Calvinism is Gospel !

[JimiSurvivor]

A spiritually dead person cannot choose God before He changes their heart. This concept highlights the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the belief that God alone, and not human cooperation, initiates salvation.

You have assumed a particular definition of what is meant by "(spiritual) death" that does not comport with scripture. The scriptures do not define death as a paralysis of the will. In the scriptures, death signifies separation. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God.

In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that in the day he eats of the forbidden fruit he will “surely die.” Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God had another type of death in mind—spiritual death. This separation from God is exactly what we see in Genesis 3:8. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord, they “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.” Their fellowship had been broken. They no longer communicated or communed with God. Without this relational connection they naturally acted contrary to God's will

In Ephesians 4:18 Paul describes a man who does not know Christ is said to be “alienated from the life of God” To be separated from life is the same as being dead. A NATURAL man is someone who is SOULISH - who makes choices according to the desires of his flesh and mind. This was a natural consequence of someone who lacks a living spirit.

When we are BORN AGAIN, we are cleansed from sin. This eliminates our alienation from Him and once again joins us to the life-giving Vine. This is the way our state of spiritual death is reversed: “
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1).
The idea that we must respond to God has nothing to do with our EARNING anything. Rather it is the result of DEPENDENT FAITH

 

[Dave123]

You claim that Total Depravity is strictly about performance and does not include desire. You argue that an unregenerate person living in the flesh can independently possess a genuine spiritual desire to believe and please God, even if they lack the strength to execute it. This is a massive theological blunder that flatly contradicts the explicit wording of the texts you just quoted.

Let let us place your timeline and your proof-texts under an unyielding grammatical and covenantal lens.

1. The Catastrophic Misreading of Romans 7:18

You wave Romans 7:18—"to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find"—as a trophy to prove that an unregenerate person can "will" the good.

This interpretation completely collapses the moment we look at how Paul defines the unregenerate mind just one chapter later. Look at Romans 8:7-8:


If a person "in the flesh" is in a fixed state of enmity against God and cannot subject themselves to God's law, it is a spiritual impossibility for that same carnal mind to simultaneously generate a holy, humble desire to submit to Christ.

The "will" present in Romans 7:18 is not the desire of a dead, unregenerate fleshly sinner. It is the internal wrestling of a regenerated apostle who has a new nature that loves the law of God (Romans 7:22), but who is still trapped in a mortal body battling indwelling sin. By applying the holy spiritual desires of Romans 7 to a spiritually dead, unregenerate man, you are claiming that an enemy of God can independently desire the things of God, making Paul flatly contradict his own definition of the carnal mind in Romans 8.

2. The Unlocking of John 7:38-39 and the Indwelling Timeline

You point to John 7:38-39—"this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given"—and claim this proves people believed before they were born again or given spiritual life.

Your argument completely ignores the explicit distinction between the passive quickening of regeneration and the active indwelling of the Spirit of Promise.

This is me finishing what i started yesterday.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 says the same thing.

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

That's born again. That passage is also referencing the OT in a few places. The point being, they already believed. But the 'born again' only happens when the Holy Spirit is given to indwell believers, beginning at Pentecost. That passage is before Pentecost. So, you need to ask how they believed, instead of arguing against ghosts in your head. How did "those believing in Him" believe before they had the life of the indwelling?

If a person could believe while remaining unregenerate and dead in the flesh, then Jesus’ words to Nicodemus would be false: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). A dead man cannot see the beauty of Christ to believe in Him.

Nicodemus was not yet born again. Read the first 16 verses in that chapter. No believers had ascended (Hebrews 11:39-40). That's because no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and Spirit. They must be born again. They cannot be with the Father unless they are born again. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." What was Nicodemus waiting for? The same as everyone else. Please notice that vrs 14 and 15 are one continuous thought.

John 3:13-15" No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Pentecost. John 3:16 is not just a general statement. It has a timeline attached to it. It's looking forward, just like the previous 15 verses were.

• What was "not yet given" in John 7:39 was the New Covenant Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit of Adoption—the permanent, corporate sealing of the believer (Ephesians 1:13).

