You must be born again

OK, Larry and npetrely,

Was John the Baptist regenerated in the womb then?

skypair

 

They are the same word. Do you deny that they have different meanings in difference contexts?

What was the original purpose in the Reform and Lutheran churches of infant baptism? What was the issue, if not that, with the "rebaptizers?"

Tactics I am using, indeed! You can only make the allegations you do cause you don't take us seriously. Like Paul sarcastically said of the Corinthians, "You are wise and we are fools" when just the reverse was the truth.

He's not sovereign over everything if He's not sovereign over your decisions. Again, we have so many here claiming that they only do what God has ordained and (npetrely) "if God is not sovereign over everything, He's not God."

I think that view is a copout and a false choice -- like the "when was the last time you beat your wife" question.

If you notice, it relieves you of the necessity to give an "ordo salutis" or to answer some of the more relevant questions. It's basically "blame shifting."

My children liked to say "You don't understand" whenever they it was them that didn't want to admit their faults. That's what I think. That tactic is not some new refuge to me.

skypair

 

No, but that's not what you were talking about earlier.

Not in the sense that you are using it. If you have particular passages I will perhaps take a look at them.

For some it was regeneration. They are not "my ilk." Never have been; never gonna be. For others it was the NT equivalent of OT circumcision which wasn't about regeneration but about inclusion in the covenant.

"My ilk" has never believed in baptismal regeneration.

I don't take your arguments all that seriously because they are fallacious. But I have (for some strange reason) entertained the conversation in hopes that these simple explanations will at least help you to understand what we believe so you will stop misrepresenting us.

He is sovereign over my decisions. That doesn't mean he forces people to sin. They sin of their own free will, and it is what God ordained. Don't try to put God in a box that fits your own personal ideas of what God should be like.

Of course you think it is a false choice, but that doesn't change it. If you have a third option you would like me to consider, suggest it. So far, your words indicate that you don't really understand what we believe and are not willing to address what we actually believe.

No, I have given my ordo salutis several times (most recently on the previous page or so). It is well known. And I have answered every question you have put forth, so far as I know. I am sure in almost 20,000 posts there are not many questions of people that I haven't answered. You may not like the answers, and that is fine. But don't say I have not been willing to answer them.

I can't speak for your children, but if you respond to them as you respond to me, then they are right. I realize that many children use that as a copout. I also know that many people involved in various conversations have no idea what they are talking about. And you are one of them. If you really know what you are talking about, then start talking like it. Please, I beg you.

If you don't like what I believe, that's fine. It really doesn't bother me that you or anyone else disagrees. It does bother me that you don't rightly represent what I believe.

 

Well, don't get a paper cut leafing through your Bible as if you'd never, in your Calvinist wisdom, considered that likelihood. :laugh:

Yes, I know that and have exonerated you a thousand times. And you can't be included in the nc unless you are saved. And if you make yourself out to be a Calvinist, don't blame me if I "target" you by accident!

I was thinking of you the other night -- "candle and the moth." :laugh: My arguments are NOT fallacious -- you just don't want to get too close to them. I'm not sure what your "anchor" is in Calvinism but from my POV it is "theology of men." I wonder if, when you have a question, whether you consult the Bible or RC Sproul, for example.

Believe me -- no "box" here. Calvies have always had a problem separating sovereignty from will. And that will continue until they realize that God doen't have to "micro-manage" His creation one atom at a time in order for His will to be done!

And again, it is NOT "free will" -- you yourself admit it -- if man has no other choice but to sin.

I gave you the "third option" to "sovereign over everything" and "not God" -- God sovereignly gives man a FREE WILL. But I know you have considered and rejected or rationalized it into something that is NOT truly FREE will.

OK, but I can PROVE that you are not willing to answer them now! again! I will accept your word that you have answered them before. What's the problem? You don't want to expose them to critical, constructive analysis again?

Puleease -- don't insult my intelligence and stature in my family. You know absolutely NOTHING about that AND it is worse than you saying that I lie about your Calvinism!

"Candle and the moth," Lar. The Spirit is telling you one thing but you are stubbornly asserting another! The fact is it is important what you believe and whether it is right or wrong.

