A question for the Calvinists

Well, you may say that Calvinists believe in free will, but I have had many discussions with Calvinists who do not believe that. There is a thread going now called Libertarian Free Will where Brian Bosse is trying to argue that if a persons options are limited in a choice than that is not free will.

An example.

You want slice of pizza for lunch. You go to the cafeteria and ask for pizza but they are all out. They tell you they still have some hot dogs and hamburgers left. You choose a hot dog.

OK, in this case you are limited. You cannot truly choose what you wanted because that option is not offered. You can only choose between the hot dog and hamburger.

So, did you have true free choice here? Maybe not. But that is not the case in salvation. You are being offered Christ. It is a yes or no answer. There are no other options available. Is that free choice?

Yes. You can say I do not want to be a Christian, I want to be an atheist. OK, that is saying no to Christ, but it is your free choice. You can say that you want to be a Buddist. That is saying no to Christ, but you are still getting your free choice.

You can choose whatever you like, but God will only save you if you trust in his Son Jesus.

 

This is an anemic version of Jonathan Edwards' argument in A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of the Will, Which Is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Vertue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame ( or Freedom of the Will, as it's more commonly known) .

Essentially "Freedom" presupposes some ability of the agent to choose among options. Edwards argued that the "options" were illusory.

 

Winman,

If you notice, I am not dealing with what various Calvinists may or may not believe. Nor would I deal with what various non-calvinists/Arminians believe. I would rather stick to historic discussions and statements of faith/creeds.

Why? Because it sets the standard. I may say I am a Calvinist but hold a view that is different from Historic Calvinism. So, if I want to understand what Historic Calvinism is and teaches, then let's turn to their creeds. With Baptists, I would look at the 1689, or you could look at the Westminster.

You will find the Calvinism of the 1689 is the same as that of the 1689.

That sets a standard...something more objective if you will, and not leaving it to internet discussions or meetings with individuals.

RB

 

Winman,

You Wrote:

Truly, this is too funny. I certainly appreciate your commitment to Scripture, but I think you are committed to what you think Scripture says, rather than what Scripture actually says.

For example, you wrote:

I'll confess, I laughed heartily at this statement. Eve did not think that God would be the Father of her child! This is hilarious! Eve would have certainly known that Adam was the father of Cain (notice the "Adam knew his wife...). A better translation would be: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord. (ESV)

You continue:

Your interpretation of this passage is wrong. God is not discussing mankind's new ability to do good or evil, God is discussing that man now knows good and evil. This stands in sharp contrast to the pre-fall situation.

In the time before the fall, man (Adam and Eve) knew both good and evil. Good was doing anything that didn't break God's commandment (not to eat of the tree). Evil was anything that broke God's commandment.

In the time after the fall, Adam and Eve knew good and evil but they knew evil by experience. In other words they had sinned.

God's inter-trinitarian discussion, then, is about their loss of innocence, not their ability to do good or evil.

Again, I would encourage you to read and understand scripture in context--the immediate context and a whole-bible context as well.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Well, I am not really interested in what men believe, I am interested in knowing what the scriptures truly say. Do I know all the answers? NO.

But those things I do know I will contend for. You showed;

Now I disagree with this. I showed how Adam and Eve both heard and responded to God when they were in a lost state. And we see that with Cain also.

Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Here was Cain, physically alive, but spiritually dead. He tried to please God with his own good works and was rejected by God. But was he condemned forever? No. God said that if he would do well he would be accepted. And notice God spoke directly to him while he was lost and unregenerate.

So, this shows two things Calvinism denies, that an unsaved, unregenerate man can communicate with God, and that a man's fate is not sealed by God. Cain could have repented if he so chose.

Or do you like some of these silly Calvinist's believe that God was not really being sincere with Cain? After all, according to Calvinism, Cain could not possibly repent and give an acceptable sacrifice.

 

Winman,

If your going to attack what other men believe, then your compassion for them and love for them should compel you want to understand what they believe and why...in my opinion.

If your going become patronizing of me by your references to "silly calvinists" I am not even going to reply to you.

So, pardon the pun, make your choice. lol

 

You can laugh all you want, doesn't make you correct.

Adam and Eve did not know evil before the fall. They only knew good. They did not even realize they were naked. They were not ashamed before this and never hid from God until after they sinned.

And now you have a problem. God himself says man knows both good and evil. But Calvinists believe men can only do evil. But this is shown false in that both Adam and Eve responded positively to God. They heard God's promise and listened when they were in an unsaved, unregenerate state. They allowed him to make skins and cover their nakedness. Were they clothed with righteousness before God clothed them? Of course not. They were not righteous until God covered them.

They could have run away and hid themselves as they did at the first. But they did not.

 

I'm really beginning to think you have not been taught well.

The following statement is non-sequitur:

There are two words here that you seem to miss: "Knows" and "Do."

Man knows both good and evil. In the passage you quoted it is stated plainly and the implication is that now, since the fall, man knows evil by experience, that is he has sinned.

But, you are making a jump, both logical and textual, from the printed text of Genesis 4 to this statement "Calvinists believe men can only do evil," the implication being that Genesis 4 is saying man can "Do" good or evil.

The text of Genesis 4 says no such thing. It is talking about knowing good and evil, not doing good and evil.

And...for the record...laughing doesn't make me correct--it is a careful reading of the text that separates my correct exegesis from you incorrect eisegesis.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Well, it's obvious to me that you have been indoctrinated very well.

 

y'all are startin to sound like a bunch of sissy girls. :laugh:

 

'The Pharisees therefore answered....Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' [Jn 7:47,52]. The fact was that 'by the letter' the Pharisees were correct, there existed no concise statement from scripture to 'prove it'. Yet He was 'The Prophet', and He was from Galilee.

