What is calvinism?

[webdog]

Calvinism has certain sine qua non that are at issue. Address those. Calvinists differ on some things. You can address those, but don't pretend like you have refuted Calvinism because you argue against something that is not essential to Calvinism.

I don't either. So what you have just done is present a straw man, trying to pick a fight with me over something I don't disagree with you on.

However, what you need to realize is that Calvinism does not require regeneration preceding faith. That's a bit of a technical argument that won't floy well on the BB, but some Calvinists do not hold to regeneration preceding faith. They hold to an effectual call that enables belief that leads to life. Such an effectual call is not universal (that is, not given to all men without exception), it is unilateral (God's choice), and it certainly brings belief.

I don't think I have belittled anyone. I have pointed out that on some of these issues, you are simply uninformed and unwilling to listen. If you were a student, you would get a failing grade. That's not belittling. As I told you privately, you have had the opportunity to learn and have refused. As I told you privately, for you to continue as you have is either the result of being untaught and uninformed, or being dishonest and unethical. I choose to believe that you are not dishonest and unethical. Therefore, the only option is for me to believe that you are untaught and uninformed.

For me to tell the truth about what I believe and what other Calvinists believe is not belittling you. You brought it on when you refused to listen and learn. Do you really believe I should stand by and let you misrepresent what I believe? Honestly, I could argue against Calvinism better than you are. And I am a Calvinist.

So again, my plea as always is for you to learn about Calvinism and address actual issues rather than ones you make up or create in your mind. My plea is for you to not misrepresent Calvinism. Is that really too much to ask?

be·lit·tle (b

-l

t

l)
tr.v. be·lit·tled, be·lit·tling, be·lit·tles 1. To represent or speak of as contemptibly small or unimportant; disparage:
2. To cause to seem less than another or little:

Your posts are just this. You can call it anything you want to, but the fact is your attitude is lousy for having the role of a pastor. "Please learn" this.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If there are not choices, that's the definition of "fatalism," Lar… All was fated to happen. Same with Calvinism. No real choices -- all is fate.

Here’s your first problem: In Calvinism, there are choices.

Please stop defending your theology long enough to give my assertion due consdieration.

Do you think you are the first person to suggest this? I considered your assertion long ago and rejected it as invalid since it is based on a faulty foundation, and since it is not based on exegsis.

I know that -- but what does their theology dictate?? It dictates that they be condemned -- no, double condemned! Condemned on account of original sin/sin nature as Calvinists describe it and some are condemned because they are not baptized in the Reform church!

What?

And your explanation of how they go to heaven is extrabiblical by your own admission. You beleive they go to heaven but you sure can't say why (unless I missed something you said). You said "special dispensation," right? Or something along that order without biblical foundation.

2 Sam gives the biblical basis for why I believe babies go to heaven. If you disagree and argue that babies don’t go to heaven, that’s fine. I think you are wrong, and I think this passage proves it. If, however, you disagree and argue that all babies aren’t sinners, then you have to explain an awful lot of verses that say we are sinners from birth, estranged from the womb, born in sin, all have sinned, etc. If babies haven’t sinned, then “all haven’t sinned,” it seems to me.

Calvinists don't call "all people," Lar. They call only those for whom Jesus died. Maybe you missed that in your catechism class, eh?

You are wrong. Calvinism do call all people. They don’t call “only those for whom Jesus died” because they don’t know who those are.

And know what else? The "elect" never chose nor repent because that would be "meritorious works" and self-saving" on their part.

Incorrect yet again. They did choose to repent because of their new nature.

I know many Calvinists are not aware of the more onerous aspects of that theology. But I think you would be agreeing with us against Calvinism if you thought they believed what we say they do, right?

There’s a reason why I don’t think that Calvinism believes what you say they do. I have studied it and learned. So I have rejected your position and your accusations. You are simply incorrect.

I've studied the 5 points -- the sovereignty issue -- the sin nature issue -- the sotierology -- the eschatology -- the covenant theology -- the historic record of Calvin and where he got his ideas -- read a few works of R.C. Sproul, Boice, some others.

Apparently not very well.

Friend, I don't know where you find me ignorant of Calvinism except in the fact that you disagree with me and agree with Calvinism.