I am "aiming at" Calvinism, Lar. If you happen to not be a Calvinist, then "good on ya, mate!" But if you take offense to my accusations, perhaps you are not Calvinist as you think. :thumbs:

skypair

 

As I have testified to before, my Calvinism came straight out of Scripture. I have considered the likelihood of your position on faith and belief and rejected it because it makes no sense in light of the Bible.

And you can't be in the NC unless you are an ethnic Jew. I am a Calvinist, and people hwo believe in baptismal regeneration aren't. Don't confuse them.

How much closer could I get? I have taken almost everyone and destroyed it from Scripture. They are fallacious arguments.

Scripture.

Your POV is wrong.

Scripture. I only have on book by Sproul on justification by faith alone (something that really isn't even Calvinism). I have not read Sproul on any other topic. I have never heard Sproul speak.

We don't have to separate sovereignty from free will. Scripture teaches what I have laid out about the two.

It is free will ... Man is free to do whatever he wants to do. He wants to do nothing other than sin and he is perfectly free to do that. His will is bound by his nature alone.

I believe God sovereignly gives man a free will. That is the first option. And man chooses to sin freely.

Go ahead.

That was tried and it didn't work then. Why would it work now?

I didn't insult your intelligence or stature in your family. Go back and read what I said and believe. I said I can't speak for your children ... many children use that as a copout.

How do you konw what the Spirit is telling me? So far as I know, the Spirit tells me only what is in the Word. I have painstakingly set out to defend that here. Yet you think the Spirit is telling me something else. Everything I say here is based in the Word, so how would you know that the Spirit is telling me something else, and how would you know what it is that He is telling me?

No, you're not. You are making up beliefs that few if any actually hold to, and you are not even doing a good job addressing them.

I am a Calvinist, and I take offense at your accusations because they are false. They reveal that you do not konw what you are talking about.

 

Pastor Larry,

All do respect, I am not sure where you learned about Calvinism. First of all. John Calvin was NOT a Calvinist. Please do not use the label as a buzz word for your take on Scripture. Theology did not stop when Calvin died. He himself would have likely revised "Institutes" had he lived an hundred more years. I hold to the 5 points. I even hold to double predestination. But I do NOT believe we have free will. I happen to believe God created sin. He damned some. He chose/elected others.

Sin/evil is for the purpose of bring us unto Christ and by that, giving glory and honor to His name. this is infact, the view of RC Spoul, Jr and I believe Sr. as well. And I assure you sir, one does not get much more reformed than the Sprouls.

You might read the Westminister Confession and if time "Institutes" before stamping out dogma beyond the 5 points. That is about the only 5 things in which all "true" Calvinsts really agree.

I give you grace that your complementiarian view may well be true. But you seem to give no grace at all. I tend to be rather dogmatic at times. I pray I do not sound like you in your previous post.

We could both, I think, do well by softening our tone.

John Calvin is not worth dying for. Jesus is.


:godisgood:

 

I learned about Calvinism from a number of places. Sproul just doesn't happen to be one of them. My first exposure to Calvinism came from those who didn't like it. Then, in the 90-91, in the reading and study of the Bible I became convinced that God was absolutely sovereign over all things, including salvation, and that was before I knew what TULIP stood for. In the years since then, I have read widely from a number of sources on both sides. So I am not sure what your point is, but if there is something particular, I will be glad to try to address it.

I believe all of that, with the exception of double predestination, which most Calvinists seem not to believe, preferring preterition, and the idea that God created sin per se. God did not create sin. Sin is the result of the exercise of the will in disobedience to God. I do believe that there was no chance that Adam and Eve were not going to sin.

How one defines "free will" will determine what one believes about it. "Free will" is used by some to say that man can do anything at all, even choose contrary to his nature. I disagree with that free will. We do not have that kind of free will. But if we accept that definition of free will, not even God is free. Free will more properly defined is the ability to act in accordance with one's nature. Therefore, man is perfectly free to act in accordance with his sin nature. He is not forced to sin; he does it freely. Nor is he forced to come to God. God gives him a new nature so that man freely and certainly comes to Christ for salvation. So I imagine you and I probably don't disagree on that.

