They were nice quotes to read
Mr. Religion and His Calvinistic Nonsense
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Asks Again That Which Has Been Answered
Jerry Asks Again That Which Has Been Answered
Jerry,
What I posted tells you (and us) why there is no such relationship: the passages are not concerned with teaching cause and effect. The concerns of the passages are as I have explained them. Primarily, the passage contains a factual declaration, not an imperative that assumes ability, of what one is commanded by God to do.
You are stuck on this because you want the passages to carry meanings beyond their original intent. Their actual intentions are adequately explained in my response.
AMR
Jerry Asks Again That Which Has Been Answered
Jerry,
What I posted tells you (and us) why there is no such relationship: the passages are not concerned with teaching cause and effect. The concerns of the passages are as I have explained them. Primarily, the passage contains a factual declaration, not an imperative that assumes ability, of what one is commanded by God to do.
You are stuck on this because you want the passages to carry meanings beyond their original intent. Their actual intentions are adequately explained in my response.
AMR
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I explained that Acts 16:30-31 show a cause and effect relationship and as usual you just ignored what I said.
Mr. Religion: "And brought them out, and said, Sir, what must I do to be saved? And he said, You can do nothing."
The Apostle Paul: "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
Mr. Religion: I took to Calvinism and I learned that Paul is not a Calvinist so we cannot believe what he says.
Me: Take to Calvinism and by doing so you learn how to throw your reason to the wind.
Before I jump in this with my perspective, I would like to know your opinion on a current matter and what you would teach a budding Calvinist who asked you a question on it.
Literal Israel just got impacted by the UN vote. Do you support literal Israel as biblical and do you teach others to do so as well?
Note that Jerry has broadly titled his OP, so this question is permitted.
HOGWASH!
The Holy Spirit, not the church is the Christians teacher and guide, John 16:13.
This is a repetitive question, but, the post that [MENTION=9508]Robert Pate[/MENTION] quoted above this post, opens the question up deeper. History in scripture is recognized by the reformed, per your above, quoted, assertion. This brings me to Israel in the literal again.
Your view?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Just a thought here...and I think it goes to the where there is a difference between your take, Jerry, and the Calvinist view on this issue.
The thought comes in the form of a question - when Jesus delivered men from demonic possession, He commanded the evil spirits to leave. Was that a command they were free to reject? I assume the answer you would give is "No". That being the case, consider that Jesus probably could have delivered the man a different way (I admit that is speculation and doesn't serve anything other than to highlight something here). But it was done this way to (in part) show Jesus' authority over Satan and his followers. Likewise, consider the command Paul gave for the man to believe. According to the Calvinist and Reformed views, this was not a command the man (in himself) had the ability to obey - yet it was given anyway. To the non-Reformed, I can see how that would sound ridiculous. But bearing in mind that the whole idea of salvation (in the Reformed and Calvinist thought) rests on the Sovereignty of God and is predicated on God's choosing. This is God's counsel. This is where Jesus says no man can come to Him except the Father draws him. This is where He says that the unbelieving Jews don't believe BECAUSE they are not His sheep. That sets the whole cause-effect relationship on its head. But when Jesus speaks, His sheep listen (and they will not follow another). Again...think of this from the Reformed and Calvinist perspective where the man is being commanded to believe. In some sense it isn't his own will that is being addressed, but it is something more like a command that results in a great change (because the man shows the evidence of being drawn of God).
The command to believe is one that cannot be obeyed merely at one's own will. It has to be based on the fundamental ability and inclination so to do. In other words (from the Reformed/Calvinist pov, certainly) it has to be in his nature - his regenerated nature - to do so.
You may well assert Paul's statement as evidence of that cause and effect, but Jesus' statement seems to make it clear that it (at the very least) isn't that simple.
If Paul had told the jailer (before all the chaos ensued) "You must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved...", what do you suppose would have been the jailer's response?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look what happened after he was told to believe in the Lord Jesus and if he did that he would be saved:
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house" (Acts 16:30-32).
Now let us suppose that Paul began preaching to the jailer about the identity of Jesus, that He is the Christ, the Son of God. When the jailer believed that fact he would have received "life," according to what John wrote here:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).
At the very moment when the jailer believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he would pass from death to life.
