straw men?

[makesends]

makesends said:
You assume there that regeneration is a suddenly done thing.

Bible verses please.

Bible verses as to whether or not it is a suddenly done thing? As I said, sometimes it seems to be a sudden, almost violent thing, and other times, almost purely theoretical causation. If, as some claim, Pentecost (Acts 2) was the regenerative act of the Spirit, it was overwhelming and sudden, and yet, particularly in Paul's epistles, we see him describing the work of the Spirit in regeneration where the power of it is still God's act, but no description of temporal activity, but rather mere causal sequence. (Eph 2.; Romans 5; Romans 8, 9; etc)

makesends said:
God doesn't say one way or another about that (i.e. about whether regeneration is a suddenly done thing), but, instead, that the sinful nature is incapable of submitting and of pleasing God, and that it is, rather, at enmity with God.

God created human nature, right?
So the question for you is: Did God create a "sin nature"?
In other words, does sin/evil come from God?
Nature doesn't sin.
It's people who sin. And that can be verified with numerous verses.

I suppose you have the right to change the subject, to argue the right or wrong of a notion, rather than to continue to define terms. So, yes, God created human nature, and, in fact, all that happens temporally, to include Adam's fall and its results, is caused to be so by God, and, logically, intentionally so. Thus, like it or not, people sinning is their own doing, fulfilling what God has chosen to come to pass. God did not create human nature sinful. That is the result of Adam's sin. And it is true to the core of our natures, until one is born again.

makesends said:
The transformation of regeneration is huge, being from death to life, and there is evidence that for some it is sudden, and for others a process, and for some a noticeable change, and for others a time comes where they simply come to realize that they do believe.

Sounds like eastern enlightenment.

There are many counterfeits.

 

[Arial]

Verse Rom 10:9 is where I see an exhortion for people to intentionally believe the word with their hearts.

Where does that leave regeneration?

An exhortation to do something does not begin with the word "if". If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

One cannot intentionally believe something that they don't believe. And they will not declare something as truth in the sense meant here, if they do not believe it in their heart. Since man is at enmity with God, are haters of God, have stone hard hearts towards Him; since the scriptures declare that fallen man in is natural state, cannot accept or understand spiritual things (truth), that they are foolishness to him; since Jesus declares that spiritual things are spiritually understood; since He also declares that no one can see (perceive) or enter the kingdom of God, unless He is born from above by the Spirit; since Scripture declares that we are dead in our sins and must be quickened to spiritual life by God Himself; then it is impossible for an unregenerate person to intentionally decide to believe.

God must do something first that makes it possible for him to actually believe. That is regeneration---a changed heart. One that is not at enmity with God but rather moldable and pliable in His hands.

It is an error to present even the free will view as deciding to believe. Choosing Christ would be acceptable provided that choice is attributed to the work of God. IOW that it was the regenerated heart that willingly chose Christ because it believes the gospel. Even Reformed theology acknowledges that we make a choice, for we would not be human if we did not. The disagreement is in why we chose Him.

 

[His clay]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved: instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

I've considered starting an op just pointing out and citing the many straw men that this poster has put forward (the list is very large), but the people here in the forum have responded so many times by pointing out the straw men, that I feel no real need to write one. The main problem is a complete failure to listen. Followed by the second main problem which relies on misrepresentations of Calvinism to draw the "logical conclusions". Again, if your premise is wrong, then what follows is not logical, but instead another fallacy. I pointed this out in another thread in painful detail, and the op's author ran from the issue like a child who had been stung by a wasp. The op's author claimed his reasoning was a logical conclusion, but in reality it was nothing more than a non-sequitur fallacy. The main claim the op's author could not support was that a person's nature has absolutely no causal bearing upon a person's choices (clearly not an assumption of Calvinism as well, the exact opposite in fact). This assumption was needed in order for his "logic" to work, but having pointed out the ludicrousness of the assumption, the poster just ran and ran and ran. At that point, after multiple missed opportunities to deal with the issues raised, I called a spade a spade; and I brought forward a more severe accusation, which is that the person was deliberately being dishonest. I had given the other poster multiple opportunities to actually deal with the very issue he had raised and my response to his "reasoning." But again, dodging, avoidance, misrepresentation, and lying were all that I received.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

It has been said on not a few occasions that all I have done in all of my contending has been to erect a group of straw man arguments and proceeded to knock them down.

