How does this doctrine effect the way we witness?

Is that a Calvinist or an Arminian approach?

 

Gina, I like the way you think. I do the same thing. I tend to be private about my beliefs, so I usually wait until I'm asked.

I've personally seen the "believe this or go to Hell" approace drive people further away from God. Such was the case with my cousin. He came to me because I was the one person who never condemned him, and he ended up becoming a Christian.

 

I think it is you who seems to err in knowledge of what you speak. Your statement above reveals the common exclusivist view of a Calvinist. Only one who limits his reading to those works by, for, and about Calvinism would dare make such statements so easily refuted. Do the words "Moravian Missionaries" mean anything to you? How about the American "Great Awakening"? Can you name 10 circuit riding Calvinists from 18th and 19th century America? I can easily name 10 decidedly non-Cal ones and then keep on going.

I have ministered in south Georgia, north Florida, southeastern Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. In all of those places I find abundant evidence of continuously operating Methodist churches with histories back to the days of the circuit-rider (these tend to be Non-Cal in theology, I believe). I do not see the Cals having the same thing, in comparison.

I agree heartily that there are some great Calvinist missionaries. Carey, Judson, and Brainerd for example. But a majority? Even claiming "virtually all"?? You boast yourself way out of proportion to the truth. The pity is, Non-Cals can acknowledge the achievements of some men greatly used of God, even though they be Calvinist in persuasion and theological position. But Cals seem to be blind to anything except other Cals, exclusively.

Will you now claim that this is true of MOST ALL Calvinists? I'll agree that there are SOME evangelistic Calvinists. But I find them few and far between, rare jems in God's jewell case. Most in my experience eventually follow the road of Calvinism to its logical conclusion, because evangelistic ministry is contradictory to the doctrines of Calvinism.

I can't help but smile. It would serve you well to document some of the things you post before making such outrageous claims. I have a tendency to pick apart posts, myself.

*hat tip </)

 

I know a heap of Calvinists that would be spitting like cats tossed into a pen full of dogs over that remark. First of all, Calvinists would disagree with your Ordo Salutis ... They frequently claim that the dead cannot hear. They dispute that regeneration must occur FIRST before the sinner can hear.

So, since you have ordered it as "they hear and come to life," I wonder ... do *YOU* know what Calvinists believe?

 

A very astute observation. I have found that many Calvinists who oppose agressive evangelistic efforts do so with the excuse that "lifestyle evangelism" is a superior method. I personally agree. Evangelism should not be a suit of clothes you put on and take off, but a constant way of life. The trouble is, I also find that Calvinist words do not match their practical application oftentimes.

Let me explain. They may say that they practice "Lifestyle Evangelism," but the very terms presuppose that they are living a different Lifestyle from the lost non-elect. Is this true of the Calvinist? Bear in mind, that the consistent Calvinist also applies his theological principles to sanctification as well as salvation. In other words, I don't have to live holy or righteous in the least, God will make me as holy and righteous as He wills.

That is why in "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain H. Murray, he would point out that Hyper-Cals were frequently antinomian in character. Today, Calvinists are in the forefront of the battle to justify Lifestyles that are NO different from those of the lost -- those who teach and preach Biblical differences are called "legalists" and other abusive terms by these libertines. So, what are they going to win them over to?

 

Regarding the "hyper-calvinists are antinomian in character" comment, there is something an old preacher used to say.(oftentimes people accuse us PBs of being antinomianist; far from the truth)

He said that people would tell him, "If I believed like you do, I'd just sin all of the time and it wouldn't matter because I'm going to heaven." The preacher would then say, "What sin is it that you want to commit so badly?" Plus he would add, "If you did believe like we do, you wouldn't want to sin."

We are not antinomian(and I know we're not technically hyper-calvinist, but close enough). We believe that once regeneration occurs, the new man is born and the person no longer desires the things of the world.

I'm not going to bash anyone's beliefs; another belief of the PBs is that God gives only so much knowledge to people and He reveals the truths of the doctrines to people in His own time. Therefore, it is my belief that people can not help what they believe. So, all I can do is pray that God will open the eyes of His children, including mine, to see the great hope we have and our security that He finished the work of our salvation on the cross.

As I said before, if it was up to me to save myself I would fail miserably just like Adam and just like everyone else.

