The heresy that I find inherent in Calvinism

[makesends]

Yes it is.

And you know there are passages of scripture that show free will. Total depravity or "T" is an unfortunate word choice, which is why reformed Christians seek to change it because they KNOW it isn't true.

Because they know WHAT isn't true? The reality behind the words, or that the words aren't apt to the description?

 

[His clay]

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.

"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."
Ok

"And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ."
That lets us know what you think the problem is; but were waiting for why, scripturally, this amounts to heresy.

"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)."
Notice the if/then or since/then type of argument. If this is true, then something follows. A non-sequitur fallacy is when a conclusion does not follow from the premise. In this case, we have an amazing example of the non-sequitur fallacy.

The argument: since regeneration happens before coming to Christ (and thus apart from it), then coming to Christ isn't necessary.
We have the premise and the conclusion.

(1) This only demonstrates an incompetent ignorance of Calvinism. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith logically, not temporally. And regeneration brings about faith. It is a change of nature in the depraved person that then leads to the person's action. There is a tight causal connection between the change of nature and the actions that follow from it (i.e. conversion, actions that are brought about by the change).

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary; and coming to Christ necessarily follows from the change of nature produced by God. Hence, we go right back to the original fallacy. It is a rather blatant non-sequitur fallacy, for the conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Where once a person loved darkness and hated the light, after the change, then the person sees Christ and his sin in a new light, and belief and repentance necessarily follow.

"This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine."
The problem is not with Calvinism but rather with an overzealous poster who hasn't done his homework, and is willing to slander a straw man before learning the basics.

 

[His clay]

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".

Excellent!

 

[His clay]

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.

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.

I'm glad you caught the shift in terms, from "regeneration preceding faith" to "regeneration preceding coming to Jesus". I missed that in my own critique because I mentally inserted "faith" as nearly synonymous with "coming to Jesus". I also see your wise decision to ask questions preemptively in a non-optional way to try to push the poster to engage. I haven't read the thread past your post here, so I don't know if your stipulation succeeded.

Great post!

 

[His clay]

I see that the opening poster simply ignored Josheb's initial post (post #4) addressing the opening post! @Josheb

 

[Arial]

Yes it is.

Either you did not read or did not understand what I wrote. In any case your certainly did not address it and your only refutation of it was, "Yes it is." Which means nothing in the grand scheme of things. And not as a conversation. So a question. How is it possible for the human will to be free if we are in bondage to sin?

So here we need to clarify what you think the human will is. Would you do that for me please? Is it outside of us or inside of us. Is our will autonomous over us? And are we not in subjection to God, whether we know it or not or acknowledge it or not?

And you know there are passages of scripture that show free will.

What passages? Give me an example of three.

Total depravity or "T" is an unfortunate word choice, which is why reformed Christians seek to change it because they KNOW it isn't true.

The only reason total depravity is an unfortunate choice of words is because this is not the 1600's and people are far less inclined to think a thing through. They prefer to jump to conclusions. Reformed Christians are not changing the meaning when they change the word so as to more clearly (to post modern people), express the doctrine in it, not because it isn't true.

Give me your idea of what total depravity means, since simply saying it is wrong without even putting forth what you think it is, makes a discussion of it impossible.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why not? How does the Spirit make him able to do what he couldn't do before?

The Spirit, like an alarm clock, "wakes him up" so that he now has a free will decision to make...whether to hit the snooze button and go back into the sleep of spiritual death or to wake up completely as the result of the Spirit waking him up.

I say that being drawn does not guarantee being given; it does not guarantee salvation.

It is merely the enabling of the Spirit so that a person can make a decision to receive Christ...

And if that decision is made, the person is then given to God and nothing can ever snatch him out of Jesus' hand.

 

[justbyfaith]

Again? Will you read and consider it this time?



25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”




35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”


41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”



52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.





60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.

I have read and considered your post; and I still do not see any contradiction.

 

[justbyfaith]

More clearly than Jesus did? Isn't it the Bible we are meant to read and understand?

I'm certain that it was not Jesus' aim to point out contradictions in His own teaching.

You seem to be the one who wants to do that.

