The heresy that I find inherent in Calvinism

[justbyfaith]

It appears to me that in Calvinism there is a very deep-rooted problem that amounts to heresy and I believe that it needs to be addressed.

And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ.

I will only say that if this is the case, then coming to Christ isn't necessary; since regeneration happens before it (and thus apart from it).

This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine.

 

[makesends]

It appears to me that in Calvinism there is a very deep-rooted problem that amounts to heresy and I believe that it needs to be addressed.

And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ.

I will only say that if this is the case, then coming to Christ isn't necessary; since regeneration happens before it (and thus apart from it).

This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine.

The heresy is in your mind, since the conclusion you draw —"then coming to Christ isn't necessary"— is only in your mind. But not only do you not qualify WHAT coming to Christ should be necessary FOR, and you don't even try to demonstrate its necessity, but you ignore what Calvinist do say concerning coming to Christ, and concerning all graces and virtues subsequent to regeneration, and their causes and mentions in Scripture. In other words, the OP is what Shakespeare called, "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

 

[Mr GLee]

It appears to me that in Calvinism there is a very deep-rooted problem that amounts to heresy and I believe that it needs to be addressed.

And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ.

I will only say that if this is the case, then coming to Christ isn't necessary; since regeneration happens before it (and thus apart from it).

This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine.

Coming of Christ? Christ is here reigning, working in born again Christians to both reveal his will and empower dying mankind to perform it to his eternal good pleasure . He will leave like a thief in the night on the last day under the Sun

Follow Jesus the son of man he did the will of the father with delight not Jonah the murmurer he kicked against the pricks and wanted to die knowing God would have mercy on a nation who knew nothing of him

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

Its the better thing that accompanies salvation the promise of God that he will not forget the good works as a as a labor of our love yoked with him . He remembers everyone if we offer it according to the power of the Father

Hebrew 6: 9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

 

[Josheb]

It appears to me that in Calvinism there is a very deep-rooted problem that amounts to heresy and I believe that it needs to be addressed. And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ.

Calvinism does not teach regeneration precedes coming to Christ. Calvinism teaches regeneration precedes faith. If you are going to criticize Calvinism at least get Calvinism correct.

I will only say that if this is the case, then coming to Christ isn't necessary; since regeneration happens before it (and thus apart from it). This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine.

Since regeneration and "coming to Christ" are synonymous the criticism is nonsensical. If a person has been regenerated from above by the Spirit (which is Christ's) then s/he has also already come to Christ. Regenerate people do not need to come to Christ for conversion from death to life because they are already converted. So, once again, I ask you if you got this notion from a leading Calvinist teacher and, if so, would you mind providing that source so I can read it for myself. Otherwise, this op reads like so many others: baseless nonsense.

I've got a couple of questions for you.

Matthew 11:28-30
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Can you provide an example of scripture reporting an atheist doing the above?


John 6:37, 44, 65
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out................ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.................... And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.

This text came up in an earlier exchange and it was shown verse 44 explicitly states a person cannot come to Jesus unless first drawn to Jesus by the Father - and there is no mention of choice. Verse 37 and 65 (which are both part of the same passage and serve as redundant emphasis) reiterate the fact people cannot come unless give to Jesus, drawn to Jesus, granted to do so by the Father, and again there is absolutely no mention of choice. Will you now concede those are in fact what this text states?


John 7:37-38
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. "He who believes in me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"

Notice this verse specifically stipulates those who believe in Jesus. That would preclude the atheist. The atheist who thirsts cannot come to Jesus because the atheist - by definition - does not believe. Note also from whence the living waters flows. It flows from inside the believer. There is no living water flowing from within the atheist. He thirsts but cannot come and there is no living water flowing from his/her innermost being. Therefore, although this is an invitation by Jesus to come to him, the text necessarily implies some people cannot do so, especially when John 6:37, 44, and 65 are taken into consideration. In other words, there actually are literal statements necessarily precluding people from coming to Jesus because of conditions set by God and there's no mention of choice and there is no precedent of an atheist ever doing what scripture plainly states cannot be done. Here are the relevant questions:


Are you aware that the Bible never uses the phrase "come to Christ"? Are you aware that these passages I just cited are the only ones in the Bible that speak of any sort of coming to Jesus? I invite, encourage, and exhort you to look that up before answering. Are you aware that all of these examples are all from Jesus' own mouth and all of them qualified in one way or another but none of them explicitly state anything about the unregenerate's fleshly choice? "Yes," or "No" to all three of these last three questions will suffice.


This idea anyone can come to Christ of their own volition is wholly extra-biblical.