Now, I don't intend to get in a heated argument, but I just want to make a small discussionary point.

The dead cannot hear until they are called by God. That is when regeneration occurs, when they hear His voice. Now, when he grants us that hearing, we are able to comprehend, as He allows, the knowledge of the scriptures.

A great example of this is Lazarus. Jesus waited for 3 days to go get Lazarus. This was insure to everyone that he was indeed dead, so as not to allow Lazarus any credit for raising himself. Jesus went and "called" Lazarus, just as he calls a dead sinner to life. Lazarus rose and came forth bound hand and foot in grave clothes. All of this symbolizes us in our sins(the graveclothes)coming out of death to life(hearing his voice and being renerated).

Now, the next step was Jesus telling the people to loose him from the graveclothes. This action sybolizes the duty of our fellow Christians to teach us the word of God as found in the scriptures. It looses us from our bondage in sin(the graveclothes).

That is what our responsibility in spreading the gospel is; to convert those who have already been regenerated by God's command to come forth. That action is completely independent of man's action. Our duty is to nurture and teach that person and show them the way that God has laid down for us to walk.

As I always say, we don't do good works to go to heaven, we do them because we are going.

Action never precedes life. The day a dead man can tell himself to rise up is the day I'll believe we have the power to make ourselves come from darkness into life and become children of God.

Also, please note, do not bash me for being a Calvinist as I am not. I am also neither a hypercalvinist. I am a Primitive Baptist, which is the remnant of what the Baptists as a whole(or mostly) believed from the time of Christ to the time of the split of the missionaries in the 1800's.

I am not a Calvinist, nor have I ever been one. And, quite frankly, I do not believe what John Calvin taught. He believed in forcing people to accept his doctrine or be put to death. He doesn't even sound very Calvinist to me.

God Bless each of us in endeavors to better serve Him and understand His word.

Bro. James

 

Not actually. I do konw what I am talking about. I do not deny that some arminians have been used by God. I do not limit my reading to Calvinists. In fact, at present, I read very little about soteriology at all. I do not have an exclusive view (though I did find myself chuckling at your descriptions in another thread you started.

Only one who limits his reading to those works by, for, and about Calvinism would dare make such statements so easily refuted. Do the words "Moravian Missionaries" mean anything to you? How about the American "Great Awakening"? Can you name 10 circuit riding Calvinists from 18th and 19th century America? I can easily name 10 decidedly non-Cal ones and then keep on going.

I have ministered in south Georgia, north Florida, southeastern Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. In all of those places I find abundant evidence of continuously operating Methodist churches with histories back to the days of the circuit-rider (these tend to be Non-Cal in theology, I believe). I do not see the Cals having the same thing, in comparison.

I agree heartily that there are some great Calvinist missionaries. Carey, Judson, and Brainerd for example. But a majority? Even claiming "virtually all"?? You boast yourself way out of proportion to the truth. The pity is, Non-Cals can acknowledge the achievements of some men greatly used of God, even though they be Calvinist in persuasion and theological position. But Cals seem to be blind to anything except other Cals, exclusively.

It is not true of most arminians. I certainly don't think it is true of most calvinists. But it is true of at least as many calvinists as arminians, in my experience.

If you know Calvinism, then you cannot make this statement. This is typical prejudicial, Dave Hunt style of commentary. To say that evangelism is contrary to Calvinism is to raise your hand and say, "I have no idea what I am talking about but I like the sound of my voice so I will say it anyway." There are some calvinists who are not evangelistic. There are some arminians who are the same. The doctrines of Calvinism are about evangelism. That is what the Scripture teaches.

Your posts seem to be like many others who, instead of talking about what Calvinism really is, talk about what they would like Calvinism to be ... That is unfortunate. There are many valid areas of discussion. We should focus on those.

 

I don't know any who would. I think they would all agree with men. I know because I have talked to them. You read this through your arminian colored glasses and saw something that was not there. I was not giving an ordo salutis (although the ordo salutis you suggest can most certainly be adequately defended from a calvinistic view). I was commenting on the verse. The point is that death is no problem for salvation. Christ can overcome that.

 

A very astute observation. I have found that many Calvinists who oppose agressive evangelistic efforts do so with the excuse that "lifestyle evangelism" is a superior method. I personally agree. Evangelism should not be a suit of clothes you put on and take off, but a constant way of life. The trouble is, I also find that Calvinist words do not match their practical application oftentimes.

