Calvin did not teach you must be regenerated before you believe.He taught you cannot repent until you are regenerated.Its good they said they heard A Calvinist say,you must be regenerated before you believe.One supposed Callvinist.I once heard a phony say he was true.
No offense, but this is utter BS. Calvin did not stand for any of these things. He just wanted to play and imagine flying around in spaceships and stuff.
And why didn't you even mention his sidekick, the doll named Hobbes? Hobbes was always the voice of reason.
Salvation is a gift from God by His grace through faith to all who will believe in the finished work of Jesus on the cross for them. It is made so simple that even a child can believe yet it is man that complicates it all arguing over every point causing strife and divison in the body of Christ. Just preach the Gospel and let the Holy Spirit save the sinner, I have hope for everyone of my family members that someday they will repent and reciving Jesus into their lives and be saved.
I am amazed at how Arminian thinkers are seemingly prided by the idea that they were once righteous.....then fell........then came to God to be regenerated, it seems to be all about them and little about God and his Grace. The only credit they allow God at all is being willing to accept a simple RUNAWAY, instead of a born and habitual REBEL. Just some thoughts.
It is a very inclusive term, I apologize. Better stated: Those who subscribe to the Ideology that the seed of Adam retains freedom of will and ability to exercise repentance toward God and Faith in Christ. God Bless!
I dont have the authority to speak for the arminians seeing as I dont subscribe to their theology. However as I have read and talked to many, they dont believe as you assert. It is really a myth that floats around calvinism. Both calvinism and arminianism hold that man cannot initiate salvation. They both hold that man cannot come to God unless God draws them. The difference is arminians say man has to respond, where calvinism say God makes them respond. Hope that helps. GBY
See, this is your tactic, Blair -- to falsely represent what Reformed Christians believe. There isn't a knowledgeable Calvinist in existence who would say that a response in faith is not necessary for salvation. I've said it several times, but you've ignored it because your goal is to sew discord (and you shall reap your reward). You have no regard for truth or for truthfulness. And that is why I am now ending this conversation.
True enough, you aren't an Arminian, you're are a Semi-Pelagian.
Is exactly what I have stated. So you are telling me that you dont believe in irresistible grace ? Either that, or you are saying you are not a knowledgeable calvinist. According to calvinism God makes people respond I never stated calvinism teaches that man does not have to respond. Strawman poor show
You said "The difference is arminians say man has to respond, where calvinism say God makes them respond".
To imply that A says that one HAS to respond, and to contrast it with C saying that God makes (forces?) a response is a two-way lie. In the one instance, you are, in effect saying that one doesn't HAVE to respond, and then you're saying that C believes in a forced conversion. NO WE DO NOT! AND YOU WILL NEVER FIND THAT IN ANY CALVINIST WRITING!
1. Both calvinism and arminianism say man responds as seen in my quote.
2. The second error is that you dont believe man is saved at the point of regeneration. And faith is the result of this regeneration causing the person to believe and become saved. Contrary to your belief, a person is saved when they are regenerated b/c faith was the means used to regenerate them (Titus 3:5- Eph 2:8)
2. I've never said anything of the sort. I said there appears to be times that regeneration has not INSTANTANEOUSLY resulted in repentance and faith in Christ. I've given examples (none which you'd paid any attention to, of course).
And now you display the Semi-P heresy of regeneration being the RESULT of faith. Dead people cannot believe the Gospel. It is FOOLISHNESS TO THEM. Are you going to deny this too?
1. No you really haven't, you went a-wall b/c you interpreted incorrectly. You don't seem to interpret stuff at face value. You jump beyond that, and read what you think it means. Before even asking the person who wrote it what they mean.
2. You made statements but never provided scripture ever. I dont care about your statements I care what the scripture says.
3. (Titus 3:5 Ephesians 2:8) interpret the bible as a whole.. The gospel is foolishness until God draws man ...
Again you dont believe man is saved when he is regenerated so why would you even post. Evangelical theology as a whole believes a person is saved when they are regenerated. I have even debated a lot calvinist that believe that a person is saved when they are regenerated. Yet you are in clear denial of titus 3:5. You also deny the irresistibilty of Gods grace. pretty funny if you ask me. I believe you need far more study before trying to debate this subject.
I've most certainly never denied Irresistable Grace. IG is that God's grace to the elect ALWAYS draws, always results in faith, always results in salvation. God changes the inclinations of the heart and thusly, the regenerate, see his sin, hates it, turns from it, embraces Jesus Christ, and endeavours after in obedience. I've never said that I don't believe that a man is saved when he's regenerated. I've never stated anything otherwise, and these constant and false accusations are sickening.
Bottom line (for your thinking) if faith precedes regeneration, then sinners are not really dead in their sins, without the Spirit, and unable to understand spiritual things; they have neutral wills; they have somewhere to boast, since afterall, they (you) were smarter than their counterparts who got the same grace, but didn't figure out it was wise to believe in Christ. How prideful
I said your CONCLUSION is drawn from thin air. Must you be so obtuse? I've given you one Scripture that you've failed to address, and that's 1st Cor 2:14. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
God removes the heart of stone, replaces it with a heart of flesh, changes the disposition of the wicked will to one that is WILLING TO BELIEVE. And unless he does this, NO ONE WILL BELIEVE.
I just watched your "Doctrines of Grace" video. I wish I'd seen it before our conversation began. It might've saved me much frustration. What a joke -- You claim to believe in Total Depravity, then contradict that man is totally depraved, by your false understanding of "free will". You deal likewise with every other "point" of Calvinistic soteriology.
Like your mentor (Norman Geisler) you're Semi-Pelagian to the core. Moderate Calvinism doesn't exist.
Geisler is the founder of my college and actually my professor. However I have studied original reformed theology for a long time now. Modern day reformed theology is a bit different from what it was back then. For example John Calvin believed that faith preceded regeneration in the narrow use of the word regeneration. So I tend to stick to the early stuff and bypass all these guys trying to interpret it for me.
Cherry picking selections from Calvin and divorcing them from their contexts (the same thing you do with Holy Scripture) is not "sticking" to the "early stuff".
Your position is in utter disharmony with what Calvin taught and believed, and with what the Bible teaches us to believe (which is the same thing).
Your notions of libertarian free will prove that you don't understand anything Calvin taught.
Your (and Geisler's) disregard for truth proves something worse.
Hmm no my quotes from Calvin are his commentaries on scriptures speaking of regeneration. Had you actually studied Calvin you would also see the same thing in [ICR]
Also I dont believe in libertarian free will so you fail again
You most CERTAINLY believe in libertairan free will, else you could not claim in your "Doctrines of Grace" video that, though man is depraved, "man's will is free to choose the gift of salvation". That sir, is libertarian free will, and is a contradiction to the Doctrine of Total Depravity (aka Total Inability), and is in opposition to the Scriptures, one of which I've quoted several times which says that the man without the Spirit cannot understand spiritualy things.
Actually I hold to compatibilism. So I appreciate an apology. You are telling me what I believe and yet you dont even know me. I believe that is rather funny
If you're a compatibalist, then how can you possibly make the quote I just made above? Either a person can only make the choices in accordance to the desires of his heart (which is what the Bible teaches, what Calvin taught, and what every Reformed Christian believes), or a person can choose against the desires of his heart (the latter is called insanity, and is the position of Open Theists). But you said that unregenerate sinners can choose Christ, and this is the position of libertarianism.
Well lets see hearts continually evil yet before I became born again I made selfless choices. Choices that would not benefit me but would benefit others and actually would put me in a bad position. HMM doesn't sound as though I chose according to me will. Also Calvin taught the image of God was not destroyed there remains a spark
Also open theist disregard the attributes of God, I believe u need to take aaaaalot more time to study before attacking what someone else believes
The choices you made were in accordance to your will. You did that which you desired most, for whatever reason. Even if your choices are reduced to two, as in "Your money, or your life" as a gun is held to your head. You will make the choice that you desire most. But a man who despises the God of the Bible (all by nature do, which is why we erect idols, either physical or mental) cannot incline himself toward God without a prior change to his will from outside. Regeneration must precede faith.
Calvin never taught that there was a spark -- that was Arminius. There's a WORLD of difference between the imago Dei which Calvin taught, and a spark (or island) of righteousness, which Arminius taught, which is able to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God, all the while being dead in sin.
And I attack what I know you believe, based upon what you've said. No matter what other wicked attributes Open Theists have which you might not have you both share a libertarian view of the will.
Still, however, the impression remains seated in our hearts, that nothing will happen which the Lord has not provided. In this sense the term event is repeatedly used in Ecclesiastes, because, at the first glance, men do not penetrate to the primary cause which lies concealed. And yet, what is taught in Scripture of the secret providence of God was never so completely effaced from the human heart, as that some sparks did not always shine in the darkness.
This is your proof that Calvin taught "the image of God was not destroyed there remains a spark" [of human ability to believe the Gospel, even though their spirits are dead]???
Calvin, in this passage, is talking about man's perception of God's Providence in "fortuitous" events. The very next sentence makes this abundantly clear: "Thus the soothsayers of Philistines, though they waver in uncertainty, attribute the adverse event to God and partly to chance."
