed up with scripture. Why so easily dismiss part of not but not all?

there is NOTHING in scripture that teaches baptism and regeneration comes through baptism.

And I don't dismiss it. I understand it within its context. I don't need to grasp at historical threads to find evidence that my particular interpretations of Scripture have precedence. Just sayin'

You understand it in a mythological context - not based on history. And for the record - any church "father" that taught Baptismal regeneration was wrong. It goes against scripture.

 

[Ignatius21]

there is NOTHING in scripture that teaches baptism and regeneration comes through baptism. You understand it in a mythological context - not based on history. And for the record - any church "father" that taught Baptismal regeneration was wrong. It goes against scripture.

Mythological? You lost me.

Please find me a church father who didn't teach baptismal regeneration. I'm willing to bet the farm you won't find any.

There is plenty in scripture to teach baptismal regeneration. I've posted it before here, but nobody ever stays with the discussion.

This, by the way, is why I don't believe Calvinist claims to be Augustinian in soteriology. His views of sacraments and ecclesiology were just as intertwined with his soteriology as were his views on the will. More accurate to say Calvinism represents a dislocated Augustinian view of the will, but little else. Sort of like pulling the engine out of a corvette but scrapping the rest of the car that was designed to work with it.

 

[Ignatius21]

You understand it in a mythological context - not based on history. And for the record - any church "father" that taught Baptismal regeneration was wrong. It goes against scripture.

Oh...after you find me some fathers who didn't link baptism with regeneration, then find me some historical theology books that demonstrate that the church prior to the reformation denied baptismal regeneration. Or even that it was anything but a majority view.

I'm open to being corrected on my mythology.

 

[AndOne]

Mythological? You lost me.

Please find me a church father who didn't teach baptismal regeneration. I'm willing to bet the farm you won't find any.

Paul. Keep the farm I prefer the beach.

There is plenty in scripture to teach baptismal regeneration. I've posted it before here, but nobody ever stays with the discussion.

Not really. Here's the problem with the few verses that you've posted in support of this view. If they are indeed talking about baptismal regeneration then none of the rest of the Bible makes much sense. That's the bottom line. If all I need to be regenerated is Baptism then Romans 3:28 means nothing. It doesn't line up. I don't buy it - nor do I buy that that any apostle taught it.

This, by the way, is why I don't believe Calvinist claims to be Augustinian in soteriology. His views of sacraments and ecclesiology were just as intertwined with his soteriology as were his views on the will. More accurate to say Calvinism represents a dislocated Augustinian view of the will, but little else. Sort of like pulling the engine out of a corvette but scrapping the rest of the car that was designed to work with it.

I'm fairly certain that when Calvinists claim to be Augustinian in their soteriology they are limiting their claim to his views on predestination/election - not necessarily his views on the sacraments and ecclesiology. At least this is the case with modern day Calvinists.

 

[Ignatius21]

Paul. Keep the farm I prefer the beach.

By this I take you to mean that you cannot produce any evidence to back up your assertion that my history is actually mythology. You made a very direct assertion that I'm not straight on my history. Please don't retreat from it. Set me straight.

Nobody considers Paul a "church father." The terminology has always been for those who followed the apostles. Find me one who interpreted Paul to not mean baptismal regeneration and you can have your beach and I'll throw in the farm.

Not really. Here's the problem with the few verses that you've posted in support of this view. If they are indeed talking about baptismal regeneration then none of the rest of the Bible makes much sense. That's the bottom line. If all I need to be regenerated is Baptism then Romans 3:28 means nothing. It doesn't line up. I don't buy it - nor do I buy that that any apostle taught it.

Then let's revisit this. I can begin a separate thread. I posit that your understanding of regeneration also doesn't match any strand of historical interpretation. Thus as always, you ask me to accept your tradition of interpretation over any historical pattern, wholesale, without evidence that YOUR tradition isn't actually what is mythological. You simply place the label "the bible" on it all, so you can claim that what I'm arguing against is scripture and not your relatively recent tradition of interpreting it.

