How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

[Blammo]

The above is an erroneous description of reformed theology. Reformed doctrine does not say faith is a result of salvation.

In reformed theology, is faith a result of the new birth? Is faith a result of regeneration? Are there people, who have been born again, walking around unsaved because they have not yet put their faith in Christ?

 

[russell55]

According to this statement, we are God-rejecters even after salvation because we still continue to sin, so none of us accepts God's authority, ever.

Being born again makes us new creatures, so in some real way, we are different than we were before. Those born of God really love God in a way that those not born of God can't, so much so that loving God is one of the signs that someone has been born of God. But to the extent that we still want to go our own way after we are saved, we continue to reject God by not loving him as fully as we ought. When all the vestiges of the flesh are removed at our glorification, then we will no longer ever reject God by going our own way.

 

[Scott J]

To be born again prior to belief makes the cross useless.

No it doesn't. Why would you 'muddy the waters' by superimposing your prejudice onto the beliefs of others without one shred of proof. Webdog cited some excellent calvinistic sources for you to read concerning Christ's death and the atonement.

The reformed argument is that if man must believe prior to salvation then it is a works based faith as some action was necessary on the part of man in order to be saved.

And that is absolutely correct. No matter how you slice it or dice it, if you believe that the critical difference between the saved and the lost is that the saved made a good decision out of their own will. And not only was it an independent act of will... it was an act that originated from some independent goodness within the sinner themselves.

They couldn't have really loved darkness rather than light... completely. They couldn't have been dead in trespasses and sins. It was an absolute necessity that they be good enough to make the right decision.

Salvation is based on the work of the cross and no other work.

"Based on" but according to non-calvinists His work alone was not enough. It requires that man muster enough goodness from within to make a right decision about what Christ did. In effect, you are saying that Christ's death on the cross accomplished nothing but provision of a means for man to save himself.

Mans belief prior to salvation does not in fact add more works to the equation.

Yes it does. A decision is work. It involves the mental energy to evaluate and produce a product- a decision.

thje credit for salvation does not go to man regardless of any action on his part.

But you just invented a system that requires that man receive credit for making the right decision based on his own goodness. If man is truly bad and in darkness then it requires the goodness of someone else and the light of someone else for him to see the Truth.

In spite of Webdog's pointed protests, calvinism relies on scripture to tell us where that goodness for our "decision" comes from. Non-calvinists avoid that issue like the plague. They know that there are only two possible sources and that the one they must give is biblically incorrect.

Credit only goes to Him who has the authority and power to give salvation. Reformed theology only muddies the waters.

How is it muddying the waters to scripturally explain the truth of what you said here? The credit indeed only goes to Him who has the authority and power to "give" salvation... not to the one who reaches out and takes it for himself of his own "good" will.

BTW, John 3:16 must be interpretted in context just like any other scripture and Reformedbeliever supplied that context accurately. Physical birth implies absolutely NO independent act of will by the one being born. It implies a change of nature and action and will based on the independent decision of someone else. Parents don't consult their unborn children about whether they will be conceived or not. Yet it is not a violation of the child's will whatsoever. In fact, their will is submitted to that nature.

Only when God infuses spiritual life into an individual will they have a nature to submit, believe, repent,...

 

[Scott J]

In reformed theology, is faith a result of the new birth? Is faith a result of regeneration? Are there people, who have been born again, walking around unsaved because they have not yet put their faith in Christ?

Regeneration changes the spiritual nature of a person. Faith is in the nature of the reborn man... not the unregenerate man.

Would a person having been born walk around without breathing? No. It is their nature to breath immediately upon birth. The regenerate believe because that is what their new nature yields.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

No, salvation is secured by the redeeming work of Jesus Christ alone. The security of our salvation does not depend on us, but Christ.


We are saved through the cross alone, but we don't "get to" salvation. Salvation comes to us. We recieve it, we rest in it, we trust, but we don't "get to".

Another problem with reformed ideology is you have to play semantical tricks with words to make it work.

We must believe in the cross. Just as Isreal looked up to the brass serpent in the wilderness and believed we must look to the cross the same way. The serpent incident is a type of the cross. Jesus himself said so in John 3. In John 1:12 God gave the power to become the Sons of God to who? To them that "Believe". No where does it say those who are saved are given the power to believe. It says just the opposite.

The grace of God is resistable and man will answer for resisting His grace, and rejecting and the Holy Ghost.

The Reformed ideology has it right when they say that we cannot come to God on our own. But it is through the Holy Ghost that we are able to do so. He convicts and we have a responsibility to respond. We can reject the conviction of the Holy Ghost.

The two issues that seperate the Reformed Ideology from mainstream Christianity is the false notion of irrresistable grace, and the false notion of limited atonement.