Lol, so now Calvin did say that there was spark in man. Hence we have the sovereignty of God, Calvin did not go in depth on the spark in this passage, the reason being he was not yet ready to deal with that subject, yet the fact still remains
(John 1:4, 5). He intimates that the human soul is indeed irradiated with a beam of divine light, so that it is never left utterly devoid of some small flame, or rather spark, though not such as to enable it to comprehend God.
You are truly delusional (just like Norman!). He was "not yet ready"? Oh, so now you're a mind reader. The "fact remains"? No it doesn't. YOU said Calvin claimed that there was some kind of divine spark remaining in man that ENABLES HIM TO CHOOSE TO BELIEVE GOD. You have proven nothing of the sort. The use of the word "spark" doesn't make your claim truthful. In fact, it only proves how utterly dishonest you are. You're bent on being "right" no matter the cost.
Anyone who has actually read Calvin on the subject of Total Depravity know that Calvin did not believe the image of God was destroyed. That their still remain something (a spark) The spark Calvin taught was our reason or intellect. ( our want to search for truth) Although it be marred severely by the fall man still remained with yet a spark. I suggest you do more study before spouting off that Calvin did not teach some things maybe taking the time to study before you speak will help cont>
I've read Calvin, and THOUSANDS of other REAL Calvinists have as well, and we attest that he, like we, deny EVERYTHING you are suggesting. Calvins NEVER suggests that faith in Christ is attainable by mere inellect (which is what you're suggesting).
The only thing you've proven (once again) is that you're incapable of discerning even what is being spoken in English.
He taught that man was totally depraved but you guys would think that the image of God was destroyed Calvin taught no such thing. He taught the depravity of man the bondage to sin. That even though we have a spark we cannot understand apart from the enlightenment of God.
Yeah, it just never ends. Therefore I am truly ending (this time for real) any further conversation with you.
May God have mercy on you.
PS - In case God does have mercy, and opens your eyes, you may then look me up and apologise -- the same way I looked up those I opposed when I was an anti-Calvinist (and I was better at it than you, in all honesty), after God opened my eyes to the truthfulness of the Reformed Faith.
I have yet to comprehend why you call yourself a "moderate calvinist".. Your an arminian, plain and simple. The fact that you believe in "total depravity" does not constitute the title "calvinist", moderate or traditional. Many Arminians believe in total depravity. Maybe a name change is in order.
This is the most convoluted and ridiculous "logic" I think I've ever heard (other than the ravings of an evolutionist). This is yet another straw man erected, in order to discredit Calvinism, when all it does is to display that MC doesn't know what Calvinists believe at all.
I'm new to this debate and short on knowledge on what both sides believe. I admit as I have read that I tend to agree with Mr. MC..lol. Only because of my own experience of salvation. I couldn't have faith in Christ unless I heard about him some how, sermon, book, witness, dream..Romans 10:14-17. I receive grace because I found out it was offered to me. Its an awesome debate topic but I haven't heard (personally) anyone say how grace and faith was made real to them. Just a thought. Fun stuff!
How can a man dead in sin believe the Gospel unless God gives him new life?
Regeneration is temporally inseparable from faith. Faith and regeneration occur at the same time because regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit giving faith.
Read Ephesians 2:1-10 about the elect being dead in sin and being given faith by the work of the Spirit.
Men will only sin and cannot do any good (they cannot even think righteous things) unless God gives them life, gives them the new birth.
Ok, dead men can believe because God enlightens them. Man cannot come to God unless he first draws them and enlightens them. I understand you believe enlightenment is regeneration the problem is nowhere is the word enlightenment interchanged with regeneration. Your understanding is not from the scriptures themselves
Okay, so you're suggesting that ALL men who hear the Gospel are enlightened in the knowledge of Christ and are then enabled to believe the Gospel. So then WHY DO SOME BELIEVE AND OTHERS DON'T??? Why did you? Were you smarter? Nobler? Less proud? less sinful? You must have been, afterall, the other guy sitting on the same pew, hearing the same sermon, with the same degree of enlightenment didn't believe. Aren't you proud of yourself?
(Jesus) the true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world
And this is the judgment : (Jesus) has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
But to all who did receive (Jesus), who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
Is this supposed to be a response to my comments? If so, you've missed the boat. It doesn't answer the question why one SINNER believes when another SINNER doesn't. You're skirting the issue, and attempting to us universalistic "sounding" verses (which cannot be universal, otherwise all would believe), in typical Arminian fashion. Address the issue please. Stop ducking and hiding.
The only way a human WILL DECIDE is if his nature is changed from one who is not opposed to God, one which does not love his sin, one that does not think the Gospel is foolishness. ONLY THEN will the human will be inclined toward making the sort of "decision" you are suggesting.
Yep, no one can come to God unless God draws him. Man cannot initiate salvation. But that is not proof of monergism. Monergism is regeneration before faith, can you please demonstrate that from the bible ? I believe the bible teaches you believe in order to be saved. Also I am looking forward to your video responses especially to this video
The Bible teaches we are JUSTIFIED by faith. The word "saved" can have many meanings, and is sometimes interchangeable with justification, depending on the context. One must believe in order to be justified. One must understand the Gospel (concerning his sin, and of Christ being the Saviour) in order to believe. One must be spiritually alive in order to understand and to accept spiritually things. One must be called (inwardly, effectually) in order to be raised to life.
Of course not. We are justified by faith, but we are not CHOSEN or ELECTED UNTO salvation by faith. God elects some to believe, and that's what they all do, infallibly, every single time. Christ loses not a single one that the Father has given him. Some people are regenerated for long periods of time before they actually exercise saving faith. This is standard Calvinistic theology.
The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and (sanctification,regeneration) which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). III, xi, 6.
This is not a refutation of my position anymore than James refutes Paul. It is a very tiny snippet of Calvin's Theology (and of mine for that matter). Just as there are difficult sayings in the Bible, there are difficult passages in the thoughts of every thoughtful man. The components of salvation are inseparable indeed, but not necessarily partaken of at precisely the same moment in time, and this is not anything that is refuted in this passage from the Theolgian.
lol you are separating the inseparable also you deny that a person is saved when they are regenerated yet scripture say the opposite
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Salvation is a blanket term for all that takes place in the elect. Regeneration by itself doesn't constitute salvation anymore than does Justifcation or Sanctification. They are all part of "Salvation" proper. One is regenerated IN ORDER TO believe and be justified, IN ORDER TO BE sanctified, IN ORDER TO BE glorified. Those who are foreknown (foreloved), and those only are regenerated. They alone are sanctified and glorified. But none of this takes place UNLESS they are regenerated.
It's difficult for me to address the text when it's already supporting my position. You're saying that we're regenerated by a work of righteousness, exercising faith, and thereby make faith a meritorious work, rather than the means, the conduit, by which God accounts us as justified.
I guess the word saved does not need to be in there right because it is not making the point that when a person is regenerated he is saved. It would be helpful to the discussion if you actually gave me some exegesis on the verse b/c it is very clear in what it says and as it stands you are incorrect that a person is not saved when they are regenerated I know a lot of calvinist that disagree with you. In fact you are welcome to look at my debate over total depravity on my blog.
I believe it comes from not understanding the meanings of words contextually. For instance, when I said that the word "especially" is equal with "particularly" you did this word-search, attempting to prove that it was not so. You claimed as much, only I discovered that Strong's says it is synonymous, and the M-W dictionary says it is in English as well. Then there are Greek variants that prove my point. Owning a concordance and Greek dictionary doesn't make one an expert. JW's do the same thing.
Especially is clearly how the greek is stated you can translate the greek malista into many words in english in fact you can make up your own words. But that does not change how it is translated in the greek. In fact especially does not change the fact that he is the savior of all.
Christ is the Saviour of all people? Period? Then this contradicts your own assessment of those who never hear the Gospel. Not to mention it renders the word "Saviour" as nonsensical. Christ is the Saviour of his people. He is not the potential Saviour of anyone. He actually saves. He saves everyone whom the Father gave him from the foundation of the world. Them and them alone.
When the text emphasizes that God is the Deliverer of all people (1 Tim 4:10; Titus 2:10f.), this is perhaps a reaction against Gnostic thought that divides people into the chosen and the rejected; similarly, 1 Tim 1:1 and Titus 1:3 teach the universality of salvation. cont>
The doxology in Jude 25 calls the one God σωτήρ, and the addition through Jesus Christ establishes the relationship to the latter; the context determines whether he is understood as the mediator either of redemption or of the glorification of God.
Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990-c1993). 3:326.
The use of σωτήρ here with reference to God the Father reflects Pauls concern to communicate this reality of God as Savior as a corrective to the false teachers perspective on God as less than the Savior of all people.
George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992). 62.
I don't have a copy of Mr Knight's commentary, so I can't verify the context in which he's saying what he's saying. However, there is nothing in the quote that necessitates what you are suggesting, since I (and any Calvinist) can say that Christ is the Saviour of all people, all the while with an understanding that this is not meant to be taken on an individualistic and universalistic manner, but rather meaning "from every tribe, tongue, and nation". False teachers thought He saved only Jews.
I'm saying (and the Bible is saying) that Christ IS the Saviour of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Christ is not the Saviour of every individual. Christ is not the POTENTIAL Saviour - he IS the Saviour who actually saves. He saves (and loses none) all that the Father gives him. And all that the Father gives him (and they only) come to Christ. They hear his voice, because they are his sheep.