3. The Definition of Inability: Desiring is Performing

No, desiring is not performing. You're forgetting Romans 8:9-11. Without the Spirit indwelling, no life. With the Spirit indwelling, life. If you're going to remember one thing, remember that.

If a totally depraved sinner can independently generate a genuine desire for Christ from their own unrenewed soul, then they have performed the greatest spiritual good in the universe entirely on their own. Salvation would no longer be of sovereign grace; it would be a joint venture where man provides the holy desire, and God provides the power.

Colossians 2:13-14 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, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Ephesians 2:6, Romans 6:8 "with Him"). This is how we are saved through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21, John 11:25-26)

How?

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (Also See Romans 6:3-11, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-27)

What initiates this Spirit baptism?

Galatians 3:22, 26-27 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe......For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were [Spirit] baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The poster wants to separate 'desire' from 'ability,' claiming that a dead sinner in the flesh can independently generate the holy desire to believe. But Philippians 2:13 completely obliterates this carnal philosophy. Paul does not say God only works the 'performance'; he states unequivocally that God works in us both to will and to do. The very first inkling of a desire for Christ, the very first heartbeat of saving faith, is not a product of human willpower—it is an omnipotent, internal creation of the Holy Spirit (energōn). You cannot claim a sinner believes prior to being quickened, because according to Philippians 2:13, a sinner cannot even possess the will to believe unless God has already gone to work inside their dead soul."

---

Question. By using the word 'quickened', do you mean born again? Please, if you mean born again, just say born again. Because that really is the point of contention and it's important that the terminology not get in the way. By saying that people receive the indwelling after they come to faith, to me, is the same as saying that they receive the life after they come to faith, because that's what the Bible teaches, the indwelling Spirit is the life. 'Quickened' to me just mean a KJV onlyist. I do not hold those theologians in high regard, theologically speaking. That's all unnecessary confusion. Speaking in layman's terms is a gift that we should strive for. The intellectual gibberish only attracts those who seek wisdom, just like the signs only attract the sign seekers. But the simple message reaches the lost and is a stumbling stone for those who do not seek Jesus honestly.

We are born again when we are placed into Christ Jesus. What places us into Him is the indwelling, called the "placing into/baptism" with the Holy Spirit. When we are 'placed into' Him, we are also placed into His death, identifying with that death in such a way that we die with Him, and then the same with the resurrection, we are raised up with Him, born again. This is all the result of faith, not the cause. The life is Spirit powered, also called faith (Hebrews 12:2). That's the part that produces the righteousness, the good. We don't need a 'pure faith' to receive that gift, the life, from God. That idea, just like the idea that a person must be born again to believe, is nowhere found in Scripture. That's why words like "quickened" always raises red flags for me.

They did have the presence of God before Pentecost, Jesus Himself (John 12:35-26), but one thing at a time.

Matthew 28:41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

 

[rogerg]

In Brightflame’s first post in this thread, the history of John Calvin is summarized, leaving out how he advocated the execution of his theological opponents, like Michael Servetus’s burning at the stake at Champel outside Geneva on October 27, 1553.

Did you leave off the following people out in your defense of Arminianism

During the infamous 1637 Star Chamber trial, Archbishop William Laud handed down a unified, brutal three-part sentence to the Calvinist dissenters William Prynne, Henry Burton, and John Bastwick: [1, 2]

1. The Bodily Mutilation

• Ear Cropping: The executioners forced the men into public pillories and chopped off their ears. Since Prynne had already had his ears partially cut off in a previous 1634 trial, the executioner hacked off the remaining stumps, slicing deep into his cheeks. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Facial Branding: Laud ordered Prynne to be branded on both cheeks with a red-hot iron. The letters "S.L." (standing for Seditious Libeller) were permanently burned into his skin. Prynne mockingly joked that the letters stood for Stigmata Laudis (the Scars of Laud). [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Massive Financial Ruin