In summary:

1. Calvinism teaches regeneration before faith, not regeneration before coming to Jesus.
2. Regeneration and coming to Christ are synonymous because the regenerate has come to Christ and those who have been sent, drawn, and given to Jesus are regenerate.
3. Did you get the idea Calvinism teaches regeneration precedes coming to Christ from a noted Calvinist? If so who is that? Will you provide the source so I can read it for myself?
4. Can you provide any scripture reporting an atheist coming to Jesus (the Jesus in whom they do not believe) for rest?
5. Will you now concede the John 6 texts quoted state no one can come to Jesus without the conditions from God alone cited in the texts and there is no mention of choosing or choice in those verses?
6. Are you aware that the Bible never uses the phrase "come to Christ"?
7. Are you aware that these passages I just cited are the only ones in the Bible that speak of any sort of coming to Jesus?
8. Are you aware that all of these examples are all from Jesus' own mouth and all of them qualified in one way or another but none of them explicitly state anything about the unregenerate's fleshly choice?

Simple, direct, immediate, and succinct answers will be appreciated and further the conversation. Any avoidance, delay, or subterfuge noted accordingly and serve to show there is no basis for the op's assertion Calvinists must be teaching regeneration comes before coming to Christ. Once I have actual direct answers to these questions, I will be glad to answer any you may have.

 

[justbyfaith]

Obviously the Bible speaks of coming to Christ in John 6:37.

You seem to be wanting to purport an idea that if I am not of the elect, I cannot be saved and that therefore Jesus will cast me out if I come to Jesus but am of the non-elect.

It is a common misconception within Calvinism that I am attempting to deal with.

I want to say unequivocally that if you desire to walk through it, the door is not closed to you.

 

[justbyfaith]

we are saved by grace through faith....so I would contend that it is the doctrine of Calvinism that regeneration precedes salvation; since in it regeneration precedes faith which is the catalyst for salvation.

I would say that regeneration is salvation and that it comes through faith.

 

[prism]

It appears to me that in Calvinism there is a very deep-rooted problem that amounts to heresy and I believe that it needs to be addressed.

And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ.

A baby must be conceived before it is born.

 

[Josheb]

Obviously the Bible speaks of coming to Christ in John 6:37.

Not of their own volition as has been asserted.

You seem to be wanting to purport an idea..........

I do not think you have a clue what I am purporting because...

...that if I am not of the elect, I cannot be saved and that therefore Jesus will cast me out if I come to Jesus but am of the non-elect.

I never said any such thing and it is the exact opposite of what I have posted. If a person is elect (chosen) then he is saved. Many are called but not all are chosen (Mt. 22:14), but if chosen then they are/will be saved. There is no elect not saved and no saved not elect.

It is a common misconception within Calvinism that I am attempting to deal with.

No, it's a common misconception within anti-Calvinists with which you are attempting to deal. Stop believing what Cal-critics tell you to believe and try believing scripture exactly as written.

I want to say unequivocally that if you desire to walk through it, the door is not closed to you.

Wanting to say something does not make it true or correct.*** My reply will be the same: Show me the scripture.

Don't show me scripture read inferentially and interpreted to say what you believe. Show me the scripture that actually explicitly states what you claim. When you realize how much inferential reading you're doing and how literally I am reading scripture in comparison you'll have to come to the questions like "Why don't I read scripture exactly as written? That guy Josh posts scripture that actually, literally, explicitly states what he posts. How does he do that? How does he manage to read scripture literally. How come I read things into the text it never actually states?"

And why do I not answer his questions when he asks them? Why do I dodge and avoid and misrepresent his posts unnecessarily when it would be much more functional and effective to just answer the questions when asked?"




It boils down to this: Scripture does not always make a declaration of causality when it comes to the cause of conversion, salvation, or any of its constituent components BUT on the occasion when causality is explicitly assigned it is ALWAYS attributed to God and NEVER the will or choice of the still-unregenerate, sinfully dead and enslaved will of the flesh. I can provide several scriptures that, in essence, say "God did it," but no one - either you or me - can provide a single scripture explicitly stating, "The sinner's sin-enslaved fleshly will did it."

Think otherwise? Then just post the verse. That will end the debate instantaneously. Short thread.

In the absence of any explicit statement to that effect realize the synergist position is built only and entirely one inference. In any objective comparison the monergist can point to at least a few statements that explicitly state "God did X." We do not need to infer that. Scripture plainly states it.








Lastly, the salient matter in the op is being dodged. The op asserts a problem with regeneration preceding coming to Christ, but Calvinism does not teach regeneration precedes coming to Christ. In Calvinism Christ comes to us and we are sent, drawn, and given to him and all the sending, drawing, and giving is done by God and God alone - absolutely no mention of the unregenerate's will. The reason Calvinism teaches the monergistic coming, sending, drawing, and giving is because that is what scripture actually, literally, explicitly states!!!

Someone taught you the will of the flesh was involved in conversion, but scripture never actually states that.


















***If you are referring to Revelation 3:20 I have already addressed that passage with you. Jesus is standing at a door speaking to the church. They are not people outside of the Christ's body. They are ecclesia!
.

 

[makesends]

we are saved by grace through faith....so I would contend that it is the doctrine of Calvinism that regeneration precedes salvation; since in it regeneration precedes faith which is the catalyst for salvation.