Let me explain. They may say that they practice "Lifestyle Evangelism," but the very terms presuppose that they are living a different Lifestyle from the lost non-elect. Is this true of the Calvinist? Bear in mind, that the consistent Calvinist also applies his theological principles to sanctification as well as salvation. In other words, I don't have to live holy or righteous in the least, God will make me as holy and righteous as He wills.

That is why in "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain H. Murray, he would point out that Hyper-Cals were frequently antinomian in character. Today, Calvinists are in the forefront of the battle to justify Lifestyles that are NO different from those of the lost -- those who teach and preach Biblical differences are called "legalists" and other abusive terms by these libertines. So, what are they going to win them over to? </font>[/QUOTE]Pappa, there are a few Calvinists who behave in the manner you described, but I would no sooner lable the whole camp that way than lable all non-cals KJVO's. There's extremists and exceptions in every belief group.
Also, legalism is a cry that is coming from all directions and not at all something that can be pinned on those with calvinistic beliefs. It seems to be used by ANYONE who wants to justify calling themselves a Christian while at the same time not living a lifestyle worthy of their calling.
You're right about giving the glory to God for our sanctification, but there is a difference in the way it's defined as pertains to our salvation and the way it applies to us progressively throughout the way we live for Christ. We do all that we can do, but if we do any better because of it there's no glory in ourselves because of it, because it is God who works that change in us. That doesn't mean we ignore his attempts to work in us, it just means we praise him for giving us the heart to change and to live for him. Make sense?
If there's anything I forgot I'll come back to it.
BTW can you give me a specific example of calvinist words not matching a practical application?
Gina

 

Bro. James, it is my privilege to meet you. I have enjoyed reading your post very much and appreciate your taking the time to make it. I hope that in discussing what I perceive to be errors in what is called Calvinist doctrine, you do not feel that I am attacking you personally. But I have noticed that the subject does tend to generate a lot of heat, especially when long held and cherished beliefs begin to be shattered, having no Biblical basis in fact.

Please remember that I was referring to statements made by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a great Baptist Calvinist of the 19th century in London England, and as referred to by Iain Murray, the Calvinist author of "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism." The truth is that the teaching ministries of strong Calvinists such as John Gill and William Huntington, by their opposition to the LAW, and total deliverance of responsibility from it produced great numbers of antinomian adherents. As a later successor to the pulpit of Gill, Spurgeon found it necessary to point out this evil result of Hyper-Calvinist teaching. I think the need is still great in that area, today.

This is interesting. You actually believe that once a man is regenerated he loses all desire for the things of the world? I thought it was Arminian/Pelagians that had problems teaching sinless perfection, but it appears I may be wrong in that regard? Was the Apostle Paul not speaking as a yet unregenerated man when he said, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."(Rms 7:25)?

Agreed! But the accusation of believing that one can save himself is one hurled by Calvinists against Non-Cals, and that rather regularly. But I have yet to meet the Christian who has even the basic smattering of Biblical knowledge who would affirm such a thing. Salvation is not by works. It is not by any work of righteousness which we have done. We are saved by His grace and mercy. But I find that normally, those who hold to fatalist views of predestinarianism are blind to the understanding that God does it, yet man is responsible to meet the conditions of repentance and faith as set forth in the Word of God. As Spurgeon said, "That God predestinates, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory, but they are not."

And then ....

Do you see the contradiction here? First you claim that the dead cannot hear, then you illustrate with Lazarus and specifically say that the dead "hearing his voice" are then regenerated (brought back to life). That does not quite make sense, and is contradictory. If the dead cannot hear, they cannot hear. But if they CAN hear the call of God, and are only regenerated (made alive) after that, then the dead CAN hear God's Word. In fact, if it is the call of God that regenerates, then God's words in calling them becomes the source of regeneration. Here, I can agree. But when you, inconsistent with your Biblical illustration, state that the dead cannot hear, then I have to disagree. Lazarus was dead, but Lazarus heard. Lazarus was regenerated by the the call of Christ. The sinner today is regenerated by the proclamation of God's Word (1Cor. 1:21). They are spiritually dead in sin, but yes, they can still hear, though dead, the Word of God. That is why we have such a tremendous responsibility to preach it, share it, and give its powerful soul-changing, life-giving message to all that we can.

