Featured The scriptural and contextual reading of Lydia's heart

I disagree, I believe the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit here in 2 Thess 2:13 and 1 Pet 1:2 is synonymous to regeneration and renewing described here Titus 3:5

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

 

LOL, yet another non-germane reference, building the house of cards higher and higher, but none with a sound footing.

Does 1 Cor. 2:14 say all spiritual things of the Spirit cannot be understood by those not indwelt? Nope. However, that false assertion is made over and over again by those denying God's truth.

Does John 8:47 say what characteristic makes a person "of God?" Nope, so those pushing false doctrine claim it means regenerated. On and on, folks, add a little here, take a little their, and redefine something else, and viola, false doctrine is poured into the text.

If a person is open to God's message, they are said to be "of God" and the fields are white for harvest with them, all we need is more labors.

 

The reference is appropriate, you cant see it though, which doesnt matter.

 

Ah, folks, note the appeal to Gnostic knowledge, it is so secret, only members of the group can see it...

 

I think you know what I mean by this. The objection against the idea that the Holy Spirit has to act on a person or they cannot be saved is based on a concept of "that wouldn't be fair (or just) because all are not acted upon equally".

We are blockheads because that is our natural state and because we are freely doing what we want to do, thus increasing our "blockheadedness" and hardening our hearts every day we live as we wish and every time we reject God's word. Scripture says God sometimes judicially acts to withhold restraint and let men go into complete debauchery but sorry - it's on us.

The first part is absolutely true and if you don't understand that you can never understand Calvinism. The second part is true after the Holy Spirit has begun to work in a person's heart. Now when you look into this, some Calvinist say flat out that you are born again or regenerated and THEN you freely come to Christ. Others, like J.C. Ryle seem to allow for more of a mystery in exactly how this works. They believe that no one can (or will) come to Christ without the Holy Spirit working in them but they come short of saying that this work is simply, flat out regeneration. They allow for more of a varied and gradual approach and although they don't deny it, they don't seem to teach regeneration as being the first (prior to faith) and only absolute action done to a person in conversion, at least not in all cases.

Reading back through this thread I do not think those who believe that in Lydia's case, regeneration as being what was meant by "opened her heart" has been proved. I do think that it's quite clear that it was more than just hearing the information about the gospel for the first time. In the case of you guys on here who say you came to Christ of your own free will, I believe you. I do think that the Holy Spirit was at work in you first and it may well be that you were indeed born again first. I'm not sure. But when you came it was that you came of your own free will. You chose to come. I just think your will had been affected by the Holy Spirit.

 

BF you do fall into the type of Calvinist that I mentioned in post 118. You get frustrated with those that do not agree with you and point out your errors in scripture and logic. There really is no need for you to lash out as you do.

Your errors have been shown to you and you just refuse to acknowledge them.

 

Is that what you call scripture truth ?

 

You've been shown the Truth, but you still have not a clue.

 

The bible is quite clear that the Holy Spirit convicts the world would you not agree? What the bible also tells us is that God is just and the justifier of those that trust in His son. So it is not a matter how the HS acts but rather being just in those actions. And as for God being fair, you could say He is because He has said that He desires all to come to repentance and unless you think He is being disingenuous He would actually provide all with an equal chance to know Him.

Dave you seem to have conveniently forgotten {divine determinism} God decrees all things, not just some things. I know you will say, but the WCF/LBCF says God is not responsible and you know this because we put this escape clause in the text. But the only way you can believe the escape clause works is through Cognitive Dissonance.

Calvinism does not allow for a man's free will, remember divine determinism, if you don't understand that you will never see the error that Calvinist theology presents. The bible on the other hand does actually allow for man's free will and will hold him responsible for the choices he freely makes. The Gospel message is the means by which we learn of God and the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The gospel message has to make sense to our mind before it will reach our heart resulting in faith exercised by our will.

 

BF you keep denying scripture. Your error has been pointed out to you any number of times yet you persist in denials. But it seems it has been determined for you be that way so perhaps you are one of those that has the Calvinist evanescent faith so you believe for a while and then fall away.

 

Thanks for posting this. I wrote something similar a while ago and no one picked up on it.
The Puritans, starting way back with William Perkins, believed that regeneration was a process rather than an all-in-one event. So one might be 'awakened' and 'convicted' without being yet regenerated. Sometimes these events come all together, especially in times of revival, but John Bunyan went through 18 months of deep conviction before coming to faith. Read Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners.

 

You deny scripture, you cant help it friend

 

To be honest God does hide or withhold truth from some, and gives it to others Mk 4:10-12

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Matt 13:11

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 

I haven't conveniently forgotten anything. There are confessions and systematic theologies and they serve a purpose. I've said before that I was drawn to the Puritan writings because of their help to me in my Christian life and had read Bunyan in particular for about a year before a Sunday school teacher told me "You do know, don't you, that they were all Calvinists." There is theology and there is ministry and application. Look at this from J.C. Ryle from his book "Old Paths" chapter 14 Christs Invitation.
"You may tell me that you have no right to accept this invitation, because you do not know that you are one of God's elect. I answer, that you have no right to put words in Christ's mouth which He has not used. He does not say "Come unto me, all ye that are elect". He addresses all the "labouring and heavy-laden ones", without any exception. Are you one of them? Is there weight within on your soul? This is the only question you have to decide. If you are, you are one of those to whom Christ speaks."
To me, this kind of preaching fits beautifully with Calvinism, properly understood and applied correctly. True, it does not fit with what some on this board put out there. They call me unstable, or wishy-washy but honestly, if Calvinism really was what they portray it as I would hate and tear into it too. I could show you similar similar invitations from Owen, Edwards, Bunyan, Bonar, Spurgeon but some on here go nuts if you just say you are "invited" to come to Christ. Still, I am just as concerned when I see some on here who think the only alternative to the extreme Calvinism is to go so far into elevating "free will" that you are heading dangerously close to Pelagianism.