• Exorbitant Fines: Each of the three men was slapped with a staggering fine of £5,000. In the 1630s, this was an unimaginable fortune designed to completely bankrupt them and strip away their estates. [1, 2]

all three of the famous men Archbishop Laud mutilated were strict Calvinists.
Why Laud Targeted Them
Archbishop Laud followed a theological movement called Arminianism, which rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Laud believed Calvinism was chaotic and disrespectful to royal authority. By publicly mutilating these three men, Laud intended to make an example of the nation's most vocal Calvinist critics—but it completely backfired, turning them into massive popular martyrs and sparking intense hatred against the King


In 17th-century England, these radical Calvinists were known as Puritans because they wanted to "purify" the Church of England from any remaining Catholic influences. [1]
Archbishop Laud targeted three specific Calvinist leaders in that infamous 1637 trial, slicing off their ears and branding them:

1. William Prynne (The Lawyer)

• His Calvinism: Prynne was a fiercely devout Calvinist lawyer. He believed that the church should be stripped of all ritual, music, and decorations.
• The Crime: He wrote books attacking the theatre, Christmas celebrations, and Archbishop Laud's religious policies as "popish" (Catholic) corruptions.

2. Henry Burton (The Clergyman)

• His Calvinism: Burton was an ordained minister who preached aggressive Calvinist sermons directly attacking Laud’s leadership.
• The Crime: He published sermons accusing Archbishop Laud of trying to secretly bring Catholicism back to England and overthrow the true Protestant faith.

3. John Bastwick (The Physician)

• His Calvinism: Bastwick was a doctor who used his sharp writing skills to defend Presbyterianism—a form of church government rooted entirely in Calvinist theology. [1]
• The Crime: He wrote satirical pamphlets mocking the wealth, power, and fancy robes of Laud's bishops, arguing that bishops had no biblical authority.

Archbishop William Laud was part of a powerful inner circle of advisors under King Charles I who used identical, brutal tactics to enforce religious uniformity.
Because King Charles I wanted absolute control over both Church and State, he placed men who shared Laud’s ruthless philosophy into key positions of power. Together, they weaponized the legal system to mutilate and ruin religious dissenters. [1]
The primary figures who "did likewise" include:

1. Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (The Enforcer)

• Who He Was: Wentworth was King Charles I’s most ruthless secular advisor and political mastermind. He and Archbishop Laud formed a political alliance known as the "Thorough" policy, aiming to grant the King total, unchecked authority. [1]
• What He Did: While Laud handled the Church in England, Wentworth was sent to rule Ireland as Lord Deputy. He used absolute tyranny, massive fines, and military force to crush both Irish Catholics and Scottish Presbyterian Calvinists who refused to conform to the King's laws

2. The Judges of the Court of Star Chamber
Archbishop Laud did not act alone in the Star Chamber; he sat on a council alongside royal judges and noblemen who enthusiastically voted for these violent mutilations. They targeted other Calvinists before and after the famous 1637 trial:

• The Case of Alexander Leighton (1630): Seven years before Prynne's ears were cut off, a Scottish Calvinist physician named Alexander Leighton wrote a book attacking bishops. The King's authorities arrested him, tied him to a stake in the freezing snow, and gave him 36 lashes with a heavy cord. They then slit his nose, branded his face with "SS" (Sower of Sedition), and chopped off his ear before throwing him into prison for life. [1, 2]
• The Case of John Lilburne (1638): A young Puritan Calvinist named John Lilburne was hauled before the court for smuggling banned religious literature from Holland. The court ordered him brutally whipped through the streets of London while tied to the back of a cart, placed in a pillory, and gagged so tightly his mouth bled when he tried to speak to the crowd. [1]

3. Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely

• Who He Was: One of Archbishop Laud’s most fiercely loyal "puppet" bishops.
• What He Did: Wren took Laud’s anti-Calvinist policies to the extreme in his own dioceses. He forcefully stripped Calvinist ministers of their pulpits, banned their sermons, and systematically persecuted ordinary Puritans. His cruelty was so intense that thousands of English Calvinists fled the country entirely, migrating to New England in America to escape his reach