 

[Blammo]

Regeneration changes the spiritual nature of a person. Faith is in the nature of the reborn man... not the unregenerate man.

Would a person having been born walk around without breathing? No. It is their nature to breath immediately upon birth. The regenerate believe because that is what their new nature yields.

So salvation does precede faith? Otherwise, what comes after belief? Nothing would happen as a result of believing, right? So, in the reformed view, faith is a fruit of salvation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So salvation does precede faith? Otherwise, what comes after belief? Nothing would happen as a result of believing, right? So, in the reformed view, faith is a fruit of salvation.

this thread is full of common misconceptions, answered ad nauseum here in the past (with answers directed to some of the same people who are still repeating false accusations against Calvinism). No, salvation does not precede faith. In most Calvinism, regeneration precedes faith, but in Scripture and theology drawn from Scripture, regeneration and salvation are not the same thing.

So faith is not a fruit of salvation; it is a fruit of regeneration.

 

[Pastor Larry]

No where does it say those who are saved are given the power to believe. It says just the opposite.

So does Calvinism.

The grace of God is resistable and man will answer for resisting His grace, and rejecting and the Holy Ghost.

And Calvinism agrees as Scripture teaches this.

The Reformed ideology has it right when they say that we cannot come to God on our own. But it is through the Holy Ghost that we are able to do so. He convicts and we have a responsibility to respond. We can reject the conviction of the Holy Ghost.

Yes we can, as Calvinism agrees.

The two issues that seperate the Reformed Ideology from mainstream Christianity is the false notion of irrresistable grace, and the false notion of limited atonement.

Neither are false if you actually know what Calvinism teaches of these two thing. Taking some time to study would be helpful in clearing up this confusion.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

but in Scripture and theology drawn from Scripture, regeneration and salvation are not the same thing.

So faith is not a fruit of salvation; it is a fruit of regeneration.

I am interested to see the scriptual basis for this.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I said :

The grace of God is resistable and man will answer for resisting His grace, and rejecting and the Holy Ghost.

PastorLarry said in response:

"And Calvinism agrees as Scripture teaches this. "

Then I said:

"The two issues that seperate the Reformed Ideology from mainstream Christianity is the false notion of irrresistable grace, and the false notion of limited atonement. "

And PastroLarry said in response:

"Neither are false if you actually know what Calvinism teaches of these two thing."


Theses two statement contradict each other, Can you clarify?

 

[Blammo]

this thread is full of common misconceptions, answered ad nauseum here in the past (with answers directed to some of the same people who are still repeating false accusations against Calvinism). No, salvation does not precede faith. In most Calvinism, regeneration precedes faith, but in Scripture and theology drawn from Scripture, regeneration and salvation are not the same thing.

So faith is not a fruit of salvation; it is a fruit of regeneration.

So what happens after someone believes?
Is it possible for a regenerated/born again person to not believe?
What is the purpose of faith in the regenerated person?
Faith and belief do not accomplish a thing, do they?

Instead of accusing "some of the same people" of asking the same questions that have already been answered "ad nauseum", maybe you should answer the questions in a way that makes some sense so I don't have to ask again.

 

[Amy.G]

Instead of accusing "some of the same people" of asking the same questions that have already been answered "ad nauseum", maybe you should answer the questions in a way that makes some sense so I don't have to ask again.

That would be soooooooo nice!:saint:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Well Alan, I can agree with most of what you have posted with one exception.... a really big one. One has to be born again before they can hear.

WHere did #1 go?? Well... without hearing there can be no faith so Hearing should be first, agreed??

If you will Note brother that God didn't 'give' first and then they 'recieved' but they recieved and therefore God 'gave' to them that right (birth) but vs. 13 shows us that it was not because man could do it himself but that without God man IS lost with no hope. YET, can one believe in Christ WHILE being dead in trespasses and sin BEFORE being born again. YEP! :

How can one hear who does not seek God? Romans 3:10-11
How can one hear who is spiritually deaf and blind? Mark 4:12

If one believes in prevenient grace, I suppose you might try to twist scripture as you have.

If one believes that one is spiritually dead, then they will see the proper exegesis of John 1:12-13. Grace and peace

 

[gb93433]

Salvation is secured in accepting the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross. You cannot get to salvation without going through the cross.

Salvation is secure in Jeus Christ. That salvation was secured long before I was born. However it is up to me to receive Christ as in Jn 1:12.

There is the free gift of God in Jesus but the the free gift of God in the person of Jesus must be received for the person to receive salvation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I said :

The grace of God is resistable and man will answer for resisting His grace, and rejecting and the Holy Ghost.

PastorLarry said in response:

"And Calvinism agrees as Scripture teaches this. "

Then I said:

"The two issues that seperate the Reformed Ideology from mainstream Christianity is the false notion of irrresistable grace, and the false notion of limited atonement. "

And PastroLarry said in response:

"Neither are false if you actually know what Calvinism teaches of these two thing."


