What type of Calvinist am I?

[David1701]

It's amazing how a little scripture can refute a load of opinion.

It's like a double-edged steel sword, versus a toy plastic butter knife.

 

[Eleanor]

ELEANOR:

I have provided those scriptures in my other posts on this subject. Look them up. I'm busy with other matters. But it will not make any difference which scriptures I provide, you will probably reject or distort them. Such has been the case with every Calvinist I have ever dealt with.​

I'm not the author of the post to which you are responding.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Did you mean this for Arial? I will take your answer as able to give the scriptures but unable to exegete them.

Eleanor & Arial:

See posts 32, 61, 119, 129, 124, 122 in particular, 143, 161, 164.

 

[makesends]

Eleanor:

You noted, "Where do you think the faith comes from? Are you capable of such faith?"

If God has given us the ability to disbelief, and He has, He has also given us the ability to believe. To deny this is to entertain the idea that we are mere robots. There are hundreds of scriptures that totally disprove your doctrinal analysis.​

The command to believe does not imply the ability to believe. It, in fact, demonstrates the deadness of the heart / mind, that man WILL not believe, until God regenerates him.

But the logic is weak also, that if God gives one the ability to disbelieve that he must therefore give him the ability to believe. That simply does not follow. In fact, it demonstrates the presumption of libertarian free will, instead of supporting it.

 

[Arial]

In Romans, chapter 9. the great apostle speaks of God’s mercy and compassion, as well as the objects of His wrath. Paul writes that before Esau and Jacob, twins, were born, God elected that Esau would serve Jacob (vs. 10-13). The twins represented two nations or races. One race was loved and the other race hated. God asserted His right to choose or reject nations. Paul does not seem to be addressing the election of some persons to eternal salvation and others to damnation. God’s purpose in election on this occasion related to nations. It was promised—elected—that Jacob should become the father of a great nation.

That theory falls apart when you get to verse 14-18.
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then He has mercy on whoever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.

And what is it that Paul is speaking of when he says "it depends not on human will but on God who has mercy."

Verses 6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed, For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Eleanor:

I will “rest my oars” for a while after these remarks on Calvinism. I have other matters to address. But I’m curious. Is “Eleanor” your pen name? Are you male or female? The reason I’m asking is that a few years ago I encountered a male Calvinist whose views and presentations are very similar to yours. No, I don’t think you're transgender, unless figuratively! Clarify, if you wish. [The following message is also intended for "Aral" and "Makesends."]

Yes, a man’s heart is opened prior to his conversion. And, yes, a man is drawn to the Father prior to his conversion. All of this action is the result of a belief in and acceptance of the message of salvation. Paul says, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

Nowhere in scripture is there any indication that “born again” is employed the way Calvinists use the expression. It is not a question of whether a man’s heart is opened or “quickened”—or is made aware of his need for salvation—prior to faith and repentance. We agree that, indeed, his heart is opened. But how? Through the message of salvation (Rom. 10:17). “Born again” is never used in conjunction with the opening of a man’s heart prior to believing and repenting—never once.

The receptive heart who turns his face toward heaven is quickened or made alive. He is, at that point, made aware of his wretched condition and responds optimistically. However, being quickened is not the same as being born anew. The 3,000 on the birthday of the new order were quickened by Peter’s message—“cut to the heart”—and the rebirth followed their faith and repentance/reformation.

In the light of scripture, one can accept the influence of the Spirit in conversion and still conclude that a person is free to accept or reject the Gospel, to believe or disbelieve it. Remove human responsibility from the equation and you have a Bible that makes no sense. If when Jesus said “He who has ears to hear let him hear” they were not free to hear (respond), He would be talking nonsense. He was amazed at the disbelief of some because He well knew they could have and should have believed (Mark 6:6).

The Calvinist asks, “But how does a man achieve a receptive heart? Who gave it to him? How did he come by it?” And I answer: Each person has been granted the ability to develop either a receptive heart or a non-receptive heart. In other words, God enables us to be receptive or non-receptive. The decision is ours. For if God forces a receptive heart upon those whom he foreknew, He has also forced a non-receptive heart upon those he did not foreknow. This translates into the truth that our God has compelled a segment of the population to be saved and the remainder to be lost. This bit of untruth clashes with heaven’s testimony.

