Where's the Beef: faith/BAG or BAG/Faith

I agree but It was written about 1620. They wrote much different than we do. I have a 7 volume set of books on Hebrews by Reformed writer John Owen. Some of the sentences cover half a page or more with lots of semicolons. Essentially impossible to follow his train of thought. I bought the set with the view of reading it when I retired but it is too much of a challenge.

John Gill wrote about the same time period but is easier to follow though it does require much effort at times.

 

It would also mean that God ONLY regenerates those whom HE has elected to save, however it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted; therefore IF this statement means what it says God has elected/regenerated/quickened..etc some and they resisted God, did not believe and died an unconverted unbeliever BUT Jesus raised them up for salvation anyway. Wow, that sure gets messy with the Calvinist view of Unconditional Election and Sovereignty of God, for the Calvinist view to fit into that model.

I completely understand if a Calvinist would like to agree that the Canons of Dordt section 11 needs swift editing to remove the embarassing contradiction to their theological system. Otherwise they'll have to explain how it fits in without playing literary games and deal with the actual statement as it reads.

:tonofbricks:

Darren

 

How can you hope to have a legitimate debate on doctrinal matters, when you and Ben are seriously lacking elementary English comprehension? However 'convoluted' the sentence structure may appear, it emphatically does not state a "2-stage" salvation process and never have those who hold to the Canons of Dort ever in their writings said that it does? They obviously knew what they meant.

That's the problem with this issue. You aren't even allowing the Reformed viewpoint to express itself. YOU are making us say something we deny, and when we do so, you claim we are not being forthright (or whatever word you wish to insert there).

I'll say it again. Benefactor has wrongly interpreted what the Canons of Dort state, and it is due to a very apparent lack of basic understanding of the English language. He has emphatically stated something that is false, and is guilty of a clear breach of the 9th commandment.

I still await an apology which if he had any Christian honesty about him, he would render to the sincere Christians on this forum who hold to the Doctrines of Grace.

 

Amy. Read it carefully. It does not say what Ben (and now you) says it does. This is a question of English competence. I have read 100's of works by Reformed authors. NOT ONE HAS EVER HELD TO THE FALSEHOOD THAT BEN is trying to say they do. You may not agree with Reformed theology, but at least have the Christian charity and human decency to accept their words as to what they believe.

 

Benefactor, your words reveal your heart. There are those on BB who sincerely do not agree with Reformed Theology. I respect that. I am happy to enter into Christian dialogue with them on the matter. But you are conceited, arrogant and contentious - and in this particular OP you are guilty of falsehood. The problem with responding to you is you are not wanting to know the truth, you are looking to carve another notch in your theological pistols or hang some Calvinist's scalp in your tent of ignorance.
Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

 

I admit to using satire as a means to make my point. However, in all seriousness you can't accuse someone of "it is due to a very apparent lack of basic understanding of the English language" because they read the statement "it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted" and asked for an explanation on what it means. It looks to me like an error of some soughts, taking into account the english langauge and all. Will you address the words in contention or not?

Darren

 

OK. I'm willing to deal with those words, but first have your read OldRegular's post on explaining them? Because he did quite an admirable job.

What we (Calvinist's) are saying is, you may not agree with our theological viewpoint, but it is wrong, very wrong, to make us say something that we aren't saying.

 

No. If I'm going to debate what John Calvin taught, the best thing to do is read what John Calvin taught. Christian honesty demands we let the man speak for himself. It's not as if he didn't leave any writings, you know!:laugh:

 

I'm sorry but it still sounds like you said the opposite of what the phrase states??

"Now look at the last part of this statement: [such] that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted."

"to those who can understand, that after man has been regenerated the matter, Salvation, is no longer in that person's power."

Darren

 

Canons of Dort in updated English

Benefactor is saying the Canons of Dort teach that Calvinists teach 2 salvations or 2 stages in salvation. He then misinterprets the english rendering of that original document, and unaware of his lack of English competence has made a FALSE STATEMENT.

English in the 17th century was often written differently than now. Sentence structures could be confusing. But they were written very precisely.
Here it is in modern English. Note the bolded sentence which has become the pivot of this thread. Perhaps now we can bring this false accusation against Reformed Theology to an end.

An apology for promoting and defending a false representation of Calvinism is still (biblically) in order.