Sin has more purposes than simply bringing us to God, but that is certainly one of them. Jonathan Edwards taught that the existence of sin is to show forth the glory of God more brightly, else how would we know how glorious God is without something evil to compare it to.

Perhaps, though I am not sure the relevance of that.

I have read WCS. I have not read the Institutes yet. I don't stamp out dogma beyond the five points. In fact, I am not even sure what that means. Calvinism, I believe, hinges on unconditional election. One who affirms unconditional election is a Calvinist and one who denies it is an Arminian. I see no middle ground there.

What do you mean by complementarian? Usually, in theology, that word is used to talk about women in pastoral ministry. If you would define it here, I would know better how to respond.

I have given much grace over the years, and have much more. My posts to Skypair draw on a long history with Skypair where he has repeatedly been told what Calvinists believe, and he refuses to accept it. He believes he knows more about Calvinism than Calvinists do. And so my posts, over the years, have gotten increasingly strong with him because he is past the point of genuine interest in dialogue. He is dishonest about other people's beliefs, and that is unacceptable on this board, or on any forum whether in person or on the internet. Skypair has been around long enough to know better. Every single one of us here, no matter what side you fall on, should be increasingly intolerant of Skypair's tactics, and should urge him to change them. Civilized discussion has no place for the kind of things that Skypair does.

This is certainly true.

 

Thanks for your reply. Let me just hit a couple of things.

I think the problem with double predestination is that it implies that total depravity is not enough to send man to hell ... that God had to do something extra (predestine them). Preterition teaches on the other hand that God simply lets man do what he was doing anyway, which is quite enough to merit him eternal damnation. I know that double predestinationists would not accept the idea that it implies less than total depravity, so i say that with caution because I hate misrepresenting others. My point is that the doctrine of double predestination carries with it some inherent implications that I don't think you would want to admit to.

FOr me, preterition makes the most sense because it acknowledges that man's inherent sinful state is all it takes to send him to hell. God needs to do nothing else. He can simply let them go.

And I agree. But by that definition, God has no free will. And I don't think you would grant that. I know I wouldn't. So allowing the definition you give above to stand is to let the "other side" win by definition, without seriously considering what free will actually is.

I would go so far as to say these choices were ordained by God, but not caused by him. (Watch how many people will blow a gasket over that one.)

 

Pastor Larry,

Let me ponder for a while and I will get back with you.

k

 

Bleieve only half of what you hear here. Basically, PL thinks that, because I have never been one, that I know nothing about Calvinism. But it's pretty "cut and dried." If you believe in Calvinism, you are a "Greek mythology-style" fatalist for one. There is absolutely nothing you can do to affect your salvation -- all fate is in God's hands.

Amd I do assume that anyone ought, like say the SDA's, to be advised that they are on the wrong path -- that they have been "hood winked" by the wisdom of men. That is an honest reason for being on this board even if it isn't "touchy-feely, cotton candy" easy to deal with.

And of course, PL's strategy of insisting someone misrepresents his theology or "makes things up" is dishonest in itself. It discredits the honest person (and there is honest opposition to Calvinism) while at the same time taking the topic off track. What he ought to do -- like most of us -- is answer the questions/issues and patiently love those who are students of the word. Rev 3:10 calls it "keeping the word of My patience." But as you've noticed, he'll no more answer the question of such he'd miss church on Sunday.

skypair

skypair

 

Wrong on two counts. First, one does not have to be a Calvinist to know about them. Two, I don't think you know nothing. You do know some things, but not nearly as much as you would like to think.

Here is a clear evidence that you don't know as much as you think. There is no resemblance between God in the beliefs of Calvinism and god in Greek mythology. The God of Calvinism is a God of love and grace and mercy, who came into the world to do for man what he could not do for himself, and who offers salvation to all who will believe.

I konw there is honest opposition to Calvinism. You simply aren't among them since what you oppose really isn't Calvinism in many cases. You oppose some made up straw man. And as a result, you are the one taking the issue off topic by not even addressing Calvinism.

