# Need help in my response and understanding



## LeeD (Mar 8, 2012)

I have a friend and brother in Christ who has recently been studying the Scriptures in an effort to determine is Calvinism is biblical. This friend often majors on philosophical argumentation and I have encouraged him to look to Scripture alone. Below you will see his latest email to me. For some reason, I am having a hard time knowing how to respond. Prior to this he had emailed expressing that those saved under the Old Covenant are justified in a different way than those in the New Covenant. I think this is part of the foundation of his email below. I am unclear as to how best to respond, yet I do want to do so as he has been very open to discussion. Any help is appreciated!



> This is a much simpler argument against Calvinism. Here are the steps:
> 
> 1. The Law was intended for unregenerate people (1 Tim 1:9-10)
> 2. The Law was given to Jews.
> ...


----------



## LeeD (Mar 8, 2012)

P.S. I think I need help in my understanding of covenants (CoW and CoG along with the Old and New).


----------



## yoyoceramic (Mar 8, 2012)

For starters, that argument is not valid, and I would not even engage it.
(1) The cookies were intended for children
(2) The cookies were given to the 5 year olds.
(3) Therefore the cookies were given to the 5 year olds.
Is it possible cookies were given to children other than the 5 yr olds? Of course, however he seems to imply in the argumentation that the cookies were given (only) to the 5 yr olds.

When you ask him to give his definition for "Calvinism" what does he say?
What of John Calvin has he read?
When you ask him what of "Calvinism" he disagrees with, what does he say?
On what authority does he find that part of Calvinism disagreeable?

Personally, If someone tells me if they disagree with "Calvinism", I ask them what part of The Institutes gave them the most trouble. When they tell me they (1) don't know what The Institutes are or (2) have never read The Institutes, I ask them if they think it is fair to dismiss someone's teaching based only on second hand information. Then, I tell them I am willing to sit with them and read portions of the Institutes with them.


----------



## MW (Mar 8, 2012)

That method of argumentation is enough to boggle anyone's mind. It is simply a series of absurd assertions.



> 1. The Law was intended for unregenerate people (1 Tim 1:9-10)



The word "regenerate" is not used. It is "righteous." And it is not absolute. The apostle had previously taught that charity is the end of the commandment, v. 5, which springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. In other words, the law is of use to teach charity to those who are regenerate.



> 2. The Law was given to Jews.



The law was given to Jews in a particular form by Moses. As the man himself notes, all men have the law by nature, Rom. 2:14, 15. And what does this mean? It means that the law is the inevitable norm of human life. Hence the apostle appeals to it as that which is "right," Eph. 6:1-3.



> 3. Therefore, Jews were unregenerate.



As his major and minor premise have been proven false, this conclusion remains unproven. As it stands, it is dispensational, and contrary to Scripture.



> 4, Some Jews had saving faith (Heb 11:23-40)
> 5. Therefore, unregenerate people can have saving faith.[/FONT]



As his prior conclusion remains unproven he has no basis for making this assertion. The right conclusion is that which is based on Scripture testimony. Faith in Christ is certain evidence that one is born of God, 1 John 5:1. Ergo believers under the Old Testament were born of God.



> Calvinism says (5) is impossible, therefore Calvinism is false.



Calvinism says it is impossible for a believer to be unregenerate, in accord with the clear teaching of Scripture. Besides 1 John 5:1, John 1:12-13 plainly states that whoever believes on the name of Christ has been born of God.


----------



## KingofBashan (Mar 9, 2012)

> 1. The Law was intended for unregenerate people (1 Tim 1:9-10)
> 2. The Law was given to Jews.
> 3. Therefore, Jews were unregenerate.
> 4, Some Jews had saving faith (Heb 11:23-40)
> ...



To put it as simply as possible: there is a HUGE gap between 3 and 4. Namely this, Saving faith is the result of regeneration. Then 5 needs to be edited so the whole line of argument should look like this:



> 1. The Law was intended for unregenerate people (1 Tim 1:9-10)
> 2. The Law was given to Jews.
> 3. Therefore, Jews were unregenerate.
> 4. Saving faith is the result of regeneration.
> ...



Kind of a useless line of reasoning since the conclusion is obvious. 



> Now, it should be clear that the "law" doesn't just apply to Jews but to all natural men. Natural man is given the moral law because he is unregenerate. Regenerate men do not need any kind of law because they naturally do what is required by the law. But the Jews were given the particular Mosaic law because it made them holy according to earthly standards of holiness. Their flesh was purified. But regenerate men are made holy according to heavenly standards. Their conscience/heart is purified. And then they don't need the Law anymore, because the law has been written upon their hearts. The Jews needed the Law written upon tablets of stone because it was_not written upon their hearts._



yada yada yada... So who does the regenerating again? O yes. God does. So saving faith is a sovereign act of God. Ergo Calvinism = True.

A bit confontational but it is how I would respond. It cuts through the facade of his cleverly crafted arguments, and helps him face that his ramblings still leave him needing to answer the question "How does an unregenerate become a regenerate?"


----------



## travstar (Mar 9, 2012)

KingofBashan said:


> It cuts through the facade of his cleverly crafted arguments



Man, what passes for "cleverly crafted" anymore...


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 9, 2012)

LeeD said:


> he had emailed expressing that those saved under the Old Covenant are justified in a different way than those in the New Covenant



His position is patently unscriptural.

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For *if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about,* but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? *"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."*
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5* But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,*
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."
9* Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.*
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, *a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,*
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 *For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.*
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 *Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all*

23 *Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him,
24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,*
25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
NKJ Romans 5:1 *Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.*

11 *But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."*
12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree "),
14 *that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith*.
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.
18 *For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.*


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 9, 2012)

How does he deal with passages like Romans 9, Ephesians 2, and John 6:44 and 65?


----------