I have pointed out several places above, as well as places before, where you are ignorant of Calvinism. It is not a matter of you and I disagreeing about Calvinism. It is a matter of you not knowing what Calvinism teaches. Feel free to disagree with me. But please disagree with me, not with something you wish I believed because it makes your refutation make sense.

Is it loving, do you believe, to let a brother continue in error??

No, which is why I am participating here. You are in error about what Calvinism believes and therefore I am pointing it out in love.

[quoet]If you don't believe some of the stuff the Calvin does, you're false advertising. Lay off the idea that you are a Calvinist, OK? [/quote]Here is another fundamental misunderstanding. Calvinism is not about believing identical to Calvin. His name was attached because of the discussions about it during his time and because of the systematization of truths that had been long before held. Calvinism is about what we believe about soteriology, not about whether we agree with Calvin.

What Calvinism should mean to you is what it means to the rest of us -- without the "cafeteria" picking and choosing of tenets that suit you.

I am a five pointer, but what Calvinism means to you is not what it means to Calvinists and you could at least have the decency to let us define ourselves.

If you want to be really true to the Bible, just drop the labels.

I would love to. I am a biblicist. Everything I believe comes from Scripture, regardless of how distasteful that is to modern mind, including mine. But God said it and that’s the end of it. Labels are a shorthand way of saying what we believe. So if you have dropped labels, then drop it. Don’t continue to use “Calvinist” in your discussions here.

Again I say, I don’t care whether or not you are a Calvinist. Feel free not to be. But do not feel free to make stuff up about what we believe. This board is notoriously lenient with this kind of stuff and unfortunately people do not police themselves.

 

[Pastor Larry]

be·lit·tle http://img.tfd.com/hm/pron.gif (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifl)
tr.v. be·lit·tled, be·lit·tling, be·lit·tles 1. To represent or speak of as contemptibly small or unimportant; disparage:
2. To cause to seem less than another or little:

Your posts are just this. You can call it anything you want to, but the fact is your attitude is lousy for having the role of a pastor. "Please learn" this.

First, my posts aren't belittling. If you are reading them that way, then I would encourage your to read them differently. Being the author, I can say with absolute assurance that they are not belitting. Pointing out errors is not belittling. Having a disagreement about ideas is not belittling. Pointing out that a repeated assertion is a misrepresentation is not belittling.

Second, what is my attitude? And how would you know? My attitude is one of concern for the truth, but not divisiveness. As I have often said, I don't care what you believe. Feel free, in your conscience with Scripture, to come to another conclusion. But please do not mispresent what Calvinism believes. I think that is beneath the level of conversation that we should expect here.

My plea is to raise the level of conversation by being adequately informed and willing to learn what other people believe.

 

[skypair]

Larry,

2 Sam gives the biblical basis for why I believe babies go to heaven.

Pardon me? 2Sam tells us they will be there but does NOT say why. And neither do you. :laugh:

If, however, you disagree and argue that all babies aren’t sinners, then you have to explain an awful lot of verses that say we are sinners from birth, estranged from the womb, born in sin, all have sinned, etc. If babies haven’t sinned, then “all haven’t sinned,” it seems to me.

Calvinism all boils down to that last sentence -- "all have sinned." There are 2 points to be made about this verse. 1) It made good sense to Paul that all who could understand his appeal to salvation here had sinned. It's the Spirit's "conviction of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment." But he was not speaking to infants because infants can't. 2) You could have finished the verse and seen the true application. It says "AND have come short of the glory of God." Now even infants (innocence) come short of the glory of God, right?

Though you have neglected to show me those other verses besides Psa 51:5 (which I explained was David confessing that his flesh was conceived and shapen to sin) for your first assertions, I would invite you to develop them as well.

And I still can't see, under your theology, how infants can get to heaven :BangHead:

Your remaining defense of your Calvinist label I find very unpersuasive. 5 pointer and yet infants go to heaven despite their "total depravity" AND "original sin"/sin nature. How do you get around that, Lar?? Let's just home in on this contradiction, shall we?

skypair

skypair

 

[skypair]

Larry

...

No, let's discuss this one too.

Incorrect yet again. They did choose to repent because of their new nature.

So sotierologically speaking, the "elect" are "new creations" before they repent? How did they become new creatures in Christ without first obeying the word?