I think my almost 20,000 posts testify to my willingness to do this. I have done it time and time again, especially with you. I know of no question I have been unwilling to take a stab out. You keep acting like I am not answering questions, but then don't ask any.

I have and will continue to answer questions. Whether or not you like the answers is a different matter.

 

Congratulations to Skypair and PL for bringing civil and logical discourse to the lowest levels of human experience.

 

SN, I have done my part to lift it, but unfortunately others aren't helping. I would love to have a discussion about what Calvinism believes. But Skypair seems unwilling. I believe it to be necessary to point out where he continually misrepresents Calvinism, even though he has been clearly told what we believe. It is unfortunate that it continues to happen. Unfortunately, I don't control that side of it.

 

OK...

...on topic then --- does regeneration/born again precede faith?

How can that be recognized by the "elect" person before they are born again?

skypair

 

Where have we heard this before...

 

I do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. I believe that the effectual call is a unilateral, sovereign enablement that certainly brings faith and repentance. I have explained that before.

Most Calvinists call that regeneration, so we disagree in terminology but not in outcome. We both agree that there is a unilateral, sovereign, and effectual enablement of a sinner to believe.

You say, "How can that be recognized by the elect before they believe." I answer, It can't. It doesn't need to be that I know of.

Why do you ask?

 

You have heard it from me many times. Unfortunately, it doesn't help much since the same misrepresentations continue to be made years after having been told the truth about what we believe. It is unfortunate that a healthy exchange cannot take place since some insist on misrepresenting what Calvinists believe. I wish it was different. I have held out hope in the past that it would be, but it has never come to pass.

 

Thank you for being responsive -- at last. So it's effectual call - faith - repentance?? If I knew it, I forgot it. Pls forgive me.

OK, effectual call + faith + repentance = regeneration? Or is it repentance = regeneration (since regeneration does not precede faith)? See, that's kinda free will. That's what I believe. I don't think it is Calvinism.

Does "unilateral enablement" mean ALL or only some?

I think I know what "sovereign enablement" means. God is the only One who can enable through the Spirit, right? Is "creation" enough enablement, Rom 1? Is conviction of "sin, righteousness, and judgment" enough enablement, John 16? Is articulation of the gospel enough enablement, 1Cor 15? Or is "election" the necessary enablement? And if election, how are the elect "rewired" spiritually? Is there, like, an "ON-OFF" switch?

Why I ask is how does someone know to repent or not? whether it will be of any consequence to God if he does? I mean imagine yourself --- you want to trust in Christ but you don't know whether you are elect or not. What would be the purpose of giving up the life you were living already if you couldn't KNOW that God was going to save you if you asked Him?

skypair

 

First, I have almost always responded, so "at last" is hardly accurate. Second, I stated my ordo salutis again in this very thread just a couple of days ago. But that's fine.

Several things. First, "effectual call + faith + repentance" does not equal regeneration. It leads to regeneration. Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin. they are both a part of saving faith and are used interchangeably in some places in Scripture (cf. Acts 11:17-18). Second, that's not "kinda free will," and it's not what you believe according to our disagreements here. My position is that the effectual call is unilateral (one-sided from God), sovereign (according to his choice), and certain (meaning it renders the outcome necessary). It is what every other Calvinist calls regeneration.

See above. Unilateral means one-sided, as opposed to bi-lateral, or multi-lateral. Effectual means it effects the outcome, or determines it, or renders it certain. So all who receive the effectual call respond in repentance and faith.

Yes.

No, No, No, No, and they are given a new nature. Election is God's choice of individuals to be saved. It, in and of itself, does not bring the effectual call or regeneration. Those are distinct in Calvinism. The elect are given a new nature in the effectual call that enables them to respond in repentance and faith.

He knows by virtue of conviction and enablement. If he wants to truly repent, it is the evidence of God's effectual call at work in his life. The gospel call is a call to repentance and faith.

If you want to trust Christ, then you are elect. The non-elect or non-called do not want to trust in Christ. They do just what they want to do, which is live in sin. For Calvinists, you can know that God will save you if you ask him because that is what the Bible teaches.