Yes, God is the Saviour of his people. He is the Judge and Executioner of his enemies. Christ died for the sheep (on his right hand, who go into paradise). He didnt' die for the goats (on his left hand, who go into damnation - - He never knew them). Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have I hated.
LOL you know what is funny James White uses your same argument on his website and says that George Knight believes that it should be translated as "that is" However I just posted a direct quote from Knight that contradicts your guy's understanding it is really funny.
Please see the extra note I just made on the quote from Knight (above). It might be helpful. Just to let you know, it's rather interesting to me how you're so busy making sure that what I and James White and George Knight (et al) say is all the same, while I've never even heard of George Knight, and have only read a book by White. I don't try to align what I believe with another man, only with what the Bible teaches, contextually, historically, etc. You know, hermeneutics. ;o)
Christ sacrifice is sufficient for all sins, however atonement is not applied to someones account until they believe, I am surprised you dont know this. You claim to be studied in soteriology but you dont understand the basic principle of justification hence sola fidei
Um, who said I didn't know that? Your previous comment intimated nothing to do with the sufficiency or application of Christ's death. Christ's sacrifice is of infinite VALUE, but is applied only to the elect (those who believe). Try getting your facts straight first before accusing. Also, please try and not make run-on sentences. It's difficult enough trying to figure out what you are (and aren't) saying, without having to decipher where a thought ends and another begins. Thanks in advance
The in-house debate on this matter would include people like John (the baptizer) and Isaac, who appear to have been regenerated long before they would've had actual saving faith. I won't really get into it here, as I said it's an in-house debate, and you've not even gotten the necessity of regeneration for faith to take place part yet, so it would be a futile discussion.
Sorry, not meaning to be a pain here, but this is a very interesting topic for me. I found these three verses, which describes our salvation as "being saved": 1 Cor 1:18; 1 Cor 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that an elect and regenerate person can fall away from the faith and be lost. It's that, again, Regeneration necessarily is instantaneous, but it appears that conversion may be either instantaneous or gradual. No matter what though, all who are regenerate believe.
I think you are mixing sanctification and regeneration. Early reformers used the word regeneration sometimes in a broader sense denoting sanctification. They used the word regeneration for everything. Today we seek to define our terms more concisely to clarify what we are talking about. We try to distinguish our theology from that of the catholic church. We are saved in the past present future
I'm not mixing anything. I'm well aware of the different uses of the word "regeneration" by earlier Christians. Since, as you claim you're so educated in Reformed Theology you shouldn't be having so much trouble with the terms I'm using. Don'tchawonder? I don't.
Well, sir I am pointing out your problems defining terms according the the scripture. I see you are trying to brush off your un scriptural definitions. Also to pawn it off on me as though I am having the trouble defining my terms is purely ludicrous.
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. My definitions are not, and have not been proven to be unscriptural. You are indeed having problems understanding terms, which, I believe is apparent to everyone observing this "conversation". Otherwise, how is it that you don't see the difference between being dead IN sins, and accounting oneself as dead TO sin? I'm flaberghasted, to be honest.
I actually should've qualified that by saying "it might be possible for some to be regenerated for long periods ...". This is an in-house debate, one of which I'm not entirely sure of. But people like John (the baptizer) and Isaac, et al, seem to indicate that they were regenerated quite a while before actual conversion. I might be wrong, and I don't mind being wrong. That only gives me an opportunity to learn what is right.
There's a world of difference between having a literal interpretation and a literalistic interpretation. It appears to me, you're trapped in the latter.
Actually you seem to believe that ignoring context, and scrutinizing the words, as if each verse were an island to itself, is the proper means of interpretation. You can no more rightly interpret the Word in that manner than you could remove the tip of my little finger and examine it under a microscope. You'd know my chemical makeup, but you wouldn't have a clue as to what I, as a person was like. This is how you treat Scripture.
1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)
2 : a method or principle of interpretation
Did you just learn this word? Is that why you keep slinging it about in the foolish way you have? I've already stated the definition before, but I thought perhaps you'd take MW's word for it.
Everyone who interprets uses hermeneutics - good or bad. Yours is bad.
Actually there has always been two schools of thought the school of Alexandria (interpreted the bible as all spiritual) which by the way was mid evil theology, the dark ages. The school of Antioch (hermeneutics) which believed in interpreting the bible as such
Then, contrary to your accusations, I fall into the Antioch school, since I've not spiritualized anything. In fact, I've planted all I've said quite firmly on solid ground. BTW, you still haven't ceased with the run-on sentences; and it's medieval (not mid-evil).
Just b/c you take the bible literally does not mean you use the hermeneutics process to interpret the living word. So as you stated = everyone interprets the bible using hermeneutic's, you would be wrong.
A proper hermeneutic involves more than mere word studies (which appears to be your approach). One must first begin with a Christ centered Theology, then consider the covenant, history, and culture, along with how to apply it. Just because I'm not breaking it down thusly in each entry doesn't mean I'm not using these principles. Do you expect one in a kick boxing match to describe each punch and kick, or simply to do it, by means of familiarity and practice -- as if by second nature?
Also, there is simply not enough room in these tiny comment areas to prove my exegesis and hermeneutic. Perhaps, if you wish, I'll do something like that in a personal email, or a video on the differences between being "dead in sins and dead to sin"? Let me know which you'd prefer. I'm just extremely busy right now, so the video would be slower coming than an email.
Now that is an interesting statement. Can you please show me how drawing is regeneration ? Maybe I am missing something in the greek. Please define your terms according to the bible or people that study the bible will be confused
Can you please show me how drawing is NOT regeneration? How else does God "draw" anyone? Jesus is clear that God draws those who believe in Christ. Them and no others. One cannot be drawn in a salvific sense, unless they are regenerate. One cannot hear a call unless they are alive. One cannot believe spiritual things unless they are spiritually alive. It doesn't take a Greek word study to come to this conclusion. This is simple logic, derived from the Scriptures themselves CONTEXTUALLY.
Hmm you answer questions with questions. It appears you logic is flawed because there is no contextual support. Drawing is NOT regeneration. All of your arguments are not based in scripture SOLA SCRIPTURA. So I will ask you again show me in the bible where drawing is regeneration. If you cannot then your argument is beyond scripture and therefor you have no foundation. I do expect an answer or a confession that drawing is not regeneration
Is this really the best you can do? This is like suggesting that in order to prove the doctrine of the Trinity you have to find a verse that says "Trinity" or a verse that has Jesus saying "Hi, my name is Jesus, and by the way, I'm God Almighty". These are the same tactics used by JW's.
The short answer, again, is that one cannot DRAW a dead man to do anything. Spiritually dead men are not drawn to Christ UNLESS they are made alive. It is an inward drawing.
Your argument is fruitless. Clearly you don't understand the true concept of regeneration. Hence you feel you can call regeneration everything but what it truly is. Drawing is not creating someone into a new creature. Drawing is drawing. Drawing has no connotations of a recreation at all. So what basis do you have ? None you are speaking of two completely different things yet you try to make the synonymous terms, again I ask where is the relationship proving that they are the same ? NONE
So why not tell us, Mr Word-study boy, what exactly IS drawing, if it doesn't equal or involve regeneration? Check out the word translated "draw", think about what is necessary for this to occur, and then get back to me. K?
And let me add: Acts 13:47-49 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,"'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you maybring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, AND AS MANY AS WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.
It doesn't say "those who believed were appointed to eternal life" but rather "those who were appointed to eternal life believed".
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Jn 5:24
By the way I just saw your video response to my "those who never hear" video I just put together a response. You need to actually use hermeneutics when you study the bible you are seriously lacking in study. GBY
Okay, now I understand that I'm talking to someone who is completely incapable of intelligent, adult conversation. My argument against your position is irrefutable.
Hmm, ad hominem I believe you made that accusation against people in your video that I posted this response to. Problem is my friend I actually study reformed theology probably more then any other subject. This video defeats you understanding of Total depravity since faith precedes regeneration. Until you can refute it (not possible) you are defeated
Ah, so making the (obviously) incorrect accusation that I need study is somehow not ad hominem, yet when I (correctly) deduce that you seem not to be able to understand clear logic, I am now the only one making an ad hominem.
Oh, I missed the obvious -- yes, I believe that you've studied Reformed Theology more than any other subject, which means you've only spent 3 minutes on the other subjects compared to the 5 minutes you've spent on RT.
Wow, Blair, just look at your comment. Such pride in that! Is this about winning a debate to you, or about Truth? It seems to be, about who has the most 'brain power' or who has studied the most!! You have shown yourself to be in gross error, and stegokitty, has shown you as well. But you in your pride, will not fess up, because you "study reformed theology probably more then any other subject"! "you are defeated"!! Comon!!
Of course not. Romans 8:29-31 (ESV) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All of God's elect (and them only) are predestined, called, justfified, and glorified -- infallibly, irresistably, and all to the glory of God's grace. To him be the glory!
You asked if I belived a person can be regenerated and not be saved. I gave the answer. The answer is that all of God's elect are saved in time. They are all called, they are all justified, they are all glorified. They and no other is glorified, they and no other are justified, they and no other are called, they and no other are predestined, they and no other are foreloved by God.
