What type of Calvinist am I?

[DialecticSkeptic]

You said, "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?"

You then said, "I speak the Queens English in London, the genuine article. I think that trumps your second hand Canadian English."

And this is the person who accused me of boasting, pride, a bad attitude, and exaggeration? The irony is thick and very awesome.

As an aside, in the Queen's English there is either no space (more common) or a hyphen (less common) between "second" and "hand" when describing something previously owned or used (secondhand or second-hand). I have a second hand, a clock has a second hand, but the English language does not, Canadian or otherwise.

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.

Except it does—and you know it does, which obligates you to address those texts. For example, "I realize it says that in these passages, but here is why it doesn't mean that. Let's look at each one."

Besides this and all the Biblical verses that can be mustered to support human responsibility that denotes freedom of choice, ...

You are addressing a straw man argument. Calvinists believe that unregenerate sinners have freedom of choice. They just also believe those choices are always and only sinful. Unregenerate sinners freely choose between options, none of which are pleasing to God. Those controlled by the sinful nature CANNOT please God (Rom 8:8).

... all the Biblical verses that can be mustered to support human responsibility that denotes ... the choice to please God with worship and moral behaviour ...

Where are "all the biblical verses" demonstrating that unregenerate sinners can please God with worship and moral behavior? Strangely, you supplied absolutely none.

{I}t 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.

It is surely common, but I would argue that it's not factual and does not amount to knowledge. There is the common opinion of fallen humanity on the one hand, and what God says in the Bible on the other hand. If you can only appeal to the former, well, so be it. If you can point to anything in the latter, then it's pretty glaring that you chose not to.

I am not constrained to accept any Church confessional statement just because it was written in the past and appears to have authority.

I don't know why you shared that autobiographical detail. As far as I know, even those Christians who subscribe to confessional standards are likewise not constrained to accept those standards just because they were written in the past and appear to have authority. In fact, I know that some of those standards explicitly state that they have no authority in themselves but are subordinate to the scriptures, which is held up as the only supreme rule of faith and life. Just like you, where these systems are in accord with the Bible we must accept them, but where they are extrabiblical we are free to reject them.

And I reject the Belgic Confession where it says [that] man in an unregenerate state is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing ANYTHING GOOD. That is patently false. And misleading.

So you claim. But an unsupported claim is underwhelming. Where are all these Bible verses to which you have alluded? I can't figure out why they are missing.

 

[ReverendRV]

Are y'all having fun?

 

[makesends]

Dave_Regenerated said:
{I}t 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.

It is surely common, but I would argue that it's not factual and does not amount to knowledge. There is the common opinion of fallen humanity on the one hand, and what God says in the Bible on the other hand. If you can only appeal to the former, well, so be it. If you can point to anything in the latter, then it's pretty glaring that you chose not to.

Perhaps here is a good place to mention the principle of "trophic cascade." Anything affects everything.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

You said, "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?"

You then said, "I speak the Queens English in London, the genuine article. I think that trumps your second hand Canadian English."

And this is the person who accused me of boasting, pride, a bad attitude, and exaggeration? The irony is thick and very awesome.

As an aside, in the Queen's English there is either no space (more common) or a hyphen (less common) between "second" and "hand" when describing something previously owned or used (secondhand or second-hand). I have a second hand, a clock has a second hand, but the English language does not, Canadian or otherwise.


Yes, I sometimes make spelling mistakes or other typos. For some reason my computer tries to correct them by underlining in red, so I change. For example, to me, when you wrote "secondhand" it is underlined in red. But I don't care too much for perfection in this area as editing while I am on the fly (so to speak) wastes my time and it's not as important as the meaning behind what I am trying to convey. And yes, you do come across as boasting about your English. I just thought I would put you in your place.





You are addressing a straw man argument. Calvinists believe that unregenerate sinners have freedom of choice. They just also believe those choices are always and only sinful. Unregenerate sinners freely choose between options, none of which are pleasing to God. Those controlled by the sinful nature CANNOT please God (Rom 8:8).

It depends what you mean by "Calvinists". There are many different types.

"They just also believe those choices are always and only sinful". This is patently false, even if you believe it to be true. Jesus said the contrary, "out of a good mans heart comes good fruit and out of a bad mans" etc. You can stick with your "calvinism" in the face of a reality we share where unregenerated people constantly do good acts.

Even in Romans, Paul laments his sinful nature that he still possesses alongside his regenerated one. Is he controlled by it ever? Then he can never please God, according to you.

Now, if Christ's sinless life and crucifixion is used by God in place of us to make us righteous before God, I have no problem with that. We cannot please God by ourselves. I just am trying to explain to you that there's a difference between that and then saying that unregenerate people can do nothing good. It seems so obvious, but you don't seem to understand the difference.

 

[makesends]

It depends what you mean by "Calvinists". There are many different types.

"They just also believe those choices are always and only sinful". This is patently false, even if you believe it to be true. Jesus said the contrary, "out of a good mans heart comes good fruit and out of a bad mans" etc. You can stick with your "calvinism" in the face of a reality we share where unregenerated people constantly do good acts.

Even in Romans, Paul laments his sinful nature that he still possesses alongside his regenerated one. Is he controlled by it ever? Then he can never please God, according to you.

