The Reformation False Gospel Denies the New Birth
“This can be plainly seen in one of the most well-articulated Reformed treatises on the subject of the new birth: it is an article endorsed by the Reformed icon Graeme Goldsworthy, and the article is entitled, The False Gospel of the New Birth. Any questions?”
“This Gnostic paradigm enables those of the Reformed tradition to affirm the truthfulness of the new birth, while denying its significance. The new birth is a mere shadow of the only important thing that can power our lives. Like their Gnostic parents, they are masters of deception in this way. It enables them to dismiss the plain sense of Scripture on a large scale while building their antinomian juggernaut.”
_______________________________________________________
Hopefully, the Reformation will one day take its proper place in history as one of the great cults. Like all cults, it utilizes familiar biblical terminology, but has assigned a different meaning to the terms. Though the Reformers and their offspring frame explanations of salvific elements in biblical plausibility, their words are carefully chosen to deceive those who are not “ready” for their deep Reformation “truth.”
Basic elements of Reformed ideology are a direct affront to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Christ said, “You must be born again,” and this the Reformers deny. The biblical meaning of the new birth is a total recreation of the saved person. The old self was put to death and no longer lives—we are new creatures. “Behold, all things are new.” The old man who was inflamed in temptation by the law is now dead, and the believer is now free via the new birth to pursue freedom in the law, though not perfectly. This is what the new birth does: it changes the relationship of the law to the saved individual. He/she is no longer under it for justification, but upholds it as a kingdom citizen and slave to Jesus Christ. Failure thereof temporarily disrupts the intimate family relationship with the Father and the Son, but can be restored through a repentance that is not a washing, for we are already washed.
This creates an abundance of difficulties for Reformed theology. An actual transformation of the individual that includes the efficacious union of Christ, rather than the life of Christ being the only life in a spiritually dead believer, is the Waterloo of Reformed theology. Are we alive with Christ? Or are we still dead with Christ? Is sanctification by faith alone because we are still dead, or are we creditable colaborers who are able to truly love our Lord through our actions?
In Reformed theology, there is no new birth that makes us new creatures with Christ, the “new birth” is “Christ for us.” Not just for forgivenessof sins, but for EVERYTHING. “You can do nothing without me,” is translated, you can’t do anything at all because you are still spiritually dead.
Reformed theology is a let go and let God doctrine on steroids. And in Reformed theology, to deny that Christians remain spiritually dead is paramount to works salvation because the law remains the standard for justification. Instead of being dead to the law for justification, we are still dead to law for sanctification as well—the relationship has not changed—Christ must keep the law for us to maintain our just standing. This is why, according to most Reformed theology, you can lose your salvation if you do not live the Christian life by, “faith alone.” Trying to obey the law in sanctification is supposedly insanity because the standard is still perfection—we are still under the law. Not only that, we are still spiritually dead to boot. Justification texts are deceptively applied to sanctification and vice versa. It’s all the same.
This is why Reformed theology turns truth completely upside down at every point. It is a gargantuan library of lies that cover for other lies. It started with a false premise, and has spent over 500 years building, refining and crafting its narrative. It uses the same metaphysics that Satan needed to be equal with God. To compete with God, Satan needed to be different—so he created the antithesis of God: evil. Therefore, in Satan’s book, the whole story, or the rest of the story, or the totality of “wisdom,” should have included his creation as well: the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good alone is knowledge of God alone—Satan would have none of that.
Hence, the first sentence of the Calvin institutes describes wisdom as primarily the knowledge of God and us (who remain totally depraved). Therefore, according to the same garden metaphysics, we must remain evil in order to have a working epistemology. If we change, if we become more and more like God, the epistemological gateway is diminished. A deeper and deeper knowledge of our depravity can no longer be set against a deeper and deeper knowledge of God’s holiness—leading to more and more “wisdom.” Therefore, the idea of the new birth drives a stake through the heart of the first sentence of the Calvin institutes. The transformation of us just points more to knowledge about God and less about our former condition—this seems to upset Calvin’s epistemological apple cart.
But whether or not you buy my working theory on the deeper issue of metaphysics, the fact remains that Reformed theology clearly teaches that we remain totally depraved as Christians. The only argument is whether or not neo-Calvinism has distorted the original intent of the Reformers. I contend that they have not. And if they have, the Calvin purists can blame themselves because an apt treatise against the neo-Calvinists is nowhere to be found, but rather fellowship. If Calvinists don’t want to wear the shoe that fits, let them come out from among them.
