Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far

[DHK]

What you are confusing is the distinction between natural light and supernatural light. The natural man is capable of perceiving what God has revealed in nature and in conscience and that is sufficient to understand, violate and be condemned. However, what Paul is speaking about in 1 Corinthians is not natural revelation but special revelation that requires spiritual discernment which no natural man can perceive.

I am not confusing the two at all. Some others on the board are. I should have never brought it up; it seems to be beyond their comprehension.
Natural light is that which is revealed in nature.

The testimony I set forth before you is well documented. It is the testimony of Hudson Taylor, who came to Christ through reading a gospel tract. He was unsaved. Now you and Rippon want to make an absolute statement based on an interpretation of 1Cor.2:14 that his testimony is a lie because he was unsaved (a natural man), and cannot understand the things of God. He was reading Scripture--a Scripture tract particularly about the blood of Christ. That is spiritual. According to you and other Calvinists he is still lost today and probably in hell because he never got saved in the first place. The natural man cannot receive spiritual things. He was reading a "spiritual thing" as a natural man. So he was never saved was he???

 

[Luke2427]

I am not confusing the two at all. Some others on the board are. I should have never brought it up; it seems to be beyond their comprehension.
Natural light is that which is revealed in nature.

The testimony I set forth before you is well documented. It is the testimony of Hudson Taylor, who came to Christ through reading a gospel tract. He was unsaved. Now you and Rippon want to make an absolute statement based on an interpretation of 1Cor.2:14 that his testimony is a lie because he was unsaved (a natural man), and cannot understand the things of God. He was reading Scripture--a Scripture tract particularly about the blood of Christ. That is spiritual. According to you and other Calvinists he is still lost today and probably in hell because he never got saved in the first place. The natural man cannot receive spiritual things. He was reading a "spiritual thing" as a natural man. So he was never saved was he???

You demonstrate here that you have no idea what Calvinists believe about regeneration. Therefore you have no business speaking against that which you do not understand at all.

And it is VERY obvious that you don't understand it at all.

If you did understand it you would not think for a milisecond that the testimony you provided contradicts what Calvinists believe about regeneration in the least.

The very fact that you posted that as an argument against the Calvinist view of regeneration says to me that you have no business in this debate.

This is what I find time and time again. People who hate Calvinism the most understand it the least. But these types of people don't need to know anything about something in order to hate it. All they need is to know is that it is not what they are familiar with. That's enough for them.

The testimony does not have anything at all to do with the Calvinist view of regeneration. It does not refute it or even challenge it in the least.

If you knew what you were talking about- you would know that. But you do not know what you are talking about. That much is clear to everyone here.

 

[preacher4truth]

You demonstrate here that you have no idea what Calvinists believe about regeneration. Therefore you have no business speaking against that which you do not understand at all.

And it is VERY obvious that you don't understand it at all.

If you did understand it you would not think for a milisecond that the testimony you provided contradicts what Calvinists believe about regeneration in the least.

The very fact that you posted that as an argument against the Calvinist view of regeneration says to me that you have no business in this debate.

This is what I find time and time again. People who hate Calvinism the most understand it the least. But these types of people don't need to know anything about something in order to hate it. All they need is to know is that it is not what they are familiar with. That's enough for them.

The testimony does not have anything at all to do with the Calvinist view of regeneration. It does not refute it or even challenge it in the least.

If you knew what you were talking about- you would know that. But you do not know what you are talking about. That much is clear to everyone here.

Your points here were proven within my "Explain the I in TULIP" thread (something like that in title.)

Anti-cal after anti-cal attacked it, in total oblivion to what it even teaches. They were in fact senselessly attacking their own thoughts, not the system.

Thus the thread was closed only after I proved my point that they fight against what they THINK it teaches, and were wrong. Not one admitted to this even after it was apparent to all this was the case, and even after DHK himself admitted my goal was accomplished, then closed the thread.