Just so that I understand you correctly, you aren't using the word "convert" meaning to save, are you? Or do you believe there can be a length of time between a person's "regeneration" and coming to faith in Christ?

Amen! and Amen!

May our Lord Jesus Christ use you for His glory.

 

Hmmm... I am beginning to see a pattern, here. First, you claim that "virtually all" of the early missionaries were Calvinists, and now you claim that all would agree with you. Has anyone ever spoken to you about your extremes of exaggeration?

I happen to know that it is not the case that all Calvinists -- or even most Calvinists -- would agree with your statement that the dead can hear. Many, many have been the times I have heard Calvinists claim that the dead cannot hear until they have been regenerated. Perhaps you should ask Dr. Bob? Can the dead hear the call of God prior to regeneration?

And I have spoken and dealt with them, also, my friend. I am not just shooting from the hip without some experience in this area, as you accuse.

Nevertheless, in your response you did give an order. You stated,

Now, in this same thread, Bro. James has stated that the dead cannot hear. You say they can, that they hear and THEN come to life. You gave a specific order of events. That order of events most Cals disagree with, because they do not believe that dead men can hear.

*hat tip &lt;/)

 

Agreed. But, would you not agree that each group has its own hazardous extremes? Are you aware that those you would call "Arminians" have a reputation for being "holiness" preachers? Because of their teachings, there is the hazard that many fall into of teaching sinless living and perfection? That is not such a danger for those of the Calvinist persuasion. But antinomianism IS. As John Duncan once observed, "Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an antinomian." (as quoted in Murray, pg 68n)

I beg to disagree. As insinuated above, those with a "holiness" background do not call people who practically apply bible passages to moral questions of living and lifestyle "legalists." The Amish, of which there are many in Ohio, would actually think that many that Calvinists call "legalists" are quite liberal! Now, between you and I, of the Cals and Non-Cals of mutual acquaintance, which are the ones predominantly against personal standards and convictions in dressing styles, amusements, imbibing spirits, and such; and which are not?

I believe you are right on that point.

I did. As you mentioned, you have found it to be CALS who favor the claim to "Lifestyle Evangelism," but as I stated there is little practical application to be seen in their style of life being appreciably different from that of the world. Holiness is not a normal trait of Calvinists. The fatalism of their extreme forms proscribes it.

 

Agreed. But, would you not agree that each group has its own hazardous extremes? Are you aware that those you would call "Arminians" have a reputation for being "holiness" preachers? Because of their teachings, there is the hazard that many fall into of teaching sinless living and perfection? That is not such a danger for those of the Calvinist persuasion. But antinomianism IS. As John Duncan once observed, "Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an antinomian." (as quoted in Murray, pg 68n)

I beg to disagree. As insinuated above, those with a "holiness" background do not call people who practically apply bible passages to moral questions of living and lifestyle "legalists." The Amish, of which there are many in Ohio, would actually think that many that Calvinists call "legalists" are quite liberal! Now, between you and I, of the Cals and Non-Cals of mutual acquaintance, which are the ones predominantly against personal standards and convictions in dressing styles, amusements, imbibing spirits, and such; and which are not?

I believe you are right on that point.

I did. As you mentioned, you have found it to be CALS who favor the claim to "Lifestyle Evangelism," but as I stated there is little practical application to be seen in their style of life being appreciably different from that of the world. Holiness is not a normal trait of Calvinists. The fatalism of their extreme forms proscribes it. </font>[/QUOTE]Pappa: But, would you not agree that each group has its own hazardous extremes?

Gina: I already said that in the post you're replying too. "There's extremists and exceptions in every belief group."

Pappa: As John Duncan once observed, "Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an antinomian."

Gina: Yes, and both are equally dangerous views.

Pappa: Now, between you and I, of the Cals and Non-Cals of mutual acquaintance, which are the ones predominantly against personal standards and convictions in dressing styles, amusements, imbibing spirits, and such; and which are not?