In the Reformed mindset, to claim transformation through the new birth is to make salvation about us, and less about God. Such is not the truth because God doesn’t need evil to better define Himself, nor does He need evil as a contrast to magnify His glory. Therefore, pointing to our own evil does not glorify God. Becoming more like God glorifies God; Christ makes this clear in the Sermon on the Mount. But notable contemporary Reformers state the opposite, saying that emphasizing the enabling power of the new birth (as Christ did with the word, “must”) “eclipses” the glory of Christ:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).
~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed…. I would add that this “upside down” gospel has gone away— neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.
~ John Piper
Another way those of the Reformed tradition explain away plain truth about the new birth is the Reformed Emphasis Hermeneutic which is based on Gnosticism. Truth is beyond what the five senses can ascertain. What the five senses can ascertain are shadows and forms of the vision of the good. So, to “emphasize” what the Holy Spirit is helping us do within is emphasizing what we sense, and what Reformers call “subjective experience.” The only true objective truth is “the objective gospel outside of us” which is a Reformed mantra (http://www.objectivegospel.org/). What they have done is reversed normal metaphysics in the same way Gnosticism does. What we observe is no longer empirical, but deemed subjective; only the true vision of the good is objective; ie, the gospel outside of us. Therefore, to emphasize the new birth is to emphasize the shadows and forms of the higher good, and not the higher good. It is “emphasizing a good thing, but not the best thing,” and, “emphasizing the fruit, and not the root.” This Gnostic paradigm enables those of the Reformed tradition to affirm the truthfulness of the new birth, while denying its significance. The new birth is a mere shadow of the only important thing that can power our lives. Like their Gnostic parents, they are masters of deception in this way. It enables them to dismiss the plain sense of Scripture on a large scale while building their antinomian juggernaut. This can be plainly seen in one of the most well-articulated Reformed treatises on the subject of the new birth: it is an article endorsed by the Reformed icon Graeme Goldsworthy, and the article is entitled, The False Gospel of the New Birth. Any questions?
Reformed theology is in no wise truthful on any point other than some facts that are used as coconspirators in their evil plot to take away from God’s objective truth, and also add to it. Their doctrine drives a stake through the very heart of the true gospel. They boldly deny the words of the Lord of Lords, the glorious Holy King: “You must be born again.”
And their desert will be just.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
LikeLike
Paul,
Have you actually read this article by Goldsworthy? He does not deny the reallity of regeneration but the centrality of it. His point is that when, by regeneration, the Holy Spirit produces faith in us, he does not cause us to look within ourselves, but away from ourselves to Christ. That is the Spirit’s current ministry. Jesus said, “He shall testify of me.” When the Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost, he moved Peter to preach about Christ, not about his internal work in sinners’ hearts.
LikeLike
Randy,
I have read Reformed material, including Goldsworthy, to the point of forgetting more of it than you will ever read. I make my case in the article. Randy, please don’t waste my time, nor the time of readers here with arguments based on the Reformed reorientation of reality. Why bother us with that? There are many, many, Kool-Aid drinkers in the world–go play with them because you are beginning to annoy me again. Listen Randy, the article was entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” OK? I explain in detail what Godlsworthy’s Gnostic argument is. I wonder if you even read this article. Once again, I find my patience running out here.
LikeLike
“Much evangelicalism stresses the new birth as an instantaneous activity. But although being born again is a definite experience with a real beginning, both the Scriptures and the Reformers (why add this, wouldn’t Scripture be enough) emphasize the continuing nature of regeneration. Hence, we may speak of “continuing regeneration.” Calvin rightly taught that being born again is a lifelong process.” (Is a lifelong process what Jesus taught?)
This is a paragraph from the conclusion section of the article. This man is trying to dismiss, to some degree, evangelicalism because of the self focus of the new birth at that moment in time. Of course, this is to point out how Protestants, particularly Calvin, got it right. I think this article goes way too far, especially in light of the paragraph I copied above. For instance, where does Scripture emphasize “the continuing nature of regeneration.” I know that Calvin emphasizes this, but everything I see in Scripture points to new birth (justification) and then the lifelong process of sanctification. Sanctification is not only hearing, but DOING. We pray for God’s continued help in our sanctification. We pray for the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us. God is glorified as we are sanctified. We know this is all possible because of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
The article is definitely a push to say that Reformed is the correct perspective.