The Combined Fate of the "Tyrants"
The public viewed Archbishop Laud and Thomas Wentworth as a two-headed monster of tyranny. When the English Civil War finally erupted, Parliament targeted both men. Just as Parliament beheaded Archbishop Laud in 1645, they also executed Thomas Wentworth for treason in 1641. Bishop Matthew Wren survived but was thrown into the Tower of London for 18 years. [1, 2, 3]

 

[HeIsHere]

Did you leave off the following people out in your defense of Arminianism

During the infamous 1637 Star Chamber trial, Archbishop William Laud handed down a unified, brutal three-part sentence to the Calvinist dissenters William Prynne, Henry Burton, and John Bastwick: [1, 2]

1. The Bodily Mutilation

• Ear Cropping: The executioners forced the men into public pillories and chopped off their ears. Since Prynne had already had his ears partially cut off in a previous 1634 trial, the executioner hacked off the remaining stumps, slicing deep into his cheeks. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Facial Branding: Laud ordered Prynne to be branded on both cheeks with a red-hot iron. The letters "S.L." (standing for Seditious Libeller) were permanently burned into his skin. Prynne mockingly joked that the letters stood for Stigmata Laudis (the Scars of Laud). [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Massive Financial Ruin

• Exorbitant Fines: Each of the three men was slapped with a staggering fine of £5,000. In the 1630s, this was an unimaginable fortune designed to completely bankrupt them and strip away their estates. [1, 2]

all three of the famous men Archbishop Laud mutilated were strict Calvinists.
Why Laud Targeted Them
Archbishop Laud followed a theological movement called Arminianism, which rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. Laud believed Calvinism was chaotic and disrespectful to royal authority. By publicly mutilating these three men, Laud intended to make an example of the nation's most vocal Calvinist critics—but it completely backfired, turning them into massive popular martyrs and sparking intense hatred against the King


In 17th-century England, these radical Calvinists were known as Puritans because they wanted to "purify" the Church of England from any remaining Catholic influences. [1]
Archbishop Laud targeted three specific Calvinist leaders in that infamous 1637 trial, slicing off their ears and branding them:

1. William Prynne (The Lawyer)

• His Calvinism: Prynne was a fiercely devout Calvinist lawyer. He believed that the church should be stripped of all ritual, music, and decorations.
• The Crime: He wrote books attacking the theatre, Christmas celebrations, and Archbishop Laud's religious policies as "popish" (Catholic) corruptions.

2. Henry Burton (The Clergyman)

• His Calvinism: Burton was an ordained minister who preached aggressive Calvinist sermons directly attacking Laud’s leadership.
• The Crime: He published sermons accusing Archbishop Laud of trying to secretly bring Catholicism back to England and overthrow the true Protestant faith.

3. John Bastwick (The Physician)

• His Calvinism: Bastwick was a doctor who used his sharp writing skills to defend Presbyterianism—a form of church government rooted entirely in Calvinist theology. [1]
• The Crime: He wrote satirical pamphlets mocking the wealth, power, and fancy robes of Laud's bishops, arguing that bishops had no biblical authority.

Archbishop William Laud was part of a powerful inner circle of advisors under King Charles I who used identical, brutal tactics to enforce religious uniformity.
Because King Charles I wanted absolute control over both Church and State, he placed men who shared Laud’s ruthless philosophy into key positions of power. Together, they weaponized the legal system to mutilate and ruin religious dissenters. [1]
The primary figures who "did likewise" include:

1. Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford (The Enforcer)

• Who He Was: Wentworth was King Charles I’s most ruthless secular advisor and political mastermind. He and Archbishop Laud formed a political alliance known as the "Thorough" policy, aiming to grant the King total, unchecked authority. [1]
• What He Did: While Laud handled the Church in England, Wentworth was sent to rule Ireland as Lord Deputy. He used absolute tyranny, massive fines, and military force to crush both Irish Catholics and Scottish Presbyterian Calvinists who refused to conform to the King's laws

2. The Judges of the Court of Star Chamber
Archbishop Laud did not act alone in the Star Chamber; he sat on a council alongside royal judges and noblemen who enthusiastically voted for these violent mutilations. They targeted other Calvinists before and after the famous 1637 trial:

