Calvinists say that non Calvinists have a problem with the d

[darinhouston]

I scanned through a bit of it -- it looks excellent -- I'm curious why you would want to share it with others if you think it promotes a doctrinaire agenda that will lead folks to error ? From the look of it, it does a great job, no less.

The first dialogue struck me as I finished my coffee, and then I had to go to work...

Why begin with a historical survey of the debate instead of going right to the testimony of Scripture? Well, by neglecting the creeds, councils and other vital
facets of the Church’s rich two-thousand-year-old history, many Christians have fallen into the trap of having to rediscover what the Bible says.

Maybe I'm just too cynical. But, put another way -- "you might just not get there from reading scripture alone, so I need to color your understanding of the matter first by pointing out how prevalent the view is in History and Councils."

[Sean]

I scanned through a bit of it -- it looks excellent -- I'm curious why you would want to share it with others if you think it promotes a doctrinaire agenda that will lead folks to error ? From the look of it, it does a great job, no less.

That's a good question. I would say it would make a great resource in these instances (and probably more):

-When debating the issue with someone who is a Calvinist but is "shifty". Calvinist I have spoken to are sometimes like this by changing the meaning of a term mid-stream when you show them incorrect. This video can be used to reiterate their own terminology and meanings to them. That way they can't easily make the charge: "You just don't understand Calvinism".

-When pointing out to a Christian who may even be an elder what Calvinism is. If a member or elder asks me to attend their church and I ask if they hold to a Calvinist position or if they are Arminiam and they say they are "somewhere in the middle", then it would be helpful if they saw the video. Since either you are a Calvinist or not, meaning you either believe God regenerates man so he can believe or you believe man believes the gospel and is then regenerated. Although I agree that care should be used when you consider who you give this to, I'm not of the opinion that the information should be kept from people either.

-It would be helpful when doing a topical study on the subject of soteriology in general. Since it has so many "stamps of approval" on it. That way I (a non-Calvinist) can present the Calvinist position without being charged with misrepresenting it.

[SamMcNear]

If you have questions about the transcript or the DVD I can ask the producer directly. I have been chatting with him on facebook and told him I would like to ask him some questions. He was gracious and agreed to answer them as long as the questions are one at a time and that I keep in mind that he is a busy man so give him a little response time.

So if you have a question for him about the film post it here and I can ask him directly and post his response to it here (with his permission). I'm sure those of you who have been in the debate longer than I have will have some very tough questions that I may not think of, so post them here one question at a time.

Thanks

Sam

[Sean]

If you have questions about the transcript or the DVD I can ask the producer directly. I have been chatting with him on facebook and told him I would like to ask him some questions. He was gracious and agreed to answer them as long as the questions are one at a time and that I keep in mind that he is a busy man so give him a little response time.

So if you have a question for him about the film post it here and I can ask him directly and post his response to it here (with his permission). I'm sure those of you who have been in the debate longer than I have will have some very tough questions that I may not think of, so post them here one question at a time.

Thanks

Sam

Sam,
As I just posted in another thread to someone else, I would recommend you read this free online book: http://www.xcalvinist.com/
It does a good job of pointing out the logical contradictions in Calvinism.

I'm also planning on posting a few of the problems I find with Calvinism that come up in the video (yea I got it and watched it ). I just haven't had time to put my thoughts together here. I went through the video and took notes on parts I was concerned with and ended up with 3 pages of notes, and that's not including the entire video.

One big concern I have is that the term "regeneration" or "born again" seems to have been defined ambiguously. I was hoping that in a 4 hour+ video it would be covered in more detail since it plays such a vital role in Calvinism since it supposedly preceeds/causes faith. I'll state my concerns on this later when I have more time.

I'm not sure it's worth bothering the director with these issues since his is a busy man. But that's up to you.

[Sean]

One issue that was brought up in the video/transcript is regeneration.

