Calvinism/Arminianism Forum - Finally Imploded?

[Winman]

God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren’t any such free decisions to know.

So, then you agree with Piper that God determined and decreed that some people would be sinful unbelievers? God would actually create some men to be the very thing he hates and despises with all intention that they be that way?

I know this is changing the subject, but if you don't believe men can make free decisions to believe, then you must believe that God decreed intentionally that some men would be dreadful sinners that would never believe.

Is that what you personally believe?

 

[jbh28]

So, then you agree with Piper that God determined and decreed that some people would be sinful unbelievers? God would actually create some men to be the very thing he hates and despises with all intention that they be that way?

I know this is changing the subject, but if you don't believe men can make free decisions to believe, then you must believe that God decreed intentionally that some men would be dreadful sinners that would never believe.

Is that what you personally believe?

No, I don't believe in double predestination, which I believe Piper does. I wasn't saying I believe in Piper's statement, but only clarifying his statement. I believe man is free to do what he wants. Our "wants" are based on our desires. We make decisions every day and pick what we want most. We are "free" in the sense can choose anything we want. Our limits are with our desires.

Before we are saved, we don't want to come to Christ. This doesn't mean that we are as evil as we can be. We still have the image of God in us. We can make "good" decisions, yet we never make them to give glory to God. All people are born on their way to hell. God doesn't make that choice for them, they make it on their own because that is what they want, to reject God.

 

[Winman]

No, I don't believe in double predestination, which I believe Piper does. I wasn't saying I believe in Piper's statement, but only clarifying his statement. I believe man is free to do what he wants. Our "wants" are based on our desires. We make decisions every day and pick what we want most. We are "free" in the sense can choose anything we want. Our limits are with our desires.

That's circular reasoning if you recognize it. All you are saying is that you did what you did. It must have been what you most desired because that is what you did. This is a fallacious argument.

Jesus did not want to go to the cross. He prayed to his Father that he might get out of it.

Matt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Did Jesus do his own will here? Or did he rather surrender his own will and do his Father's will? So, doesn't this prove that a person doesn't always follow every desire they have?

Before we are saved, we don't want to come to Christ. This doesn't mean that we are as evil as we can be. We still have the image of God in us. We can make "good" decisions, yet we never make them to give glory to God. All people are born on their way to hell. God doesn't make that choice for them, they make it on their own because that is what they want, to reject God.

You don't get saved to come to Christ, you come to Christ to get saved.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

You are not regenerated so that you have the ability to come to Christ. You have to come to Christ to obtain life, to be regenerated. That is what Jesus is saying here.

And you cannot say that men do not desire God. Thousands followed Christ wherever he went. And look at this old photo of a Billy Graham crusade.

No one pointed a gun at these people's heads and made them come to this crusade. And I would bet almost every person there knew who Billy Graham was before they came. They knew what he was going to speak about.

So, you see a photo like this and you get a little confused. Wait a minute, didn't the scriptures say none seek God? Well, how come I can see thousands of people seeking God? Something doesn't match up here.

And what doesn't match up is people misinterpret scripture. Paul was not saying that all men do not seek God, he is speaking about "wicked" people. He is quoting Psalms 14. Yes, Psalms 14 does say that none seek God, but it is speaking of the wicked. And if you read a little further, you see Psalms 14 also speaks about people who do seek God and trust in him.

Psalms 14:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

You see, Psalms 14 (which Paul quoted in Romans 1) is not saying 100% of men do not seek God, it is speaking of especially wicked men, "fools". Because if you read further you see it also speaks of "my people", "the righteous", "the poor, because the LORD is his refuge", and "his people".

And notice in vs. 3 it says they have "gone aside" and "become filthy". It doesn't say they were born that way, it says they went that way. And notice it says they have "done" abominable works, or none "doeth" good. You are not born a sinner, you become a sinner when you actually commit sin. This is what people do not understand.

 

[jbh28]

I see that you still have abandoned James 2:5...

That's circular reasoning if you recognize it. All you are saying is that you did what you did. It must have been what you most desired because that is what you did. This is a fallacious argument.

You really don't know what a circular argument is. You like to accuse people of it but it is not circular. We make decisions based on our desires. I said we did what we wanted. I never said we did what we did. Stop changing my words.

Jesus did not want to go to the cross. He prayed to his Father that he might get out of it.