Calvinists assert, “Man may choose, but he always chooses to disobey God, because he is so totally depraved.” This runs 100% counter to what Jesus declares. “If anyone chooses to do God’s will...” (John 7:17). The two statements cannot, under any circumstances, be reconciled. Either Jesus is wrong or the Calvinist is wrong. I’ll go with Jesus.

Furthermore, if the sinner is incapable of choosing the path he will tread, as Calvinists seem to imply, and if God operates upon his heart to the degree that he cannot resist, we have a Savior who is not issuing an invitation to the sinner, as Jesus did, but a Savior who issues an ultimatum and leaves no alternative but to accept. This is contrary to hundreds of scriptures, particularly Jesus’ invitation to all “those who are burdened.” He said, “Come to me, all of you...” But I see the Calvinist saying, in so many words, “Come to me, because I’m constraining you to come. You have no choice.”

As noted, I rest my oars for a while.​

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor:

I will “rest my oars” for a while after these remarks on Calvinism. I have other matters to address. But I’m curious. Is “Eleanor” your pen name? Are you male or female? The reason I’m asking is that a few years ago I encountered a male Calvinist whose views and presentations are very similar to yours. No, I don’t think you're transgender, unless figuratively! Clarify, if you wish. [The following message is also intended for "Aral" and "Makesends."]​

Or did you just presume the other poster was male?

Yes, a man’s heart is opened prior to his conversion. And, yes, a man is drawn to the Father prior to his conversion. All of this action is the result of a belief in and acceptance of the message of salvation. Paul says, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

Nowhere in scripture is there any indication that “born again” is employed the way Calvinists use the expression. It is not a question of whether a man’s heart is opened or “quickened”—or is made aware of his need for salvation—prior to faith and repentance. We agree that, indeed, his heart is opened. But how? Through the message of salvation (Rom. 10:17). “Born again” is never used in conjunction with the opening of a man’s heart prior to believing and repenting—never once.​

How about: No one can (even) see the kingdom of God until he is born again (Jn 3:3-5).

If you can't even see it, your heart is certainly not open to it, or you would be able to see it.

The receptive heart who turns his face toward heaven is quickened or made alive.​

No one turns his face toward heaven apart from the grace of God making his heart receptive.

He is, at that point, made aware of his wretched condition and responds optimistically. However, being quickened is not the same as being born anew. The 3,000 on the birthday of the new order were quickened by Peter’s message—“cut to the heart”—and the rebirth followed their faith and repentance/reformation.

In the light of scripture, one can accept the influence of the Spirit in conversion and still conclude that a person is free to accept or reject the Gospel, to believe or disbelieve it. ​

Not in the light of Scripture in my Bible. See Jn 3:3-5 for starters.

Remove human responsibility from the equation and you have a Bible that makes no sense. If when Jesus said “He who has ears to hear let him hear” they were not free to hear (respond), He would be talking nonsense.​

No, he would be talking to the elect, who do have ears to hear.
That one has ears that do not hear (i.e., do not like what they hear and, therefore, do not choose it) does not remove their responsibility for not obeying.

He was amazed at the disbelief of some because He well knew they could have and should have believed (Mark 6:6).​

He was amazed at both unbelief and belief (Lk 7:9).​

The Calvinist asks, “But how does a man achieve a receptive heart? Who gave it to him? How did he come by it?” And I answer: Each person has been granted the ability to develop either a receptive heart or a non-receptive heart. In other words, God enables us to be receptive or non-receptive. The decision is ours.​

And the NT answers:
The world cannot accept him (Holy Spirit) because it neither sees him nor knows him (Jn 14:17)
No one can (even) see the kingdom of God apart from a complete rebirth into eternal life (Jn 3:3-5).
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things of God, for they are foolishness to him (1 Co 2:14).

For if God forces a receptive heart upon those whom he foreknew, He has also forced a non-receptive heart upon those he did not foreknow.​

Your human logic does not govern the divine economy.