Gina: Admittedly the cals, but you're going on a very vocal few that are strongly opinionated and are quite well balanced by their extremist counterparts, and that invalidates both parties from being used as examples. It would be like using Hyles and Clinton as examples of good and bad. Both did good things, both did bad things, both claimed Christ, but neither is typical of the majority. Ok, you KNOW it's late and I'm tired when I come up with something like that...

Pappa Bear: I did. As you mentioned, you have found it to be CALS who favor the claim to "Lifestyle Evangelism," but as I stated there is little practical application to be seen in their style of life being appreciably different from that of the world. Holiness is not a normal trait of Calvinists. The fatalism of their extreme forms proscribes it.

Gina: To be quite honest, I don't think you've seen enough calvinists in "real" life to make that assessment. Once again you're going with the extremist part and damning all. I see things more as both sides move together towards God, while the extremists on both sides separate and eventually both of the radical elements get so far away from God they become one in sin. I wish we could draw pictures on here because it would be easier to get what I mean across!
Now, a question for you. What scares you about calvinists? It's a passionate issue for you, and I'd like to understand why it is. You obviously feel it to be very harmful to Christianity, perhaps even to the point where you feel cals can't really be Christians. Can you explain why? It's not a trick question or anything, I just want to know what got you started on it.
Gina

 

I did not say that they could. You need to back off and understand the context in which I wrote. I was not giving a technical ordo salutis and it is wrong of you to try to make it one. I know very well what I said and I know that you completely missed the point.

I don't know what experience you have had in this area. I have read some of your posts and find them very unknowledgeable and poorly presented. That is fine. It really doesn't matter to me. Just be honest about what we believe. Do not pin your desires on us.

One example of a gross misrepresentation is that Calvinists don't believe in sanctification ... that God will just sanctify them the same way he saved them. If you honestly believe that, then you have no credibility. Perhaps you are unfamiliat with the fifth point, that the truly saved will perservere. That is often twisted to make is preservation, but that is not the fifth point. Heb 3, Col 1, 1 Cor 15, etc, make it very clear that the believer cannot simply live any way he wants and still be saved. So you are dead wrong about Calvinism and sanctification, just as you are with other of your representations.

I do not deny that there may be some Calvinists who believe that. I don't know any of them, but there may well be some. But that is not the fault of Calvinism; that is the fault of their own aberrant theology.

 

PappaBear, thank you for the courteous response. I think this is the purpose that God intends to fulfil with this discussion board. To allow Christians to converse and pursuade in a manner that is in keeping with His word.

I think I need to clarify a point I was trying to make. When I said that the dead can not hear, that is exactly what I meant, but I need to specify how I mean that. You say that man is regenerated when he hears the Word. I absolutely agree with you. What the contention is that I would not say man is regenerated upon hearing the word. Notice the difference in the sentence?

When Christ/God calls a person from darkness to life, it is a force within our hearts. It is not, except in the case of Lazarus because Jesus was standing there saying it; it is not a literal hearing that we can hear with our physical ears. It is hearing the voice of God within our hearts. That is what I meant by the dead, who can not hear man, being able to hear God.

Now, that is why we don't believe in gospel regeneration. We believe that regeneration is independent of conversion.

Acts 8:
26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

This is a good example. The eunuch had already been regenerated by the call of God. That is the reason he was studying the scriptures, desiring knowledge when Philip met him. Philip preached to him and that is when the eunuch experienced his conversion to the belief the scriptures. The eunuch, before Philip even arrived, was already deeply immersed in the scriptures because he was already regenerated and desiring the truth.

Also, Paul, on the road from Damascus, was regenerated when Jesus spoke to him. Again, this is a unique experience. He heard the audible voice of Christ because Christ was physically there. For most of us, the call comes as something we feel deep inside. Paul was not preached to in order to be regenerated. All that happened was he heard the Word of God, not the word of God. After he was regenerated, he went away to the house where he was converted to the gospel by Ananias after hearing the preached word.

So, while I believe that a dead man can't hear wiuth his physical ears (meaning he can be preached to by man, but he won't comprehend, or even want to, unless he has first been called out of his dead state by God Himself). This was the case with Paul. He had heard the preaching of the gospel before, but it had no affect on him because God had not yet regenerated him. Once the Lord spoke to him in his heart, Paul was ready to be preached to by Ananias.