Just quoting the scriptures isn't going to cut it in this; you are going to have to type out how and why you see a contradiction when it comes to each scripture that you believe is contradicting itself in light of my theology.

 

[justbyfaith]

The first half of your statement is contradicted by the second half. A free will decision is of the flesh and the will of man. The passage your refer to goes on to say "but it is of God."

He obviously gives people the right to become the children of God as the result of the fact that they receive Him (John 1:12).

The question being, does receiving Him constitute an act of free will?

 

[justbyfaith]

And all that are drawn He will raise up at the last day.

He will raise up at the last day all who come to Him, in context.

 

[justbyfaith]

According to the scripture you refer to and in the very same sentence it does for Jesus also said those drawn to Him are the same ones He will raise up at the last day.

Nope, it is those who come to Him whom He will raise up at the last day.

 

[justbyfaith]

Then Jesus lied when He said He would raise up at the last day all who were drawn to Him.

No; because He does not save everyone whom He draws. And He said that He would raise up at the last day those who would come to Him.

 

[justbyfaith]

You have established nothing. How can something be logical and also false at the same time? Is God illogical? There is no redemption for those God does not save. How could there be?

If something logically follows from premise #1 and premise #2 but it turns out that the logical conclusion is false, that would be because either premise #1 or premise #2 (or both) are false.

 

[justbyfaith]

You need to stop asking people to do what they have already done, over and over and over, and then saying that they haven't done so.

I haven't heard any kind of refutation of my logic coming from you.

Saying that you have already answered it is I don't know what type of logical fallacy.

So, now, we just have to take your word for it that you have answered it when it is clear that it has been nowhere answered.

You can easily prove me wrong if you have answered it by using the quote feature and quoting the post where you answered it.

But I don't think it will be very easy for you because you haven't answered it.

 

[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."
Ok

"And that is that the doctrine proclaims that a person is regenerated before they can come to Christ."
That lets us know what you think the problem is; but were waiting for why, scripturally, this amounts to heresy.

"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)."
Notice the if/then or since/then type of argument. If this is true, then something follows. A non-sequitur fallacy is when a conclusion does not follow from the premise. In this case, we have an amazing example of the non-sequitur fallacy.

The argument: since regeneration happens before coming to Christ (and thus apart from it), then coming to Christ isn't necessary.
We have the premise and the conclusion.

(1) This only demonstrates an incompetent ignorance of Calvinism. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith logically, not temporally. And regeneration brings about faith. It is a change of nature in the depraved person that then leads to the person's action. There is a tight causal connection between the change of nature and the actions that follow from it (i.e. conversion, actions that are brought about by the change).

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary; and coming to Christ necessarily follows from the change of nature produced by God. Hence, we go right back to the original fallacy. It is a rather blatant non-sequitur fallacy, for the conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Where once a person loved darkness and hated the light, after the change, then the person sees Christ and his sin in a new light, and belief and repentance necessarily follow.

"This is an abject heresy of Calvinism that must needs be corrected within its own framework of theology and doctrine."
The problem is not with Calvinism but rather with an overzealous poster who hasn't done his homework, and is willing to slander a straw man before learning the basics.

I will only say that if regeneration happens before coming to Christ / faith, that it does indeed happen apart from it.

Think about this. If salvation comes when regeneration happens, and faith comes afterwards, then faith wasn't necessary for salvation / regeneration.

I think that if your eyes are opened you can see this.

 

[Arial]

The Spirit, like an alarm clock, "wakes him up" so that he now has a free will decision to make...whether to hit the snooze button and go back into the sleep of spiritual death or to wake up completely as the result of the Spirit waking him up.

You might consider writing children's books instead of engaging in theological and doctrinal discussions.

I say that being drawn does not guarantee being given; it does not guarantee salvation.

Then you disagree with Jesus. I am pretty sure you know that since your have a well functioning brain, are able to read and understand sentences as perfectly clear as "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." followed by "That iswhy I said, no one can come to me unless the Father grants him." It must simply be too scary for you to stop trusting in yourself.

 

[justbyfaith]

You might consider writing children's books instead of engaging in theological and doctrinal discussions.

It has been said that teachers would do well to place the cookies on the bottom shelf.

