I'm a Calvinist. Change My Mind.

[JohnDeereFan]

Uh? What is it with starting sentences with the word "uh"?

I've read on BB several times from Calvinists that regeneration frees the 'bondage of the will' and allows one to make free will decisions. Yeah, yeah, I know-- "got a link?" Kind of busy right now, can't be bothered to look.

I'd be curious to see that link to, as, going by thirty years in Reformed theology, you're either misquoting them, they misspoke, one or both of you has an errant understanding of "free will", or they simply don't know Reformed theology, due to being new to the faith or, perhaps, just not very well discipled.

Reformed theology doesn't teach that we suddenly acquire free will upon regeneration, where there was no free will before, but that our will is irretrievably broken and that, with this broken will, we receive a new nature that seeks to serve God, albeit imperfectly, just as our old nature sought to serve our flesh.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

How is that inconsistent?

The capacity of a person to weigh options (including considered opinions) especially about Theological questions, which, by definition, are largely a function of sanctification are wholly functions of God's grace and a gift God bestows when and how he chooses in the Calvinist schema. There's a weird paradox to determinism whereby a consistent adherent to Calvinism can't quite claim to have considered and arrived upon their opinions by use of their mental faculties (which are destroyed via the Noetic effects of sin) unless they are given the grace entirely of God to arrive upon the knowledge they are granted from on high.

To be consistent, a true Calvinist would believe that they were Sovereignly determined to understand and accept the "Doctrines of Grace" wholly as a result of God's efficacious grace.

Read Thatbrian's statement:

Actually, Bob, the only way in which you could change my mind would be if I had Libertarian Free Will, which you would claim I do.

He is being consistent here by believing this, which makes one ponder why he would even start such a thread.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The capacity of a person to weigh options (including considered opinions) especially about Theological questions, which, by definition, are largely a function of sanctification are wholly functions of God's grace and a gift God bestows when and how he chooses in the Calvinist schema. There's a weird paradox to determinism whereby a consistent adherent to Calvinism can't quite claim to have considered and arrived upon their opinions by use of their mental faculties (which are destroyed via the Noetic effects of sin) unless they are given the grace entirely of God to arrive upon the knowledge they are granted from on high.

To be consistent, a true Calvinist would believe that they were Sovereignly determined to understand and accept the "Doctrines of Grace" wholly as a result of God's efficacious grace.

Interesting strawman.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Interesting strawman.

It has nothing to do with being a "strawman" John....
Read my edited post....
Brian essentially admits as much.
You should accuse him of straw-man argumentation against himself.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Calvinism is a perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible, by falsely teaching that God's intention is only to save a few, which they term as "the elect", or rather, "the elite". It destroys the very heart of the Gospel Message, which is that GOD LOVES THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, which He created in His Image, to the extent, that He came down as the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, do give His life for this same "HUMAN RACE", to ensure that all those who will truly repent of their personal sins, and accept what Jesus has done for them, by faith, they are guaranteed salvation and eternity with the Living God of the Holy Bible. Calvinism has done much damage to the Christian Faith, and has robbed the Church by proclaiming a FALSE Gospel Message, one that was not know to, or taught by the Church, till the time of Augustine in the 4th century A.D., a seriously deluded man on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, as he believed in the demonic teaching of the "ransom theory", and even "double-predestination", both which are utterly heretical! Why would any person in their right mind want to follow the teachings of this person?

 

[InTheLight]

I'd be curious to see that link to, as, going by thirty years in Reformed theology, you're either misquoting them, they misspoke, one or both of you has an errant understanding of "free will", or they simply don't know Reformed theology, due to being new to the faith or, perhaps, just not very well discipled.

Reformed theology doesn't teach that we suddenly acquire free will upon regeneration, where there was no free will before, but that our will is irretrievably broken and that, with this broken will, we receive a new nature that seeks to serve God, albeit imperfectly, just as our old nature sought to serve our flesh.

Westminster Confession, Chapter 9
When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Westminster Confession, Chapter 9
When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

Which is what I just said, not what you just said.

 

[InTheLight]

Which is what I just said, not what you just said.

Here's the thing. If unregenerate man is bound by their will to do nothing good, only bad things, and by Calvinism's definition this ability to choose only evil is not "free will". When they are regenerated they can now do good things AND bad things, well...that sounds a lot like "free will" to me. Argue all you want but the logical consequences are plain to see.

Just like God predestines people for salvation from before the foundation of the world but doesn't predestine some for salvation, well...that sounds a lot like double predestination to me. Argue all you want but the logical consequences are plain to see.

Besides the phrase, "enables him freely to will" pretty much says it all.

 

[TCassidy]

I've read on BB several times from Calvinists that regeneration frees the 'bondage of the will' and allows one to make free will decisions.

Got a link for that?

Kind of busy right now, can't be bothered to look.

That's what I thought. Just another drive-by post.

 

[TCassidy]

Calvinism is a perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible,

The "real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible" which is what I preach is: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

What part of that are you calling a "perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible?"

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Besides the phrase, "enables him freely to will" pretty much says it all.

Yeah. It says you're not honest enough to post the whole sentence.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Good. Then your previous post was full of lies.