• The Case of Alexander Leighton (1630): Seven years before Prynne's ears were cut off, a Scottish Calvinist physician named Alexander Leighton wrote a book attacking bishops. The King's authorities arrested him, tied him to a stake in the freezing snow, and gave him 36 lashes with a heavy cord. They then slit his nose, branded his face with "SS" (Sower of Sedition), and chopped off his ear before throwing him into prison for life. [1, 2]
• The Case of John Lilburne (1638): A young Puritan Calvinist named John Lilburne was hauled before the court for smuggling banned religious literature from Holland. The court ordered him brutally whipped through the streets of London while tied to the back of a cart, placed in a pillory, and gagged so tightly his mouth bled when he tried to speak to the crowd. [1]

3. Matthew Wren, Bishop of Ely

• Who He Was: One of Archbishop Laud’s most fiercely loyal "puppet" bishops.
• What He Did: Wren took Laud’s anti-Calvinist policies to the extreme in his own dioceses. He forcefully stripped Calvinist ministers of their pulpits, banned their sermons, and systematically persecuted ordinary Puritans. His cruelty was so intense that thousands of English Calvinists fled the country entirely, migrating to New England in America to escape his reach

The Combined Fate of the "Tyrants"
The public viewed Archbishop Laud and Thomas Wentworth as a two-headed monster of tyranny. When the English Civil War finally erupted, Parliament targeted both men. Just as Parliament beheaded Archbishop Laud in 1645, they also executed Thomas Wentworth for treason in 1641. Bishop Matthew Wren survived but was thrown into the Tower of London for 18 years. [1, 2, 3]

"What aboutism" is not a defense.

 

[Anchorite]

Did you leave the following people out in your defense of Arminianism

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I have never made any defense of Arminianism.

Your lengthy quote of AI text does not justify the murderous nature of John Calvin, just because some Calvinists were treated harshly.

The “everybody was doing it” excuse is invalid for trying to make John Calvin look better.

Calvin did not patiently discuss his differences with people who promoted competing ideas. Calvin requested beheadings, made death threats, and praised God for orchestrating the torture of heretics.

Calvin spelled out his theologically reinforced vengeance in a personal letter:

“I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.”

— Calvin's letter to Farel on 24 July (for more words directly from Calvin’s pen, read Selected Works of John Calvin)

Calvin believed God made sure criminals didn’t die quickly when tortured.

This vengeful attitude and his support for outdated Old Covenant laws that legislated capital punishment for competing theologians that challenged his preferred doctrines look more like ISIS than Jesus.

Personal correspondence and city council records betray John Calvin’s extraordinary influence in Geneva.

Although he was asked to leave in 1538 when he enforced his strict moral standards and pushed for the church’s independent power to excommunicate people, Genevan officials invited him to return in 1541 to resolve church divisions.

Upon his return, the city council approved his Ecclesiastical Ordinances that included the establishment of the Consistory.

The Consistory, a church court that oversaw the discipline of the citizens of Geneva, met every Thursday to review cases (This book is a chronicle of the Consistory’s records from 1542-1544.)

John Calvin led the court.

Although the Consistory did not have the power to imprison, exile, or kill those who were guilty, Calvin could still convince the city magistrates to wield such power when his theological opponents contradicted him.

When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547.

Gruet's own theological book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.

 

[Dave123]

You accuse me of hiding behind "intellectual gibberish," yet your repetitive, circular questioning exposes that you are completely trapped by the explicit text of Scripture. You keep asking the exact same question over and over: "How did these spiritually dead believe so as to receive the life, the indwelling?"

I will answer your question with the absolute, unyielding, razor-sharp precision of John Gill’s high-priestly scholasticism. I will not give you gibberish; I will give you the exact structural mechanics of the Bible that your lazy, stripped-down system completely ignores.

1. Facing Your Test: The Timeline of Death vs. The Seed of Life

You ask if I believe Romans 8:9-11, Ephesians 1:13, and Galatians 3:2. Absolutely, I do! I believe them precisely as they are written, without twisting them into a humanistic pretzel. Let's look at your own math to show how your system completely collapses into pure, unadulterated Pelagianism.

