Exposing Calvinism: Born Again, Then The Gospel, Then Faith?
Want to take a crazy, convoluted trip with me through the Calvinist mind?
In the comment section of the Soteriology 101 post Calvinism and Pastoral Care ...
Rhutchin (strong Calvinist) says: “The hardness of heart is undone by the new birth, and faith is conveyed to the newborn through the hearing of the gospel.”
And “The new birth makes it possible for a person to hear the gospel.”
And “If a person does not hear the gospel, salvation is not available to them. ‘Hearing the gospel’ is a prerequisite for being saved. If a person does not hear the gospel, he cannot have faith. Without faith, no one can be saved…. Hearing the gospel is before faith.”
And “Calvinists actually say that faith results from a work performed by God in the heart of the individual (i.e. the new birth or regeneration) and this work combined with the preaching of the gospel results in an assurance and the conviction of the gospel that is called faith.”
(I pick on Rhutchin's comments because he is clearly a dedicated, educated, dogmatic Calvinist who reveals so much about what Calvinism really teaches underneath the disguises.)
So ... listen closely … according to Rhutchin/Calvinism, you have to be regenerated/born again before you can hear the gospel, and you have to hear the gospel to get faith/be saved. Do you hear that? You have to be born again before you can hear the gospel, before you can have faith/believe/be saved. So apparently, in Calvinism, being born again and having faith are two different things that happen a step apart from each other. Being born again (brought to life in Jesus) comes first, then hearing the gospel, then having faith (believing in Jesus). The elect (in Calvinism) are “born again” first, before anything else, before even hearing the gospel. And then when they hear the gospel, they are given the faith to believe in Jesus, suddenly realizing that they were saved all along. And the non-elect can never hear the gospel because they won't ever be regenerated because they weren’t chosen to be saved.
So I wonder … what good is the gospel in Calvinism, really? Since the non-elect can never hear/respond to it and since the elect are already born again/regenerated/brought to life in Jesus before ever hearing it? Calvinism won't ever see or admit this, but it makes the gospel superfluous. A side-note. Ineffective. Because, in Calvinism, it doesn’t and can never lead any non-believer to Jesus. All it does is simply help the elect realize they are already elect, help the saved realize they are already saved. (Calvinism is a brilliant satanic ploy, using God's Word against God, using the gospel against the gospel!)
[And this apparently means that anyone who didn’t have the chance to hear the gospel – infants who die, people on remote islands, mentally handicapped people, etc. - is out of luck. They can never be given faith because they can't hear the gospel. Because, as Rhutchin says, “If a person does not hear the gospel, salvation is not available to them.” Or as I heard a Calvinist say it once, “Those born in remote areas who never heard of Jesus were predestined to hell, to be non-elect.” For my thoughts on this, see my posts “Do babies go to heaven if they die?” and “What about those who've never heard of Jesus?” Also, see the note at the bottom of this post for a bit about what Calvinists say about this.]
When Rhutchin was asked how he defined “born again,” biblically, he says this: “Paul defines it for us in Ephesians 2, ‘you God made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world …. God…even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ…’ The new birth makes it possible for a person to hear the gospel (the means God uses to draw/drag a person to Christ). Prior to hearing the gospel, ‘No one can come to Christ.’ Apparently, a person that is reborn still needs to be dragged to Christ, since that is what John tells us.”
Someone (Aiden, non-Calvinist) then responds, “So, you define reborn as – made alive together with Christ – and yet say he still needs to be dragged to Christ to be saved? I hope you see how unscriptural that is, even from the verses you quoted? But those verses show the very opposite to what you say. They show that a person who has been “reborn” made alive with Christ is already saved and in Christ.” [My note: Biblically, God regenerates believers, those who chose to believe, to put their faith in Jesus. He does not regenerate unbelievers to make them believers, as Calvinism teaches.]
Brianwagner (non-Calvinist) also responds: “Thanks Roger [Rhutchin] for confirming the difficulty Calvinists have clarifying why a newly regenerated Will still needs to be dragged [to Jesus]… pretty funny! The bigger problem is that you put regeneration 'prior to hearing the gospel.' Wow! Paul and Peter both said the new birth happens 'through' the gospel. The hearing, understanding, and believing of the gospel must be first. I’m sticking with them. 1 Corinthians 4:15 NKJV: ‘For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.’ 1 Peter 1:23 NKJV: ‘-having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever.’ Nothing happens ‘through’ something else unless that something is in place/in existence first for the other thing to go through it. I have nothing else to add. But I hope all is well with you and those you love.”