LikeLike
“Have you actually read this article by Goldsworthy? He does not deny the reallity of regeneration but the centrality of it. His point is that when, by regeneration, the Holy Spirit produces faith in us, he does not cause us to look within ourselves, but away from ourselves to Christ. ”
It is really hard to read how Jesus, Who was at creation, LOOKED at the rich young ruler and LOVED Him but did not “produce faith in him” so he could be one of the elect that was predestined before Adam sinned. I mean, the guy even asked God in the flesh what to do! And according to the doctrine of the NC, NCT, REformed, etc, the only way we can read it through their filter is that Jesus consigned him to hell at that moment and did not force him to “want” to give up his riches. He was refused regeneration.
And we wonder why there is such a darkness in that determinist god filter of theirs. A short walk to Allah, I tell you!
LikeLike
Look what reformed theology does to the Cross; what they claim to be the core of their ministries. By their definition of election, I say this: the Cross does not make election possible; election makes the cross a perfunctory, pointless standing on ceremony. By metaphysical definition, it is utterly redundant. But a contradictory declaration of truth and existence of both man and God is how they defend their sole right to divine Enligtenment. It only SEEMS contrary to you because God has not granted you eyes to see. The implicit contradiction to this is that, if true, and lay-sheep are literally insane, being utterly blind to truth and reality, how is it that these lay-sheep can be expected to grasp the “truth” of what the Gnostics command? By definition, they are MINDLESS. How are lay-sheep able to do anything “right”? The whole wicked theology self destructs because it makes it impossible for anyone not a “leader” to KNOW anything. And if they can’t know anything, they can’t do anything. The whole slippery slope of nonsense winds up full circle at God. In order for man to exist, God must possess him. He possess the Gnostics, who in turn must possess the mindless sheep in order to lead them. God is man and man is God.
And thus the logical question is: who in the hell are they to tell ANYONE, ANYTHING? By their own circular logic, I am as much God as they are.
LikeLike
GWR-
does it not get tedious to you to have to constantly come on here to defend the tenants of Calvinism? would it not be more productive if we were able to discuss the Word of God instead of looking at Scripture in the eyes of Calvinism and Reformed theology? Did you not just read Pauls post about the “church fathers” and how they influenced reformed thought via Augustine? Reformed is what that meant- Reformed. Reforming the Catholic Church to fit the ideals of a certain Calvin or Luther. They did not want to separate from the Catholic Church or they would not have been called Reformers. We did not need to reform the Catholic Church we needed to abandon it once and for all! I guess it became a nifty thing for the Calvinist or Reformer to keep that “control” thing going.
LikeLike
I would like to comment on what Lydiasellerofpurple wrote:
“It is really hard to read how Jesus, Who was at creation, LOOKED at the rich young ruler and LOVED Him but did not “produce faith in him” so he could be one of the elect that was predestined before Adam sinned. I mean, the guy even asked God in the flesh what to do! And according to the doctrine of the NC, NCT, REformed, etc, the only way we can read it through their filter is that Jesus consigned him to hell at that moment and did not force him to “want” to give up his riches. He was refused regeneration.”
And we wonder why there is such a darkness in that determinist god filter of theirs. A short walk to Allah, I tell you!
This allusion was taken from Mark 10: 21. All the Synoptic Gospels contain this account but only Mark includes that “Jesus looking on him loved him.” If you wish to consider the passage in context, you can read it in Matt. 19: 16-30, Mark 10: 17-31, and Luke. 18: 18-30. All these passages relate essentially the same account.
In case you don’t understand the reference to NC, NCT, and REformed, those refer to New Calvinists, New Covenant Theology, and Reformed. If you have any understanding of these views, you will recognize immediately that this statement is a perversion of their actual doctrine. I must confess my personal ignorance of the New Calvinists view since, to my knowledge, I have never met a “New Calvinists.” My assumption at this point is that the New Calvinists, if they are Calvinists indeed, believe essentially what the Old Calvinists believed on this issue. If you are a New Calvinist and wish to correct my understanding at this point, I urge you to do so.
Now, let’s talk about the above quotation.
My first observation is that it appears to me the blogger was not interested in a discussion of the matter at hand since she did not give any biblical reference so that others might interact with the verse in its context.