However, the Calvinists teach that a person must be given life in order to believe. But John makes it plain that life comes as a result of believing and not prior to believing.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Again...the reading of a text (of itself) does nothing to change someone internally. The gospel comes with power to those that believe :
Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Hebrews 4:1-2
This dovetails nicely with the Philippian jailer, John's words in chapter 20 about his reason for writing AND Jesus' words about who does and does not believe (and why) if it is understood that someone has to be given something supernatural before they can (continually) believe. It isn't simply an (argued) change of mind, but a true foundational change - a shift - in which someone sees something they hadn't seen (nor understood) before because "their eyes were blinded" and they couldn't receive the truth.
The Philippian jailer is asking how he can be saved. Why in the world would he go to Paul and Silas - two prisoners - to ask how he can be saved? It clearly isn't him asking for his neck to be spared (that's in the hands of his superiors who will hold him responsible for any missing captives) so what is it that makes him ask such a question? He believes - he has been awakened to something he would NEVER have considered mere minutes previous.
Personally, I have no problem saying the faith pre-exists the apprehension of the gospel and the regeneration. But I also believe it is only given by God. And it appears to me that AMR is asserting that the faith and regeneration happen so close together (in time) that they can be understood as being virtually (though not actually) simultaneous. I believe that is true, myself - but see faith as (immediately) prior to new birth. I don't see someone walking around with that faith for years, days, hours (or even minutes) trying to find a place to "put it". Rather, it is given because it directs a man exactly where he needs to be (spiritually speaking) even though he may not understand it.
In both situations, though, it is not the man's self-driven act of placing faith in God that is the lynchpin of salvation - it is the gift of God. That - as I see it - is where you are significantly differing.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I am not talking about just reading something, but instead believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:30-31).
Here we read that it is by "believing" that someone receives life. The Calvinists say that a person has to receive life prior to believing to enable them to believe.
According to the "logical order of salvation" revealed in the Scriptures believing comes first and then life follows.
According to the Calvinists life comes first then believing follows.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
All I can say (already having spoken some for AMR...maybe presumptiously) is that just like with Paul's words to the jailer, the command to believe goes out and it is inextricably linked with salvation. And in terms of the man who is born again, the first thing (again, from the Reformed and Calvinist positions) he "knows" is faith and that that faith is fundamentally and indissolubly linked to his justification and salvation. John wouldn't be expected to say that he is writing so that God might act on your behalf.
Also, note that the scripture doesn't say "...BY believing ye might have life...". The omission of "by" (certainly in English) makes the verse read a lot like what I see AMR saying - that believing is something that is tied to a continued life of salvation in Christ. The {English} phrasing doesn't demand the cause and effect you are championing...
Made up:
Ephesians 1 KJV
12 that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
The order, in 5th grade English:You hear the word of truth, the gospel of Christ, and then you believe, then you are sealed by the Holy Spirit.
I know, I know...No, my misguided John W....You are not one of "the elect," so you cannot understand the Ephesians passage, and the rest of the bible, until you are given the ability to believe, through regeneration, but, then you would already be saved, being already regenerated, not needing to believe, you see, well, uh, urr............
Good post
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why do you just flat out refuse to even address the fact that according to John 20:30-31 believing results in faith?
I can go ahead and answer that for you.
No.
Calvinism holds to Spiritual Israel, as per Calvin's Covenant Theology- a corollary theology to the Catholic Church's Covenantal belief.
In fact, the rejection of such belief only exists with Dispensationalists as far as I can tell. It's neither a historical or orthodox position.
Kindly let [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] answer for himself.
So, what, he's the authority? :chuckle:
He's just going to tell you exactly what I stated.
Fair,
But I have been scripturally sandbagging. I wouldn't drop my 99 theses against Calvinism if He is for Israel. If he is against it, then I will consider doing so. If he has no answer on this matter, than I will assume he has no stance and reccomend the other Calvinists here take note.
Thank you
[MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] this post references you.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
If you do not know what Calvin stands for or not, how can you be against him?
Why don't you read Calvin's Institutes and educate yourself in his beliefs, before you make a career out of (blindly) opposing him?
I dare you . . .
Calvin is the word for a human doctrine that is easily disarmed in 5 simple points of scripture. No human is infallible. The Son of Man is infallible, but He is the Son of God and fully God.
Back to the point.... awaiting [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION] 's response.
You put far too much faith in [MENTION=7209]Ask Mr. Religion[/MENTION]s ability to string scripture together to support Calvinist doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing every day and I think it's easy to see where I'm going with this.
- Status