You state:

• "Without the Spirit indwelling, we are spiritually dead."
• "Having believed, they received the indwelling life." [1]

Look at the terrifying, unbiblical gap you have created. If a man is completely spiritually dead before he gets the indwelling Spirit, and he only gets that indwelling Spirit after he believes—then who performed the act of believing?

Your system creates that gap, not the Bible. Start with the Bible. Your song and dance, it's getting old fast. It's almost as if you do not want a rational discussion.

According to your timeline, the spiritually dead corpse believed while it was still a dead corpse! You have a man who is "in the flesh," who is actively at enmity against God, who cannot be subject to the law of God, and who cannot please God (Romans 8:7-8), suddenly producing the greatest spiritual good in the universe—saving faith—entirely out of his own corrupt, unrenewed flesh! [1, 2, 3, 4]

You are trying to get the fruit of a holy response from a rock-hard heart of stone. You have made the fallen human flesh the author and finisher of faith, and you have turned the Holy Spirit into a mere reactionary prize boy who sits in heaven waiting to see if a corpse will make a good choice before He gives them life. That is not the Gospel; that is a carnal, free-will idol.

According to the Bible, not my timeline. And that's your liberal argumentation, your drama, to paint extremes. This has become all to common with you.

Why is it impossible to build one truth upon another with you? Because you are building from a foundation that is not the Bible.

2. The Answer to Your Question: The Root vs. The Fruit

How do the spiritually dead believe to receive the indwelling Spirit? They don't. A dead man cannot believe. For faith to occur, the Triune God operates through a flawless, two-stage mechanism that you refuse to see because your system comes first, not the Bible:
Stage 1: The Passive Quickening (Regeneration / The Seed of Grace): Before a sinner ever lifts a finger or utters a prayer, God executes a purely monergistic, secret, internal act of power. He does not send the indwelling Person of the Spirit of Adoption yet; instead, the Holy Spirit quickens the dead soul (Ephesians 2:5). He smashes the heart of stone and creates a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26). He inserts a holy, living principle of grace—a spiritual seed (1 John 3:9). This fulfills Philippians 2:13 by actively working inside the dead soul to create a new spiritual capacity, a new mind, and a holy will and desire to see Christ. At this millisecond, the sinner is quickened, but they are not yet sealed with the corporate indwelling Spirit of adoption. [1, 2]


Stage 2: The Active Faith and the Indwelling Seal (The Gift of the Spirit): Equipped with this newly quickened heart of flesh, the sinner immediately hears the Gospel. Because they now have spiritual eyes, they see the horror of their sin and the beauty of the cross, and they actively exercise initial faith. The moment they believe, God judicially awards them the indwelling Person of the Holy Spirit as the permanent, comforting Seal of their adoption (Ephesians 1:13, Galatians 3:2). [1, 2]

The initial quickening is the root that enables faith; the indwelling sealing of the Spirit is the fruit that rewards faith. Your system tries to get the fruit of faith without the root of quickening, forcing a dead man to plow his own soil.

3. Slaying Your Pentecost Delusion Once and For All

You attempt to use the bumbling disciples before Pentecost to prove that men can have saving faith without being born again. Your covenantal timeline is completely fraudulent.

If the disciples were completely unregenerate, dead in the flesh, and lacked any spiritual life before Pentecost, then how do you handle John 1:12-13? John explicitly states that those who received and believed in Jesus during His earthly ministry “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” [1, 2]

The Greek text uses the plural aorist passive ἐγεννήθησαν (egennēthēsan), proving that their spiritual birth was a completed, sovereign act of God prior to their act of receiving Him. If they weren't born of God until Pentecost, then John 1:13 is a lie, because a dead carnal mind cannot receive Christ.

The disciples were regenerated during Christ's ministry; what they were waiting for at Pentecost was not the transition from death to life, but the New Covenant, permanent, corporate indwelling of the Spirit of Promise—a high-priestly glory that could not legally be poured out until the King was glorified (John 7:39).