This part of the conversation has ended. You haven't even gotten past "wax on, wax off" on the issue of regeneration in the first place, so attempting to discuss this "snap kick" with you is simply an act in frustration to both parties. My position is that all who are regenerated come to faith. Whether there is ever a gap between regeneration and conversion is something to be contemplated. I think the examples of John (the baptizer) and Isaac, et al, are possible examples. Do infants believe?
Again, you're using the word "saved" as a blanket term (which is fine, depending on the context), but the question should be "Can a person be regenerated (present tense) and not be justified (present tense)? To which I'd answer. "I'm not entirely sure, but it appears from John and Isaac, (et al) this may be so. But again, this is too heavy a topic for one who hasn't yet nailed down the fact of regeneration being necessary for faith. So we're not going to go anywhere else on this one.
So were is your refutation of this video ? Hmm it seems that you have no argument of that which is in this video. Yet you hold the monergistic position in light of having no argument
Depends on if you believe hermeneutics is the proper way to interpret the bible. It is obvious from you video that exegesis is lost from any interpretation you give. Any argument you bring is invalid based on your faulty interpretation methods
I've been seeing you posting this nonsense over and over, with utterly no proof of my lack of hermeneutic nor lack of exegesis. I've been moving along quite lovely with these in fact. It's interesting that if I don't work in accord with your (faulty) hermeneutic, and lack of exegesis, then I (obviously) am lacking thusly. However, I think everyone would agree that it's really the opposite that is true.
If you dont use hermeneutics as your basis for interpretation dont bother posting it is a waste of my time. If two people cannot agree in the proper way of interpretation they will never come out with the same answer therefore it is meaningless
Everyone who interprets uses a hermeneutic, whether it is a faulty one or a proper one. I interpret the Scriptures the way all of the greats do (and that would include Paul, and incidently Christ himself), and that would be from a covenantal perspective. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Boss.
I am glad you are representing calvinism. I think James White would thoroughly disagree with you he believe hermeneutics is the basis for interpretation.
Well since you believe that we receive the Spirit then believe maybe you can explain this scripture as well
So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Once again, this is a matter of contextual interpretation. Giving the Spirit is not necessarily talking about regeneration. Why else does David say "take not your Holy Spirit from me". What! Was David thinking that he'd lost his salvation; or did David know that his wicked behaviour would put a severe dampening of the work of God's Spirit in his life?
In the same way, the word "saved" doesn't always mean ultimate, spiritual salvation, otherwise James tells us women are saved by giving birth.
People in the old testment were not regenerated as in the new testament. It is that sacrifice of Christ that regenerates a person and as scripture says that was not applied until the actual death of Christ. The Spirit came upon people in the ot and left today people are sealed with the Spirit and it does not leave
Although theyre connected theres a difference between being empowered by the Holy Spirit, and being spiritually regenerated. Spiritual regeneration is simply spiritual life. Moses was spiritually alive, Pharaoh wasnt. Hence I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I harden whom I will harden. OT saints were just as spiritually alive as NT saints.
Are you serious? You want a verse that says that Abraham, Moses, David, and other OT saints were spiritually regenerated??? Buddy, how did they UNDERSTAND SPIRITUAL THINGS IF THEY HADN'T THE SPIRIT? You need to zip up. Your Dispensationalism is showing. Again, asking for a verse like this is tatamount to a JW asking for a verse that says "Trinity". Get off it.
Actually I've been quoting Scripture left and right in just about every comment I've made. I thought you were such an astute disciple of the Scriptures. You don't recognise the verses? I'll make a point of doing so from now on. Although, I doubt it would make much difference, seeing as you've made up your mind already.
Your understanding of regeneration is not derived from the text itself. I have asked you time again, show me from the bible where drawing and regeneration are synonymous terms.
And I keep telling you that it's obvious, as one cannot draw (intellectually and spiritually, since we're obviously not talking about a physical drawing) a dead person. Dead people don't DO anything. The only thing one could do would be to pick the dead person up and carry them or drag them along. There would be no response from the dead person. And again, would you use this same principle for the Doctrine of the Trinity???
People that respond to the drawing are regenerated. The drawing is not the regeneration the drawing is the drawing. The regeneration is the regeneration. I will ask you again show me where drawing and regeneration are synonymous terms. I have repeated this question many times and never an answer. If you cannot just simply state you cannot then we can move on.
God enlightens dead men? How does one enlighten a dead person? Do yo u speak softly? loudly? in Japanese? No matter how much one speaks to a dead person, they can neither hear nor respond. This is simple logic.
No. God awakens the dead spirit in man, then speaks to him and enlightens him. Jesus said that EVERYONE who hears the Father comes to him. Therefore if God enlightens everyone, then everyone comes to the Son. Simple logic,
Paul tells us that we are dead to sin. I guess according to your theology (if you want to be consistent of course) you must also believe in sinless perfectionism. I am sure you dont want to be consistent.
Paul tells US that WE are dead TO sin. He also tells us that we WERE dead IN our sins. Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins ; Col 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.
How is this a response to what I just said? Dead most certainly is dead. YOU'RE the one who refuses to believe that. YOU said that dead men are able to exercise faith!!!!
Where are you getting this dead TO sin stuff when talking about unregenerate sinners? The unregenerate are dead IN their sins. The regenerate are to consider themselves dead TO sin. That is, they are not slaves to it any longer. Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Please try and not mix up the two and then blame me for it. But of course, setting up straw men is typical of Semi-Pelagians and Arminians.
Dead in sin dead to sin dead still means dead. So if we are dead as you understand in sin (dead meaning inability) then we are also dead to sin (meaning inability) so since we are dead to sin we are unable TO sin since dead in your understanding means inability. Lets be consistent here
Man cannot accept the fact that they have no role in their salvation...it is 100% the work of God.....this alarms the preternders....
Jacobrester 1 year ago
Calvin did not teach you must be regenerated before you believe.He taught you cannot repent until you are regenerated.Its good they said they heard A Calvinist say,you must be regenerated before you believe.One supposed Callvinist.I once heard a phony say he was true.
polopowers1 1 year ago
No offense, but this is utter BS. Calvin did not stand for any of these things. He just wanted to play and imagine flying around in spaceships and stuff.
And why didn't you even mention his sidekick, the doll named Hobbes? Hobbes was always the voice of reason.
blogegog 2 years ago
TO HELL WITH CALVINISM!
DivinelyGifted 2 years ago
Salvation is a gift from God by His grace through faith to all who will believe in the finished work of Jesus on the cross for them. It is made so simple that even a child can believe yet it is man that complicates it all arguing over every point causing strife and divison in the body of Christ. Just preach the Gospel and let the Holy Spirit save the sinner, I have hope for everyone of my family members that someday they will repent and reciving Jesus into their lives and be saved.
TheDunk777 2 years ago 4
thanks for posting this, very good. I need to start making these on the subject of Roman Catholicism
rightlydivide 2 years ago
I am amazed at how Arminian thinkers are seemingly prided by the idea that they were once righteous.....then fell........then came to God to be regenerated, it seems to be all about them and little about God and his Grace. The only credit they allow God at all is being willing to accept a simple RUNAWAY, instead of a born and habitual REBEL. Just some thoughts.
NCEVANGELIST 2 years ago
Have you ever read the work of Jacob Arminius? It would seem that you have not, due to your statement. GBY
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
It is a very inclusive term, I apologize. Better stated: Those who subscribe to the Ideology that the seed of Adam retains freedom of will and ability to exercise repentance toward God and Faith in Christ. God Bless!
NCEVANGELIST 2 years ago
I dont have the authority to speak for the arminians seeing as I dont subscribe to their theology. However as I have read and talked to many, they dont believe as you assert. It is really a myth that floats around calvinism. Both calvinism and arminianism hold that man cannot initiate salvation. They both hold that man cannot come to God unless God draws them. The difference is arminians say man has to respond, where calvinism say God makes them respond. Hope that helps. GBY
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
See, this is your tactic, Blair -- to falsely represent what Reformed Christians believe. There isn't a knowledgeable Calvinist in existence who would say that a response in faith is not necessary for salvation. I've said it several times, but you've ignored it because your goal is to sew discord (and you shall reap your reward). You have no regard for truth or for truthfulness. And that is why I am now ending this conversation.
True enough, you aren't an Arminian, you're are a Semi-Pelagian.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Irresistible grace.....
Is exactly what I have stated. So you are telling me that you dont believe in irresistible grace ? Either that, or you are saying you are not a knowledgeable calvinist. According to calvinism God makes people respond I never stated calvinism teaches that man does not have to respond. Strawman poor show
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
You said "The difference is arminians say man has to respond, where calvinism say God makes them respond".
To imply that A says that one HAS to respond, and to contrast it with C saying that God makes (forces?) a response is a two-way lie. In the one instance, you are, in effect saying that one doesn't HAVE to respond, and then you're saying that C believes in a forced conversion. NO WE DO NOT! AND YOU WILL NEVER FIND THAT IN ANY CALVINIST WRITING!
stegokitty 2 years ago
You have two problems here
1. Both calvinism and arminianism say man responds as seen in my quote.
2. The second error is that you dont believe man is saved at the point of regeneration. And faith is the result of this regeneration causing the person to believe and become saved. Contrary to your belief, a person is saved when they are regenerated b/c faith was the means used to regenerate them (Titus 3:5- Eph 2:8)
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
1. Already addressed.
2. I've never said anything of the sort. I said there appears to be times that regeneration has not INSTANTANEOUSLY resulted in repentance and faith in Christ. I've given examples (none which you'd paid any attention to, of course).