Here is the link: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73419&page=15

And here are the last couple of posts:

Originally Posted by preacher4truth:

I'll say the most interesting thing about this OP was and is in its objective, that is, that it has proven those arguing against the doctrine of Irresistible Grace have no idea what the doctrine means whatsoever.

Mission accomplished.

DHK responded:

It seems your mission will have been accomplished.
Thread is closed.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am not confusing the two at all. Some others on the board are. I should have never brought it up; it seems to be beyond their comprehension.
Natural light is that which is revealed in nature.

The testimony I set forth before you is well documented. It is the testimony of Hudson Taylor, who came to Christ through reading a gospel tract. He was unsaved. Now you and Rippon want to make an absolute statement based on an interpretation of 1Cor.2:14 that his testimony is a lie because he was unsaved (a natural man), and cannot understand the things of God. He was reading Scripture--a Scripture tract particularly about the blood of Christ. That is spiritual. According to you and other Calvinists he is still lost today and probably in hell because he never got saved in the first place. The natural man cannot receive spiritual things. He was reading a "spiritual thing" as a natural man. So he was never saved was he???

I am not attributing any lie to his testimony. I am questioning only your conclusion of his testimony. First, can you prove that he never heard the gospel previous to reading that tract? Second, he was not saved apart from the Word of God. My position has been and is that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not when it comes in word only but when it is accompanied with the creative power of God. Are you saying that God could not have empowered the Word he was reading?

 

[Luke2427]

Your points here were proven within my "Explain the I in TULIP" thread (something like that in title.)

Anti-cal after anti-cal attacked it, in total oblivion to what it even teaches. They were in fact senselessly attacking their own thoughts, not the system.

Thus the thread was closed only after I proved my point that they fight against what they THINK it teaches, and were wrong. Not one admitted to this even after it was apparent to all this was the case, and even after DHK himself admitted my goal was accomplished, then closed the thread.

Here is the link: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73419&page=15

And here are the last couple of posts:

Originally Posted by preacher4truth:




DHK responded:

Yea, I would not close a thread I was personally involved in. that seems trashy to me.

It is like moderating someone you are debating. Trashy.

 

[Luke2427]

Are you saying that God could not have empowered the Word he was reading?

And that's the point. He doesn't KNOW what Calvinism is or he would know that EVERY Calvinist would have NO problem at all with this illustration.

The deeper and more important issue here is this: since he does not know beans from apple butter about Calvinism, as he has here and numerous previous instances, why does he keep campaigning against it?

That is worth considering. Finding that out is more important than debating him on the periphery as we have been doing.

What pushes him on though he has no idea what he is talking about?

 

[preacher4truth]

And that's the point. He doesn't KNOW what Calvinism is or he would know that EVERY Calvinist would have NO problem at all with this illustration.

The deeper and more important issue here is this: since he does not know beans from apple butter about Calvinism, as he has here and numerous previous instances, why does he keep campaigning against it?

That is worth considering. Finding that out is more important than debating him on the periphery as we have been doing.

What pushes him on though he has no idea what he is talking about?

I find it intriguing that those who attack Calvinism, shy away when repeatedly asked for the points of Calvinism to which they disagree, along with Scripture to boot, which is in itself a difficult (and impossible) task to accomplish. I mean, it would actually take some time and learning to do so.

Seekingthetruth, Robert Snow, DHK are among them.

Typically after a request to do so there is yet another baseless attack against teachings they are clueless about. Then come the all too familiar generalized attacks of "arrogance," "lauding ones intellect," "rejecting simple teachings," "the Bible doesn't have any verses that show Calvinism is correct" and the list goes on, with no substance to back it up of course.

Their reluctance to address the facts with substance and actual documentation stems from fear of facts, and a lack of really knowing what they are talking about, or even what they are fighting against in the first place.

 

[DHK]

I am not attributing any lie to his testimony. I am questioning only your conclusion of his testimony. First, can you prove that he never heard the gospel previous to reading that tract? Second, he was not saved apart from the Word of God. My position has been and is that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not when it comes in word only but when it is accompanied with the creative power of God. Are you saying that God could not have empowered the Word he was reading?