Like father like son, I guess.



So, because I asked you to elaborate on a vague claim in which you offered no specifics or rationale for your idiotic claim, that must mean I don't "understand the implications of Calvinism"? Seriously?

The study of Calvinism from numerous angles was kind of a big deal in seminary and yet, I don't recall one class on how to read an internet troll's mind.

Folks, read this response closely.
Read it again and again.

Absorb everything about it and all it offers..............

I rest my case

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Folks, read this response closely.
Read it again and again.

Absorb everything about it and all it offers..............

I rest my case

And, while your at it, read this troll's previous post, in which he admits, not once, but twice, that I said nothing wrong about Calvinism, after claiming in the post before that that I do not understand Calvinism.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The "real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible" which is what I preach is: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

What part of that are you calling a "perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible?"

As long as your understanding of "our sins", includes the entire human race, and make available to them the same offer of salvation, because Jesus' death/blood is for the entire human race. This is THE Gospel Message.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

As long as your understanding of "our sins", includes the entire human race, and make available to them the same offer of salvation, because Jesus' death/blood is for the entire human race. This is THE Gospel Message.

See Romans 9.

 

[TCassidy]

As long as your understanding of "our sins", includes the entire human race, and make available to them the same offer of salvation, because Jesus' death/blood is for the entire human race. This is THE Gospel Message.

I can't help but notice you did not answer my question. The Gospel I preach is: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

What part of that are you calling a "perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible?"

You brought up a lot of extraneous nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the Gospel as quoted. Are you saying that my NOT adding extraneous nonsense to the biblical Gospel makes the biblical Gospel a "perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible?"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

And, while your at it, read this troll's previous post, in which he admits, not once, but twice, that I said nothing wrong about Calvinism, after claiming in the post before that that I do not understand Calvinism.

John....I'll admit the THIRD time...!!
You didn't say anything "wrong" about Calvinism!
I don't claim you did, and I never did.
I am, absolutely and unequivocally saying you don't understand it's implications.

And, by extension, you don't really understand it.

It's not enough to simply plant a flag on a view and then claim you can say whatever you like about it what its implications are, and avoid any queries about its good and necessary consequences and logical conclusions.
You seem to think you don't have to answer legitimate quandaries when the logical implications are explored.

No system is immune to that kind of critique:
Not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not Amyraldianism not Molinism, not "Pelagianism".

You don't understand this John, and it's becoming more obvious by the minute.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

John....I'll admit the THIRD time...!!
You didn't say anything "wrong" about Calvinism!
I don't claim you did, and I never did.
I am, absolutely and unequivocally saying you don't understand it's implications.

And, by extension, you don't really understand it.

It's not enough to simply plant a flag on a view and then claim you can say whatever you like about it what its implications are, and avoid any queries about its good and necessary consequences and logical conclusions.
You seem to think you don't have to answer legitimate quandaries when the logical implications are explored.

No system is immune to that kind of critique:
Not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not Amyraldianism not Molinism, not "Pelagianism".

You don't understand this John, and it's becoming more obvious by the minute.

So, even though you can't point to anything I've even said about Calvinism, and even though you've admitted that I haven't said anything wrong about Calvinism, you're still going with the idiotic "you don't understand Calvinism" slander. Good to know.

[Even though I haven't seen any questions about Calvinism directed toward you, nor asked you any, myself, I'm still going to claim that] you seem to think you don't have to answer legitimate quandaries when the logical implications are explored.

And how would you make that claim, when I haven't been presented with any "quandaries"?

You don't understand this John, and it's becoming more obvious by the minute.

And yet, when asked repeatedly to show what I've said that would indicate I don't understand, you've been unable to find one example but, instead, have been forced to admit that I haven't said anything wrong about Calvinism.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Either show us what I've said that indicates I don't understand Calvinism (or "the implications of Calvinism", as you're now trying to weasel out of your previous claim) or scurry on back to your bridge.

 

[tyndale1946]

Brian... I'm not here to change your mind but I thought you and the other brethren of our ilk would get a kick out of this encounter I had... I was discussing scripture with a non-cal when he threw up his arms and said:... I don't know about you CALVINIST!... You're Contrary!... Pigheaded!... Hardheaded!... Bullheaded!... Cantankerous!... Ornery and Argumentative!... And I'm done talking to you!... As he was swiftly walking away, I hollered... GOD BLESS YOU!... Brother Glen

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I can't help but notice you did not answer my question. The Gospel I preach is: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."

What part of that are you calling a "perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible?"

You brought up a lot of extraneous nonsense that has nothing at all with the Gospel as quoted. Are you saying that my NOT adding extraneous nonsense to the biblical Gospel makes the biblical Gospel a "perversion of the real Gospel as taught in the Holy Bible?"

I have said what I believe to be the Gospel as found in the Bible. You suppose that one passage from Scripture is all that is needed, where the main element of repentance is not mentioned, is the only way for salvation. This is a huge problem with Calvinists/Reformed, as they fail to take into account the complete teachings of what the Bible says, but misuse certain passages, often out of context, to suite their theological bias. You call what I say from Scripture, "nonsense", and I say it is Bible Truth! There you have it. Keep believing what you will!