Article 11
The Holy Spirit's Work in Conversion
Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

Article 12
Regeneration a Supernatural Work
And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man's power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

 

Darren, you need to read the whole sentence, not just the last part. The first part says that this regeneration that is wholly of God, in no wise (in no way) is accomplished in such a manner that after God has performed his part, that it still remains in the power of man to do anything about it independently. It is classic RT, and you may strongly disagree with it, but please, please, please, do not keep propagating the LIE that Benefactor has commenced this thread with.

Look at the whole sentence (or read it in the more modern English I posted a couple of posts back). You will find that this sentence is saying the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

Ok, I got it. The first quote that Ben used was ambiguous in that particular phrase. I was reading "it still remains in the power of man.." as "it is still up to man whether or not he wants to be regenerated or not, or converted or unconverted". I know Calvinism does not teach that but rather was confused as to the way it was worded - ??

So I read power, as in will power, or choice for the reason of the wording NOT by my understanding of Calvinism. Hope that's clear. I do not plan on falsely representing the Calvinist position at any time, make no mistake about it, that's not me at all. :thumbs:

Darren

 

Ben,

Let me help you out on this one. Ordo Salutis is "the order of salvation". Salvation is the larger heading that contains a few elements within it. Have you ever heard the phrase...

"I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved"?

When a person says this, he is not talking about 3 salvations but talking about the many stages/elements of one salvation. Another word you can use is being delivered. Delivered means the same as being saved.

Within salvation the Bible talks about election, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification and a few other elements.

So you see why people were laughing? Faith is part of salvation. As is election and the new birth.

Now here is where the debate remains. In what order does this happen? Its the logical sequence of the elements which we debate about. We all believe these elements make up salvation, but we disagree which comes 1st.

I hope this helps.

James

 

This maybe the problem. Spend less time hitting your head and use your head to understand.

If you say so.

DAD?

ok

indeed.

I guess you are saying that all of your list of numbers below happen "In Order" as you listed them, with all that is listed under 3 at the same moment.

This would mean that 1...Hearing the gospel happens 1st. Which by the way is what all Arminian believe. For a person that says they are not Arminian, you do post like one ben.

So now we are at the heart of the debate. It took sometime, but hey we got there.

Your 1st element...Hear the gospel.
How do dead men hear? Go to a graveyard and tell all those in the grave that if they only walk to you and stick out their hand, you will give them 10,000,000 bucks. Don't worry...If any dead person hears you say this and comes forward, I will supply all the money needed.

1 John 2..

This "love of the Father" is only in the believer.

Now please notice this passage
John 8..

There reason they could not understand, is because they were "of their father the devil". That would mean they are NOT SAVED.

So how do you understand? The verse before tells us..

John 8

Before you can love God you must be a child of God.

The key word is logical. Do you understand what that means?

The Truth latched on to me

Can I call you "Master Ben"?

Which is a old phrase that a old anti-Calvinist use to say on here. He was banned a few years ago. You're not the same guy are you?

Wait. You said you wanted me to "latch on to the truth"....and now you seem to be saying you want me to get rid of the truth. Which do you want master?

Regenerated, born again, born from above, became a new creation in Christ, pass from death to life, and child of God all mean the same thing. Are you saying you believe in 6 new births? No need to reply...tis a joke ...master

Keep working on me ben. You know how stupid we Calvinist are.

yep...Me thinks you are our old friend from way back.

 

Benefactor: I noticed how you have dealt with the "Inconvenient Truth" that his assertion that Calvinism teaches a 'second salvation' according to the Canons of Dort. You have simply ignored the fact that you have presented a falsehood, and refuse to admit it.

The issue is not whether you are a Calvinist or not, but whether you exhibit the grace of being a Christian. Up to now, your words leave a lot to be desired in that realm.

 

The people who wrote the Canons of Dort were scholars which you evidently are not. Lux et veritas in an earlier post presents a version of the articles in question in modern English. However, Article 12 clearly states, even in the original translation, that Regeneration is the work of God, that it is a supernatural work, and nothing man can do can have any effect on that work of God.

You present a completely false interpretation of what Article 12 states and furthermore you know it. You simply cannot be that ignorant. That means you are knowingly telling a lie. Some posts by their nature cause disagreement but your intent appears to be malicious. In your OP you state:

That simply is another malicious lie you are guilty of.

Frankly, I believe your intent in joining this Forum is malicious..

 

Ben, which comes first in Acts 13:48?
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

1. "as many as were ordained to eternal life"
2. "believed".