"The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are spiritually discerned." In other words they cannot understand the Bible. This is what I hear over and over again on this board from Calvinists. So I have provided an example to demonstrate otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether he heard the gospel previous to that; he was still unsaved--"spiritually discerned."
I believe he can be saved through the Word of God, but you say he, being a natural man, cannot read the Word of God and understand it, for "he is spiritually discerned."
You say that God doesn't empower the word in and of itself, for this is a natural man and he is "spiritually discerned."

You are not being consistent in your application of Scripture.
BTW, this has been pointed out to the other Calvinists on this board but they only ridicule for they have no sound answer against their own fallacious argument.

 

[Amy.G]

The phrase "hearing of faith" is subjective genitive and means "hearing that produced faith" and that "hearing" is the product of a new heart (Deut. 5:29 with 29:4; Ezek. 36:26 with Rom. 10:10). Given through the effectual call or the creative command of God (Rom. 10:17 "rhema" word of command - 2 Cor. 4:6).

Don't confuse regeneration by the Spirit with sealing of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration has to do with giving spiritual life where as sealing has to do with preserving that life through indwelling. The Holy Spirit first cleanses a man through the washing of regeneration before He indwells that man (logical order). He does not enter into an unclean temple.

You can't "hear" faith. What they were hearing was the truth of God. Go back to verse one and you'll see that Paul was teaching that the Galatians did not receive the Spirit because they obeyed the works of the Law, but because they believed the word of God.

 

[DHK]

Anti-cal after anti-cal attacked it, in total oblivion to what it even teaches. They were in fact senselessly attacking their own thoughts, not the system.

Thus the thread was closed only after I proved my point that they fight against what they THINK it teaches, and were wrong. Not one admitted to this even after it was apparent to all this was the case, and even after DHK himself admitted my goal was accomplished, then closed the thread.

Don't be so naive.

Here is the link: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73419&page=15

And here are the last couple of posts:

Originally Posted by preacher4truth:

I'll say the most interesting thing about this OP was and is in its objective, that is, that it has proven those arguing against the doctrine of Irresistible Grace have no idea what the doctrine means whatsoever.

Mission accomplished.

DHK responded:

Quote:
It seems your mission will have been accomplished.
Thread is closed.

The OP was started by you. You started the thread. Your mission was accomplished. I took that to mean you wanted the thread closed; so I closed it. No need to make disdainful remarks.

 

[jbh28]

"The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are spiritually discerned." In other words they cannot understand the Bible. This is what I hear over and over again on this board from Calvinists. So I have provided an example to demonstrate otherwise.

Really, so God had nothing to do with it? God didn't open his eyes to understand the Scripture at that very moment?

 

[preacher4truth]

Don't be so naive.

The OP was started by you. You started the thread. Your mission was accomplished. I took that to mean you wanted the thread closed; so I closed it. No need to make disdainful remarks.

I always enjoy your personal attacks DHK. They are a commentary of your character, not of who I am whatsoever.

Yep I started the OP. You're gifted in noting the glaringly obvious for once. Congrats! :thumbsup:

Yep, my mission was accomplished, you and others fought against what you thought a doctrine teaches, and did so vehemenently, but remain clueless to what it actually does teach to this day. I thought it comical to watch each of you attack not the doctrine, but your own subjective thoughts which had not a thing to do with irresistible grace.

You know it wasn't a request to close the thread, but instead, you saw my point proven and chose to close it all on your own desire to do so. The facts are there for all to see.

Oh, and by the way, there were absolutely no disdainful remarks in my response, that is something employed by yourself frequently when what you accuse is clearly not there.

Everything in my response was factual and shared facts by quotes. Yes, I know it must be painful to look back at my objective there in that thread and see the several attacking their own thoughts, not the teaching itself. That, and to acknowledge my mission was in fact accomplished.