On page 124 it states:

Mono is the Greek word meaning “one or alone.” It’s the prefix for words like
“monotheism” – the belief in one God. Monergism, then, was the belief that
regeneration or the new birth was to be understood as the work of God alone. Because
man was dead in trespasses and sin, it was God, and only God, who brought man back
to life, sending His Spirit to revive, regenerate, and resurrect man from the hopeless
condition of spiritual death.

It may be helpful at this point to briefly explain that the terms “born-again” and what
we deem as salvation or justification are not synonymous terms. Many modern day
Christians equate the two. Luther emphatically taught that fallen man does not have
faith in order to be born-again; but that man is born-again by the Spirit and the Word
and, as a result, has faith.

So because man is not sick but dead, God alone needs to regenerate man to life so he can believe.
The first thing of interest is that they repeatedly say man is not sick but dead.
Yet Jesus said:

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, "How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?" 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Jesus equated sinners with sick people who need the physician Jesus who needs to heal them of sin.

Anyway. It is stated that born again is not the same as salvation and/or justification. Lets keep that in mind and move on.

On page 144 it says:

There is another misunderstanding many evangelicals have about being “born again.”
They view it and being justified or “saved” as being the same thing. But in reality they
are two different terms that depict two related but nonetheless distinct events. Being
born again enables us to have faith in Christ — something we can never do while still
dead in our trespasses and sins. Being born-again is the first act, if you will, of God’s
grace. It makes us new creatures in Christ. And as new creatures we are no longer
haters of God. We are no longer at enmity with God. As the prophet Ezekiel explained,
God removes our hearts of stone and replaces them with hearts of flesh, and with the
scales now removed from our eyes, we see the holiness of God and the sinfulness of
ourselves. And as a result, we repent and have faith in God and what He has done for
us through the cross. Being born again must, of necessity, precede faith.

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart
of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” ~ Ezekiel 36:26

So what is being born-again? According to this it:
-enables us to believe
-makes us new creatures in Christ
-as new creatures we are no longer haters of God, no longer at enmity with God
-being born-again we now see the holiness of God and the sinfulness of ourselves
-IS NOT justification/salvation
-They then quote Ezekiel 36:26 as proof

I disagree

Ezekiel 36:26 is unhelpful since it does not state whether this is before or because of faith.

The point that being born-again enables us to believe is simply a summary statement: "Being born again must, of necessity, precede faith." In other words, it can't be proven from a direct statement of scripture. Rather it is of necessity that being born-again precedes faith because it us assumed man is dead and dead men can't believe.

The points: being born-again makes us new creatures in Christ & we are no longer haters of God are said to be something other than justification/salvation. This seems to be incorrect. Here is what the bible states:

-New creatures are those who are said to be "in Christ" (2 Cor 5:17)
-There is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ" (Romans 8:1)
-The new creation is synonymous with those who already have faith (Gal 6:15 & Gal 5:6).
-Being "in Christ" is synonymous with justification, redemption & peace with God (Phil 3:9, Rom 3:24, Rom 8:1 & Rom 5:1)
Php 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith
Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
-Being born again is by faith (John 20:31, Col 2:12, Acts 15:9)
-Justification (the forgiveness of sins) comes at the point of being raised from being dead:
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses
Tit 3:5 ...He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,


So for them to say that being born-again is when we are made new creatures and we are then no longer haters of God but that this is something different than justification/salvation is simply not true.

Additionally, there are several contradictions made:
on page 139 it says:

The only way out of this black hole is to be “born again” – to have our sins
blotted out through the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross.

Here being born-again seems to be synonymous with having our sins blotted out. (?)
This is in fact justification, the very thing they argue against on page 144.

Rom 4:6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
Rom 4:7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS ARE FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS ARE COVERED;
Rom 4:8 BLESSED IS THE MAN TO WHOM THE LORD SHALL NOT IMPUTE SIN."