Then you disagree with Jesus. I am pretty sure you know that since your have a well functioning brain, are able to read and understand sentences as perfectly clear as "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." followed by "That iswhy I said, no one can come to me unless the Father grants him." It must simply be too scary for you to stop trusting in yourself.

I do not see myself as disagreeing with Jesus. For in John 6:44, He does not say that He will raise every one whom He has drawn on the last day; but that He will raise up on the last day everyone who comes to Him.

Then in John 6:65, it is speaking of something that is slightly different: our being given to Christ by the Father.

Here, it should become clear that in being drawn to Christ we are given an opportunity and are enabled to come to Christ in faith.

And if we come to Christ, we are given to Christ.

Not before.

A man may be drawn to Christ and yet not come to Christ.

Otherwise, all who are drawn to Christ would then be given to Christ, which is the heresy of Universalism:

For it is written,

Jhn 12:32, And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Therefore, if all who are drawn to Christ are given to Christ, then all are given to Christ (and therefore all would go to heaven).

However, we know from holy scripture that this is not the case.

Mat 13:41, The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42, And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 13:49, So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Mat 13:50, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 25:46, And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[Arial]

I do not see myself as disagreeing with Jesus. For in John 6:44, He does not say that He will raise every one whom He has drawn on the last day; but that He will raise up on the last day everyone who comes to Him.

He also says no one can come to Him unless it is granted him by the Father, prefacing that with "That is why I said, showing that He is saying the same thing as He said earlier, but emphasizing what He meant because of their refusal to hear the message. And we have Him saying that it is the ones God is giving to Him that are drawn and come. He is using those two words in the same way, not as two different things.

And we have Jesus saying in John 10 that the reason some did not believe is because they were not His sheep. And in Acts we saying all who were appointed to eternal life, believed.

And in 1 Cor Paul stating that the natural man is completely unable to understand spiritual things, which agrees completely with Jesus back there in John 6 saying the hard things He said were spirit and could only be spiritually understood----which leaves out all of mankind without an act of God on a person's heart, his very nature and character.

So you are ignoring much and go about coming to those scriptures that are given to you that without equivocation tear your presentation asunder, by desperately trying to make them same something they do not say.

 

[His clay]

I will only say that if regeneration happens before coming to Christ / faith, that it does indeed happen apart from it.

Think about this. If salvation comes when regeneration happens, and faith comes afterwards, then faith wasn't necessary for salvation / regeneration.

I think that if your eyes are opened you can see this.

Again, you have failed to even read my post. I've already dealt with this, and your sentence on thinking about it has already been demonstrated to be a straw man. I will present my post to you again because you clearly have not read it with comprehension. I will even underline key parts to get you up to speed with real positions, rather than your straw man.

"Notice the if/then or since/then type of argument. If this is true, then something follows. A non-sequitur fallacy is when a conclusion does not follow from the premise. In this case, we have an amazing example of the non-sequitur fallacy.

The argument: since regeneration happens before coming to Christ (and thus apart from it), then coming to Christ isn't necessary.
We have the premise and the conclusion.

(1) This only demonstrates an incompetent ignorance of Calvinism. In Calvinism regeneration precedes faith logically, not temporally. And regeneration brings about faith. It is a change of nature in the depraved person that then leads to the person's action. There is a tight causal connection between the change of nature and the actions that follow from it (i.e. conversion, actions that are brought about by the change).

(2) Not only does it demonstrate ignorance, but the argument demonstrates a straw man. The phrase "and thus apart from it" is simply not held by Calvinism. It is a foreign object inserted into Calvinism falsely.

(3) With the foreign object removed, then coming to Christ is completely necessary; and coming to Christ necessarily follows from the change of nature produced by God. Hence, we go right back to the original fallacy. It is a rather blatant non-sequitur fallacy, for the conclusion absolutely does not follow from the premise. Where once a person loved darkness and hated the light, after the change, then the person sees Christ and his sin in a new light, and belief and repentance necessarily follow."

Now, you can live in fictional straw man fallacy land, or you can read with a little comprehension. You aren't even dealing with Calvinism, but rather fighting against a fiction in your own head.