Matt 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Did Jesus do his own will here? Or did he rather surrender his own will and do his Father's will? So, doesn't this prove that a person doesn't always follow every desire they have?

If you are speaking of desires, Jesus desire to do his Father's will was greater than his desire to do his own will. I don't think you understood everything I said.

You don't get saved to come to Christ, you come to Christ to get saved.

Never said we did. Where do you come up with this stuff?

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

You are not regenerated so that you have the ability to come to Christ. You have to come to Christ to obtain life, to be regenerated. That is what Jesus is saying here.

Did you read what I said earlier. I said when you are saved you are regenerated.

And you cannot say that men do not desire God. Thousands followed Christ wherever he went. And look at this old photo of a Billy Graham crusade.

No one pointed a gun at these people's heads and made them come to this crusade. And I would bet almost every person there knew who Billy Graham was before they came. They knew what he was going to speak about.

So, you see a photo like this and you get a little confused. Wait a minute, didn't the scriptures say none seek God? Well, how come I can see thousands of people seeking God? Something doesn't match up here.

And what doesn't match up is people misinterpret scripture. Paul was not saying that all men do not seek God, he is speaking about "wicked" people. He is quoting Psalms 14. Yes, Psalms 14 does say that none seek God, but it is speaking of the wicked. And if you read a little further, you see Psalms 14 also speaks about people who do seek God and trust in him.

It says none seek after God. None are righteous. Do you think any are righteous? Or is that "none" different. Obviously Christians seek after God.

You see, Psalms 14 (which Paul quoted in Romans 1) is not saying 100% of men do not seek God, it is speaking of especially wicked men, "fools". Because if you read further you see it also speaks of "my people", "the righteous", "the poor, because the LORD is his refuge", and "his people".

And notice in vs. 3 it says they have "gone aside" and "become filthy". It doesn't say they were born that way, it says they went that way. This is what people do not understand.

You were born without a desire for God. You were not born as evil as you can be. People seek after God only after God is drawing them.

You need to read what I believe and stop going to your straw man Calvinism.

 

[Winman]

I see that you still have abandoned James 2:5...

I haven't abandoned it, I was the one who first quoted this verse as evidence for my position.

James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

I said in my opinion you did a terrible job of exegesis with this verse. I showed that Matthew Henry interpreted this verse in agreement with my understanding.

So, I really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[jbh28]

I haven't abandoned it, I was the one who first quoted this verse as evidence for my position.

James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

I said in my opinion you did a terrible job of exegesis with this verse. I showed that Matthew Henry interpreted this verse in agreement with my understanding.

So, I really don't know what you are talking about.

So Matthew Henry said that God chose based on foreseen faith?

You must have missed it.

You were not able to answer the question now were you. It's not the "worst exegesis" you have ever seen. Why don't you respond to the grammar issue with your interpretation. Or will you just ignore this point like you did before?

We have "and heirs" what was the first item? Your view, you are left with nothing but a grammar issue. I say that it is "rich in faith" and "heirs of the kingdom"

We have been chosen to be heirs. What was the first item we have been chosen unto in James 5? The part before the "and heirs."
No, where did Henry say that God chose by looking to see who had faith? Nowhere. The point of the James passage is that Jesus doesn't look at who we consider great(like being rich) but chooses the poor in this world. James was condemning people that honor the rich but put down the poor.

Here is the context.
James 2:2-6
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom. God doesn't choose someone because they are rich, like many times we do.

 

[Winman]

You really don't know what a circular argument is. You like to accuse people of it but it is not circular. We make decisions based on our desires. I said we did what we wanted. I never said we did what we did. Stop changing my words.

But it is circular. All you are saying is that you always do what you do. You must have desired to do something because that is what you did.

My Uncle landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944. He is dead now, but I wonder what he would have said if I asked him if that was his strongest desire that day.

Oh yeah, there was nothing more in the world he wanted to do than run into a hail of machine gun fire, mortars, and artillery. All those thousands of soldiers must have desired this more than anything else in the world, because that is what they all did.

I can't believe you fall for baloney like this. Don't you ever question the folks that teach you this stuff? I know I would.

 

[jbh28]

But it is circular. All you are saying is that you always do what you do. You must have desired to do something because that is what you did.

Did I say that we "always do what you do." If so, could you please quote it for us. I said we do what we DESIRE most. BIG DIFFERENCE. Basic logic my friend.

My Uncle landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944. He is dead now, but I wonder what he would have said if I asked him if that was his strongest desire that day.