Second, the comment comes as an accusation, not as a matter for instruction. My question is, whom is she accusing? Ostensibly, she is accusing NC, NTC, and REformed, but a careful reading of her words will reveal that she is actually accusing Jesus. It may come as a shock to some, but these passages were not written by followers of John Calvin. The passage says what it says and indicates what Jesus said and did. Among other points of information, the passage tells us Jesus looking on him, loved him, and then allowed him to go away disappointed. By the standards of modern evangelism, Jesus blew it.
Third, the quotation assumes facts not in evidence. It would be vain to speculate about what happened to this young man after he went away. We simply don’t know whether he was ever converted. The blogger seems to be viewing this account from the standard of modern evangelism according to which sowing seed and reaping the harvest must occur at the same time. It is incredible to me that evangelicals expect a phenomenon that never occurs in the realm of nature to occur in the spiritual realm. I have planted many seeds; I have never seen one sprout the same day I planted it. Notice the words, “the only way we can read it through their filter is that Jesus consigned him to hell at that moment and did not force him to “want” to give up his riches. He was refused regeneration.” Jesus “consigned him to hell AT THAT MOMENT.” I somehow missed that when I read the passage. Since Jesus let him slip through the net, there was no possibility he would ever be converted? Oh, really? Is there no possibility that he went away disappointed because for the first time in his life he began to understand that it was absolutely impossible that he could “do something to obtain eternal life?” Is it inconceivable that he later embraced Jesus in saving faith? Modern evangelism usually dismisses this possibility. If you don’t close the sale on your first try, you have failed.
This quotation also betrays the erroneous idea that at some point sinners are for the first time “consigned to hell.” He wasn’t consigned to hell before, but now “at that moment, Jesus consigned him to hell.” We all know about the biblical passage that tells us we are born innocent and continue that way until we come to the age of accountability. Then, if we reject the gospel we are consigned to hell. Perhaps, someone can remind me where the Bible states that.
Forth, the quote twists the Calvinistic doctrine at this point. No one believes, [at least no one should believe] that God has no love for the non-elect at all. Our teaching is that God does not love all sinners equally and in the same way. In his sermon on the mountain, Jesus instructed his disciples to love universally. We are not simply to love our friends and hate our enemies. He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt. 5: 43-45). The Bible makes it clear that God gives common grace to all his creatures. He opens his hand and satisfies the desire of every creature. There is no mystery that Jesus showed love and compassion for this lost and broken sinner. Later we watch as he weeps over Jerusalem. The apostle Paul confessed that he had great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart for his unconverted Jewish brothers. The question we must ask is whether everyone for whom Jesus showed love and compassion was loved with an everlasting love and redeeming love. The Scriptures make it clear that God’s love for his chosen people far exceeds this universal love and compassion that extends to his creatures, as creatures.
Fifth, the quote seems to indicate that if Jesus didn’t regenerate this man, he ought to have done so. Notice the words of the quote, “I mean, the guy even asked God in the flesh what to do.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding the implication of this statement, but it looks as if she is saying, “This guy really deserved eternal life since he actually asked Jesus what to do to obtain it.”
Please remember, the words in this passage are not a Calvinistic representation of what occurred on this occasion. By all accounts, Jesus let this man walk away unconverted. Perhaps I have misread the words, but if I understand the contention, it is that if Jesus could have done something about this man’s unrepentant heart, he would have. Since he let him walk away unconverted, he must have been powerless to change his heart.
Now either way, Jesus is to be blamed. If he could have changed this man’s heart and didn’t, he should have. We all know the Bible passage that states, “God owes everyone at least a chance at salvation,” right? If God doesn’t give everyone a level playing field, he isn’t fair. Perhaps someone reading this can refresh my memory about where that occurs in Scripture. I have read the Bible carefully and I just can’t find that passage. The alternative is that Jesus really wanted to change this young man’s heart but was powerless to do so. What a pitiful savior. Either way, Jesus failed to close the sale.
Sixth, the blogger misrepresents the Calvinistic position. She stated, “. . .but [Jesus] did not “produce faith in him” so he could be one of the elect that was predestined before Adam sinned.” What Calvinist believes that “when Jesus produces faith in them, people become one of the elect who were predestined before Adam sinned? That is simply a perversion of our doctrine.