This translates into the truth that our God has compelled a segment of the population to be saved and the remainder to be lost. This bit of untruth clashes with heaven’s testimony.​

It translates into no such "truth," for God can well give one the desire to be submissive to God in all things, which he then willingly chooses to do, no compelling involved.

Calvinists assert, “Man may choose, but he always chooses to disobey God, because he is so totally depraved.” This runs 100% counter to what Jesus declares. “If anyone chooses to do God’s will...” (John 7:17). The two statements cannot, under any circumstances, be reconciled.​

Contraire. . .only those whom God enables to do so choose to do God's will, which alters absolutely nothing regarding Jesus' statement.

Either Jesus is wrong or the Calvinist is wrong. I’ll go with Jesus.​

So do I, all is in agreement with Jesus.

Furthermore, if the sinner is incapable of choosing the path he will tread, as Calvinists seem to imply, and if God operates upon his heart to the degree that he cannot resist, we have a Savior who is not issuing an invitation to the sinner,​

Nope, Jesus' invitation is to those sinners in whose heart the Holy Spirit is at work; i.e., the elect.
Jesus calls out the elect from condemned (Ro 5:18) mankind and, because they have ears that can hear (their hearts are in agreement), they come. No one else does.

Jesus did, but a Savior who issues an ultimatum and leaves no alternative but to accept.​

It's not an ultimatum, it's an invitation, which is accepted by all those whom God has given hearts to do so.

This is contrary to hundreds of scriptures, particularly Jesus’ invitation to all “those who are burdened.” He said, “Come to me, all of you...” But I see the Calvinist saying, in so many words, “Come to me, because I’m constraining you to come. You have no choice.”​

This is contrary to none of those Scriptures. Rather, it is your assumptions to which this is contrary.

 

[Arial]

The Calvinist asks, “But how does a man achieve a receptive heart? Who gave it to him? How did he come by it?” And I answer: Each person has been granted the ability to develop either a receptive heart or a non-receptive heart. In other words, God enables us to be receptive or non-receptive.

How do you know that? You are speaking for God and assuming things that are not given in the scriptures. The thing about Reformed theology, at least in its purest form today, is that it does not presume things. It simply goes by what God says in His word without trying to change meanings, apply one thing to the wrong thing, keeping the truths of the Bible consistent throughout. This argument that you give is one arrived at to counter Reformed theology, it isn't for something on its own, it is against something. and does what it deems necessary to do so while appearing to be true to the word but leaves a lot of it out. If all we have is a God who enables us to be receptive or unreceptive to the gospel, we have a God who lacks omnipotence and/or One who only provided the means of salvation by Christ going to the cross, but who did not actually save anyone. And yet God declares, He is the Savior, He saves, He snatches sinners out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of the Son He loves.

For if God forces a receptive heart upon those whom he foreknew, He has also forced a non-receptive heart upon those he did not foreknow. This translates into the truth that our God has compelled a segment of the population to be saved and the remainder to be lost. This bit of untruth clashes with heaven’s testimony.

That is faulty logic and a logical fallacy. First of all "compel" is your word, not the actual teaching of Reformed. Did God suddenly become unable to perform what we see as miracles after Christ died and rose again? And can we not accept something as a miracle unless we see it happening? And must we tell God what He can and cannot do, or will or won't do? We are born in Adam. We are reborn in Christ. Not by the will of the flesh, or man's will, but born of God. And if we believe the gospel when we hear it, it is because we have been reborn in Him. Pure, sweet, grace.

Second, He compels no one to be lost either. We are born lost in Adam.

A friendly request. When you are responding to a post by quoting it, that is all you need to do for the recipient to be notified. If you want it drawn to the attention of other posters @ them i,e, @Buff Scott Jr. When you put the person's name in bold at the top of a post , and then someone quotes your post with that name at the top it causes confusion as to who said what.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Eleanor:

JESUS— “If anyone chooses to do God’s will...” (John 7:17).

ELEANOR— “Only those whom God enables to do so choose to do God’s will, which alters absolutely nothing regarding Jesus’ statement."—Post #187.