Oh yeah, there was nothing more in the world he wanted to do than run into a hail of machine gun fire, mortars, and artillery. All those thousands of soldiers must have desired this more than anything else in the world, because that is what they all did.

I can't believe you fall for baloney like this. Don't you ever question the folks that teach you this stuff? I know I would.

Probably desired to defend their country more than their life. - that was easy. You want to mock this, but it is basic logic. You always choose based on your desires. Many times you have conflicting desires. Your uncle wanted to live, but wanted to defend his country. His choice is the one that he desired the most.

Suppose you are in an ally, and someone points a gun and says to give them all your money. Now, do you really have any desire to give them all your money? No, of course not! But at that moment, your choices are to live or die. You choose to give the money because you would rather live than die. You desire to live was greater than your desire to keep the money. Otherwise you would be dead.
logic 101

 

[Winman]

Did I say that we "always do what you do." If so, could you please quote it for us. I said we do what we DESIRE most. BIG DIFFERENCE. Basic logic my friend.

It's exactly the same thing. No matter what you do, that is what you desired to do.

I'm surprised the word "regret" is in the dictionary. Why does anybody say they are sorry?, they wouldn't have done something unless that is what they wanted to do.

I guess if Eisenhour had asked all the soldiers on D-Day if they wanted to stay in England, they all would have said, "No way, we want to charge up that beach and get blown to pieces!"

People often do things contrary to their will.

 

[jbh28]

It's exactly the same thing. No matter what you do, that is what you desired to do.

No, I'm saying what our choices are based off of, our desires. What are your choices based off of if you disagree?

I'm surprised the word "regret" is in the dictionary. Why does anybody say they are sorry?, they wouldn't have done something unless that is what they wanted to do.

Because they realized they made a bad choice. How is this even close to relevant?

I guess if Eisenhour had asked all the soldiers on D-Day if they wanted to stay in England, they all would have said, "No way, we want to charge up that beach and get blown to pieces!"

People often do things contrary to their will.

Did you read what I said? No, of course they wouldn't have desired to go and get blown to pieces. So why did they go? Because of their desire to defend their country. (or maybe their desire to not be shamed by being a coward and not going...)

 

[Winman]

No, I'm saying what our choices are based off of, our desires. What are your choices based off of if you disagree?

I understand what you are saying, and in a sense it is true. I doubt very few soldiers on D-Day relished the idea of running into German machine gun fire. But they did. Why? Well, you are in the Army and you do what you are told. You really don't have a choice in the matter. And there is the consideration of being patriotic and loyal to your country and fellow soldiers. These are real desires, so I understand what you are saying.

But that does not mean they sincerely wanted to run into machine gun fire. They did not. And I doubt that running into that machine gun fire or even being a patriotic and loyal soldier was truly their greatest desire at all. Most probably would have desired to be home with their families, but that was impossible, so they did what they had to do in the circumstance they were in.

But you know, this is not the issue at all. The issue is that you say an unregenerate man never desires to come to God. And outside the influence of God I agree with you. If God did not put his Spirit and Word in the world, man would have no desire for him, just as no sane man would run into machine gun fire without some influence on him.

But God's influence has ALWAYS been in the world from the beginning. Do you know what Noah was doing for those 120 years before the flood came? He was preaching to men to repent. None did, but that is beside the point. The influence of God has always been in the world.

I do not believe man has the ability of himself to desire God. I believe this was the false teaching of Pelagius. He was accused of teaching a man has the ability within himself of seeking God. I have read that this is not truly what he believed, but these false accusations have stuck on him.

But I do believe that an unregenerate man has the ability to respond to the influence of God. It is shown right away in scripture with Adam and Eve.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Adam and Eve sinned and their eyes were opened. We agree I am sure. They are sinners now. They are dead in sins.

But what happened when God "called" them? They came. Were they regenerate when they came? No, they were sinners. But they had faith, they trusted God. And I also believe they believed the promise of God to send a saviour from the seed of the woman. That is why Eve thought Cain came from the Lord.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

I believe Eve mistakingly believed her son was God's promise being fulfilled. Here is what Matthew Henry said.

Many suppose that Eve had a conceit that this son was the promised seed, and that therefore she thus triumphed in him, as her words may be read, I have gotten a man, the Lord, God-man. If so, she was wretchedly mistaken,

I do not quote Matthew Henry because I need his support, I am just showing you that I am not out in right field on these things.