There is still one more point I haven't covered. They said: "being born-again we now see the holiness of God and the sinfulness of ourselves" contradicts what they say about the law.
On page 138:

Dr. Stephen Mansfield – You know, one of the things we must bring back into our
approach to evangelism is to help the lost understand that they’re walking corpses; that
they are dead in their sins. And what brings that to life is the Law. I know that we’ve
moved a way from the Law a great deal in our modern church, but the fact is it’s the
Law as applied to a human life that reveals the fact that that life is dead in their
transgressions and sins.

So let me get this straight. The way we make the "dead" understand (?) they are dead is by preaching the law? I thought they needed to be born again to understand this?

[Sean]

I wanted to point out a few illogical statements made in the video/transcript.

Synergism is defined as:

(P. 123)

Dr. Ascol explains the semi-Pelagian view of synergism:
Synergism:
Syn – with; together with; at the same time
Ergos – work
Dr. Thomas Ascol – Synergism comes from a compound word in Greek, “together,
working together” and it basically teaches that man and God cooperate in the initiation of
faith. That man does his part, God does His part. And so it is a cooperative work.

So if man is the one who believes, with God's help then we are in error? I don't get it. I thought faith was man believing God? Yet here it seems to state that if man plays any part in faith (believing) then he has something to commend himself for because he "worked" for his salvation.

Romans 4:4-5 refutes this notion.

(p. 124)

Against the synergistic view of Erasmus, Luther believed that being “born again” or
“born from above” was monergistic.
Mono – one; alone
Monergism – Regeneration is the work of God alone.

Luther emphatically taught that fallen man does not have
faith in order to be born-again; but that man is born-again by the Spirit and the Word
and, as a result, has faith.

Dr. Thomas Ascol- And the faith, which we exercise in Jesus Christ, is itself the gift of God. And it is produced in us by the work of the Spirit.

I'm not following. The faith we exercise is a gift & is produced in us (not by us) by the work of the Holy Spirit.

So who is actually believing? Us or the Holy Spirit? If our faith is being produced by the work of the Holy Spirit then it is not us who exercise it. You can't have it both ways.

The synergistic view is said to be God doing his part and man believing. But the monergistic view has God doing the believing according to Ascol, but Luther said it was us being born again so we can believe. Which is it? How does Luther's view solve the problem? The definitions are at best incomplete to make sense of and at worst non-sense. And how can God initiate the belief, if it is indeed man who is the one believing?

[Sean]

The other problem I see is with the doctrine of total depravity and it's inconsistencies with perseverance of the saints.

Total Depravity:

Dr. D. James Kennedy – Are total depravity and free will compatible? Yes and no. As
we said to an earlier question, free will can mean one of two things. If we are talking
about the sense in which free will exists in every human being, whether regenerate or
unregenerate, then we can say “Yes”, obviously they are compatible because
unregenerate people do make choices. That is the sense in which man is free to choose
whatever he wants to choose. All men are free to do that. The unregenerate man makes
choices every day: what tie he will wear, what he will eat for dinner; whatever it may be.
But in the significant sense in which its used in the Bible, which is man is free to do what
he ought to do, (which is repent of his sins, turn from his wickedness, surrender his life
to Christ and follow Him in godliness), unregenerate man is not free to do that. The
more he hears of it, the more he dislikes it. And his will and heart and mind must be
changed for him to do that.

Dr. Thomas Nettles – But what Total Depravity means is that every faculty that we have
is affected by the Fall. Every faculty we have is predisposed to unholiness. Our mind,
our will, our emotions, our memory, our conscience, all of these things are affected and
impacted and are predisposed toward corruption and evil. (p.136)

Fallen man can never choose what is good in the eyes of God.
And yet the Arminians were teaching that unregenerate man, with help from God, could
choose the greatest good, the Gospel. Man, in their view, is the archetypal “idiot
savant” – retaining an “isle of genius” that is fundamentally untouched by the Fall.
When presented with a choice between life and death, he is no longer a slave to sin – he
is, in fact, free and possesses the ability to choose life. (p.140)

Dr. Stephen Mansfield – Every human being on earth has the freedom to believe in the
Gospel, but they don’t have the ability. The fact is that sin has blinded their minds to the
light of the Gospel of Jesus.