And now you display the Semi-P heresy of regeneration being the RESULT of faith. Dead people cannot believe the Gospel. It is FOOLISHNESS TO THEM. Are you going to deny this too?
stegokitty 2 years ago
1. No you really haven't, you went a-wall b/c you interpreted incorrectly. You don't seem to interpret stuff at face value. You jump beyond that, and read what you think it means. Before even asking the person who wrote it what they mean.
2. You made statements but never provided scripture ever. I dont care about your statements I care what the scripture says.
3. (Titus 3:5 Ephesians 2:8) interpret the bible as a whole.. The gospel is foolishness until God draws man ...
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Again you dont believe man is saved when he is regenerated so why would you even post. Evangelical theology as a whole believes a person is saved when they are regenerated. I have even debated a lot calvinist that believe that a person is saved when they are regenerated. Yet you are in clear denial of titus 3:5. You also deny the irresistibilty of Gods grace. pretty funny if you ask me. I believe you need far more study before trying to debate this subject.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I've most certainly never denied Irresistable Grace. IG is that God's grace to the elect ALWAYS draws, always results in faith, always results in salvation. God changes the inclinations of the heart and thusly, the regenerate, see his sin, hates it, turns from it, embraces Jesus Christ, and endeavours after in obedience. I've never said that I don't believe that a man is saved when he's regenerated. I've never stated anything otherwise, and these constant and false accusations are sickening.
stegokitty 2 years ago
lol so take these two text and put them together.
Titus 3:5 you are saved when God regenerates you.
Ephesians 2:8 God uses the means of faith to save us.
Sum it up with Gal 3:5 we receive the Spirit by faith.
A. Being saved in the narrow present tense consist being regenerated justified and adopted.
B. God uses the means of faith to save someone in the narrow sense of saved present tense
Therefore the soteriological order is faith precedes regeneration
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
A. Neither verse says anything of the sort.
B. No one has denied this.
Your conclusion is drawn from thin air.
Bottom line (for your thinking) if faith precedes regeneration, then sinners are not really dead in their sins, without the Spirit, and unable to understand spiritual things; they have neutral wills; they have somewhere to boast, since afterall, they (you) were smarter than their counterparts who got the same grace, but didn't figure out it was wise to believe in Christ. How prideful
stegokitty 2 years ago
Scriptures are thin air ? Give me exegesis on the scriptures to prove otherwise (that faith does not precede regeneration) I would love that
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I said your CONCLUSION is drawn from thin air. Must you be so obtuse? I've given you one Scripture that you've failed to address, and that's 1st Cor 2:14. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
stegokitty 2 years ago
God removes the heart of stone, replaces it with a heart of flesh, changes the disposition of the wicked will to one that is WILLING TO BELIEVE. And unless he does this, NO ONE WILL BELIEVE.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Was that prophecy something to come ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I asked you a question
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
And I ignored it, because it's yet another red herring. No thanks.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I understand it must be tuff when scriptures disagree with your theology
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
yawn.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Was the passage in Ezekiel that you quoted from prophecy ? Something to come ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
If you have the time(for my sake) briefly state your standpoint. Thank you!
NCEVANGELIST 2 years ago
You are welcome to see my video "doctrines of grace" take a second you can find it somewhere on my channel. It explains what I believe
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I just watched your "Doctrines of Grace" video. I wish I'd seen it before our conversation began. It might've saved me much frustration. What a joke -- You claim to believe in Total Depravity, then contradict that man is totally depraved, by your false understanding of "free will". You deal likewise with every other "point" of Calvinistic soteriology.
Like your mentor (Norman Geisler) you're Semi-Pelagian to the core. Moderate Calvinism doesn't exist.
I thought I'd say this in closing.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Geisler is the founder of my college and actually my professor. However I have studied original reformed theology for a long time now. Modern day reformed theology is a bit different from what it was back then. For example John Calvin believed that faith preceded regeneration in the narrow use of the word regeneration. So I tend to stick to the early stuff and bypass all these guys trying to interpret it for me.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Cherry picking selections from Calvin and divorcing them from their contexts (the same thing you do with Holy Scripture) is not "sticking" to the "early stuff".
Your position is in utter disharmony with what Calvin taught and believed, and with what the Bible teaches us to believe (which is the same thing).
Your notions of libertarian free will prove that you don't understand anything Calvin taught.
Your (and Geisler's) disregard for truth proves something worse.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Hmm no my quotes from Calvin are his commentaries on scriptures speaking of regeneration. Had you actually studied Calvin you would also see the same thing in [ICR]
Also I dont believe in libertarian free will so you fail again
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
You most CERTAINLY believe in libertairan free will, else you could not claim in your "Doctrines of Grace" video that, though man is depraved, "man's will is free to choose the gift of salvation". That sir, is libertarian free will, and is a contradiction to the Doctrine of Total Depravity (aka Total Inability), and is in opposition to the Scriptures, one of which I've quoted several times which says that the man without the Spirit cannot understand spiritualy things.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Actually I hold to compatibilism. So I appreciate an apology. You are telling me what I believe and yet you dont even know me. I believe that is rather funny
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
If you're a compatibalist, then how can you possibly make the quote I just made above? Either a person can only make the choices in accordance to the desires of his heart (which is what the Bible teaches, what Calvin taught, and what every Reformed Christian believes), or a person can choose against the desires of his heart (the latter is called insanity, and is the position of Open Theists). But you said that unregenerate sinners can choose Christ, and this is the position of libertarianism.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Well lets see hearts continually evil yet before I became born again I made selfless choices. Choices that would not benefit me but would benefit others and actually would put me in a bad position. HMM doesn't sound as though I chose according to me will. Also Calvin taught the image of God was not destroyed there remains a spark
Also open theist disregard the attributes of God, I believe u need to take aaaaalot more time to study before attacking what someone else believes
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
The choices you made were in accordance to your will. You did that which you desired most, for whatever reason. Even if your choices are reduced to two, as in "Your money, or your life" as a gun is held to your head. You will make the choice that you desire most. But a man who despises the God of the Bible (all by nature do, which is why we erect idols, either physical or mental) cannot incline himself toward God without a prior change to his will from outside. Regeneration must precede faith.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Calvin never taught that there was a spark -- that was Arminius. There's a WORLD of difference between the imago Dei which Calvin taught, and a spark (or island) of righteousness, which Arminius taught, which is able to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God, all the while being dead in sin.
And I attack what I know you believe, based upon what you've said. No matter what other wicked attributes Open Theists have which you might not have you both share a libertarian view of the will.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Still, however, the impression remains seated in our hearts, that nothing will happen which the Lord has not provided. In this sense the term event is repeatedly used in Ecclesiastes, because, at the first glance, men do not penetrate to the primary cause which lies concealed. And yet, what is taught in Scripture of the secret providence of God was never so completely effaced from the human heart, as that some sparks did not always shine in the darkness.
John Calvin,
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
This is your proof that Calvin taught "the image of God was not destroyed there remains a spark" [of human ability to believe the Gospel, even though their spirits are dead]???
Calvin, in this passage, is talking about man's perception of God's Providence in "fortuitous" events. The very next sentence makes this abundantly clear: "Thus the soothsayers of Philistines, though they waver in uncertainty, attribute the adverse event to God and partly to chance."
Context, context, context!
stegokitty 2 years ago
Lol, so now Calvin did say that there was spark in man. Hence we have the sovereignty of God, Calvin did not go in depth on the spark in this passage, the reason being he was not yet ready to deal with that subject, yet the fact still remains
(John 1:4, 5). He intimates that the human soul is indeed irradiated with a beam of divine light, so that it is never left utterly devoid of some small flame, or rather spark, though not such as to enable it to comprehend God.
cont>
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
You are truly delusional (just like Norman!). He was "not yet ready"? Oh, so now you're a mind reader. The "fact remains"? No it doesn't. YOU said Calvin claimed that there was some kind of divine spark remaining in man that ENABLES HIM TO CHOOSE TO BELIEVE GOD. You have proven nothing of the sort. The use of the word "spark" doesn't make your claim truthful. In fact, it only proves how utterly dishonest you are. You're bent on being "right" no matter the cost.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Anyone who has actually read Calvin on the subject of Total Depravity know that Calvin did not believe the image of God was destroyed. That their still remain something (a spark) The spark Calvin taught was our reason or intellect. ( our want to search for truth) Although it be marred severely by the fall man still remained with yet a spark. I suggest you do more study before spouting off that Calvin did not teach some things maybe taking the time to study before you speak will help cont>
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I've read Calvin, and THOUSANDS of other REAL Calvinists have as well, and we attest that he, like we, deny EVERYTHING you are suggesting. Calvins NEVER suggests that faith in Christ is attainable by mere inellect (which is what you're suggesting).