Seventh, the quote twists the Calvinistic doctrine and represents it as teaching that, in conversion, God forces sinners to do something they really don’t want to do. She wrote, “. . . and did not force him to “want” to give up his riches.” God does not force anyone to do anything. If sinners rebel against God, we do so willingly. If we embrace Jesus as he is offered us in the gospel, we do so willingly. If this rich man had left his riches and followed Jesus, he would have delighted to do so and counted it no loss at all. The apostle Paul wrote that he had “suffered the loss of all things and counted them as rubbish” in comparison to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ (See Phil. 3:8).
Is she suggesting that it would have been better to simply leave this man in his abject inability to stop loving and worshipping this chief object of his delight. This is where sinners are doomed to remain unless God moves on them internally by the power of sovereign grace.
This brings us to the real issue. The issue is not that Jesus must have been unable to do anything about this man’s rebellious heart since he didn’t do what he would have and should have if he had the ability. Please notice that this man’s question had to do with “what he could do to obtain eternal life.” Since Adam’s fall, the sinner’s choice has always been “do it yourself” religion. The very question was an act of rebellion against God. God intended the entire Mosaic system to teach the sinner’s inability to do it himself. If you insist on doing something, then, as Jesus said, “You know the commandments. . . .” In his arrogance this man proclaimed, “I have kept these from my youth.” What utter self-deception! Jesus had to remind him that the Law required more than perfect and continual obedience; it required inward obedience. He did this by laying his finger on this man’s characteristic sin–the sin of covetousness. Jesus knew this man not only possessed stuff but that he was possessed by stuff. The Law asks sinners not only to stop doing things he has forbidden but to stop loving things that usurp God’s rightful position in their hearts.
The real issue is who was in control in this situation, Jesus or the rich man? Was this man able, in and of himself, to suddenly start loving God instead of his stuff?
Jesus answered the question quite forcefully. This is what he said, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:23-25).
The disciples’ response was a proper one. They said, “Then who can be saved” (v. 26)? We must not ignore Jesus’ answer to that important question. If we do so, we are bound to go astray, not only in our theology but also in our evangelistic methodology. He did not say, “Any sinner can be saved if he/she exercises the power of the will that has been set free by prevenient grace. All we need to do is persuade them to make a choice.” This is what he did say. Read it in large letters! “WITH MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT NOT WITH GOD. FOR ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD” (V. 27). Sinners in a state of sinful nature will never choose to forsake their idols and bow in saving faith to Christ. With them, it is impossible. It is the rest of the sentence that makes gospel proclamation profitable. Though salvation [even choosing to pass through the door of conversion] is impossible with men, it is possible with God. He is able to remove the stony heart and replace it with a heart of flesh and a new disposition. This is why we not only proclaim the gospel to the dead, but also pray that he, according to his sovereign good pleasure will bring them to spiritual life in Christ.
LikeLike
Barb, Since I have to go out in a minute, I am only going to be able to respond in increments.
“My first observation is that it appears to me the blogger was not interested in a discussion of the matter at hand since she did not give any biblical reference so that others might interact with the verse in its context.”
I would hope the readers here are familiar enough with scripture that we do not have to write novellas each time we comment. Since you are a new commenter, you might not understand that some of us interact on other blogs and have somewhat of an understanding of each other’s positions.. I am sorry I did not cite chapter and verse for you. I find this quite a bit in the Reformed world. Lots of gagging at gnats.
“Second, the comment comes as an accusation, not as a matter for instruction. My question is, whom is she accusing? Ostensibly, she is accusing NC, NTC, and REformed, but a careful reading of her words will reveal that she is actually accusing Jesus. It may come as a shock to some, but these passages were not written by followers of John Calvin. The passage says what it says and indicates what Jesus said and did. Among other points of information, the passage tells us Jesus looking on him, loved him, and then allowed him to go away disappointed. By the standards of modern evangelism, Jesus blew it. ”
Typical Reformed type response. I am “dissing” Jesus by accusation. The only thing that amazes me is that this sort of arrogant interaction actually works with people. It saddens me that it often does. This is another example of how the Calvin/Augustine filter is used and then they insist we are accusing Jesus when the logical conclusion of the Calvin/Augustine filter is a determinst, decreetal god who authors evil today.