And it was after Adam and Eve came to God and believed his promise that he killed an animal and clothed them with the skin, a picture of Christ to come.

So, I see immediately in the scriptures that it shows an unregenerate sinner can respond to God when God calls him.

Do you disagree?

 

[jbh28]

I understand what you are saying, an in a sense it is true. I doubt very few soldiers on D-Day relished the idea of running into German machine gun fire. But they did. Why? Well, you are in the Army and you do what you are told. You really don't have a choice in the matter. And there is the consideration of being patriotic and loyal to your country and fellow soldiers. These are real desires, so I understand what you are saying.

But that does not mean they sincerely wanted to run into machine gun fire. They did not.

You may be catching on. Many times there are deeper desires that cause our decisions. Nobody really wanted to get killed by machine gun fire on that day. But they did want to obey or defend their country... There were desires that their decision to obey was based on.

But you know, this is not the issue at all. The issue is that you say an unregenerate man never desires to come to God. And outside the influence of God I agree with you. If God did not put his Spirit and Word in the world, man would have no desire for him, just as no sane man would run into machine gun fire without some influence on him.

Ok then, what is our argument as it would seem that we would agree. Or did you open your little Calvinism book and think I believed something in there. Not trying to be rude, but this has been a pattern with you. No man, on his own, will seek after God. No man comes without God drawing him to himself.

But God's influence has ALWAYS been in the world from the beginning. Do you know what Noah was doing for those 120 years before the flood came? He was preaching to men to repent. None did, but that is beside the point. The influence of God has always been in the world.

Of course, who said otherwise?

I do not believe man has the ability of himself to desire God. I believe this was the false teaching of Pelagius. He was accused of teaching a man has the ability within himself of seeking God. I have read that this is not truly what he believed, but these false accusations have stuck on him.

We seem to be in agreement.

But I do believe that an unregenerate man has the ability to respond to the influence of God. It is shown right away in scripture with Adam and Eve.


Adam and Eve sinned and their eyes were opened. We agree I am sure. They are sinners now. They are dead in sins.

But what happened when God "called" them? They came. Were they regenerate when they came? No, they were sinners. But they had faith, they trusted God. And I also believe they believed the promise of God to send a saviour from the seed of the woman. That is why Eve thought Cain came from the Lord.

a regenerate person = saved person
a unregenerate person = unsaved person.

Hope that is clear enough for you to understand my position. God's calling him here isn't the same and calling unto salvation. God was calling, like you would a person on the phone. Hello Adam...

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

I believe Eve mistakingly believed her son was God's promise being fulfilled. Here is what Matthew Henry said.



I do not quote Matthew Henry because I need his support, I am just showing you that I am not out in right field on these things.

No problem if you need support. I don't have all the answers and consult those smarter than I many times.

And it was after Adam and Eve came to God and believed his promise that he killed an animal and clothed them with the skin, a picture of Christ to come.

So, I see immediately in the scriptures that it shows an unregenerate sinner can respond to God when God calls him.

Do you disagree?

Well, a regenerate sinner wouldn't have a need to respond as he is already a Christian.

 

[Winman]

You may be catching on. Many times there are deeper desires that cause our decisions. Nobody really wanted to get killed by machine gun fire on that day. But they did want to obey or defend their country... There were desires that their decision to obey was based on.

I always understood that. But in reality, I seriously doubt their greatest desire was to be a good soldier and patriot that day. Their greatest desire would most likely be to be home with their wives and children. But that was impossible, circumstance plays a big part in the decisions we make, not only desires.

Now, can you see my point of view here?

So, it is still a form of circular reasoning to say a person always does what they desire to do. Yes, they desire to do it for whatever reasons, but that does not mean it is their greatest desire.

Ok then, what is our argument as it would seem that we would agree. Or did you open your little Calvinism book and think I believed something in there. Not trying to be rude, but this has been a pattern with you. No man, on his own, will seek after God. No man comes without God drawing him to himself.

No, this is a false accusation Calvinists make against Arminians. I am not Arminian, but almost all Arminians will tell you they agree that no man will come to God of his own self.

The difference is that Arminians believe the unregenerate can respond to God, the Calvinists do not.

But John 5:40 proves the Arminians are correct and the Calvinists are in error.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Arminians believe the unregenerate man has to come to Christ to be made alive (regenerate). And I agree here, you have to come to Christ to obtain life.