Before his re-birth, Paul could not comprehend the preached gospel, but he, being dead, could certainly hear when God Himself spoke to him. That is why it is independent of the gospel preaching.

when we are regenerated, we are given spiritual ears to discern the scriptures and actually "hear"(comprehend) the gospel preaching.

Now, as far as our change at regeneration, perhaps I mis-spoke. Once regeneration occurs, we desire to be holy before God, but as Paul clearly illustrates when he says he is the chief of sinners, we will sometimes fall back into our old ways. The good thing is, now we can go to God for help.

I have never met a person who had been regenerated and then went back to their old ways without feeling remorse. The bible says that there will be wolves among us in sheep's clothing, so I do believe there will be those in our midst who are not actually regenerated, but once a child of God is regenerated, even if he does fall back into his old ways, he will never have comfort in those ways because he knows he is wrong.

My brother is a good example of this. He was baptized into the church and within a few years, he was going to bars, getting drunk, cussing, etc. But, I can honestly say that he had not comfort in those things and he was always upset because he knew he was doing wrong. The devil is strong if we let him into our lives.

Now, after much prayer and discussion with me, my dad, our pastor, and of course God, he is back on the right track. He is now married with a child, not going to bars, and he is attending church again. If we have any free will, I will say it is our ability to turn from God's church and be lured by the devil. But, our fellow brothers in the church have to be preapred to counsel and chastise us if the case arises. Along with conversion, our job as children of God is to help one another in times of need and when we stumble.

Our pastor says something that I think applies. We can backslide, but we can never backslide past the blood. Once a child is regenerated, he is always a regenerate.

Paul had temptations and desires too, but he prayed and he realized that none of us could be perfect. We should strive for perfection, but absolute perfection is not possible with these fleshly bodies. That's why Paul said he is the chief of all sinners, not he was the chief of all sinners.

Anyway, I think I've gotten a little off the original topic, but I felt a desire to write that down.

God Bless you brother.

Bro. James

 

Pastor Larry, I hope that you are enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday with your family as much as I am enjoying mine. I just had some delicious deer innerloin fried in butter and onions -- some of the fruits of family labor, today. MMMMmmmmmm good!

I did not say that they could. You need to back off and understand the context in which I wrote. </font>[/QUOTE]Pardon me, sir. But you specifically said,

The context of your above statement is attempting to mitigate my statements by saying that I have no idea what a Calvinist believes or teaches. Judging from the fact that in at least 3 active threads in this forum right now I can find that Calvinists DO say that the dead cannot hear, it makes it appear that you are the one who actually does not know what he is talking about regarding what Calvinism teaches. In your quote, you specified (of your own free will -- not forced by me, I might add) that it is AFTER they hear that they come to life.

Thus far, you have employed three common tactics of Calvinist debate:

1) You claim that the Non-Cal does not understand in the least any of the great, deep, unsearchable principles of mighty, wonderful, Calvinism as espoused by you.

2) You assume that you speak for all Calvinists, because since what *YOU* believe is the real truth (elitism), then certainly all Calvinists believe the same way. IOW, you did not even pause to consider your words and the possibility you may be contradicting others before you, shall we say, shot off your mouth. You merely saw an opportunity to try and score with me as a target, and you went for it. Now, it has backfired.

3) One of Calvinist's dirtiest tricks, you construct your responses in the context of debate without regard to consistency. What I find most confusing about Cal Theology is its wretched inconsistency. No, you were not called upon to give a technical Ordo Salutis. The context of your remark is that you were trying to demean me and act as if I was speaking without knowledge. But your response DID include an order that is inconsistent with the proper Ordo Salutis as routinely taught by Calvinists. Once this contradiction is pointed out to you, you run to a defense of "the context of my remarks." You are indicating now that your remarks are inconsistent with what you would say IF you had been called upon to make a technical Ordo Salutis. Why must the truth for you be something that is tailor made, and not consistent all the way around?

So, in order to clear this up once and for all. Will you affirm your original statement above, or will you deny it? Do dead men hear, or not hear? Is regeneration AFTER a spiritually dead man hears, or are they regenerated and THEN can hear? Once again, your statement before was,

The best thing for you to do would be to admit that you spoke hastily and were wrong. But the easiest thing for you to do is ignore your above remarks and move on as if there is no contradiction whatsoever to what Calvinism actually does teach.