“Third, the quotation assumes facts not in evidence. It would be vain to speculate about what happened to this young man after he went away. We simply don’t know whether he was ever converted. The blogger seems to be viewing this account from the standard of modern evangelism according to which sowing seed and reaping the harvest must occur at the same time. It is incredible to me that evangelicals expect a phenomenon that never occurs in the realm of nature to occur in the spiritual realm. I have planted many seeds; I have never seen one sprout the same day I planted it. Notice the words, “the only way we can read it through their filter is that Jesus consigned him to hell at that moment and did not force him to “want” to give up his riches. He was refused regeneration.” Jesus “consigned him to hell AT THAT MOMENT.” I somehow missed that when I read the passage. Since Jesus let him slip through the net, there was no possibility he would ever be converted? Oh, really? Is there no possibility that he went away disappointed because for the first time in his life he began to understand that it was absolutely impossible that he could “do something to obtain eternal life?” Is it inconceivable that he later embraced Jesus in saving faith? Modern evangelism usually dismisses this possibility. If you don’t close the sale on your first try, you have failed.”
Oh, it is about closing the sale? I thought the young man came to the Creator of the Universe Incarnate and asked what he must do to be saved. If I read the passage with YOUR filter of Calvin/Augustine then the young man has to be regenerated before he can believe, have faith, etc. It was not granted as he walked away dejected because he was not regenerated by the God of the Universe Incarnate to want to give up his riches. (Personally I think we have free will so this does not apply to me). I should have mentioned this vignette as ONE example of why the I in TULIP is a problem.
Now his “pre regeneration” COULD have happened later but since we do not interpret from silence we only have the encounters as written in the Word to go on.
“his quotation also betrays the erroneous idea that at some point sinners are for the first time “consigned to hell.” He wasn’t consigned to hell before, but now “at that moment, Jesus consigned him to hell.” ”
Sorry Barb, I did not point out he was on his way to hell BEFORE the encounter with the Creator of the Universe Incarnate. You are correct in that. I will remember in the future to write novels as comments for what I believe the educated readers already know. I would hate to condescend to them but then, there might be Reformed reading. (wink)
As to him being consigned to hell….we only have the Calvinist filter to go by. And this is where the Reformed really have a problem admitting to what they believe. They are always playing linguistic gymnastics with this part of their doctrinal equation. If you think about it, the young man ASKED God in the Flesh what he must do to be saved. Now in the Calvinist paradigm God regenerates those who are to be saved so they have NO choice in the matter. They are elected before the foundation of the world. If we read with the Calvin filter then the young man was not elected. Perhaps Jesus, at a later date, “chose” him but we are not told? Is that what you are driving at? But then we are right back at the same problem. Since there is no free will and people are elected before the foundation of the world and even before Adam sinned AND scripture is silent on whether he was saved later then the only logical conclusion is that he was not one of the lucky ones and is going to hell. Even though he asked God in the Flesh what he had to do to be saved. God in the Flesh decided not to grant him regeneration. That is basically what we have to go on.
“We all know about the biblical passage that tells us we are born innocent and continue that way until we come to the age of accountability. Then, if we reject the gospel we are consigned to hell. Perhaps, someone can remind me where the Bible states that. ”
I am not familiar with that one, either. But you bring up a good point that helps us understand why so many believe in padeobaptism.
Ok, gotta run. will try to finish up later
LikeLike
“Forth, the quote twists the Calvinistic doctrine at this point. No one believes, [at least no one should believe] that God has no love for the non-elect at all. Our teaching is that God does not love all sinners equally and in the same way. In his sermon on the mountain, Jesus instructed his disciples to love universally. We are not simply to love our friends and hate our enemies. He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt. 5: 43-45). The Bible makes it clear that God gives common grace to all his creatures. He opens his hand and satisfies the desire of every creature. There is no mystery that Jesus showed love and compassion for this lost and broken sinner. Later we watch as he weeps over Jerusalem. The apostle Paul confessed that he had great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart for his unconverted Jewish brothers. The question we must ask is whether everyone for whom Jesus showed love and compassion was loved with an everlasting love and redeeming love. The Scriptures make it clear that God’s love for his chosen people far exceeds this universal love and compassion that extends to his creatures, as creatures.”
I hope other readers can see the mental gymnastics in this one. You have just wandered around the barn to try and make it look like Calvinism is about “love” when it really is the opposite. What I find interesting is that according to the Calvin filter of interpretation, God’s teaching given to us in his
Word, is that WE are to love ALL people more than God does with the Calvin brand of common grace/universal love for some and His “great love” for His chosen ones. And, we are not to have favorites, but God does with the elect HE chooses since humans have no input. Sorry, but your god sounds more like the path to Allah (except the grace for “some”) than YHWH.