THAYER’S GREEK ON “ANYONE”: “An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object...”

Conclusion: No mention of a particular kind of person. "Anyone" relates to and embraces all without limit. Calvinism is blown asunder again! But what’s new in reference to a false doctrinal agenda.

Goodnight & So Long​

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor:

JESUS— “If anyone chooses to do God’s will...” (John 7:17).

ELEANOR— “Only those whom God enables to do so choose to do God’s will, which alters absolutely nothing regarding Jesus’ statement."—Post #187.
THAYER’S GREEK ON “ANYONE”: “An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object...”
Conclusion: No mention of a particular kind of person.​

So?

Where is the rule that there has to be one there?
It is found in many other places.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Can you explain the supposed connection between total depravity and human conscience? There is no obvious contradiction, inconsistency, or even tension between affirming the doctrine of total depravity and that every person is born with a conscience.

In fact, the charge represented in your comment is so common that Frank Beck, in his small book The Five Points of Calvinism (1974), specifically addressed it before explaining the doctrine of total depravity:

​

Lest we be misunderstood or misrepresented, it is important that we state, first of all, what we do not mean by total depravity.​

​

First, we do not mean that man does not have a conscience. After Adam sinned he hid himself from Jehovah God (Gen. 3:8). Adam would not have done this had he not had a guilty conscience. Likewise, though totally depraved, the accusers of the adulterous woman were "convicted by their own conscience" as Christ wrote on the ground and challenged the sinless one to cast the first stone (John 8:9).​

​

The Belgic Confession belongs to the Three Forms of Unity, the confessional standards of my church. So, I feel qualified and well-suited to take the bait. Would you care to defend this claim of yours with me?

It's not a claim, just a statement of an actual fact. I could go back and dig out the exact quotation from the Belgic confession but I don't see how you can refute it. If I say 1+1=2 and you disagree you are the one with the problem there. Of course, it is easy to lift a quotation from any book that supports your viewpoint, like you have done here.

So, to answer your question. If the Belgic confession says "Man is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing anything good", that is clearly contradicted by the fact that man has a conscience from birth and does do many "good" acts. Now, this is not about salvation, which is a different matter. As I expect, you will counter that man is incapable of doing "anything good" at all with regard to his position before God. But that isn't the issue I am attempting to bring up.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If the Belgic Confession says "Man is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing anything good," that is clearly contradicted by the fact that man has a conscience from birth and does do many "good" acts.

If the Belgic Confession asserts that man is incapable of doing anything good, then it is simply question-begging to assert the contrary as a fact, that man "does do many ‘good’ acts." The Confession says they don't, so refuting that will require more than merely asserting the contrary, and an argument which doesn't assume the very thing to be proved. For example, you could define moral good in biblical terms and show how man, in the flesh, can do such things. (This is assuming that you think the position can be refuted and are willing to do so, either of which may not be the case.)

According to Reformed theology and consistent with the Confession, moral good typically refers to thoughts, words, or actions that align with God's will and are in accordance with his moral standards (i.e., living in a way that is pleasing to God). Thus, the contrast of good refers to that which is contrary to God's will and moral standards (i.e., living in a way that is not pleasing to God). This is why the Confession states that unregenerate sinners are unable to do anything good, because "the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Rom 8:7, NIV). Unregenerate sinners, those who are in the flesh, cannot do anything pleasing to God (v. 8). They are enslaved to sin (John 8.34), and only the salvation of Christ frees them from that enslavement (v. 36; cf. Rom 6:18, 22). I daresay that man, apart from God's transformative grace, is happy to call good "evil" and evil "good."

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

If the Belgic Confession asserts that man is incapable of doing anything good, then it is simply question-begging to assert the contrary as a fact, that man "does do many ‘good’ acts." The Confession says they don't, so refuting that will require more than merely asserting the contrary, and an argument which doesn't assume the very thing to be proved. For example, you could define moral good in biblical terms and show how man, in the flesh, can do such things. (This is assuming that you think the position can be refuted and are willing to do so, either of which may not be the case.)