I believe the post that I referenced in post 134 demonstrates the work of the the Spirit in regeneration among the Gentiles outside of the OC ( and that seemingly contrary to 'the letter' of scripture, 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth....' [Amos 3:2])

If I were to make the statement that it is the second born that is favored by God, I cannot produce as proof a single bible verse that concisely conveys that premise. In fact, in this instance, the scriptures, 'by the letter', could be construed to be contrary to that statement; God claimed the firstborn as being holy to Him, '(as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord),' [Lu 2:23] I can however produce a history of 'first(borns) vs second (borns)' from throughout the scriptures that indicates otherwise:

It was not Cain's sacrifice that God had respect for, but it was Abel's; 'Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother....Because his works were evil, and his brother`s righteous.' [1 Jn 3:12]

Shem was the elder brother of Japheth, but, 'God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem...' [Gen 10:21 ASV & 9:27]

It was Ishmael, the firstborn, that was born after the flesh, and he persecuted Isaac, the second born, that was born after the Spirit. Isaac was the child of promise; Ishmael was cast out. [Gal 4:29]

It was said of Esau and Jacob, 'The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' [Ro 9:12,13]

It was not Leah his first wife that Jacob loved, but it was Rachel his second wife. [Gen 29:30,31]

It was not the first generation of the exodus that entered into the rest of the promised land, it was the second generation; 'But your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have rejected.' [Nu 14:31]

It was not Saul the first king of Israel that would do all of God's will, but it was the second king David that was a man after His heart; '...Saul the son of Kish...when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king; to whom also he bare witness and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who shall do all My will.' [Acts 13:21,22]

It was not the first covenant of the law ( I desire mercy, and not sacrifice) that God had pleasure in, but it was the second covenant of grace; '....a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.' [Heb 8:6,7]

Consider 'the first man Adam' vs. 'the last Adam, ' ... that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.' [1 Cor 15:45-47]

There is not a concise statement from 'the letter' that indicates anything peculiar about the second born, but it can be reasoned from these examples that they do hold a special place in the scriptures. [Incidentally, FYI, there are some astounding allegories of the contrast and enmity between the two covenants contained within the examples listed, particularly of 'that generation' while Christ was upon earth]

The point (of this way off topic post) is that there's not always a single concise statement to be found to prove something, it has to be reasoned.

Aside from the KJV's 1 Jn 5:7 (which I believe to be erroneously translated yet agree with) there is no single concise statement to be found in the scriptures that proves 'The Trinity'. It has to be pieced together and reasoned from scripture to come to that conclusion, which, again, could be construed to be contrary to 'the letter' of such passages as, '... I am Jehovah; and there is none else' [Isa 45: 18], or '...Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: [Mk 12:29].

 

You go to all the trouble to post many examples showing that the second born is favored, but you fail to give examples of a person being regenerated to believe first. And I really don't feel like researching other posts. Why don't you just show all the examples you feel prove your point here?

By the way, I have just two brothers, I am the second born. :p

 

No?

Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

 

'Twern't any trouble, I mostly copied and pasted from some of my notes.

I gave you some examples once before on another thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1436519#post1436519;

.....but it requires some reasoning on your part to be able to conclude that life precedes belief. As I stated in my previous post ”there's not always a single concise statement to be found to prove something, it has to be reasoned.”

And as I stated, I believe the post that I referenced in post 134 demonstrates the work of the the Spirit in regeneration among the Gentiles outside of the OC.

And I really don't feel like researching to give any more examples right now.

 

Amy, the passages you reference are excellent proofs to reason from but they lack the concise statement '......these three are one' of the KJV's 1 Jn 5:7

JMHO

 

I don't think you can reason that regeneration precedes faith. There are just too many plain scriptures that say otherwise, as Winman has pointed out. If there are scriptures that are contrary to your belief, then your belief cannot stand.

Some people "reason" that baptism is what regenerates, but scripture clearly refutes that, so the belief in baptismal regeneration needs to be thrown out.

Some reason that one can lose their salvation, but scripture is clear that we are "kept by the power of God".

If your reasoning runs contrary to scripture, then your reasoning is wrong.

 

I just did and you give no scriptual refutation.

 

Colossians 2 in itself proves regeneration simultaneous with faith, not before or after...

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Notice...you were made alive (regenerated WITH Christ)

Question for the regeneration preceding faith crowd: When Jesus called Lazarus forth from the grave, did Lazarus need to be regenerated in order to respond to Christ?

 

How does that prove that a person is regenerated to believe?

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

This clearly states that you are dead when you receive Christ, and upon receiving Christ you are quickened with him. The scriptures clearly teach that you receive the Holy Spirit after first hearing the gospel, then believeing, then receiving the Holy Spirit.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

If a person is not quickened until they receive the Holy Spirit, then Eph 1:13 proves that a man hears the gospel when he is spiritually dead and believes, and then AFTER that receives the Spirit and is quickened.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

You must receive Christ's word. That means to hear and believe. When you hear and believe God's Word, then you receive the Holy Spirit and are quickened.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1) They heard the word of God while yet dead in sins but were convicted. If they were regenerated Peter would not need to tell them to repent.
2) They repented, which means to turn from unbelief to trusting on Christ.
3) They received the Spirit.

Go through the scriptures. You will always find a person first hears the word or preaching of God's word, then believes, then afterward receives the Spirit. This pattern is shown many times.

 

It doesn't...re-read what I posted. Regeneration is simultaneous with faith.