“Fifth, the quote seems to indicate that if Jesus didn’t regenerate this man, he ought to have done so. Notice the words of the quote, “I mean, the guy even asked God in the flesh what to do.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding the implication of this statement, but it looks as if she is saying, “This guy really deserved eternal life since he actually asked Jesus what to do to obtain it.””
According to the Calvin filter of interpretation, only God can regenerate you to believe and those folks are the chosen ones before the foundation of the earth and before Adam sinned. The rich young ruler had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT in the Calvin paradigm. That is the whole point.
“Please remember, the words in this passage are not a Calvinistic representation of what occurred on this occasion. By all accounts, Jesus let this man walk away unconverted. Perhaps I have misread the words, but if I understand the contention, it is that if Jesus could have done something about this man’s unrepentant heart, he would have. Since he let him walk away unconverted, he must have been powerless to change his heart.”
Nope. Jesus had the power but the Calvinist paradigm says that the rich young ruler has no “ability” in his response. It is scripted for him.. He is totally depraved which means in the Calvin filter he was “totally unable” to have any input. He has to be regenerated to believe and in the Calvin paradigm only God can supply that.
“Now either way, Jesus is to be blamed. If he could have changed this man’s heart and didn’t, he should have. We all know the Bible passage that states, “God owes everyone at least a chance at salvation,” right? If God doesn’t give everyone a level playing field, he isn’t fair. Perhaps someone reading this can refresh my memory about where that occurs in Scripture. I have read the Bible carefully and I just can’t find that passage. The alternative is that Jesus really wanted to change this young man’s heart but was powerless to do so. What a pitiful savior. Either way, Jesus failed to close the sale. “
I do not think Jesus is to blame at all. I think the rich young ruler made a CHOICE. A very bad one. He had tthe free will to reject Christ. The problem is your filter does not allow for that position so you automatically go for some ridiculous notion that I do not think Jesus had any power. (Usually we are accused of being univeralists. Thank you for not trotting that one out) So you have to find a way to believe that people have NO free will to reject God AND it not be God’s fault when they are not chosen. It is a tall order but many Calvinists go to great lengths and tons of words to try and maintain that cognative dissonance.
“Sixth, the blogger misrepresents the Calvinistic position. She stated, “. . .but [Jesus] did not “produce faith in him” so he could be one of the elect that was predestined before Adam sinned.” What Calvinist believes that “when Jesus produces faith in them, people become one of the elect who were predestined before Adam sinned? That is simply a perversion of our doctrine.”
I have studied Calvinism for years and when I engage any variety of Calvinist they always say their position is misrepresented. It never fails. And the reason is because it is the most convoluted ridiculous load of double meanings and redefining of terms/concepts I have ever seen in my life. It is not unlike the totalitarian government of the old USSR trying to convince the masses they are really Marxists. Marxism sounds better from the book. :o) The only way they could maintain that façade after Stalin was to squelch any dissent. (Sounds familiar to many of us) Calvin just banished them, imprisoned them or burned them.
“Seventh, the quote twists the Calvinistic doctrine and represents it as teaching that, in conversion, God forces sinners to do something they really don’t want to do. She wrote, “. . . and did not force him to “want” to give up his riches.” God does not force anyone to do anything. If sinners rebel against God, we do so willingly. If we embrace Jesus as he is offered us in the gospel, we do so willingly. If this rich man had left his riches and followed Jesus, he would have delighted to do so and counted it no loss at all. The apostle Paul wrote that he had “suffered the loss of all things and counted them as rubbish” in comparison to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ (See Phil. 3:8).”
Here we go again. The cognitive dissonance of Calvinistic doctrine. They really do believe conflicting thoughts: God does not force us to be “chosen” but at the same time you have “total inability” to choose Christ. If we choose Christ willingly, so what then is Irresistible Grace? We are not able to ignore the Holy Spirit prompting us or convicting us of our sin?
And it gets better. According to the Cal/Auggie filter You still have free will to sin because that is your natural state. Yet, many Cals teach that God controls and directs every molecule. So is God directing the sin or not? It is simply a natural state when you sin, you see. But not when you do any good. God directs that. And the only reason unbelievers do any good at all is because of common grace. God makes them do it. Notice that?
The quagmire of Calvinist thought. And what pray tell, do they do with Satan in all of this?