This almost seems to vary off topic. That is another thing that Cals like to do. If you pin them down and they are squirming, they like to direct attention elsewhere. But actually, this very much applies. Your statement that "the believer cannot simply live any way he wants and still be saved," actually reveals a lot about Calvinist evangelism. It makes it easy for you to claim that someone who does not persevere in agreement with you is not truly born again. One big problem with that theological view is that the line of perseverence can be drawn in so many different places. It translates into nothing more than a sham salvation of works. In what, specifically, do *YOU* (speaking for yourself, this time, as a Bible scholar and Pastor) believe a Christian must persevere? If he drops out of church attendance, does that mean he was not a true believer? If he does not persevere in his commitment to quit smoking, is he not a real Christian? Or is it a matter that if he just disagrees with a point or two of Hyper-Cal doctrine that you can determine he has not persevered and is not a Christian? Where is your Calvinist mission field located? Your description of the doctrine of perseverence seems to indicate that it is at your own doorstep.

Enjoy your day.

 

Yes, I see the difference and agree with it. Just because you preach the scripture to someone, does not mean that they will hear it with their heart. Not everyone who comes under the sound of the gospel trusts Christ.

Be careful Bro. James. Part of what I disagree with in speaking with Calvinists is the extreme to which they take the metaphor of death. No, it is not a physical hearing with the ears, but a spiritual hearing within. But the Calvinist will claim that men are spiritually dead, though physically alive -- and unsaved men are that. But the Word of God is powerful, and it is by the Word of God that man is regenerated. Not the physical hearing of it, but the spiritual activity. (Heb 4:12) Just as Lazarus was physically dead, and Christ physically called him, and then Lazarus physicaly responded, so it is that today the spiritually dead can hear the spiritual Words of God and respond.

Problem is that Philip did not merely meet the Ethiopian Eunuch, but was divinely taken to him. If the Eunuch was already regenerated, why would Philip be needed? The passage shows that your thinking the Eunuch was already saved is fundamentally flawed, because this man does not even know of Christ, yet! Philip "preached unto him Jesus." There is salvation in no other. The effects of Philips preaching can be seen in the Eunuch's statement of faith, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Are you saying that you believe a man can be saved and NOT believe that? For it is demonstrably true that this Eunuch did not know of Christ prior to this meeting with Philip. As for his being immersed in the Scripture, he was a proselyte having been to Jerusalem for Pentecost -- reading the scripture would not be an unusual thing.

Paul contradicts this. He says in 1Timothy 1:16 that his salvation was a pattern to them that should hereafter believe. And, the Word of God IS the word of God.

Do you see the distinction Christ makes in "hear my words" and "receiveth not my words"? That is the difference I think you and I are speaking of. In any event, It is those words that judge those who do not receive. We are born again by the word of God. Repeatedly, the New Testament testifies to the power of God's Word to regenerate lost men.

My respect for you has doubled! And I could not agree more with your reasoning on this matter. A man truly born again will not enjoy the things of this world. We are now the Sons of God, and as such are chastised.

I have made several posts like that, at times. I have no doubt it was a blessing for you to rehearse the testimony of the goodness of God in the life of your brother. And I have to admit that it did me some good and cheered my heart to read it. Thank you, my brother.

*hat tip &lt;/)

 

Yes, I see the difference and agree with it. Just because you preach the scripture to someone, does not mean that they will hear it with their heart. Not everyone who comes under the sound of the gospel trusts Christ.</font>[/QUOTE]I suppose that I was not clear in that I did not give the definition of "hear" as used in the scripture. I am not talking of audible hearing, but of the hearing that is the 'accepting' of what is heard into ones own essence. That, I believe, is what Peter is saying. The one who hears (accepts the truth of the Word of God into one's self) is regenerated. It is by accepting the truth that one then establishes "faith". That is, what is accepted becomes and remains the reality even though it is not yet experienced. The substance of things hoped for! Living one's faith then becomes the Evidence of things not seen.

So then, Peter is telling Christians the world over that it is by accepting the Word of God into one's own essence that one is regerated, "born again", and it is that Word of God that gives the believer the POWER to overcome the temptations to sin and repent from continuing to follow the sin nature. That power, of course is the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer and enables the believer to live the new faith.

 

Very nice ... thanks.

