Featured The Reprobate Calvinist

God can do anything He wants (Psalm 115:3; 135:6). Your point is what?

With respect, I don't think I am obliged to conform to your stereotype. Tongue
God certainly is sovereign, and Adam certainly had freewill, but since the fall, man's will is in bondage to sin (John 3:19) and he cannot perceive spiritual truth unless and until God is pleased to give him new birth (John 3:6; 1 Cor. 2:14).

 

Where does scripture say this? Those scriptiures do not say what you have just said
MB

 

Thank you! So attention to all Calvinist, when arguing against men having a freewill choice after the fall, stop using the line "God is Sovereign" as a reason man does not have the freedom to choose life or death. Our disagreement has nothing to do with God being Sovereign or God giving up His Sovereignty.

Now let's settle your next defense. You say God must give a person a new heart BEFORE the person can believe. Q. When did the New Covenant begin?

 

You seem to have a strange caricature in your mind of what Calvinism is. I think you may be confusing Calvin with his evil younger brother Hypercalvin. I could suggest some helpful books to you if you wanted to understand it better. Of course God is sovereign, and the reason man is unable to save himself is that he has a wicked unregenerate heart.

I think you already asked that question above, and I answered it.

 

Well then, I think you need to say to me why they don't say what I said they say.

 

Would this be men like Icon and TC who make many statements to the effect of no belief in TULIP equals no salvation? I have gained 99% of my understanding of Calvinism directly from confessing Calvinist on this very board. Just read TC's post......

 

There you have it Martin. Now here is a man who believes in his own mind that he understands Calvinism perfectly and any who opposes it does not understand it nor is a believer in Jesus Christ at all.

 

Yes. And as your answer declares, the New Covenant did not begin until Pentacost. Thus, the New Heart did not begin until AFTER the death, burial, resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ. And thus Calvinism crumbles upon the sand it was built upon. Brother Darrell did an outstanding job in this thread of destroying the false premise Calvinism is based upon.

 

With respect, I think you are still confused. The New Covenant may not have begun until Pentecost, but salvation began in Genesis 3, and it was then as it is now- all of grace.

After the fall Adam and Eve did not wander round the Garden crying out, "God, where are you?" On the contrary, they hid from Him and tried to establish their own righteousness (Gen. 3:7); rather, it was God who came seeking them (Gen. 3:9) and provided a covering (Heb. kaphar) for their sin (v.21) which involved the death of an innocent creature, prefiguring the death of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

Nor was Abraham earnestly seeking God. 'Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the river in old times; and they served other gods. Then I took your father Abraham from the other side of the river, led him throughout all the land of Canaan......"' (Josh. 24:2-3). There is no indication that Abraham was praying, "O God, please get me out of this awful place Ur of the Chaldees!" No, God came to Abraham and called him out. And since we know that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14), Abraham must have been 'saved' or regenerate. 'By faith Abraham obeyed.....' (Heb. 11:8).

Right from the very beginning it is the case that 'Salvation belongs to the LORD' (Psalm 3:8; Jonah 3:9; cf. Titus 1:2).

 

Amen! That is correct. The New Covenant is the New Heart/Regeneration. Thus, Calvinism is destroyed for Calvinism must have the New Heart administered pre-cross less it's doctrines die. Salvation is by Grace Alone through Faith Alone. The New Covenant is Christ in you, born again.

 

So you believe that people who were saved before Pentecost were unregenerate?
That is very interesting, but I can hardly think it is correct.

'Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his' (Romans 8:9). Nicodemus was told before Pentecost that unless he was born again, he could neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. Why? Because 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6). When Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah, he was told, '.....flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven' (Matt. 16:17; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3).

If you want to know how the New Covenant differs from the Mosaic Covenant, I listed elsewhere 17 ways in which it is better. I can post that again if it will be helpful. No doubt the Holy Spirit was poured out in greater effusion at Pentecost than hitherto, but that is not the gist of the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, membership was restricted almost entirely to the Israelites, and while people came into that covenant at birth, only a few were actually saved (Isaiah 1:9), the vast majority being unregenerate. The blessings of the New Covenant come to all people- that is, Jew and Gentile, male and female etc. (Joel 2:28). Everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord (Jer. 31:34).

There has only ever been one way of salvation- by grace, through faith in Christ, whether looking forward or looking back. That is why Abel was a prophet (Luke 11:50-51), and why he still speaks today to those who will listen (Heb. 11:4). What does he say? 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!'

You might care to read this: https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/the-prophet-abel/

 

You already agreed the New Covenant, which is the New Heart, began post cross. Yes, there is only one way to be saved, by grace alone through faith alone. No one could enter into the presence of God until the New Covenant was implemented. The NT writings makes this very clear. All the OT saints awaited the cross in Paradise until Jesus led captivity captive. (Psa68:18, Eph4:8)

 

That is the question. There is no way you can understand the Fall of mankind and yet believe that those saved in the OT were unregenerate.

 

The Scripture is very clear on this matter. No one was given a new heart until after the works of Jesus Christ were completed. If the OT saints went to heaven and God indwelled them WITHOUT the works of Jesus Christ completed, then there would have been no reason for Jesus Christ to actually have to come and do anything further. We could just all continue on with the promise remaining in God's mind alone and nothing would change at all.

 

How else could a corrupt man like David been a man after God's own heart without the work of the Spirit? How else could a corrupt man like Abraham have believed God without the work of the Spirit?

I do agree that no one can be saved WITHOUT the works of Jesus Christ completed, but salvation was possible PRIOR to the work of Jesus Christ. This isn't hard to grasp especially if one believes in a covenant of redemption. The problem is most people who disagree with OT saints being regenerate have a poor understanding of God's eternal plan.

 

These are questions created purely out of the false premise of TULIP's T.

How do you agree with this if you believe the OT saints already received all that salvation entails?

Or it could be they have a very good understanding of God's eternal plan and those who have embraced TULIP have ventured off the path.

 

I take it that by "TULIP" you mean Reformed theology's teaching of man's inhibiting corruption. If so, it appears you may be so anti-Calvinist that you are now becoming anti-Biblical since the pervasiveness of man's fallen condition is all over the Scriptures.

The OT saints haven't received ALL that salvation entails...as of yet.

Yeah, that anti-Calvinist leading to anti-Biblical thing.

 

First, I believe it should be apparent that I am anti Calvinism. So your complaining about this adds nothing to the debate, just as you are anti nonCalvinism. Calvinism's version of T is not biblical according to my research of the scriptures.

So what is it you see as the OT saints having not received prior to the cross?