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Well, I will say one more time that according to scripture it is by the blood of Jesus that all who go to Heaven will go.
I also say that through His death and resurrection, He conquered over DEATH, HELL AND THE GRAVE. Well, if a child has not sinned then it don't need to be saved from HELL, but it does need to be raised from the Grave and over Death. If the same Spirit be in you that raised Christ from the dead, it shall also quicken your mortal body.

I can't see where this does not answer how that children will go to Heaven who have no sin by the blood of Christ. Otherwise, they would remain just dead and that would be it.

Now why would they have to die the natural death. I never thought there was ever a question about that. Adam sinned and brought the "appointment of death" upon all man kind. We can't change that death no matter how we use scriptures. It is the second death we are concerned about but also it has been thrown into the mix, how will children go to Heaven. Well, except Jesus had of died they would of remained in the grave forever for they had no sin to be resurrected for the "second death", and if not for the death of Jesus then the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead would not raise the child if Jesus had not of died for the sin of the whole world, which would cover Adam's sin also, so we could be made alive.

It seems to me that the discussion is that we need that OS for the blood of Christ to cover the children so they go to Heaven. And some say the child does not sin so there are others that want to bring an inherited sin so the child still has sin then the blood of Christ would cover it. Well, His blood did not only conquer HELL, it also conquered the death that Adam sent on us and we need the blood for that also. I see the blood saving sinners from two deaths. One is the natural death where His Spirit will quicken your mortal body, two is the second death where all unbelievers go. The child only needed number One.

I may be blinded to what is being said. Sometimes people talk over my head. I like to keep it simple so all will understand.

 

[skypair]

Bro. Bob: Well, if a child has not sinned then it don't need to be saved from HELL, but it does need to be raised from the Grave and over Death. If the same Spirit be in you that raised Christ from the dead, it shall also quicken your mortal body.

Absolutely! The infant would be raised by the Spirit with all the "just" who ever lived -- postrib, to earth with the OT saints. The OT saints are "just" by virtue of believing God and obeying Him. Infants are "just" on account of innocence. Of course, the Spirit will raise the "just" "in the last day" as Martha said, John 11:24.

I see the blood saving sinners from two deaths. One is the natural death where His Spirit will quicken your mortal body,...

But we do die naturally, bob. That is the very reason we are debating about infants -- they died though innocent. What do you find flawed about this argumentation -- 1) their sins, even if they had any, are forgiven in Christ and 2) the have not committed the unpardonable sin, rejection of the Spirit? So even if they weren't innocent (which they are), they would be "under the blood" and raised among the "just."

skypair

 

[whatever]

Ok, but note also that she states (though thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will ask her about how she feels now)

This is not something she continues to say as far as I know. She doesn't agree with Calvinism but that does not equate to her still being under that same mind set as to her first encounter with it.

However just to elaborate a little, What was your reaction the FIRST time you heard about Calvinism? It is usually the same as her first reaction.

Allan,

Her view hasn't changed, based on statements she has made to me and others here. I don't have time right now to find any such statements, sorry.

My first reaction was not too different, but that was because I had not put together everything that Calvinists were saying. It takes a lot of time to process such a huge paradigm shift. It took two or three years before I began to grasp everything that was essential to Calvinism, and the parts that were not essential. It was another year or two before I could bring myself to admit that I believed it. That's why I try to not get too bent out of shape when someone makes the same old arguments about Calvinists that have been refuted over and over again. It is not an easy topic to grasp.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pardon me? 2Sam tells us they will be there but does NOT say why. And neither do you.

Not sure where you are missing this: I believe that infants who die go to heaven because 2 Sam indicates that they do. That is why I believe it. How God justifies it is not for me to answer. He doesn't need to justify himself to me. He seems to say that he does it, and that is why I believe it.

Calvinism all boils down to that last sentence -- "all have sinned."

Well, no not really. Calvinism boils down to God is glorious and sovereign and acts that way.

There are 2 points to be made about this verse. 1) It made good sense to Paul that all who could understand his appeal to salvation here had sinned. It's the Spirit's "conviction of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment." But he was not speaking to infants because infants can't. 2) You could have finished the verse and seen the true application. It says "AND have come short of the glory of God." Now even infants (innocence) come short of the glory of God, right?