But my point is that you very easily move things around without understanding the context in which they are written, and the intent that they are desiring to communicate.

What I specified was nothing of the sort. I did not specify anything by that. As I said before, it was not intended to be a technical ordo salutis and it is inappropriate for you to try to make it one.

Unfortunately, you have shown that to be the case. I wish this weren't so. But I should not feel compelled to accept what you think I or any other calvinist should believe. You do not get to tell us what we believe. If you are wrong, we should point it out.

Not at all. NOthing backfired. The only problem with my words is that you tried to make them say something I did not intend for them to say. That is your fault not mine. I didn't contradict what others believe.

HOwever, what you do need to understand is that there are a number of primitive baptists here who are hyper-calvinists who will not agree with some things that standard calvinists believe. Since you have just arrived, you may not know who these PBs are.

Which you were. You pull out this verse and act as if no CAlvinist has ever dealt with it and given a reasonable explanation of it. That is your mistake, not mine. You know good and well that that verse has been dealt with by calvinists and you should have taken the time to look up what they say about it before saying that it contradicts what Calvinism affirms. You should know better.

[qb]It is consistent. But it was not technical. If you wanted a technical ordo salutis you should have asked. And once I explained that it was not an ordo salutis, you should have accepted that and moved on. Once again, your failure to understand does not mean I was wrong. It means you failed to understand.

They are regenerated when they hear. They are given understanding (hear) to which they respond (faith and repentance).

I did not speak hastily and I was not wrong. I did not contradict what Calvinism actually teaches.

I was using one of your comments from another post to illustrate the shallowness of your understanding.

Not at all.

And SCripture does not specifiy exactly where that line is. But it does specify a line and for you to ignore that is unwise. Agreement with me is not the standard by any means.

Not at all.

Could be ... may not be. In the first case, 1 John 2:19 addressees that. In smoking, I would not be inclined to call that an issue of perseverance.

[qutoe]Or is it a matter that if he just disagrees with a point or two of Hyper-Cal doctrine that you can determine he has not persevered and is not a Christian?[/quote]Not the standard. I am not a hyper Cal and that doesn't matter anyway.

Metro Detroit Michigan.

Not sure what this means.

The Scriptures are clear on the necessity of perseverance. We, as humans, cannot tell when someone is perservering necessarily or not. Someone may backslide; they may turn away for a time. We do not know what is going on in their hearts. But the NT is replete with teachings that people who do not persevere in obedience to God are not Christians. REad the book of 1 John for starters. It is explicit. "The one who says "I know him" and does not keep his commandments is a liar." Continue with Col 1:22-24, 1 Cor 15:1-2, 2 Cor 13, etc. etc. etc. There are too many verses to list here. But the reality is that your statement that Calvinists teach man can live any way he wants to was a wrong statement. It is not true. Calvinists do not teach that. They teach the necessity of growth and spiritual maturity.

 

What I specified was nothing of the sort. I did not specify anything by that. As I said before, it was not intended to be a technical ordo salutis and it is inappropriate for you to try to make it one.</font>[/QUOTE]I notice that in your lengthy posts, you refuse to repeat your quote. Now, you claim that you did NOT specify that AFTER they hear that they come to life? Have you forgotten that quote?

The subject I was addressing was the Calvinist claim that the dead cannot hear until they are regenerated (the Order Salutis). You even quoted me in your response. Here was my quote:

Now, in that context, your remarks are specific -- indicating that the DEAD DO HEAR --WHILE THEY ARE DEAD. The order given by you in your statement, claiming that Calvinism teaches this, is that they are dead in their sins, then they hear, then they are made alive. But yes, I can see why you very much wish to move on -- and move away -- from that quote.

Then what did you intend for them to say? The dead men cannot hear? That hearing comes after divine regeneration?

Like I said, I can certainly see why you want me to move on. But instead, your plot thickens...

Very disingenuous. Cagily worded. Your above statement now provokes the direct question which it does not answer, though it was intended to be an answer to: Does regeneration occur BEFORE or AFTER they hear (are given understanding)? Will you continue to assert that YES! Spiritually dead men do hear (have spiritual understanding given by God)and regeneration does not come until after they have heard? Or, are you going to do a 180 by claiming that dead men cannot hear (be given understanding) until after they are regenerated (common Calvinist Ordo Salutis)?