But Calvinists say you must be alive (regenerate) in able to come to Jesus.

Now, I ask you, according to John 5:40, which view is correct?

 

[jbh28]

I always understood that. But in reality, I seriously doubt their greatest desire was to be a good soldier and patriot that day. Their greatest desire would most likely be to be home with their wives and children. But that was impossible, circumstance plays a big part in the decisions we make, not only desires.

Ah, yes. My bad. I forgot to put that in there. Yes, our circumstances also play a part. Like my example of being in an ally way and being robbed. I'm sure you would rather be eating chocolate cake. Let me say it this way. Every choice you make is based on your desire with the options available to you at the time. Here, you have the option to give you money and live, or die. You don't have the option to go to the store. (well, I guess if you gave him your money then you could do that...) The soldiers probably would rather be home, but they have a greater desire to not quit and defend their country. They could refuse to fight and get kicked out of the military. Still making choices on desires.

Now, can you see my point of view here?

So, it is still a form of circular reasoning to say a person always does what they desire to do. Yes, they desire to do it for whatever reasons, but that does not mean it is their greatest desire.

Well, it's not circular. You do always do your greatest desire of those options available. As noted above, they could quit and go home if that was their desire. But they would be shamed to do so.

No, this is a false accusation Calvinists make against Arminians. I am not Arminian, but almost all Arminians will tell you they agree that no man will come to God of his own self.

Of course. Arminians believe in total depravity. Well, if they follow classic Arminian doctrine.

The difference is that Arminians believe the unregenerate can respond to God, the Calvinists do not.

But John 5:40 proves the Arminians are correct and the Calvinists are in error.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Arminians believe the unregenerate man has to come to Christ to be made alive (regenerate). And I agree here, you have to come to Christ to obtain life.

But Calvinists say you must be alive (regenerate) in able to come to Jesus.

Now, I ask you, according to John 5:40, which view is correct?

That "life" there is talking about eternal life, not talking about regeneration.

John 5:39-40Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.


Did you see my reply about James?

 

[Winman]

Well, it's not circular. You do always do your greatest desire of those options available. As noted above, they could quit and go home if that was their desire. But they would be shamed to do so.

Well, circumstance is very important, but is often overlooked in the Calvinist perspective. Does the mother wish to rush into her blazing house to rescue her children? Yes. But can you honestly say that is her greatest desire? Wouldn't she much prefer her house not be on fire to begin with?

Now, again, this is a rabbit trail that goes off forever. Nobody truly understands the will of man. It is a distraction from the real issue.

Of course. Arminians believe in total depravity. Well, if they follow classic Arminian doctrine.

Their concept of total depravity is not as extreme as Calvinism. As I said before, the Arminian believes the unregenerate man can respond to God. And I believe this is what scripture shows. Adam and Eve were fallen, they were dead in sins, yet they came to God when he called them.

And in chapter 4 God told Cain that he could do well and would be accepted if he did.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

So here we are, only four chapters into the scriptures and we have two examples already showing the unregenerate man can respond positively to God. I can't imagine where Augustine got his doctrine from.

That "life" there is talking about eternal life, not talking about regeneration.

Well, Spurgeon disagreed with you. He said regeneration means being saved. It means being born again. It means having eternal life.

Jesus said that whoever comes to him shall "never" hunger. He was speaking of eternal life.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus is not speaking of temporary life here, he is speaking of eternal life. Those that come to him shall never hunger ever again.

And this is exactly what Jesus meant in John 5:40 as well.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

So, you seem to have a completely different definition for regeneration than an Arminian does (or me).

Would you please do me a big favor? Please explain what you mean by regeneration in detail, so I can understand how it is not eternal life.

Explain what regeneration is, and what it is not. Please.

 

[The Archangel]

And it is amazing, you can ask any Calvinist if God can see the future from the beginning, and every Calvinist will say absolutely yes with one exception, they say he cannot see who will believe in Jesus. Oh, God can see the Beast, he can see the Antichrist, he can see the destruction of Babylon, but yet he cannot see who will have faith in Jesus. What a joke.

Demonstrating your absolute and total misunderstanding again.

It is not that God can't see through to whom will believe. If God chose to do things that way, of course He'd be able to do this. However, the scripture talks about "foreknowledge" in terms of choice and choosing, not in terms of looking through the corridors of time.