The only thing you've proven (once again) is that you're incapable of discerning even what is being spoken in English.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Are you telling me what I just quoted was not Calvin? Or are you just being willfully ignorant?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Calvin himself held that faith preceded
regeneration ("To renew a soul of man and form it anew to the image of God — is
not a human work, and it is of this spiritual regeneration that he now speaks.
Yet because the soul is regenerated by faith, and "faith is by hearing," (Romans
10:17,)", Calvin's Commentary on Philemon 10")
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
this is seen also in his
commentary on John 3:36 Calvin states "Some understand it thus: "as by believing
we receive the Spirit, who regenerates us in order to justification, by that
very regeneration we obtain salvation." For my own part, though I acknowledge it
to be true, that we are renewed by faith, so that the Spirit of Christ governs
us,"
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Not only that but in his commentary on John 8:32 he states "For so long as
we are governed by our sense and by our natural disposition, we are in bondage
to sin; but when the Lord regenerates us by his Spirit, he likewise makes us
free, so that, loosed from the snares of Satan, we willingly obey righteousness.
But regeneration proceeds from faith, and hence it is evident that freedom
proceeds from the Gospel." Need I comment more!
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
He taught that man was totally depraved but you guys would think that the image of God was destroyed Calvin taught no such thing. He taught the depravity of man the bondage to sin. That even though we have a spark we cannot understand apart from the enlightenment of God.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Yeah, it just never ends. Therefore I am truly ending (this time for real) any further conversation with you.
May God have mercy on you.
PS - In case God does have mercy, and opens your eyes, you may then look me up and apologise -- the same way I looked up those I opposed when I was an anti-Calvinist (and I was better at it than you, in all honesty), after God opened my eyes to the truthfulness of the Reformed Faith.
stegokitty 2 years ago
You don't defend yourself very well. I would say you need more study. Just a thought...................
REASONMANN 2 years ago
I have yet to comprehend why you call yourself a "moderate calvinist".. Your an arminian, plain and simple. The fact that you believe in "total depravity" does not constitute the title "calvinist", moderate or traditional. Many Arminians believe in total depravity. Maybe a name change is in order.
Freewillheresy 2 years ago
This is the most convoluted and ridiculous "logic" I think I've ever heard (other than the ravings of an evolutionist). This is yet another straw man erected, in order to discredit Calvinism, when all it does is to display that MC doesn't know what Calvinists believe at all.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Calvinism is a cult.
calvinismisacult 2 years ago
I'm new to this debate and short on knowledge on what both sides believe. I admit as I have read that I tend to agree with Mr. MC..lol. Only because of my own experience of salvation. I couldn't have faith in Christ unless I heard about him some how, sermon, book, witness, dream..Romans 10:14-17. I receive grace because I found out it was offered to me. Its an awesome debate topic but I haven't heard (personally) anyone say how grace and faith was made real to them. Just a thought. Fun stuff!
ixthustruth 2 years ago
Are you saying that Justification is not by faith?
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Sola Fidei means we are justified by faith
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
How can a man dead in sin believe the Gospel unless God gives him new life?
Regeneration is temporally inseparable from faith. Faith and regeneration occur at the same time because regeneration is the act of the Holy Spirit giving faith.
Read Ephesians 2:1-10 about the elect being dead in sin and being given faith by the work of the Spirit.
Men will only sin and cannot do any good (they cannot even think righteous things) unless God gives them life, gives them the new birth.
NapoleonReece 2 years ago
Ok, dead men can believe because God enlightens them. Man cannot come to God unless he first draws them and enlightens them. I understand you believe enlightenment is regeneration the problem is nowhere is the word enlightenment interchanged with regeneration. Your understanding is not from the scriptures themselves
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Okay, so you're suggesting that ALL men who hear the Gospel are enlightened in the knowledge of Christ and are then enabled to believe the Gospel. So then WHY DO SOME BELIEVE AND OTHERS DON'T??? Why did you? Were you smarter? Nobler? Less proud? less sinful? You must have been, afterall, the other guy sitting on the same pew, hearing the same sermon, with the same degree of enlightenment didn't believe. Aren't you proud of yourself?
stegokitty 2 years ago
(Jesus) the true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world
And this is the judgment : (Jesus) has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
But to all who did receive (Jesus), who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Is this supposed to be a response to my comments? If so, you've missed the boat. It doesn't answer the question why one SINNER believes when another SINNER doesn't. You're skirting the issue, and attempting to us universalistic "sounding" verses (which cannot be universal, otherwise all would believe), in typical Arminian fashion. Address the issue please. Stop ducking and hiding.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Maybe you should read slower you might actually see human decision in there lol
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
The only way a human WILL DECIDE is if his nature is changed from one who is not opposed to God, one which does not love his sin, one that does not think the Gospel is foolishness. ONLY THEN will the human will be inclined toward making the sort of "decision" you are suggesting.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Yep, no one can come to God unless God draws him. Man cannot initiate salvation. But that is not proof of monergism. Monergism is regeneration before faith, can you please demonstrate that from the bible ? I believe the bible teaches you believe in order to be saved. Also I am looking forward to your video responses especially to this video
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
The Bible teaches we are JUSTIFIED by faith. The word "saved" can have many meanings, and is sometimes interchangeable with justification, depending on the context. One must believe in order to be justified. One must understand the Gospel (concerning his sin, and of Christ being the Saviour) in order to believe. One must be spiritually alive in order to understand and to accept spiritually things. One must be called (inwardly, effectually) in order to be raised to life.
stegokitty 2 years ago
ooow this is good. So you are saying a person is not saved when they are regenerated ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Of course not. We are justified by faith, but we are not CHOSEN or ELECTED UNTO salvation by faith. God elects some to believe, and that's what they all do, infallibly, every single time. Christ loses not a single one that the Father has given him. Some people are regenerated for long periods of time before they actually exercise saving faith. This is standard Calvinistic theology.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Calvin refutes your position
The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and (sanctification,regeneration) which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997). III, xi, 6.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
This is not a refutation of my position anymore than James refutes Paul. It is a very tiny snippet of Calvin's Theology (and of mine for that matter). Just as there are difficult sayings in the Bible, there are difficult passages in the thoughts of every thoughtful man. The components of salvation are inseparable indeed, but not necessarily partaken of at precisely the same moment in time, and this is not anything that is refuted in this passage from the Theolgian.
stegokitty 2 years ago
lol you are separating the inseparable also you deny that a person is saved when they are regenerated yet scripture say the opposite
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:5KJV
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Salvation is a blanket term for all that takes place in the elect. Regeneration by itself doesn't constitute salvation anymore than does Justifcation or Sanctification. They are all part of "Salvation" proper. One is regenerated IN ORDER TO believe and be justified, IN ORDER TO BE sanctified, IN ORDER TO BE glorified. Those who are foreknown (foreloved), and those only are regenerated. They alone are sanctified and glorified. But none of this takes place UNLESS they are regenerated.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Notice you wont address the text
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
It's difficult for me to address the text when it's already supporting my position. You're saying that we're regenerated by a work of righteousness, exercising faith, and thereby make faith a meritorious work, rather than the means, the conduit, by which God accounts us as justified.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I guess the word saved does not need to be in there right because it is not making the point that when a person is regenerated he is saved. It would be helpful to the discussion if you actually gave me some exegesis on the verse b/c it is very clear in what it says and as it stands you are incorrect that a person is not saved when they are regenerated I know a lot of calvinist that disagree with you. In fact you are welcome to look at my debate over total depravity on my blog.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I believe it comes from not understanding the meanings of words contextually. For instance, when I said that the word "especially" is equal with "particularly" you did this word-search, attempting to prove that it was not so. You claimed as much, only I discovered that Strong's says it is synonymous, and the M-W dictionary says it is in English as well. Then there are Greek variants that prove my point. Owning a concordance and Greek dictionary doesn't make one an expert. JW's do the same thing.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Especially is clearly how the greek is stated you can translate the greek malista into many words in english in fact you can make up your own words. But that does not change how it is translated in the greek. In fact especially does not change the fact that he is the savior of all.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Christ is the Saviour of all people? Period? Then this contradicts your own assessment of those who never hear the Gospel. Not to mention it renders the word "Saviour" as nonsensical. Christ is the Saviour of his people. He is not the potential Saviour of anyone. He actually saves. He saves everyone whom the Father gave him from the foundation of the world. Them and them alone.
stegokitty 2 years ago
When the text emphasizes that God is the Deliverer of all people (1 Tim 4:10; Titus 2:10f.), this is perhaps a reaction against Gnostic thought that divides people into the chosen and the rejected; similarly, 1 Tim 1:1 and Titus 1:3 teach the universality of salvation. cont>
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
The doxology in Jude 25 calls the one God σωτήρ, and the addition through Jesus Christ establishes the relationship to the latter; the context determines whether he is understood as the mediator either of redemption or of the glorification of God.
Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990-c1993). 3:326.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
The use of σωτήρ here with reference to God the Father reflects Pauls concern to communicate this reality of God as Savior as a corrective to the false teachers perspective on God as less than the Savior of all people.