According to Reformed theology and consistent with the Confession, moral good typically refers to thoughts, words, or actions that align with God's will and are in accordance with his moral standards (i.e., living in a way that is pleasing to God). Thus, the contrast of good refers to that which is contrary to God's will and moral standards (i.e., living in a way that is not pleasing to God). This is why the Confession states that unregenerate sinners are unable to do anything good, because "the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Rom 8:7, NIV). Unregenerate sinners, those who are in the flesh, cannot do anything pleasing to God (v. 8). They are enslaved to sin (John 8.34), and only the salvation of Christ frees them from that enslavement (v. 36; cf. Rom 6:18, 22). I daresay that man, apart from God's transformative grace, is happy to call good "evil" and evil "good."

Then this Belgic Confession ought to also state that unregenerate people can do "good" things and have a conscience to clear up the confusion. Nobody is arguing that man in the unregenerate state can do nothing pleasing to God. It helps to clarify thing by explanation and additional information, because as it stands by itself it's just an assertion that people have to fill in the blanks with.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Then this Belgic Confession ought to also state that unregenerate people can do "good" things and have a conscience, to clear up the confusion.

If the Reformed standards affirm that apart from the transformative grace of God nobody can do anything good of himself and is inclined to all evil, that he is incapable of living in any way pleasing to God, then why should the Belgic Confession contradict this—and itself!—and state that "unregenerate people can do good things"? That would create confusion, not clear it up.

(And what is confusing at any rate? The Confession seems fairly straight forward, clear, and self-consistent.)

Nobody is arguing that man in the unregenerate state can do nothing pleasing to God.

Actually, the Reformed standards are arguing precisely that, and something like 70 million Christians subscribe to these standards. That's not exactly "nobody."

And lest we forget the plot, I want to recap where we have been.

(1) It began with your response to another member, wherein you said, "There [are] many books on the subject [of total depravity] and many of them actually say that men are incapable of doing ANYTHING good. This is simply not the case." (2) That member wanted an example, and you replied, "I believe the Belgic Confession says it"—and indeed it does. (3) Since I am a member of a Reformed church that subscribes to those confessional standards, I felt qualified and willing to take the bait and have you defend your claim, namely, that it is "simply not the case" that man is incapable of doing anything good.
​

Since you said it is simply not the case that "man in the unregenerate state can do nothing pleasing to God," and since I subscribe to the Belgic Confession which argues that it is, I've been inviting you to defend your claim.

 

[makesends]

It's not a claim, just a statement of an actual fact. I could go back and dig out the exact quotation from the Belgic confession but I don't see how you can refute it. If I say 1+1=2 and you disagree you are the one with the problem there. Of course, it is easy to lift a quotation from any book that supports your viewpoint, like you have done here.

So, to answer your question. If the Belgic confession says "Man is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing anything good", that is clearly contradicted by the fact that man has a conscience from birth and does do many "good" acts. Now, this is not about salvation, which is a different matter. As I expect, you will counter that man is incapable of doing "anything good" at all with regard to his position before God. But that isn't the issue I am attempting to bring up.

If the Belgic Confession asserts that man is incapable of doing anything good, then it is simply question-begging to assert the contrary as a fact, that man "does do many ‘good’ acts." The Confession says they don't, so refuting that will require more than merely asserting the contrary, and an argument which doesn't assume the very thing to be proved. For example, you could define moral good in biblical terms and show how man, in the flesh, can do such things. (This is assuming that you think the position can be refuted and are willing to do so, either of which may not be the case.)

According to Reformed theology and consistent with the Confession, moral good typically refers to thoughts, words, or actions that align with God's will and are in accordance with his moral standards (i.e., living in a way that is pleasing to God). Thus, the contrast of good refers to that which is contrary to God's will and moral standards (i.e., living in a way that is not pleasing to God). This is why the Confession states that unregenerate sinners are unable to do anything good, because "the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Rom 8:7, NIV). Unregenerate sinners, those who are in the flesh, cannot do anything pleasing to God (v. 8). They are enslaved to sin (John 8.34), and only the salvation of Christ frees them from that enslavement (v. 36; cf. Rom 6:18, 22). I daresay that man, apart from God's transformative grace, is happy to call good "evil" and evil "good."