Now, if Christ's sinless life and crucifixion is used by God in place of us to make us righteous before God, I have no problem with that. We cannot please God by ourselves. I just am trying to explain to you that there's a difference between that and then saying that unregenerate people can do nothing good. It seems so obvious, but you don't seem to understand the difference.

If, as you say, we cannot please God by ourselves, then what is there good about us? As to the question of whether or not unregenerated people do good acts, I think you misunderstand, or misrepresent, the principle. It is not that the acts are not good of themselves, such as the supposedly altruistic act. It is that the heart behind the deed is at enmity with God, and God looks at the heart to judge the deeds. It is man who looks at the outward appearance to judge the deed. It appears to be good, so we call it good. But if there is any good in it, it is by God's intent and use of it. It is even God that gave the unregenerated a conscience, to which he drives them to listen to at times. But mere compliance is not submission.

And it is God that reins them in.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

If, as you say, we cannot please God by ourselves, then what is there good about us? As to the question of whether or not unregenerated people do good acts, I think you misunderstand, or misrepresent, the principle. It is not that the acts are not good of themselves, such as the supposedly altruistic act. It is that the heart behind the deed is at enmity with God, and God looks at the heart to judge the deeds. It is man who looks at the outward appearance to judge the deed. It appears to be good, so we call it good. But if there is any good in it, it is by God's intent and use of it. It is even God that gave the unregenerated a conscience, to which he drives them to listen to at times. But mere compliance is not submission.

And it is God that reins them in.

I don't misunderstand. People are good and do good things though they aren't regenerated. Very simple.

 

[makesends]

I don't misunderstand. People are good and do good things though they aren't regenerated. Very simple.

When all virtue is removed from them, what is left is THEM, the virtue being the work of God. THEY are not good. God is.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

When all virtue is removed from them, what is left is THEM, the virtue being the work of God. THEY are not good. God is.

I'm not sure why you are reluctant to admit that unregenerate people do good things. It's got nothing to do with God.

 

[makesends]

I'm not sure why you are reluctant to admit that unregenerate people do good things. It's got nothing to do with God.

I don't admit it —I claim it! But I need it clarified that they do not do good in and of themselves, though, to be honest, I don't think the born again do, either. The difference is, everything the unregenerate does, good or bad, is of sin. They choose only ever to divorce themselves from God's control. They identify contrary to God. And THAT is not good.

And, by the way, anything that is good, has something to do with God. I would even argue that all things have something to do with God. ...But maybe that isn't what you are referring to by saying that unregenerate people doing good things has nothing to do with God.

 

[ReverendRV]

I reckon I'm a New Calvinist...

 

[makesends]

I reckon I'm a New Calvinist...

Formally? I mean, per what https://www.gotquestions.org/new-calvinism.html says about it?

 

[Carbon]

I reckon I'm a New Calvinist...

 

[ReverendRV]

Formally? I mean, per what https://www.gotquestions.org/new-calvinism.html says about it?

That sounds good. I'm always talking about Fundamentalism...


Some see two factions emerging from within New Calvinism: the New Puritans and the New Calvinists. The New Puritans focus on the sovereignty of God in salvation and are identified with Driscoll and John Piper. The New Calvinists focus on the sovereignty of God over creation and are identified with Timothy Keller and Gabe Lyons.

There are many good aspects of the New Calvinism, including its emphasis on the fundamentals of the faith and its ability to attract young people into the church. It remains to be seen whether this new movement will prosper and flourish and have a major impact on postmodern society. https://www.gotquestions.org/new-calvinism.html

 

[makesends]

That sounds good. I'm always talking about Fundamentalism...


Some see two factions emerging from within New Calvinism: the New Puritans and the New Calvinists. The New Puritans focus on the sovereignty of God in salvation and are identified with Driscoll and John Piper. The New Calvinists focus on the sovereignty of God over creation and are identified with Timothy Keller and Gabe Lyons.

There are many good aspects of the New Calvinism, including its emphasis on the fundamentals of the faith and its ability to attract young people into the church. It remains to be seen whether this new movement will prosper and flourish and have a major impact on postmodern society. https://www.gotquestions.org/new-calvinism.html

The concept that comes to mind for me, at the word 'fundamentalist', and therefore at the word 'fundamentalism', is not a good thing. Where "lying and cheating is almost as bad as smoking which is almost as bad as drinking which is right up there with dancing and rock-and-roll (the Devil's music) which leads to fornication and adultery which is almost as bad as rape and murder." —Which, I've been informed, is almost as bad as a woman wearing pants —TO CHURCH!!! *gasp*

 

[ReverendRV]

The concept that comes to mind for me, at the word 'fundamentalist', and therefore at the word 'fundamentalism', is not a good thing. Where "lying and cheating is almost as bad as smoking which is almost as bad as drinking which is right up there with dancing and rock-and-roll (the Devil's music) which leads to fornication and adultery which is almost as bad as rape and murder." —Which, I've been informed, is almost as bad as a woman wearing pants —TO CHURCH!!! *gasp*

I'm not a Legalist though. John Piper isn't a Legalist...

 

[makesends]

I'm not a Legalist though. John Piper isn't a Legalist...

I know. And so I don't care much for calling you (or Piper) a fundamentalist. But yes, I love the Fundamentals of Reformed Theology and its mindset. But I call them the tenets of Reformed Doctrine.