George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992). 62.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I don't have a copy of Mr Knight's commentary, so I can't verify the context in which he's saying what he's saying. However, there is nothing in the quote that necessitates what you are suggesting, since I (and any Calvinist) can say that Christ is the Saviour of all people, all the while with an understanding that this is not meant to be taken on an individualistic and universalistic manner, but rather meaning "from every tribe, tongue, and nation". False teachers thought He saved only Jews.
stegokitty 2 years ago
So you are saying Christ is the Savior of all people. That quote was from 1 tim 1
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I'm saying (and the Bible is saying) that Christ IS the Saviour of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Christ is not the Saviour of every individual. Christ is not the POTENTIAL Saviour - he IS the Saviour who actually saves. He saves (and loses none) all that the Father gives him. And all that the Father gives him (and they only) come to Christ. They hear his voice, because they are his sheep.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Yes, God is the Saviour of his people. He is the Judge and Executioner of his enemies. Christ died for the sheep (on his right hand, who go into paradise). He didnt' die for the goats (on his left hand, who go into damnation - - He never knew them). Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have I hated.
stegokitty 2 years ago
LOL you know what is funny James White uses your same argument on his website and says that George Knight believes that it should be translated as "that is" However I just posted a direct quote from Knight that contradicts your guy's understanding it is really funny.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Please see the extra note I just made on the quote from Knight (above). It might be helpful. Just to let you know, it's rather interesting to me how you're so busy making sure that what I and James White and George Knight (et al) say is all the same, while I've never even heard of George Knight, and have only read a book by White. I don't try to align what I believe with another man, only with what the Bible teaches, contextually, historically, etc. You know, hermeneutics. ;o)
stegokitty 2 years ago
Interesting so you are saying you dont hold to modern day traditional calvinism
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Universality of salvation??? You believe in the universality of salvation? Everyone is saved, or everyone is going to be saved???
stegokitty 2 years ago
Christ sacrifice is sufficient for all sins, however atonement is not applied to someones account until they believe, I am surprised you dont know this. You claim to be studied in soteriology but you dont understand the basic principle of justification hence sola fidei
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Um, who said I didn't know that? Your previous comment intimated nothing to do with the sufficiency or application of Christ's death. Christ's sacrifice is of infinite VALUE, but is applied only to the elect (those who believe). Try getting your facts straight first before accusing. Also, please try and not make run-on sentences. It's difficult enough trying to figure out what you are (and aren't) saying, without having to decipher where a thought ends and another begins. Thanks in advance
stegokitty 2 years ago
lol,,,,,,,
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
The in-house debate on this matter would include people like John (the baptizer) and Isaac, who appear to have been regenerated long before they would've had actual saving faith. I won't really get into it here, as I said it's an in-house debate, and you've not even gotten the necessity of regeneration for faith to take place part yet, so it would be a futile discussion.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Sorry, not meaning to be a pain here, but this is a very interesting topic for me. I found these three verses, which describes our salvation as "being saved": 1 Cor 1:18; 1 Cor 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that an elect and regenerate person can fall away from the faith and be lost. It's that, again, Regeneration necessarily is instantaneous, but it appears that conversion may be either instantaneous or gradual. No matter what though, all who are regenerate believe.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I think you are mixing sanctification and regeneration. Early reformers used the word regeneration sometimes in a broader sense denoting sanctification. They used the word regeneration for everything. Today we seek to define our terms more concisely to clarify what we are talking about. We try to distinguish our theology from that of the catholic church. We are saved in the past present future
regeneration, sanctification, glorification
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I'm not mixing anything. I'm well aware of the different uses of the word "regeneration" by earlier Christians. Since, as you claim you're so educated in Reformed Theology you shouldn't be having so much trouble with the terms I'm using. Don'tchawonder? I don't.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Well, sir I am pointing out your problems defining terms according the the scripture. I see you are trying to brush off your un scriptural definitions. Also to pawn it off on me as though I am having the trouble defining my terms is purely ludicrous.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
This would be laughable if it weren't so serious. My definitions are not, and have not been proven to be unscriptural. You are indeed having problems understanding terms, which, I believe is apparent to everyone observing this "conversation". Otherwise, how is it that you don't see the difference between being dead IN sins, and accounting oneself as dead TO sin? I'm flaberghasted, to be honest.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I actually should've qualified that by saying "it might be possible for some to be regenerated for long periods ...". This is an in-house debate, one of which I'm not entirely sure of. But people like John (the baptizer) and Isaac, et al, seem to indicate that they were regenerated quite a while before actual conversion. I might be wrong, and I don't mind being wrong. That only gives me an opportunity to learn what is right.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I do not see any scriptures that say a person was regenerated and not saved. That would be a clear contradiction to Titus 3:5
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
There's a world of difference between having a literal interpretation and a literalistic interpretation. It appears to me, you're trapped in the latter.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Sorry man I believe hermeneutics is the proper way to interpret the bible
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Actually you seem to believe that ignoring context, and scrutinizing the words, as if each verse were an island to itself, is the proper means of interpretation. You can no more rightly interpret the Word in that manner than you could remove the tip of my little finger and examine it under a microscope. You'd know my chemical makeup, but you wouldn't have a clue as to what I, as a person was like. This is how you treat Scripture.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Strawman, again I hold to hermeneutics how do you interpret the bible ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
her·me·neu·tic
1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)
2 : a method or principle of interpretation
Did you just learn this word? Is that why you keep slinging it about in the foolish way you have? I've already stated the definition before, but I thought perhaps you'd take MW's word for it.
Everyone who interprets uses hermeneutics - good or bad. Yours is bad.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Actually there has always been two schools of thought the school of Alexandria (interpreted the bible as all spiritual) which by the way was mid evil theology, the dark ages. The school of Antioch (hermeneutics) which believed in interpreting the bible as such
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Then, contrary to your accusations, I fall into the Antioch school, since I've not spiritualized anything. In fact, I've planted all I've said quite firmly on solid ground. BTW, you still haven't ceased with the run-on sentences; and it's medieval (not mid-evil).
stegokitty 2 years ago
Just b/c you take the bible literally does not mean you use the hermeneutics process to interpret the living word. So as you stated = everyone interprets the bible using hermeneutic's, you would be wrong.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
A proper hermeneutic involves more than mere word studies (which appears to be your approach). One must first begin with a Christ centered Theology, then consider the covenant, history, and culture, along with how to apply it. Just because I'm not breaking it down thusly in each entry doesn't mean I'm not using these principles. Do you expect one in a kick boxing match to describe each punch and kick, or simply to do it, by means of familiarity and practice -- as if by second nature?
stegokitty 2 years ago
Yes there is also syntax to think about. Dispensation, covenant, history, culture, text criticism.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Also, there is simply not enough room in these tiny comment areas to prove my exegesis and hermeneutic. Perhaps, if you wish, I'll do something like that in a personal email, or a video on the differences between being "dead in sins and dead to sin"? Let me know which you'd prefer. I'm just extremely busy right now, so the video would be slower coming than an email.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I would be interested in a video so others can see.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Jesus said "No one CAN come to me, UNLESS the Father draws him." That is poof of regeneration preceding faith.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Now that is an interesting statement. Can you please show me how drawing is regeneration ? Maybe I am missing something in the greek. Please define your terms according to the bible or people that study the bible will be confused
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Can you please show me how drawing is NOT regeneration? How else does God "draw" anyone? Jesus is clear that God draws those who believe in Christ. Them and no others. One cannot be drawn in a salvific sense, unless they are regenerate. One cannot hear a call unless they are alive. One cannot believe spiritual things unless they are spiritually alive. It doesn't take a Greek word study to come to this conclusion. This is simple logic, derived from the Scriptures themselves CONTEXTUALLY.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Hmm you answer questions with questions. It appears you logic is flawed because there is no contextual support. Drawing is NOT regeneration. All of your arguments are not based in scripture SOLA SCRIPTURA. So I will ask you again show me in the bible where drawing is regeneration. If you cannot then your argument is beyond scripture and therefor you have no foundation. I do expect an answer or a confession that drawing is not regeneration
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Is this really the best you can do? This is like suggesting that in order to prove the doctrine of the Trinity you have to find a verse that says "Trinity" or a verse that has Jesus saying "Hi, my name is Jesus, and by the way, I'm God Almighty". These are the same tactics used by JW's.
The short answer, again, is that one cannot DRAW a dead man to do anything. Spiritually dead men are not drawn to Christ UNLESS they are made alive. It is an inward drawing.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Your argument is fruitless. Clearly you don't understand the true concept of regeneration. Hence you feel you can call regeneration everything but what it truly is. Drawing is not creating someone into a new creature. Drawing is drawing. Drawing has no connotations of a recreation at all. So what basis do you have ? None you are speaking of two completely different things yet you try to make the synonymous terms, again I ask where is the relationship proving that they are the same ? NONE
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
So why not tell us, Mr Word-study boy, what exactly IS drawing, if it doesn't equal or involve regeneration? Check out the word translated "draw", think about what is necessary for this to occur, and then get back to me. K?
stegokitty 2 years ago
Answer a question with a question when you cant back up your assertion. Poor show.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
And let me add: Acts 13:47-49 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,"'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you maybring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, AND AS MANY AS WERE APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.
It doesn't say "those who believed were appointed to eternal life" but rather "those who were appointed to eternal life believed".