There seems to be in Dave's statements, a misapprehension of what "good" means in this context. The Ninevites did good in repenting of their sinful ways, but I don't know of any evidence that any of them were actually saved. In all the unsaved, their "good", in fact, is fraught with corruption, to the core. It is not that it is not good to refrain from evil, but what they seem to think is good, is not good enough, and therefore, not good in the sense of 'Godliness'. Even as believers, if we give out of obligation and not generosity, what good is it? Is obedience merely compliance, or is it, rather, submission?

This is probably the clearest to see, concerning regeneration, grace, faith and salvation. There is a source to salvific faith, and it is not the believer, but the Spirit of God. Only God is good.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Ninevites did good in repenting of their sinful ways, ...

True, we don't know that any of them were saved, but we also don't know that none of them were saved. So much for what we don't know.

What we do know, however, is that the people of Nineveh—generally, not universally—responded to Jonah's message with repentance. They declared a fast, put on sackcloth (a sign of mourning and repentance), and turned from their evil ways. This collective repentance extended even to the king of Nineveh, who issued a decree calling on everyone to turn from their wickedness and cry out to God for mercy.

We also know that it is God who works in the hearts of people to bring about genuine repentance. When unregenerate sinners experience true repentance, it is a result of hearing God's message and being granted the ability to recognize their sinfulness and turn toward him in humility and contrition. Genuine repentance is a demonstration of the transformative power of the Spirit.

So, here is what I see in the story of Nineveh:

1. Divine Initiative: God's message, delivered through the prophet Jonah, is the means by which God called them to repentance. The fact that they responded positively to this message should be seen as evidence of God's sovereign work in their hearts.

2. Recognition of Sinfulness: If repentance involves a recognition of one's sinfulness and a turning away from it in humility toward God, then their willingness to fast, put on sackcloth, and turn from their evil ways could demonstrate their acknowledgment of their damnable state—a recognition that must be attributed to God's work in their hearts, enabling them to see the need for repentance.

3. Humility and Contrition: If repentance involves a sense of humility and contrition—a genuine sorrow for one's sins and a desire to turn toward God—then their actions, including their fasting and wearing of sackcloth, could be viewed as signs of their contrition and humility before God.

Were any of them saved? We don't know. But we do know that nobody can genuinely repentant apart from God working in their heart, and the Ninevites appeared to genuinely repent. I think that is the most we can say, which is enough to deny that this story serves as proof that people can do things of themselves that are pleasing to God.

In all the unsaved, their good, in fact, is fraught with corruption—to the core.

Which is to say, perhaps, that their good is actually not good at all, just a better kind of sin—if such a thing can be said. The fact that an unclean spirit can go out and find seven other spirits more evil than itself (Matt 12:43-45) suggests to me that there are worse and better sins, but they are all nevertheless sins. If a corrupt good is ultimately sinful, can we just admit its sinfulness?

It is not that it's not good to refrain from evil, ...

I agree that refraining from this or that particular sin is good. But what I hear the Bible telling us is that such refraining is the work of God—that is to say, the person is not refraining in and of himself from this or that sin. As God told Abimelech, "I have kept you from sinning against me and did not let you touch her" (Gen 20:6). If someone refrains from sinning, it is not of himself. One should not give to man the credit that belongs to God.

And we must remember that sin is a matter of the heart—which God alone can see. Not even the sinner himself can truly know how deceitful and wicked his own heart is. So, we might observe someone doing things that seem truly good, like sheltering and feeding the homeless, but what is his motivation? Is he doing it for selfish reasons (because it makes him feel better about himself) or in the name of secular humanism (which is idolatry)? Then he is not doing good but sinning. The outside of the cup might be carefully polished and gleaming, but inside is utterly filthy. Again, "If a corrupt good is ultimately sinful, can we just admit its sinfulness?"

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Your Result: Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian 88%

You are not Reformed by any means, whether it be ecclesiologically, eschatologically, or soteriologically. You probably believe that Calvinism is a damnable heresy.