To come short of the glory of God is to sin. Infants who are not charged as sinners do not come short of the glory of God.

Though you have neglected to show me those other verses besides Psa 51:5 (which I explained was David confessing that his flesh was conceived and shapen to sin) for your first assertions, I would invite you to develop them as well.

These verses are pretty well known in the writings of the men you said you had read. Some are in Job, Psalms, other places as well. Your explanation of Psa 51:5 does not do justice to the words. It seems an attempt to explain away the verse in defense of a position.

And I still can't see, under your theology, how infants can get to heaven

Okay. That's fine. To me, 2 Sam indicates that they do, and therefore my conclusion is that they do and God satisfies his own justice in so doing. Are you so committed to logic that you demand an explanation beyond what God gives? I am satisfied to leave the tension there.

Your remaining defense of your Calvinist label I find very unpersuasive.

Okay. Calvinism is shorthand for what i believe about soteriology.

5 pointer and yet infants go to heaven despite their "total depravity" AND "original sin"/sin nature. How do you get around that, Lar?? Let's just home in on this contradiction, shall we?

Because God says he does. I am not worried about what you think is a contradiction. I am worried about what God says.

So sotierologically speaking, the "elect" are "new creations" before they repent?

Actually I said "new nature," not "new creations." Please don't change my words. Remember that the ordo salutis in Calvinism is a matter of logical order, not chronological. So the answer to your question is "No, they are not new creations befoer they repent. It happens at the same time." The issue is causation.

How did they become new creatures in Christ without first obeying the word?

How do they obey the word without having a new nature?

You see, questions like that work both ways and ultimately solve nothing.

 

[Brother Bob]

But we do die naturally, bob. That is the very reason we are debating about infants -- they died though innocent. What do you find flawed about this argumentation -- 1) their sins, even if they had any, are forgiven in Christ and 2) the have not committed the unpardonable sin, rejection of the Spirit? So even if they weren't innocent (which they are), they would be "under the blood" and raised among the "just."

skypair

Sure we die and without the blood of Christ that is where we would stay. He also conquered over that death and the grave so that death will come to past and "oh death where is thy sting and oh grave where is thy victory". We will have overcome by the blood of the Lamb. There is no escape from that death, not for anything we did including children, but what Adam did, but in Christ we shall obtain the victory. They have no sin and don't need any to die for it is not condemnation but an appointment.

 

[skypair]

Not sure where you are missing this: I believe that infants who die go to heaven because 2 Sam indicates that they do. That is why I believe it. How God justifies it is not for me to answer. He doesn't need to justify himself to me. He seems to say that he does it, and that is why I believe it.

Yes -- but if God DOES justify it in His word and Calvin doesn't, I have to go with the scroiptures, don't you?

Well, no not really. Calvinism boils down to God is glorious and sovereign and acts that way.

Tell me something I don't know, Lar!

To come short of the glory of God is to sin. Infants who are not charged as sinners do not come short of the glory of God.

Hmm. Sounds like you are coming over to my side. In other words you are agreeing that they have not sinned and, more significantly, have not rejected the Spirit?

These verses are pretty well known in the writings of the men you said you had read. Some are in Job, Psalms, other places as well. Your explanation of Psa 51:5 does not do justice to the words. It seems an attempt to explain away the verse in defense of a position.

Actually, it is DAVID trying to justify his sin, my friend. Read the passage again.

Okay. That's fine. To me, 2 Sam indicates that they do, and therefore my conclusion is that they do and God satisfies his own justice in so doing. Are you so committed to logic that you demand an explanation beyond what God gives? I am satisfied to leave the tension there.

You are assuming that God doesn't reveal His rationale. Are you satisfied to know less than God has revealed so long as it doesn't violate Calvinism??

skypair

 

[skypair]

...

Because God says he does. I am not worried about what you think is a contradiction. I am worried about what God says.

That is admirable! Now let's just be "knit together" about what He says, right?

Actually I said "new nature," not "new creations." Please don't change my words. Remember that the ordo salutis in Calvinism is a matter of logical order, not chronological. So the answer to your question is "No, they are not new creations befoer they repent. It happens at the same time." The issue is causation.

But you said how can they repent if they are not new creations! Which I took exceptions to. Are you changing your "chronology?" What do you expect me to respond to??

How do they obey the word without having a new nature?