Please...show me I'm wrong. Let me have it. Both barrels!

This, by the way, is what I think the orthodox blogger referenced in the OP had on mind when he posted about a "dehistoricized bible." So I'm actually back on topic for a change!

I'm fairly certain that when Calvinists claim to be Augustinian in their soteriology they are limiting their claim to his views on predestination/election - not necessarily his views on the sacraments and ecclesiology. At least this is the case with modern day Calvinists.

Fair enough.

 

[OzSpen]

It doesn't matter. Where faith comes from is explained elsewhere in the Bible (i.e. 2 Pet 1:1, Acts 16:4 and Philippians 1:29). The fact that Abraham's faith was a gift from God doesn't nullify the fact that Abraham believed and therefore his faith was counted to him as righteousness...

Did Abraham have faith or not?

Acts 16:4 doesn't seem to harmonise with the point you are making. Phil 1:29 seems to be tangental as well.

 

[AndOne]

Did Abraham have faith or not?

Yes. Why would you ask me such a question?

Acts 16:4 doesn't seem to harmonise with the point you are making. Phil 1:29 seems to be tangental as well.

Oz - I expect better than that from you ole friend. If those verses aren't talking about faith - what are they are about then? Just curious to know what you think.

 

[Johnnz]

Ancient interpretation also emphasized an ecclesiastical viewpoint. There's nothing terribly new about the so-called "new perspectives."

I agree. Much modern scholarship, especially Trinitarian thinking is a rediscovery of such ancient teaching.

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

Yes. Why would you ask me such a question?

Oz - I expect better than that from you ole friend. If those verses aren't talking about faith - what are they are about then? Just curious to know what you think.

One of the verses to which you referred was Acts 16:4. It states:

As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem (ESV).

What does that state about faith? Could you have the wrong verse? Was it a typo or not?

 

[janxharris]

If you read the other "if..then" statements in 1 John, yes there is. 1 John 5:1 is part of a chain of "if..then" statements. observe:

1Jn_3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

1Jn_4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn_5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

1Jn_5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

1Jn_5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Here, John writes that if a person is born of God, he does certain things. You don't become born of God by doing any of those things.

Yet that is what your position is, despite John's statements here.

Faith does not come under the umbrella of those things you refer to. So after being born again we:

do not make a practice of sinning,
love (one another),
love the Father,
love the Son,
overcome the world,
are protected and not touched by the evil one.

When Abraham believed God he was not 'working', else he would have a claim to boasting. Faith is not something that equates to an instance of being justified by a work of the law.

Romans 3:20,28
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4:2-3
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Romans 9:30-32
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Please do show why you think my understanding is in error.

 

[abacabb3]

Are there any actual responses to the OP?

 

[Ignatius21]

Are there any actual responses to the OP?

I've posted mine here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7799968/#post64883069

I picked the "debate" section of the Eastern Orthodox sub forum, in the hopes that our discussion can proceed without being pulled into another endless spiral of the kind it's already been pulled into here.

I would invite you, abacabb3, to respond with the goal of understanding each other's positions better. I invite anyone else who's interested, to observe the discussion I just posted, but not directly respond, only for the sake of keeping the discussion focused.

If anyone feels compelled to comment, I'm happy to interact more broadly in another thread back here on this forum, or elsewhere.

 

[Skala]

Faith does not come under the umbrella of those things you refer to.

False. 1 John 5:1 says that those who are born of God, believe in Jesus. (ie, have faith in Jesus)

So after being born again we:

do not make a practice of sinning,
love (one another),
love the Father,
love the Son,
overcome the world,
are protected and not touched by the evil one.

You forgot one: Believe in Jesus. See 1 John 5:1

 

[AndOne]

One of the verses to which you referred was Acts 16:4. It states:

What does that state about faith? Could you have the wrong verse? Was it a typo or not?

Acts 16:14 - sorry...