Conclusion

Your argument is a self-defeating circle. You quote Romans 8 to prove that the flesh cannot please God, and then you immediately turn around and claim that the flesh pleases God by believing the Gospel before it has any spiritual life. You are trapped in the blind man's loop. [1]

I will stand upon the unyielding, majestic Word of God. God does not wait for a corpse to make a transaction. He sovereignly creates the heart of flesh, grants the gift of faith, and then seals His elect little flock with His indwelling Spirit for all eternity. Faith is not a human work generated by a dead soul to buy the Spirit; faith is the very first gasp of air from a soul that has already been sovereignly quickened by the Almighty King.

You see, these are the games that keep these discussions unfruitful. Just say it plainly, that you believe that a person is born again before they believe. And I will tell you the life does not happen in us until we are indwelt. That indwelling is the result of believing. The Bible is really clear on this, as I have shown. That's why you need to stop using other peoples arguments, because you never reached these conclusion that you have on your own, they were ingrained into you from a false system. Your system does not hold up to Scripture. The "gaps" are your problem. You get that, right?

 

[GWH]

The whole free will argument is weak, since the Pelagian heretic's free will argument is based on the
person without the Holy Spirit of God doing what only the person with the Holy Spirit of God can do.

And this is according to Scripture, many many verses of which they reject, contradict, and outright deny,
all in favor of their opinions based on a philosophical construct which has zero support in the Bible.

Flesh serves the law of sin and brings forth fruit unto death. Not life. But they do not believe that.

They believe the opposite.

If the argument is weak, show why per Scripture instead of griping.
Every time you have cited a prooftext I have shown how the context supports MFW,
and I have posted the results of a systematic study on that thread and the Resolving Problematic Interpretations thread, so thanks for prompting me to do such, hopefully for everyone's edification.
Do you have another one for our consideration today?
Perhaps I should repost the previous ones for those who have joined CC recently?
Hmmm.

 

[GWH]

This is weak !

2Cor. 12:10

 

[HeIsHere]

I have never made any defense of Arminianism.

Exactly, but they are okay with defending John Calvin.

Just how he treated his congregants, should be enough for anyone to say.....
"that is not a man I am going to defend on any level."

But of course we know that their soteriology is not only born out of error but also causes problems with their moral compass.

 

[rogerg]

Your system creates that gap, not the Bible. Start with the Bible. Your song and dance, it's getting old fast. It's almost as if you do not want a rational discussion.



According to the Bible, not my timeline. And that's your liberal argumentation, your drama, to paint extremes. This has become all to common with you.

Why is it impossible to build one truth upon another with you? Because you are building from a foundation that is not the Bible.



You see, these are the games that keep these discussions unfruitful. Just say it plainly, that you believe that a person is born again before they believe. And I will tell you the life does not happen in us until we are indwelt. That indwelling is the result of believing. The Bible is really clear on this, as I have shown. That's why you need to stop using other peoples arguments, because you never reached these conclusion that you have on your own, they were ingrained into you from a false system. Your system does not hold up to Scripture. The "gaps" are your problem. You get that, right?

Did you refute anything that @brightfame52 posted? On the surface at least, it doesn't seem that you did, or did I miss it?

 

[rogerg]

I have never made any defense of Arminianism

But are you a follower of it?

 

[Dave123]

Did you refute anything that @brightfame52 posted? On the surface at least, it doesn't seem that you did, or did I miss it?

Line upon line, precept upon precept. I'm not trying to prove Bright wrong, I've done that already. I'm trying to make Bright see it.

 

[rogerg]

Line upon line, precept upon precept. I'm not trying to prove Bright wrong, I've done that already. I'm trying to make Bright see it.

Did @brightfame52 answer the points you raised in the latest post?

 

[HeIsHere]

Line upon line, precept upon precept. I'm not trying to prove Bright wrong, I've done that already. I'm trying to make Bright see it.

I am pretty confident the chance of that is close to nil, but that is my imho.

 

[Anchorite]

But are you a follower of it?

Calvinists see everyone opposed to their philosophy as necessarily either Arminian or Pelagian.