 

[DHK]

Really, so God had nothing to do with it? God didn't open his eyes to understand the Scripture at that very moment?

I believe He did, absolutely. But I am not the one trying to hold to such a literal interpretation of 1Cor.2:14 that says it is impossible for Taylor to be saved, as the Calvinist does. The natural man does not receive the things of God for he is spiritually discerned. He is lost. He is blinded to the truth of God. On His own it is impossible for him to understand any spiritual thing. That is the Calvinist position reiterated over and over again.
He is totally depraved. He is completely dead. It is impossible for him to respond to anything spiritual.

 

[Dr. Walter]

"The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are spiritually discerned." In other words they cannot understand the Bible. This is what I hear over and over again on this board from Calvinists. So I have provided an example to demonstrate otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether he heard the gospel previous to that; he was still unsaved--"spiritually discerned."
I believe he can be saved through the Word of God, but you say he, being a natural man, cannot read the Word of God and understand it, for "he is spiritually discerned."
You say that God doesn't empower the word in and of itself, for this is a natural man and he is "spiritually discerned."

You are not being consistent in your application of Scripture.
BTW, this has been pointed out to the other Calvinists on this board but they only ridicule for they have no sound answer against their own fallacious argument.

Intellectually he can discipher the words and give you a RATIONAL explanation. However, the scriptures are deeper than mere RATIONAL perception. Although the RATIONAL explanation may be completely in keeping with the SPIRITUAL perception of the Scriptures, the natural man does not possess the Spirit of God and is incapable of SPIRITUAL perception that involves more than the INTELLECT but the HEART as well because it is "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" and the unregenerate man does not have a heart to percieve or eyes to see or ears to hear the truth.

1. Lost people do not have such a heart in them:

Deut. 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!


2. God must give such a heart in them:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.


3. The New Covenant is God giving such a heart in them:

Ezek. 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

[jbh28]

I believe He did, absolutely. But I am not the one trying to hold to such a literal interpretation of 1Cor.2:14 that says it is impossible for Taylor to be saved, as the Calvinist does. The natural man does not receive the things of God for he is spiritually discerned. He is lost. He is blinded to the truth of God. On His own it is impossible for him to understand any spiritual thing. That is the Calvinist position reiterated over and over again.
He is totally depraved. He is completely dead. It is impossible for him to respond to anything spiritual.

Calvinist correctly say that "on His own it's impossible." I hope you have that same position. You yourself say that you believe that God opened his eyes so he could understand. Why do you think that the Calvinist would say that God leaves him alone and cannot be saved?

 

[DHK]

Calvinist correctly say that "on His own it's impossible." I hope you have that same position. You yourself say that you believe that God opened his eyes so he could understand. Why do you think that the Calvinist would say that God leaves him alone and cannot be saved?

The proof text pulled out of the air for that statement is 1Cor.2:14.
The literalness of your statement I don't agree with. "On his own it is impossible" for a natural man to understand spiritual things (to put the entire statement in its context).

Hudson Taylor, "on his own" understood spiritual things though he was spiritual discerned. You shoot yourself in the foot.

I have asked Luke in the past. Can an unsaved person pick up the Bible and, by reading it, be saved? His answer is absolutely no. He cannot understand spiritually things. He is spiritually dead to the things of God.
He is totally depraved, totally unable to respond to anything spiritual. That is his position.

Now that I have given a well documented incident in scripture the Calvinists here have all become Arminians and have changed their tune. They are backed into a corner and are trying to justify their previous statements concerning the depravity of man, and wild interpretation of 1Cor.2:14.

 

[jbh28]

The proof text pulled out of the air for that statement is 1Cor.2:14.
The literalness of your statement I don't agree with. "On his own it is impossible" for a natural man to understand spiritual things (to put the entire statement in its context).

Hudson Taylor, "on his own" understood spiritual things though he was spiritual discerned. You shoot yourself in the foot.

What's your proof that God had nothing to do with Taylor's understanding of the Scripture? You seem to be begging the question here. the Scripture, not just Calvinist, teach that the natural man cannot understand.