They BELIEVE. Here's the order as I see it. EVERYONE hears (has "light") -- that light is the Holy Spirit of conviction and command. It comes from within (conscience/soul) and without (the "incorruptible seed"). We have the option to believe or not believe. At the moment we believe and repent (believe NOT in vain), God justifies us and translates us into the kingdom of His Son (Col 1:13). That is, we are "given" to Christ. That is when we become "new creations." We are indwelt by the Spirit at that time -- born again. You know when Israel will be "translated" into the kingdom of Christ? In the "resurrection of the just!" postrib. not the rapture.

But back to sotierology -- Calvin/you is/are totally wrong about hearing! The "new nature" could not possibly come before repentance! To say such would be to say one is elect before they were saved. Well?? How could that be except in some lame, fatalist theology?

[/quote]You see, questions like that work both ways and ultimately solve nothing.[/QUOTE] I hope you see that your construct could not possibly be true.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Sure we die and without the blood of Christ that is where we would stay. He also conquered over that death and the grave so that death will come to past and "oh death where is thy sting and oh grave where is thy victory". We will have overcome by the blood of the Lamb. There is no escape from that death, not for anything we did including children, but what Adam did, but in Christ we shall obtain the victory. They have no sin and don't need any to die for it is not condemnation but an appointment.

Bob, that is talking about the rapture when "death has no sting." There IS an escape from death!!

Now I would agree that children aren't raptured, if that was the point you were making. But the rapture is "escaping" death, right? And your assertion that children escape death is erroneous, right?

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Now I would agree that children aren't raptured, if that was the point you were making. But the rapture is "escaping" death, right? And your assertion that children escape death is erroneous, right?

skypair

I don't know if I understand what you are saying. No, they don't escape the natural death but it is appointed to them because of Adams sin and not theirs and if Jesus had not of died and rose again there would be no resurrection of the dead for the same Spirit that raised him from the dead will also quicken that babies body and change it to a perfect body and take it to Heaven. My assertion that they escape death is the second death for they have no sin.

Tell me, if a infant had no sin but had to die because Adam sinned and Jesus had not died and arose again and conquered over death Hell and the Grave, then what would happen to that Infant's body that would be in the grave. It would totally on its own if Christ had not of died.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes -- but if God DOES justify it in His word and Calvin doesn't, I have to go with the scroiptures, don't you?

Of course. I have gotten a lot of flack here for not even reading Calvin. I am more interested in the Scriptures. I am a Calvinist because what has become known as Calvinism seems the most defensible from the Scriptures.

Hmm. Sounds like you are coming over to my side. In other words you are agreeing that they have not sinned and, more significantly, have not rejected the Spirit?

No, I am showing the problem with your position.

Actually, it is DAVID trying to justify his sin, my friend. Read the passage again.

David is not trying to justify his sin. David is repenting of it. He is admitting that his sinfulness is inborn, and he is repenting from that.

You are assuming that God doesn't reveal His rationale.

He hasn’t.

Are you satisfied to know less than God has revealed so long as it doesn't violate Calvinism??

What kind of question is this? I don’t care about “violating Calvinism.” I have no allegiance to that. Whether or not babies go to heaven is hardly an issue that Calvinism swings on.

Now let's just be "knit together" about what He says, right?

I would love to.

But you said how can they repent if they are not new creations! Which I took exceptions to. Are you changing your "chronology?" What do you expect me to respond to??

Where did I say that? And where did I present a chronology. I expect you to respond to what I say; now what I didn’t say. I can’t find anywhere that I said “how can they repent if they are not new creations. I can’t find anywhere I presented a chronology on this issue.

They BELIEVE. Here's the order as I see it. EVERYONE hears (has "light") -- that light is the Holy Spirit of conviction and command.

Jesus said that the Pharisees could not hear (John 8).

But back to sotierology -- Calvin/you is/are totally wrong about hearing! The "new nature" could not possibly come before repentance! To say such would be to say one is elect before they were saved.

No it wouldn’t. You need to study up on the theological distinctions between things like regeneration, new nature, and salvation.

I hope you see that your construct could not possibly be true.

I have found nothing that refutes it. Every attempt so far is like yours … based on changing words and meanings and defeating things I don’t believe anyway.

If you want to refute fatalism, I will be on your side.

