A question for the Calvinists

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

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

 

Winman,

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

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

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

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

RB

 

Winman,

You Wrote:

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

For example, you wrote:

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

You continue:

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Winman,

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

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

So, pardon the pun, make your choice. lol

 

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

The following statement is non-sequitur:

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

No?

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


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

 

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

I gave you some examples once before on another thread:

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

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

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

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

 

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

JMHO

 

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

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

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

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

 

I just did and you give no scriptual refutation.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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