I have asked Luke in the past. Can an unsaved person pick up the Bible and, by reading it, be saved? His answer is absolutely no. He cannot understand spiritually things. He is spiritually dead to the things of God.
He is totally depraved, totally unable to respond to anything spiritual. That is his position.

Without God, that would be true. However, I would say yes, but that's understanding that the Lord would be working in him through the gospel. It's not that the man is just reading words without God in the picture.

 

[Luke2427]

What's your proof that God had nothing to do with Taylor's understanding of the Scripture? You seem to be begging the question here. the Scripture, not just Calvinist, teach that the natural man cannot understand.

Without God, that would be true. However, I would say yes, but that's understanding that the Lord would be working in him through the gospel. It's not that the man is just reading words without God in the picture.

The question is can an UNREGENERATE man pick up a Bible and read it and be saved while unregenerate. The answer is a resounding- absolutely not.

This is abundantly clear in Scripture.

But that God uses his word to regenerate the lost is also clear in Scripture.

So when Taylor picked up this tract, either in that moment God used the Scripture to awaken his dead spirit so that he could receive the Truth- or God had awakened his spirit prior to that. This resulted in his regeneration which inevitably led to his calling upon the Lord and being saved.

EVERYBODY who knows beans from apple butter about Calvinism understands that that is what MOST Calvinists believe.

The fact the DHK does not know this is proof he has no business in this debate. He does not understand in the slightest that which he is on a tear against.

 

[DHK]

The question is can an UNREGENERATE man pick up a Bible and read it and be saved while unregenerate. The answer is a resounding- absolutely not.

This is abundantly clear in Scripture.

Not so abundantly as you think. Your "resounding--absolutely not" answer is exactly why I gave the example. Calvinism contradicts itself. There are countless examples just like this throughout history. There are hundreds of people who have been saved simply by reading a tract; some by reading the Bible. Certainly there is a work of the Holy Spirit. Who will deny that? But it is quite obvious that the unregenerate/unsaved person like Hudson can understand to some extent the Word of God.

But that God uses his word to regenerate the lost is also clear in Scripture.

This is your Calvinistic scapegoat that eludes the question at hand. No one ever denied this. It is a general statement of truth. It is like saying saying the gospel saves. There is nothing new in your statement.

So when Taylor picked up this tract, either in that moment God used the Scripture to awaken his dead spirit so that he could receive the Truth- or God had awakened his spirit prior to that. This resulted in his regeneration which inevitably led to his calling upon the Lord and being saved.

Now you are making assumptions without evidence.
Let's look at it objectively. Now when the unregenerate man picked up this tract he had to understand the spiritual truth that was written on that tract in order for the Holy Spirit to convict him that he might be saved. That is the only choice you have. God uses His Word. He uses the Holy Spirit through His Word. But he must have the revelation of the Word first in order that the Holy Spirit might use it. The Gospel does not work in a vacuum.
Then regeneration/salvation take place. Prior to that, if you read his testimony, there was nothing Christian about him. He was a rebel in the face of God. He stood against God inwardly and outwardly.

EVERYBODY who knows beans from apple butter about Calvinism understands that that is what MOST Calvinists believe.

Does it really matter what MOST Calvinists believe? Does it not matter to the Calvinist what the Bible believes or teaches? That is the real question.

 

[DHK]

What's your proof that God had nothing to do with Taylor's understanding of the Scripture? You seem to be begging the question here. the Scripture, not just Calvinist, teach that the natural man cannot understand.

I am not stating anything about God. Hudson was a rebel against God--unregenerate and unsaved. According to 1Cor.2:14 the Calvinist interpretation says that he could not understand the things of God. But he did, and was saved. Hundreds of others have similar testimonies.

This goes along with God's expectation of the unregenerate or of "all men everywhere to repent." This was not a command given to believers, but it is a command God gave to the unregenerate that he expects to be obeyed.