 

[skypair]

David is not trying to justify his sin. David is repenting of it. He is admitting that his sinfulness is inborn, and he is repenting from that.
He hasn’t.

Here's what I find David's statement in Psa 51:5 equivalent to -- "all have sinned" = "shapen in iniquity" and "come short of the glory of God" = "and in sin did my mother conceive me." Think about it, pls.

Where did I say that? And where did I present a chronology. I expect you to respond to what I say; now what I didn’t say. I can’t find anywhere that I said “how can they repent if they are not new creations.

I quote YOUR post #62 on page 7 --- Larry: "Incorrect yet again. They did choose to repent because of their new nature." Please, now tell me what you really believe.

Jesus said that the Pharisees could not hear (John 8).

8:8 "And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,..." Is this what you are referring to?? :laugh:

More likely this is what you meant, right? 8:43 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil,..." But just moments before this there were "many" who heard and beleived. Jesus didn't call them elect either. Jesus had discerned that these resistant Pharisees as committed to Satan already vs those who had believed, is all. He was not making "blanket application" to "natural men" here, Lar.

No it wouldn’t. You need to study up on the theological distinctions between things like regeneration, new nature, and salvation.

Go ahead then --- 'struct me.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Here's what I find David's statement in Psa 51:5 equivalent to -- "all have sinned" = "shapen in iniquity" and "come short of the glory of God" = "and in sin did my mother conceive me." Think about it, pls.

Think about this: if you think Psa 51:5 is equivalent to “all have sinned,” (something that is a far chance at beset), how do you omit babies from “all” and still have “all.” Haven’t you done the dreaded “redefinition” of “all”?

I quote YOUR post #62 on page 7 --- Larry: "Incorrect yet again. They did choose to repent because of their new nature." Please, now tell me what you really believe.

You didn’t quote my post though. You changed “nature” to “creation.” I said “new nature;” you said “new creation.”

More likely this is what you meant, right? 8:43 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil,..." But just moments before this there were "many" who heard and beleived. Jesus didn't call them elect either. Jesus had discerned that these resistant Pharisees as committed to Satan already vs those who had believed, is all. He was not making "blanket application" to "natural men" here, Lar.

He was directly addressing your idea that all men can “hear.” The text doesn’t say that Jesus discerned that these Pharisees were already committed to Satan. You added that.

Go ahead then --- 'struct me.

Regeneration is the giving of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. Salvation is the result of regeneration, faith and repentance, etc. The new nature is the result of regeneration for most Calvinists. But the key thing is that regeneration and salvation are not the same thing.

 

[skypair]

Think about this: if you think Psa 51:5 is equivalent to “all have sinned,” (something that is a far chance at beset), how do you omit babies from “all” and still have “all.” Haven’t you done the dreaded “redefinition” of “all”?
You didn’t quote my post though. You changed “nature” to “creation.” I said “new nature;” you said “new creation.”

OK, I won't omit them -- but they are STILL "covered." See, Christ paid for ALL sin. ONLY the sin of rejecting the Spirit is "unpardonable," right? And babies have never rejected the Spirit, have they?

He was directly addressing your idea that all men can “hear.” The text doesn’t say that Jesus discerned that these Pharisees were already committed to Satan. You added that.

It said the Pharisees couldn't hear (vice those who did hear) on account of they were "children of Satan." It does not say, as you for your part presume, that they couldn't hear because they were not "elect."

Regeneration is the giving of spiritual life to the spiritually dead.

Yeah -- being "born again."

Salvation is the result of regeneration, faith and repentance, etc.

Now are you delineating an chronological order there (again)? Because if you are, you left out the "seed." Regeneration, like generation, doesn't happen without a "seed" (as Bro Bob pointed out). Then, when the "seed" germinates (Mt 13, 1Pet 1:23) -- becomes alive -- then it has a new nature, and repentance and faith, etc. emerge.

The new nature is the result of regeneration for most Calvinists. But the key thing is that regeneration and salvation are not the same thing.

But they occur at the same instant, right?

See, I "caught" you on that order from post #62 and it is what you and Calvinists beleive -- but it is wrong. What did the seed need to sprout in Mt 13? Soil, right? It had to "go down" into the soil first. That speaks of the heart, Larry. The as yet unregenerate heart, BTW. It is just "dead" soil like we find in every natural man.