 

Dave I have heard so many Calvinists say "Calvinism, properly understood and applied correctly" but even when those of us that disagree with Calvinism quote Calvinists we are told we do not understand Calvinism. Even @JonC has been told that if memory serves. I have quoted the WCF/LBCF, Calvin, Augustine, Sproul, Piper etc.and I am still told I do not understand Calvinism. I find many Calvinists do not understand Calvinism or they just ignore what that theology says.

Quite frankly I do not know why you call yourself a Calvinist as many of the things you post do not fit with that theology. I am not a Calvinist and I like Spurgeon and some of Edwards and Bunyan. I have even read Sproul and Piper and enjoy some of Paul Washers material. As long as people stick to the bible I have no quarrel with them but do not mess with the word of God.

Free will is free will, one either has it or they do not. If God through divine determinism decrees all things as the WCF/LBCF state then God is responsible for all the good or evil that we see in this world. Man is just a puppet. But since the bible shows that man does have a God given free will man is responsible for the choices, good or bad, that they make.

 

You're always welcome to your interpretation...as, by the way, am I.

 

Thats already understood. And sometimes ones interpretation is according to revealed truth from the scripture.Prov 1:5-7

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

Well, you answered your own question, didn't you. I quote all those guys above and you read them and even like them. Are they Calvinists? Spurgeon didn't like being called a Calvinist. The Puritans were said to be legalists, and some of the Calvinists on this board don't like them, Piper supposedly has "faith" wrong in his latest book, Edwards had justification wrong. And there is a thing going around on the internet asking whether Calvin was a Calvinist. My point was that no one adheres to a confession or a system with total rigidity. You bring that up about the WCF when it was designed to allow for some freedom of belief. So that is a fault? Would it ever occur to you that maybe the fact that you read and like those guys shows that you really don't find Calvinism as odious as you think? Or at least maybe you should explore a little further what it's most noteworthy adherents say? Which it seems like you are doing and that's good.

 

Dave what I said was that I have read and actually do like some of what they say. Do you agree with all that I or others say on this board? I actually like some of what you say but not all of what you say. The same goes for JonC and others. The bases of Calvinism is wrong. If one is going to actually be a Calvinist would they not have to hold to at least the main points of that view? Like the DoG/TULIP, divine determinism etc.

I do find it strange that you would say the WCF/LBCF were designed to allow for some freedom of belief but that is not the problem is it. The WCF/LBCF do not allow for an actual free will. I know you will say yes they do but then you are just living with a clear contradiction found in one sentence.
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to passa) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(c) WCF

Logically you can not say God controls all things unchangeably and then say that man has a free will so that he can change something through his free will. Under Calvinism God has determined everything including sin or do you have a different meaning for unchangeably and ordain. The WCF/LBCF like many documents have good and bad in them but Calvinists continue to overlook the bad in these documents. The fault of these documents is that they have made God the author of evil and that is a totally wrong. You may say but the overall document is good but remember a glass of water is good for you but a few drops of poison in it will kill you.

Actually I do find that the Calvinist theology as I have seen and read to be rather, to use your word, odious. The foundation of that theological view came from Augustine and he was the one that brought pagan ideas into the church and these were the ideas that Calvin carried forward. The tree may look good but if the root is bad it can not produce good fruit. Consistently applied Calvinism is not biblical and that is why many "Calvinist's" do not apply it consistently. Think this through Dave, if one claims to be a consistent Calvinist then 1] Why disagree with anyone's opinion as God has determined them to think that way so you are arguing with God. 2] If they are consistent then how do they really know if they are one of the saved? They base the proof of their salvation on the works they do as it was not their choice to follow God or believe the gospel message. They have to hope they are part of the "elect"

You have said before that you like the system that Calvinism provides but as I have read your posts you do seem to disagree with some of the system so that is why I ask are you really a Calvinist or do you just trust what the bible says. I think it is the latter.

 

I'm always learning about Calvinism, as well as the other schools of thought as well. All I know is that there is one end of Calvinism that is so deterministic that I find it odious too. And at the other end, when I read Bonar, Spurgeon, Ryle or Martyn Lloyd-Jones I find I agree, as far as I know with everything I have ever read by them.

When you say "trust what the Bible says" I agree but what I have found is my problem is that I wonder sometimes if I'm getting it right as to what the Bible says or specifically, what does that passage mean. So, you have pastors, and teachers and your own commentaries and I make use of them. And I have found the Calvinistic confessions, and the writers mentioned above most helpful. But yeah, they could be wrong sometimes and so could I. Actually I'm sure that's the case, just look at some of the contradictory explanations given for certain passages among them.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that Calvinism without a dose of Methodism doesn't work well. He also thought highly of Richard Baxter, who had a different view of the atonement at one point and of justification and yet is viewed by many Calvinists from the Puritan era to today as one of the greatest pastoral teachers of all time. Don't get lost in a "party" spirit.

The main thing I would recommend is that you look as much at the preaching of the great Calvinists as the philosophical arguments. When Jonathan Edwards told people in a sermon that Christ has died and everything is prepared and is waiting for you to come to Christ - do you really think he forgot everything else he ever wrote? That he isn't allowed to say that if he's a Calvinist?