I think that it should be clear that I have not erected straw man arguments.

For example, when I say that, in Calvinism, that the logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement is the concept that "I may not be of the elect; and if I am not, the door to me is shut and I cannot avail myself of the salvation that is offered to me by Christ."

Let me be clear in saying that this statement is a logical conclusion of the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election together.

For in Limited Atonement, those who are elect becomes confined to only a small group of people.; and in Unconditional Election this has nothing to do with our choices as moral agents and is also based solely on the sovereign choice of God to either save or condemn every individual.

You can say that Calvinism does not really teach that; but we all know what is being taught to us by these aspects of Calvinism.

It is not an idea that cannot be constructed from Calvinistic thinking, that I am dealing with here.

And of course it is refuted by a general reading of John 6:37; and therefore those who are Calvinists, and who also have their eyes in their heads, take issue with everything and want to decry it as a straw man.

It is no straw man. The thing that is refuted is the logical conclusion of two of the most basic tenets in Calvinism (even the "U" and the "L").

One can say that Calvinism does not really teach that;

However, in that, they are saying that the most basic tenets of Calvinism are in departure from what Calvin really meant when he gave his doctrine.

I think that Calvinistic authors also say things in contradiction to the basic tenets of Calvinism in an attempt to deal with some of the most basic objections,

Another issue that I have with Calvinism is that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith.

However, if that is the case, then regeneration can happen apart from faith; since if it can happen before faith comes it can happen without faith.

This is an abject heresy that must be dealt with within the framework of Calvinistic thinking if it is going to survive.

It denies a most basic tenet of the gospel: that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved: instead teaching that we can be saved through the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God and that we believe as the result.

And while this may be true from the perspective of eternity, it is not true from the perspective of time.

In time, there comes a moment when we pass over from death into everlasting life. And we may be of the elect while we have not yet crossed over. Because predestination is from the perspective that God is outside of time.

Like a blimp in a parade, God is over the whole parade and sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end; and the whole parade from everywhere in between; whereas we see the parade going by float by float.

Join the club. This is an overused word in the forums. It is often used to avoid addressing an argument. I have found that Reformed theology is better at denying what it does not believe than explaining theologically what it thinks. Exegesis is the word of the day unless it is applied to the inexplicable doctrines of Calvinism. Then it is, "just take it be faith, no one can explain these things."

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Believe me...a Calvinist doesn't see it as "pride". As to arrogance I don't see how that fits in.

If you ask a calvinist why they were predestined their answer will be...I don't know. They all understand they don't deserve salvation.

Then again one could make the same statement about the Armenian sect....they all think they were smart enough to "choose" Jesus.

No, humility is what should attract a person to Jesus' love for us. Calvinists often think everyone, not a Calvinist, is an Arminian, but God is not even on the same plain as either. His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways.

Follow God, not man.

 

[Josheb]

Join the club. This is an overused word in the forums. It is often used to avoid addressing an argument. I have found that Reformed theology is better at denying what it does not believe than explaining theologically what it thinks. Exegesis is the word of the day unless it is applied to the inexplicable doctrines of Calvinism. Then it is, "just take it be faith, no one can explain these things."

Hogwash

No, humility is what should attract a person to Jesus' love for us. Calvinists often think everyone, not a Calvinist, is an Arminian, but God is not even on the same plain as either. His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways.

Follow God, not man.

More hogwash

Both are great strawmen, though, along with implied ad hominem (Cals are awful) red herrings (let's over stuff that has nothing to do with actual Calvinist beliefs).

 

[Josheb]

nt