But taken into the soil represents belief. And so the life that was within the "seed" -- which is the Holy Spirit -- sprouts forth unto life! Peter calls it the "incorruptible seed."

Paul speaks of it in 1Cor 15:37-38 speaks of the seed a little differently but similarly as to timing. His "seed" is the "dead" body of the "natural man" buried with Christ so that God can give it a body as it pleaseth Him.

By combining the 2 images, we can see that the plant is actually the "born again" BELIEVER given a new nature!

IOW, Calvinists are constantly putting the plant before the seed! No, the new nature does NOT precede faith or belief such that only the "elect" regenerate can hear. That's bass ackwards! :laugh:

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

OK, I won't omit them -- but they are STILL "covered."

Okay, now that’s a different issue. If you don’t admit babies from “all have sinned,” then you and are aren’t that far apart. I believe Christ’s death covered them.

See, Christ paid for ALL sin.

Then on what basis do people go to hell? This is part of the problem with your view. I have never seen a good answer for this question from your side. “Limited atonement” typically means that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all sins, but efficient only for believers (the Calvinist’s elect who believe). To say that Christ died equally for all sins either changes the character of the atonement from a price paid, to a payment made available; or changes the salvation from “those who believe” to “those whose sins were paid for” (which I believe are the same group); or has God sending people to hell for sins that are paid for. I don’t really see any other option there.

It said the Pharisees couldn't hear (vice those who did hear) on account of they were "children of Satan."

Yes, and what does that mean? In the text, the contrast with “children of Satan” is “of God” (cf. v. 47). So it drawing two categories: Of God and of Satan. It seems to me those are the only two categories there are. One is either “of God” or “of Satan.” I believe one is born into “of Satan” and is “born again” into “of God.”

It does not say, as you for your part presume, that they couldn't hear because they were not "elect."

I don’t presume that. I don’t use this passage to argue for election, precisely because it doesn’t say it. I think it is related to election, but this passage is teaching something different. I think the theological concept of election is presupposed in this passage.

Now are you delineating an chronological order there (again)?

No, not there, and certainly not again since I have never delineated a chronological order with respect to faith and repentance and regeneration.

Because if you are, you left out the "seed." Regeneration, like generation, doesn't happen without a "seed" (as Bro Bob pointed out). Then, when the "seed" germinates (Mt 13, 1Pet 1:23) -- becomes alive -- then it has a new nature, and repentance and faith, etc. emerge.

If you saw my ordo salutis (which I would be glad to post) you would see that I have no omitted the seed. That, as well, is one of my reasons for having regeneration logically subsequent to faith; though chronologically simulataneous.

But they occur at the same instant, right?

Regeneration and salvation? Yes and no. Positional salvation takes place at the time of regeneration/faith/repentance. There is a final salvation as well that has not yet taken place.

See, I "caught" you on that order from post #62 and it is what you and Calvinists beleive -- but it is wrong. What did the seed need to sprout in Mt 13? Soil, right? It had to "go down" into the soil first. That speaks of the heart, Larry. The as yet unregenerate heart, BTW. It is just "dead" soil like we find in every natural man.

The “soil” is supernaturally acted on to receive the word in true belief. I don’t think many disagree with that. Arminianism certainly agrees with it.

Paul speaks of it in 1Cor 15:37-38 speaks of the seed a little differently but similarly as to timing. His "seed" is the "dead" body of the "natural man" buried with Christ so that God can give it a body as it pleaseth Him.

totally different topic in1 Cor 15. That is the resurrection at the end. It is not dealing with salvation.

IOW, Calvinists are constantly putting the plant before the seed! No, the new nature does NOT precede faith or belief such that only the "elect" regenerate can hear. That's bass ackwards!

First, veiled slang is inappropriate here. Second, Calvinists aren’t putting the plant before the seed. They happen together. You are making distinctions that Calvinism doesn't really make. And that's what makes your analysis invalid. You are not really arguing against what we beleive.

 

[webdog]

OK, I won't omit them -- but they are STILL "covered." See, Christ paid for ALL sin. ONLY the sin of rejecting the Spirit is "unpardonable," right? And babies have never rejected the Spirit, have they?

What sin has a baby committed to be included in Romans 3:23?