“This brings us to the real issue. The issue is not that Jesus must have been unable to do anything about this man’s rebellious heart since he didn’t do what he would have and should have if he had the ability. Please notice that this man’s question had to do with “what he could do to obtain eternal life.” Since Adam’s fall, the sinner’s choice has always been “do it yourself” religion.”
Oh, now I get it. The man did not ask in the correct manner. Penalty. Now THAT sounds just like Calvinism. Perhaps if the man had been regenerated first to have faith, he would have approached Jesus in the correct manner. We know how important that was to Jesus. See, the man did not know that it is all a cosmic lottery, this “election” of the chosen ones. If he had known that, he would not have asked such a doctrinally incorrect question to begin with! But wait! If God controls every molecule then God made him ask the question!
Now Barbra explains how asking the question was rebellion when you read it with the Calvin filter:
“ The very question was an act of rebellion against God. God intended the entire Mosaic system to teach the sinner’s inability to do it himself. If you insist on doing something, then, as Jesus said, “You know the commandments. . . .” In his arrogance this man proclaimed, “I have kept these from my youth.” What utter self-deception! Jesus had to remind him that the Law required more than perfect and continual obedience; it required inward obedience. He did this by laying his finger on this man’s characteristic sin–the sin of covetousness. Jesus knew this man not only possessed stuff but that he was possessed by stuff. The Law asks sinners not only to stop doing things he has forbidden but to stop loving things that usurp God’s rightful position in their hearts.”
I just wonder how Peter got by with so many “rebellious” comments/beliefs but this guy did not? In the world of total inability and God controls every molecule, this is inexplicable. As is most of Calvinism when you dig into it.
“The real issue is who was in control in this situation, Jesus or the rich man? Was this man able, in and of himself, to suddenly start loving God instead of his stuff?”
In the world of the Calvin/Augustine filter, God controls that by irresistible grace and a limited atonement. Humans have no real input into it. It was all decreed and determined before the foundation of the world and even before the Fall.
“Jesus answered the question quite forcefully. This is what he said, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:23-25).”
How do you explain that with the Calvin filter? God directs every molecule and could have made the man want to sell everything. But He did not. Because of the T, the man was not granted the I, so he could not be one of the U or the P.
“The disciples’ response was a proper one. They said, “Then who can be saved” (v. 26)? We must not ignore Jesus’ answer to that important question. If we do so, we are bound to go astray, not only in our theology but also in our evangelistic methodology. He did not say, “Any sinner can be saved if he/she exercises the power of the will that has been set free by prevenient grace. All we need to do is persuade them to make a choice.” This is what he did say. Read it in large letters! “WITH MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, BUT NOT WITH GOD. FOR ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD” (V. 27).”
YES! The Holy Spirit convicts and we respond or we do NOT. We DO have a choice. We can ignore the Holy Spirit convicting us and eventually it will have dire consequences. With the Calvin filter we must believe that when Jesus first preached, “Repent and believe” He did not really mean that anyone could actually choose to do that. It was a sort of bait and switch. He did not tell them that God had to force them to believe by regenerating them so they could actually believe. The Holy Spirit convicting is not enough in the Calvin paradigm; the choice is made FOR you. Only the elect would figure that out eventually. In fact, no one really knew how it worked until Calvin came along to systematically explain how it worked. Humans have NOTHING to do with any of it! That is the Good News? I am still trying to figure out why the Cross was needed in such a doctrinal paradigm. They were going to be saved from the foundation of the world anyway even before the Fall.
LikeLike
Lydia,
It appears I was right. You don’t really want to discuss the passage or the real issues. For some reason, you seem content with repeating the same old straw man arguments. Did you ever wonder why so many Calvinists tell you you don’t understand their views. Perhaps it is because you keep making wild accusations that don’t ever come close to what they believe. I don’t know what Calvinists you studied, but you have certainly arrived at a warped view of what they believe.
Let me just leave you with one question and I won’t bother you again. If the Holy Spirit is given to convict all people equally, and we must assume he does that apart from the gospel since all people have not heard and will not hear the gospel, and as a result some by their free will choose to believe and others choose not to believe, what is it that prevents those who choose to believe from boasting that they made a wiser choice than the others? See 1 Cor. 4:7. Have a nice day.
Barba
LikeLike
Barba,
I haven’t had time to follow this discussion in detail, but I will just chime in and say that this blog is pregnant with evidence that Calvinism is the false gospel of progressive justification. And if you are a Calvinist–don’t have a nice day because you are propagating a blatant false gospel.
LikeLike