God saves sinners.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Hmm now lets cross reference that with
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Jn 5:24
By the way I just saw your video response to my "those who never hear" video I just put together a response. You need to actually use hermeneutics when you study the bible you are seriously lacking in study. GBY
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Okay, now I understand that I'm talking to someone who is completely incapable of intelligent, adult conversation. My argument against your position is irrefutable.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Hmm, ad hominem I believe you made that accusation against people in your video that I posted this response to. Problem is my friend I actually study reformed theology probably more then any other subject. This video defeats you understanding of Total depravity since faith precedes regeneration. Until you can refute it (not possible) you are defeated
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Ah, so making the (obviously) incorrect accusation that I need study is somehow not ad hominem, yet when I (correctly) deduce that you seem not to be able to understand clear logic, I am now the only one making an ad hominem.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Your argument was not against my response but against my character ad hominem. I am sure you understand that
———————
1ad ho•mi•nem \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\ adj
marked by or being an attack on an opponents character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
———————
2ad hominem adv
1962 : in an ad hominem manner 〈was arguing ad hominem〉
Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
No response to the ad hominem comment maybe acknowledgment of your error accusing others of what you are doing
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Oh, I missed the obvious -- yes, I believe that you've studied Reformed Theology more than any other subject, which means you've only spent 3 minutes on the other subjects compared to the 5 minutes you've spent on RT.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Wow, Blair, just look at your comment. Such pride in that! Is this about winning a debate to you, or about Truth? It seems to be, about who has the most 'brain power' or who has studied the most!! You have shown yourself to be in gross error, and stegokitty, has shown you as well. But you in your pride, will not fess up, because you "study reformed theology probably more then any other subject"! "you are defeated"!! Comon!!
Haukman66 2 years ago
Sorry I dont except your statement. I thought before I posted and examined my statement to make sure of that.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
So let me ask you a question do you believe a person can be regenerated and not be saved ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Of course not. Romans 8:29-31 (ESV) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
All of God's elect (and them only) are predestined, called, justfified, and glorified -- infallibly, irresistably, and all to the glory of God's grace. To him be the glory!
stegokitty 2 years ago
Dont see your point
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
You asked if I belived a person can be regenerated and not be saved. I gave the answer. The answer is that all of God's elect are saved in time. They are all called, they are all justified, they are all glorified. They and no other is glorified, they and no other are justified, they and no other are called, they and no other are predestined, they and no other are foreloved by God.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Apparently you are having a hard time understanding. Can a person be (regenerated present tense) and not saved (present tense)
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
This part of the conversation has ended. You haven't even gotten past "wax on, wax off" on the issue of regeneration in the first place, so attempting to discuss this "snap kick" with you is simply an act in frustration to both parties. My position is that all who are regenerated come to faith. Whether there is ever a gap between regeneration and conversion is something to be contemplated. I think the examples of John (the baptizer) and Isaac, et al, are possible examples. Do infants believe?
stegokitty 2 years ago
Apparently you are having a hard time understanding. Can a person be (regenerated present tense) and not be (saved present tense)
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Again, you're using the word "saved" as a blanket term (which is fine, depending on the context), but the question should be "Can a person be regenerated (present tense) and not be justified (present tense)? To which I'd answer. "I'm not entirely sure, but it appears from John and Isaac, (et al) this may be so. But again, this is too heavy a topic for one who hasn't yet nailed down the fact of regeneration being necessary for faith. So we're not going to go anywhere else on this one.
stegokitty 2 years ago
If you are not sure would it not be wise to study the topic ? Read hebrews 9
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
So were is your refutation of this video ? Hmm it seems that you have no argument of that which is in this video. Yet you hold the monergistic position in light of having no argument
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Guess what. That made absolutely no sense at all.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Thats ok your intelligence is not a qualifier for you being defeated. You dont have to understand how you are wrong to be wrong
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
My video presentation refutes everything that you believe.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Depends on if you believe hermeneutics is the proper way to interpret the bible. It is obvious from you video that exegesis is lost from any interpretation you give. Any argument you bring is invalid based on your faulty interpretation methods
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
I've been seeing you posting this nonsense over and over, with utterly no proof of my lack of hermeneutic nor lack of exegesis. I've been moving along quite lovely with these in fact. It's interesting that if I don't work in accord with your (faulty) hermeneutic, and lack of exegesis, then I (obviously) am lacking thusly. However, I think everyone would agree that it's really the opposite that is true.
stegokitty 2 years ago
If you dont use hermeneutics as your basis for interpretation dont bother posting it is a waste of my time. If two people cannot agree in the proper way of interpretation they will never come out with the same answer therefore it is meaningless
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Everyone who interprets uses a hermeneutic, whether it is a faulty one or a proper one. I interpret the Scriptures the way all of the greats do (and that would include Paul, and incidently Christ himself), and that would be from a covenantal perspective. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Boss.
stegokitty 2 years ago
I am glad you are representing calvinism. I think James White would thoroughly disagree with you he believe hermeneutics is the basis for interpretation.
Well since you believe that we receive the Spirit then believe maybe you can explain this scripture as well
So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith ?
God gives us the Spirit how ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Once again, this is a matter of contextual interpretation. Giving the Spirit is not necessarily talking about regeneration. Why else does David say "take not your Holy Spirit from me". What! Was David thinking that he'd lost his salvation; or did David know that his wicked behaviour would put a severe dampening of the work of God's Spirit in his life?
In the same way, the word "saved" doesn't always mean ultimate, spiritual salvation, otherwise James tells us women are saved by giving birth.
stegokitty 2 years ago
People in the old testment were not regenerated as in the new testament. It is that sacrifice of Christ that regenerates a person and as scripture says that was not applied until the actual death of Christ. The Spirit came upon people in the ot and left today people are sealed with the Spirit and it does not leave
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Although theyre connected theres a difference between being empowered by the Holy Spirit, and being spiritually regenerated. Spiritual regeneration is simply spiritual life. Moses was spiritually alive, Pharaoh wasnt. Hence I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I harden whom I will harden. OT saints were just as spiritually alive as NT saints.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Please give scripture references
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Again please give scripture reference
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Are you serious? You want a verse that says that Abraham, Moses, David, and other OT saints were spiritually regenerated??? Buddy, how did they UNDERSTAND SPIRITUAL THINGS IF THEY HADN'T THE SPIRIT? You need to zip up. Your Dispensationalism is showing. Again, asking for a verse like this is tatamount to a JW asking for a verse that says "Trinity". Get off it.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Notice you have no scripture reference for your theology. How is it a study of God when you are not getting your understanding from scripture ?
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Actually I've been quoting Scripture left and right in just about every comment I've made. I thought you were such an astute disciple of the Scriptures. You don't recognise the verses? I'll make a point of doing so from now on. Although, I doubt it would make much difference, seeing as you've made up your mind already.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Your understanding of regeneration is not derived from the text itself. I have asked you time again, show me from the bible where drawing and regeneration are synonymous terms.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
And I keep telling you that it's obvious, as one cannot draw (intellectually and spiritually, since we're obviously not talking about a physical drawing) a dead person. Dead people don't DO anything. The only thing one could do would be to pick the dead person up and carry them or drag them along. There would be no response from the dead person. And again, would you use this same principle for the Doctrine of the Trinity???
stegokitty 2 years ago
People that respond to the drawing are regenerated. The drawing is not the regeneration the drawing is the drawing. The regeneration is the regeneration. I will ask you again show me where drawing and regeneration are synonymous terms. I have repeated this question many times and never an answer. If you cannot just simply state you cannot then we can move on.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
God enlightens dead men? How does one enlighten a dead person? Do yo u speak softly? loudly? in Japanese? No matter how much one speaks to a dead person, they can neither hear nor respond. This is simple logic.
No. God awakens the dead spirit in man, then speaks to him and enlightens him. Jesus said that EVERYONE who hears the Father comes to him. Therefore if God enlightens everyone, then everyone comes to the Son. Simple logic,
stegokitty 2 years ago
Paul tells us that we are dead to sin. I guess according to your theology (if you want to be consistent of course) you must also believe in sinless perfectionism. I am sure you dont want to be consistent.
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Paul tells US that WE are dead TO sin. He also tells us that we WERE dead IN our sins. Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins ; Col 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins.
stegokitty 2 years ago
dead still means dead so you believe in sinless perfectionism (if you want to be consistent) it does not matter (in or to) dead still means dead
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
How is this a response to what I just said? Dead most certainly is dead. YOU'RE the one who refuses to believe that. YOU said that dead men are able to exercise faith!!!!
stegokitty 2 years ago
So since we are dead to sin we cannot exercise sin. Awesome sinless perfectionism
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago
Where are you getting this dead TO sin stuff when talking about unregenerate sinners? The unregenerate are dead IN their sins. The regenerate are to consider themselves dead TO sin. That is, they are not slaves to it any longer. Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Please try and not mix up the two and then blame me for it. But of course, setting up straw men is typical of Semi-Pelagians and Arminians.
stegokitty 2 years ago
Dead in sin dead to sin dead still means dead. So if we are dead as you understand in sin (dead meaning inability) then we are also dead to sin (meaning inability) so since we are dead to sin we are unable TO sin since dead in your understanding means inability. Lets be consistent here
MODERATECALVINISM 2 years ago