This is how limited and rigid their theological thinking has become.

They want to slap a label on you, quote AI responses, or appeal to reformed teachers, rather than discuss biblical topics.

 

[rogerg]

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I have never made any defense of Arminianism.

Your lengthy quote of AI text does not justify the murderous nature of John Calvin, just because some Calvinists were treated harshly.

The “everybody was doing it” excuse is invalid for trying to make John Calvin look better.

Calvin did not patiently discuss his differences with people who promoted competing ideas. Calvin requested beheadings, made death threats, and praised God for orchestrating the torture of heretics.

Calvin spelled out his theologically reinforced vengeance in a personal letter:

“I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.”

— Calvin's letter to Farel on 24 July (for more words directly from Calvin’s pen, read Selected Works of John Calvin)

Calvin believed God made sure criminals didn’t die quickly when tortured.

This vengeful attitude and his support for outdated Old Covenant laws that legislated capital punishment for competing theologians that challenged his preferred doctrines look more like ISIS than Jesus.

Personal correspondence and city council records betray John Calvin’s extraordinary influence in Geneva.

Although he was asked to leave in 1538 when he enforced his strict moral standards and pushed for the church’s independent power to excommunicate people, Genevan officials invited him to return in 1541 to resolve church divisions.

Upon his return, the city council approved his Ecclesiastical Ordinances that included the establishment of the Consistory.

The Consistory, a church court that oversaw the discipline of the citizens of Geneva, met every Thursday to review cases (This book is a chronicle of the Consistory’s records from 1542-1544.)

John Calvin led the court.

Although the Consistory did not have the power to imprison, exile, or kill those who were guilty, Calvin could still convince the city magistrates to wield such power when his theological opponents contradicted him.

When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547.

Gruet's own theological book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch.

I am saying that you are putting your thumb on the scales by singling out Calvin without showing the other side too

 

[Dave123]

Did @brightfame52 answer the points you raised in the latest post?

I think that Bright thinks so, but no. Bright said that Bright understood and agreed with the verses that I'm stressing as a starting point to build from, but then the arguments against how those things do not jive with Brights system begin. I'm sure that Bright thinks that system is Biblical, but I disagree.

It's a simple starting point. With the Spirit indwelling, by biblical definition, spiritual life, born again. Without the Spirit indwelling, by Biblical definition, no life, not born again. It's a simple Biblical principle that is taught everywhere in Scripture. The Spirit is the life.

I think that most of those theologians who most reformed believers appeal to (I consider myself reformed), were under the Catholic microscope in a time when people were killed if the disagreed with then "church". We must understand that's probably why there is next to nothing about things like the baptism with the Holy Spirit from them.

 

[rogerg]

Calvinists see everyone opposed to their philosophy as necessarily either Arminian or Pelagian.

This is how limited and rigid their theological thinking has become.

They want to slap a label on you, quote AI responses, or appeal to reformed teachers, rather than discuss biblical topics.

The question you should ask is if those AI responses are correct. If they're not correct, then say so. And you didn't answer, do you follow Arminianism? Yes or no?

 

[rogerg]

I think that Bright thinks so, but no. Bright said that Bright understood and agreed with the verses that I'm stressing as a starting point to build from, but then the arguments against how those things do not jive with Brights system begin. I'm sure that Bright thinks that system is Biblical, but I disagree.

It's a simple starting point. With the Spirit indwelling, by biblical definition, spiritual life, born again. Without the Spirit indwelling, by Biblical definition, no life, not born again. It's a simple Biblical principle that is taught everywhere in Scripture. The Spirit is the life.

I think that most of those theologians who most reformed believers appeal to (I consider myself reformed), were under the Catholic microscope in a time when people were killed if the disagreed with then "church". We must understand that's probably why there is next to nothing about things like the baptism with the Holy Spirit from them.

Right, but I believe Bright answered that specific point in detail in the most recent post?

 

[brightfame52]

Question. By using the word 'quickened', do you mean born again?

Yes, And I have been all this with you already. And if not you, another rival, so please rehearse what I have already stated.