But you've been told this and yet you still misrepresent our position. You claimed to have studied Calvinism, yet you have not demonstrated one iota of understanding. Sad.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Now here is how John MacArthur defines regeneration.

And that question leads us to the simple answer of regeneration. There will be no response unless the sinner is supernaturally given life because the call of God is a call to life, but there must be enough life to respond to that call. It's a call to faith. It's a call to salvation. But there must be a faculty to react.

If I understand MacArthur here, regeneration is only a little life. It is not eternal life, it is just a little spark that you must use to light the eternal fire.

I gotta tell ya, this concept of a little life is hard to understand. In our mortal life, you are either completely alive, or completely dead. We joke and use the term "half dead", but in reality no such thing exists.

But according to John MacArthur (if I understand him here), God gives you a little bit of life. It is not eternal life, he doesn't say how long this life lasts, and it is not full life, it is only enough to respond.

Is that what you believe?

 

[The Archangel]

The difference is that Arminians believe the unregenerate can respond to God, the Calvinists do not.

But John 5:40 proves the Arminians are correct and the Calvinists are in error.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Arminians believe the unregenerate man has to come to Christ to be made alive (regenerate). And I agree here, you have to come to Christ to obtain life.

But Calvinists say you must be alive (regenerate) in able to come to Jesus.

Now, I ask you, according to John 5:40, which view is correct?

For the contextually-clueless:

This verse is directed at the Jews. BUT DON'T MISS V. 39!--You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and ​it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

The Jews already had a special revelation. If you continue to cherry-pick this verse and that verse, as you do all the time, you will continue to demonstrate your contextual cluelessness.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Demonstrating your absolute and total misunderstanding again.

It is not that God can't see through to whom will believe. If God chose to do things that way, of course He'd be able to do this. However, the scripture talks about "foreknowledge" in terms of choice and choosing, not in terms of looking through the corridors of time.

But you've been told this and yet you still misrepresent our position. You claimed to have studied Calvinism, yet you have not demonstrated one iota of understanding. Sad.

The Archangel

You can define the word foreknowledge to mean anything you like, it can mean spagetti and meatballs to you, that doesn't mean your definition is correct.

Let's see how the dictionary defines foreknowledge.

knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience:

Wow, Webster got this one wrong big time. Maybe you should write them and correct them and explain that foreknowledge means choosing and has nothing to do with knowing future events.

Unbelievable the extent a person will go to, deceiving their own selves.

 

[jbh28]

Well, circumstance is very important, but is often overlooked in the Calvinist perspective. Does the mother wish to rush into her blazing house to rescue her children? Yes. But can you honestly say that is her greatest desire? Wouldn't she much prefer her house not be on fire to begin with?

Yes, that is her greatest desire of protecting her children in the situation she is in.

Now, again, this is a rabbit trail that goes off forever. Nobody truly understands the will of man. It is a distraction from the real issue.

Not really as it helps you understand how man's makes decisions even in with his salvation. Man makes decisions based on his desires, as noted above.

So here we are, only four chapters into the scriptures and we have two examples already showing the unregenerate man can respond positively to God. I can't imagine where Augustine got his doctrine from.

Totally different situation really.

Well, Spurgeon disagreed with you. He said regeneration means being saved. It means being born again. It means having eternal life.

Huh? Did I or did I not just say that regeneration = saved?

a regenerate person = saved person
a unregenerate person = unsaved person.

Spurgeon doesn't disagree with me. What I said is in THAT passage "life" was referring to eternal life, as I proved by the context. You need to stop misrepresenting. It's called lying. I have said about 3 times today that a regenerated person is a saved person. Why must you keep misrepresenting me?

Jesus said that whoever comes to him shall "never" hunger. He was speaking of eternal life.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Jesus is not speaking of temporary life here, he is speaking of eternal life. Those that come to him shall never hunger ever again.

Yes

And this is exactly what Jesus meant in John 5:40 as well.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

That's what I said. "life" in John 5:40 is referring to eternal life, not regeneration.

So, you seem to have a completely different definition for regeneration than an Arminian does (or me).

Would you please do me a big favor? Please explain what you mean by regeneration in detail, so I can understand how it is not eternal life.

Explain what regeneration is, and what it is not. Please.

Eternal life is that, eternal life. Regeneration is the holy spirit indwelling you. It's your new nature(or new man as Paul refers to it sometimes.) That's what regeneration is.