So let's apply this truth to the spiritual realm by asking the question: Given the
opportunity to choose between good or evil, obedience or rebellion, God or Satan,
eternal life with Jesus or death in the pool of sin, what will fallen man always choose? If
you said death, to stay in the coffin of sin, according to the Bible, you’re correct!

Dr. R.C. Sproul – Until God the Holy Spirit changes the disposition of my soul I will
never have faith in Christ. I will never embrace Him. I will never decide for Him in any
redemptive way. I will never truly choose Him because my heart is still bound up in
sin. (p.141)

So, in summary, unregenerate man can never have faith in Christ. Let's keep that in mind.

I want to point out an interesting thing that Dr. Stephen Mansfield said. He said we have the freedom to believe the gospel but not the ability. Does that make sense? The definition of freedom is: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints. This is simply a nonsensical statement. We cannot say everyone has the freedom to believe but not the ability to believe. Freedom, by definition includes the power to act.

Now, moving on to perseverance of the saints while keeping in mind what we just learned above about total depravity.

Starting on page 175, we read about perseverance of the saints. A point is brought up (on p.182) about people who fall away. They quote this passage:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven,
but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day,
‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name,
and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never
knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” ~ Matthew 17:21-23

Rev. Walter Bowie – It’s possible for a person to go a long way and even convince those
of us who are around that they are Christians. But, the bottom line is what John says,
“…they went out from us because they were not of us.” [I John 2:19]

Someone can be so convincing that even Rev. Walter Bowie could be convinced. Yet Dr. D. James Kennedy earlier said this about unregenerate man:

...in the significant sense in which its used in the Bible, which is man is free to do what
he ought to do, (which is repent of his sins, turn from his wickedness, surrender his life
to Christ and follow Him in godliness), unregenerate man is not free to do that. The
more he hears of it, the more he dislikes it. And his will and heart and mind must be
changed for him to do that.

Again, how is it that someone who dislikes the gospel message can so approximate a walk in Christ that even Rev. Walter Bowie would be fooled? The unregenerate should hate the gospel, isn't it foolishness to them? (1 Cor 1:18)

On page 177 it states:

“Some fell on stony ground, where it did not have much earth; and immediately
it sprang up because it had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up it was
scorched, and because it had no root, it withered away.” ~ Mark 4:5-6

Their conclusion to Jesus words:

Reformed Theology recognizes that:
1. People can hear the Word and respond with joy — but because there is no root of
true regeneration in their heart, they soon fall away. It’s not that they were
saved and then became unsaved, it’s that they were never truly saved at all. And
this is why Jesus will say to them,
“I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” ~ Matthew 7:23

No root of true regeneration??? Regeneration is the sovereign work of God that causes man to believe the gospel. In the parable of the sower, 3 out of 4 types of soil believed the Gospel. A clear, consistent use of the Reformed term "regeneration" as they have defined it can only conclude one thing. Three types of soil were regenerated so they could believe the Gospel. Calvinist reject this because some of those later fall away. Yet in rejecting this clear teaching of Jesus, they affirm their own contradiction. They affirm unregenerate people can believe the Gospel! They can believe for awhile. They admit there was no root of "true regeneration" yet they did believe. Something they earlier say is impossible because man is dead and utterly incapable of believing.

Calvinism is full of logical contradictions. Fortunately, this makes it easy to determine whether or not it is true. Why do these people believe nonsense? I simply don't understand.

[steve]

I just wanted to encourage you, Sean. You are a clear thinker, and a good exegete.

[Sean]

I just wanted to encourage you, Sean. You are a clear thinker, and a good exegete.

Thank you Steve. I did go back and edit my post though. I don't know if I helped clarify things or not.

[Suzana]

Thank you Steve. I did go back and edit my post though. I don't know if I helped clarify things or not.

Yes you did, well for me anyway, thank you.