I would say that regeneration is salvation and that it comes through faith.

where does the faith come from?

 

[justbyfaith]

where does the faith come from?

by hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord (Romans 10:17).

 

[justbyfaith]

No, it's a common misconception within anti-Calvinists with which you are attempting to deal. Stop believing what Cal-critics tell you to believe and try believing scripture exactly as written.

No, it is a misconception that may be logically concluded from the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election.

That, "I may not be of the elect; and if that is the case, then I cannot be saved."

The reality is that if you desire to walk through the door into salvation, you can walk through it...

Jesus will in no wise cast you out.

Thus John 6:37 refutes the two combined tenets of Calvinism from time's perspective.

 

[justbyfaith]

***If you are referring to Revelation 3:20 I have already addressed that passage with you. Jesus is standing at a door speaking to the church. They are not people outside of the Christ's body. They are ecclesia!

The Laodicean church is the visible church of that time in history; however it can be said that the majority of believers in it are not saved.

They are lukewarm; and Jesus will "spue them out of His mouth."

 

[justbyfaith]

Wanting to say something does not make it true or correct.*** My reply will be the same: Show me the scripture.

I would ask you whether you are of the opinion that Jesus might cast out anyone who comes to Him.

 

[justbyfaith]

There is no elect not saved and no saved not elect.

Correction: there are those who are of the elect who are not yet saved.

They are predestined to salvation but have not yet crossed over from death into life, by doing what it says in such passages as Acts 16:31, Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39.

 

[justbyfaith]

Don't show me scripture read inferentially and interpreted to say what you believe. Show me the scripture that actually explicitly states what you claim. When you realize how much inferential reading you're doing and how literally I am reading scripture in comparison you'll have to come to the questions like "Why don't I read scripture exactly as written? That guy Josh posts scripture that actually, literally, explicitly states what he posts. How does he do that? How does he manage to read scripture literally. How come I read things into the text it never actually states?"

And why do I not answer his questions when he asks them? Why do I dodge and avoid and misrepresent his posts unnecessarily when it would be much more functional and effective to just answer the questions when asked?"

I can take scripture at face value and believe it for what it says in its most general sense.

For example, when I read John 6:37, I can determine that Christ will not reject a man over his "not being of the elect"...

If he desires to walk in through the door into salvation, the door is open to him...

And Christ will in no wise cast him out.

 

[justbyfaith]

It boils down to this: Scripture does not always make a declaration of causality when it comes to the cause of conversion, salvation, or any of its constituent components BUT on the occasion when causality is explicitly assigned it is ALWAYS attributed to God and NEVER the will or choice of the still-unregenerate, sinfully dead and enslaved will of the flesh. I can provide several scriptures that, in essence, say "God did it," but no one - either you or me - can provide a single scripture explicitly stating, "The sinner's sin-enslaved fleshly will did it."

Think otherwise? Then just post the verses. That will end the debate instantaneously. Short thread.

Hosea 14:2, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-39.

Debate ended?

 

[justbyfaith]

Someone taught you the will of the flesh was involved in conversion, but scripture never actually states that.

It states that we are not regenerated apart from making a free will decision to receive Christ; which is neither of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man.

My contention has always been that no one can come to Christ unless he is drawn to Him by the Father.

However, being drawn to Christ is not the same thing as being given to Christ.

In being drawn to Christ, I am given the opportunity to receive Christ; and if I receive Him, I am regenerated and given to Christ by the Father.

Being drawn to Christ does not guarantee being given to Christ.

But in being drawn to Christ, we are given a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

Receive Him and be regenerated.

Reject Him; and you were drawn to Christ, but never saved.

 

[makesends]

No, it is a misconception that may be logically concluded from the concepts of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election.

That, "I may not be of the elect; and if that is the case, then I cannot be saved."

The reality is that if you desire to walk through the door into salvation, you can walk through it...

Jesus will in no wise cast you out.

Thus John 6:37 refutes the two combined tenets of Calvinism from time's perspective.

I'm curious why you keep positively referencing time's perspective, as if that was relevant to what the truth is, or what Scripture means. That somebody might come up with a negative false inference from what is true, due to their temporal point of view, is no reason to abandon the truth.

The truth that "Jesus will in no wise cast you out" doesn't refute anything Calvinism teaches, that I know of. Time's perspective doesn't change the facts.

There is more reason to distrust time's perspective than God's perspective.

 

[makesends]

by hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord (Romans 10:17).

I didn't ask how faith comes, but from where.

 

[jeremiah1five]

It appears to me that in Calvinism there is a very deep-rooted problem that amounts to heresy and I believe that it needs to be addressed.
And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ.
I will only say that if this is the case, then coming to Christ isn't necessary; since regeneration happens before it (and thus apart from it).
This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine.

If it is justbyfaith then regeneration isn't necessary.