Low Calvinist - 77%
Reformed Baptist - 28%
Dispensationalist Calvinist - 26%
Moderate Calvinist - 8%
High Calvinist - 0%
Hyper Calvinist - 0%
Augustinian Calvinist - 0%
Reformed Presbyterian - 0%

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

If the Reformed standards affirm that apart from the transformative grace of God nobody can do anything good of himself and is inclined to all evil, that he is incapable of living in any way pleasing to God, then why should the Belgic Confession contradict this—and itself!—and state that "unregenerate people can do good things"? That would create confusion, not clear it up.

(And what is confusing at any rate? The Confession seems fairly straight forward, clear, and self-consistent.)




Actually, the Reformed standards are arguing precisely that, and something like 70 million Christians subscribe to these standards. That's not exactly "nobody."

And lest we forget the plot, I want to recap where we have been.

​

(1) It began with your response to another member, wherein you said, "There [are] many books on the subject [of total depravity] and many of them actually say that men are incapable of doing ANYTHING good. This is simply not the case." (2) That member wanted an example, and you replied, "I believe the Belgic Confession says it"—and indeed it does. (3) Since I am a member of a Reformed church that subscribes to those confessional standards, I felt qualified and willing to take the bait and have you defend your claim, namely, that it is "simply not the case" that man is incapable of doing anything good.​

​

Since you said it is simply not the case that "man in the unregenerate state can do nothing pleasing to God," and since I subscribe to the Belgic Confession which argues that it is, I've been inviting you to defend your claim.

When I said "Nobody is arguing"... etc, I was referring to us, you and me and the other posters here in this forum. Not the entire population of Protestant Christians. Otherwise, I would have been talking about that and not this, here, between us. That should have been obvious. Perhaps it is my colloquial style, but I am English, from England and I speak English and have done for 40 plus years. Where are you from, sir?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

When I said "Nobody is arguing"... etc, I was referring to us, you and me and the other posters here in this forum. Not the entire population of Protestant Christians. Otherwise, I would have been talking about that and not this, here, between us. That should have been obvious. Perhaps it is my colloquial style, but I am English, from England and I speak English and have done for 40 plus years. Where are you from, sir?

I think you need to review the thread. Between you, me, and other posters here in this forum, I am arguing, sir—along with millions of other Christians who subscribe to the Reformed confessional standards—that man in the unregenerate state can do nothing pleasing to God. And since you said, "This is simply not the case," I have been inviting you to defend your claim.

P.S. I live in Canada. We speak the Queen's English here. I am also a writer, and have been for more years than you've been speaking English.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I think you need to review the thread. Between you, me, and other posters here in this forum, I am arguing, sir—along with millions of other Christians who subscribe to the Reformed confessional standards—that man in the unregenerate state can do nothing pleasing to God. And since you said, "This is simply not the case," I have been inviting you to defend your claim.

P.S. I live in Canada. We speak the Queen's English here. I am also a writer, and have been for more years than you've been speaking English.

Well, I speak the Queens English in London, the genuine article. I think that trumps your second hand Canadian English.

The fact you boast about writing for longer than I have been alive reveals pride and a bad attitude. When a person resorts of exaggeration to make a point, they just lost the point.

Regarding the human conscience that is spiritually dead that can perform good works and moral fruit, the Bible does not say that people are incapable of doing anything good in an unregenerate state. Besides this and all the Biblical verses that can be mustered to support human responsibility that denotes freedom of choice, and the choice to please God with worship and moral behaviour or become an apostate completely, it is common sense factual knowledge that there are evil and good or bad and good people on this planet that have a moral system in their tribe separate from anything Biblical or related to the Bible.

I am not constrained to accept any Church confessional statement just because it was written in the past and appears to have authority. My authority is God, and that is the inspired writing in the Bible from Him, not any man made theological system. Where these systems are in accord with the Bible I will accept them but where you are extra Biblical (in various ways) I will reject them. And I reject the Belgic Confession where it says "Man in an unregenerate state is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing ANYTHING GOOD". That is patently false. And misleading.