Theses two statement contradict each other, Can you clarify?

If you clarify what you think is contradictory, then I can respond. I have no idea what you think is contradictory. Calvinism recognizes that God's grace is resistable. It also defines "irresistable grace" and "unlimited atonement" in Scriptural terms, rather than the ones you have attributed to these terms.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

The grace of God cannot be both resistable and unresistable.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So what happens after someone believes?

They get saved and follow Christ.

Is it possible for a regenerated/born again person to not believe?

No.

What is the purpose of faith in the regenerated person?

To save them through their dependence on the finished work of Christ.

Faith and belief do not accomplish a thing, do they?

Yes, they bring eternal life and salvation.

I think the Scriptures give pretty clear evidence as to the answers to all these questions, do they not?

Instead of accusing "some of the same people" of asking the same questions that have already been answered "ad nauseum", maybe you should answer the questions in a way that makes some sense so I don't have to ask again.

They have been clearly answered both here, and in print for several hundred years. Is it possible that your confusion perhaps stems from an unwillingness to put down your preconceptions and listen to what Calvinists say about what they believe?

Having been involved in BB discussions on this topic for many years, I can safely say that these discussions often consist of the same people asking the same questions, followed by the same people giving the same answers. Which is why I said what I did. If you doubt it, look through the archives at how many times the same names appear talking about the same subjects.

I think there are many on your side who are so driven by their own need to have a completely logical system that they refuse to let Calvinism stand from Scripture. In Calvinism, there are certain unresolvable tensions. These cause many to reject Calvinism in favor of arminianism (or what some like to pretend exists in the middle). They don't reject Calvinism because of Scripture. They reject it because they do not understand how Calvinism deals with Scripture.

Your insistence on "making sense" shows the fallacy of making the human mind the arbiter of truth. Eph 4:17-19 gives us stark warnings about such an approach to theology. We should trust what God says, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us.

IMO, Calvinism is the only consistent method to deal with all of Scripture. I am a Calvinist because there is no option option that I can hold in good conscience without treating the Scripture treasonously.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The grace of God cannot be both resistable and unresistable.

And why is that? Did you decide that? Take a vote on it? Did God say that somewhere that I am not aware of?

Seriously, I am ribbing you a bit. But when you understand what is meant by "irresistable grace," you will see that there is no contradiction. Most Calvinists that I know prefer the term effectual call. It kind of messes up the acronym, but does protect from those who use "irresistable grace" in a fraudulent manner with respect to Calvinism. (By "fraudulent" I mean simply in a manner that Calvinists don't use it.)

Do you really think that Calvinists don't know that Acts 7:51 is in Scripture? And have you actually read what is being resisted there? It isn't grace, according to the text.

Calvinism has a very clear answer for this. Have you ever taken the time to study it to see whether or not it can adequately deal with Scripture?

 

[Blammo]

They have been clearly answered both here, and in print for several hundred years. Is it possible that your confusion perhaps stems from an unwillingness to put down your preconceptions and listen to what Calvinists say about what they believe?

Having been involved in BB discussions on this topic for many years, I can safely say that these discussions often consist of the same people asking the same questions, followed by the same people giving the same answers. Which is why I said what I did. If you doubt it, look through the archives at how many times the same names appear talking about the same subjects.

I think there are many on your side who are so driven by their own need to have a completely logical system that they refuse to let Calvinism stand from Scripture. In Calvinism, there are certain unresolvable tensions. These cause many to reject Calvinism in favor of arminianism (or what some like to pretend exists in the middle). They don't reject Calvinism because of Scripture. They reject it because they do not understand how Calvinism deals with Scripture.

Your insistence on "making sense" shows the fallacy of making the human mind the arbiter of truth. Eph 4:17-19 gives us stark warnings about such an approach to theology. We should trust what God says, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us.

IMO, Calvinism is the only consistent method to deal with all of Scripture. I am a Calvinist because there is no option option that I can hold in good conscience without treating the Scripture treasonously.

Well!!! I guess you told me. But I still don't understand, and I remain somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism.:laugh:

 

[russell55]

This entire post is a nutshell of the errors of reformed theology.

1. Salvation outside of faith.

Except that reformed theology affirms that faith is necessary for salvation.

2. Faith is a result of salvation.

Nope. You've got that one wrong, too. Salvation comes through faith in reformed theology.

3. 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't really say what it says.

In reformed theology, 2 Peter 3:9, like every other verse in the Bible, means whatever it means in context.

4. Unconditional reprobation.

In reformed theology, reprobation is conditioned on sin. Election is unconditional, but condemnation is conditioned on sin.