makesends said:
The Calvinist notion of regeneration is not in itself salvation,
Which is what I've been told all along.
makesends said:
but it is necessarily productive of salvific faith, which is generated by the Spirit of God indwelling, who is the cause of that regeneration —what is referred to as, "Born of the Spirit."
So the Calvinist notion of "Regeneration" IS "Salvation".
Chuckle!!! so is it, or isn't it??
Chuckle!!! Do you understand logical (causal) sequence, as opposed to understanding temporal sequence?
When it happens is not the point, but
how it happens. Regeneration, without which there is no faith, results in God's gift of faith, produced by the Spirit of God —
this is the faith through which we are saved.
makesends said:
If you don't believe, you are already condemned because you don't believe, per John 3:18, but it isn't that you had no choice, and Calvinism doesn't claim you had no choice. It only claims the unregenerate will ALWAYS choose rebellion against God, and that, in fact, they cannot submit to God's law and cannot please God.
Yup - no problem there. The Lost humans are hel-less to achieve salvation in and of themselves.
makesends said:
And what Calvinist uses the term, "happen to be chosen"? There is no "happen to be" with God's choice, which is always particular and with sure purpose. I think you inserted that wording to assist you in your disparagement of Calvinism.
So why aren't you using your favorite term: "Elect"?? And why don't you take ownership of the FACT the the humans who aren't "Elect" will never be born again?
This is amazing. I try to show you how Calvinism does not resemble your strawman, by an attempt to help you understand why election is true, not to mention that it is Biblical, and you mock me for not using my terminology? Should I return the disparagement by asking you how it is possible that one whom God does not enable "to achieve salvation in and of themselves" is able to achieve it? You yourself take ownership of the fact that anyone God does not enable to achieve salvation, in and of themselves is UNABLE to achieve it. So how have I done any different there? THAT, my friend, is the dividing line between Elect and non-Elect. God enables some, and the rest are already condemned because they have not believed. So when you deny that the Elect are the only ones who can be saved, you contradict yourself.
makesends said:
"Irresistible Grace" is a reference to one particular work of God. It is not about whether God's grace can be resisted. I would have thought you knew that.
Why would I "Know" anything of the sort?? I'm not a "Calvinist" ant it's one of Calvinism's "Buzz words". If I CAN "resist God's Grace", then why does TULIP say I can't??
Yet you pretend to answer what you now claim not to know about! And I just finished telling you "why TULIP says you can't" as you put it. TULIP is nothing of itself. The short statements represented by the Acrostic are nothing of themselves. I'm beginning to think you aren't as ignorant as you pretend to be, but have no good arguments but to mock the Acrostic or the short statements made to it. So, once again, "Irresistible Grace" is a reference to one particular grace of God, in which the elect lost is, by that particular grace, given the gift of the Spirit of God, who indwells that person, transforming him from death to life. It —this particular grace— is accomplished without asking the permission of, nor even consulting, the lost elect. In fact, the person to whom God gives the gift may not even be aware at first that it has happened!
TOTALLY FALSE. There's no argument that CONVICTION OF SIN by the Holy Spirit establishes the FACT that I sinned, and establishes the FACT that judgement awaits, And ESTABLISHES the fact that I need to respond to GOd's requirements. But it;s STILL UP TO ME whether or not I surrender, and repent, calling upon HIM for salvation, or resist/reject the conviction, and remain in death (as I did every time until the last time).
Who is this mystery person you apparently think is saying that it is NOT "up to [you] whether or not [you] surrender, and repent, calling upon HIM for salvation, or resist/reject the conviction, and remain in death?" AGAIN, it is by the Spirit of God indwelling the person that s/he is ABLE to have the faith necessary for salvation. Why must you insist on the fiction of self-determination for salvation? Your demonstration of faith is a result, not a cause, of the work of the Spirit of God in you.
makesends said:
GOD changes your heart, and you want to claim that is because of the worthiness of YOUR decision, apart from God having already changed your heart? If my salvation depends on the integrity of my decision, I am lost. This is GOD's work!
Nice fantasy. Of course "Worthiness" never enters into it. Judging / Dying to yourself isn't trivial, and "Calling upon the Lord" is Biblical, whether the Calvinist likes it or not.
I used the term "worthiness" because you apparently think that apart from God, a person can somehow produce salvific faith of his own integrity, knowledge and understanding of what he is undertaking, commitment lasting the rest of his life, wisdom as to how to accomplish it, force of will to accomplish it, and desire for the God with whom up til then he has always been at enmity.
And what Calvinist denies that "Calling upon the Lord" is Biblical??? I know of none. I cry "foul". "Strawman".
makesends said:
But yes indeed! You will choose Christ, once you are born of the Spirit.
When You're "Born Again of the Spirit", you've ALREADY "Chosen Christ" in the FAITH thad God gifted by giving HIS WORD to you in Conviction of SIN.
So, apart from being transformed from death to life, you somehow achieve this without God! So you do have whereof to boast!!!?
But, since we are into it, show me from Scripture your support for the notion that being born again logically (causally —not necessarily temporally) follows "accepting the Lord", and does not precede it. Even Arminians reference what they call prevenient grace, but your construction smacks of Pelagianism.