Rhutchin replies: “The newly regenerated person still lacks faith and still desires sin. [My note: So apparently, in Calvinism, you can be regenerated - born again, made alive in Jesus - but have no faith in Jesus ... because remember that, according to Calvinism, having faith in Jesus comes after hearing the gospel which comes after being regenerated/born again.] The regenerated person still needs help, so God drags him out of the quicksand of sin, gives him assurance and conviction in the gospel, and then seals him with His Holy Spirit when the person believes. And in response to your comment “The bigger problem is that you put regeneration ‘prior to hearing the gospel.’ Wow! Paul and Peter both said the new birth happens ‘through’ the gospel” … I agree. Hearing the gospel is required for regeneration to occur. If a person never hears the gospel, he cannot be regenerated and cannot receive faith.”
My note: But he already said earlier in a different comment that “The new birth makes it possible for a person to hear the gospel” and “Calvinists actually say that faith results from a work performed by God in the heart of the individual (i.e. the new birth or regeneration)...” He said that the new birth/regeneration comes before hearing the gospel (which comes before faith), but now he’s saying he agrees that regeneration comes after hearing the gospel: "I agree. Hearing the gospel is required for regeneration to occur. If a person never hears the gospel, he cannot be regenerated and cannot receive faith.” So which is it? It can’t be both. [Do you see what we mean when we say that debating with Calvinists is like wrestling greased pigs? They will do whatever they can to weasel out of tight spots and contradictions in their theology, such as throwing multiple Bible verses at you (out of context), accusing you of being unhumble for asking such questions, altering the meanings of words, and switching what they're saying without even realizing it or acknowledging it, as Rhutchin did here.] Despite Rhutchin’s flip-flopping here, Calvinism teaches that the elect are born again/saved/regenerated first, then they hear the gospel, then they get faith and are saved (or more accurately, they realize they were saved all along). And Calvi-god only regenerates the elect.
I agree that the gospel leads to faith, but I believe the Bible shows that we are not saved/born again until we believe, until we put our faith in Jesus. And I believe that anyone can be saved if they respond to the information God gives them (whether that’s the written word of God or the message of Himself that He puts in nature or the eternal truths He imprints on people’s hearts). This is why no one will have an excuse for why they didn’t believe in God (Romans 1:20). Because He gave all of us enough information to know He’s real and that we need Him. But it’s up to us to accept it or reject it.
Contrary to Calvinism (that being born again is separate from and earlier than having faith), being born again - biblically - is concurrent with having faith. They happen at the same time. When you put your faith in Jesus, you are born again, and the Holy Spirit enters you and regenerates you. It's just that simple!
[And just so you don’t think this is an
isolated incident: In another Soteriology 101 post called The Good News of God's Choice, Rhutchin
also makes these contradictory, flip-flopping statements:
“In the absence of faith, any exhortation to
believe the gospel would be fruitless. In the presence of faith, the preaching
of the gospel results in salvation.” [So
here he says that you need to have faith first, in order to
hear, understand, respond to the gospel.]
“The gospel is the source of faith and that
faith then exercises belief in the gospel. We have no faith without the hearing of the
gospel. The gospel produces faith. That faith is then fueled by the hearing of
the gospel to believe in Christ.” [This
is a doozy: Here he says that you can’t have faith without the gospel, that the
gospel comes before – and leads to - faith. (Which I agree with. However, I do believe those who never heard of Jesus, never had the chance to hear of Jesus, can be saved too, if they respond to the revelation God gave them of Himself, through nature and in their hearts. Everyone has the chance to believe and be saved. See this post for more on that.) But he also says, in the exact same sentences and in other comments, that faith has to come before - that it leads to - belief
in the gospel. So … faith is essential
for believing the gospel and the gospel is essential for having faith!?! Yep, makes perfect sense, Calvinist!]
“The gospel is the means by which a person is
born again, receives faith, and believes.”
[And here he again clearly contradicts what he previously said (what Calvinist theology teaches) about how
we have to be born again first, before we can hear the gospel. So .. you have to hear the gospel to be born again and you have to be born again to hear the gospel!?! Yep, makes perfect sense, Calvinist!]
And yet Calvinists wonder why we don’t take them seriously, don’t trust what they say, and hate debating them!]
Note, from the post "Do babies go to heaven in they die?":
There are Calvinists who try to say that babies who die go to heaven, but this contradicts their view of total depravity and that you have to "hear the gospel" to be saved. They are inconsistent Calvinists, saying that all people are born totally depraved (wicked sinners at birth, hopelessly separated from God and rebellious against God ... unless and until God regenerates them) but then also trying to say that babies go to heaven if they die. This contradicts their own Calvinist theology. (I believe babies go to heaven if they die. But I can believe that - without contradiction - because I am not a Calvinist.)
Wanna see?
Take a look...
Fromoverhere responds: The cold heart of a consistent Calvinist.
And then Fromoverhere goes on: Cheung says, a little further down in that article: “But whether a fetus, infant, or adult, if you can read this and understand this, then I am telling you that you must believe in Jesus Christ to save your wretched soul. [My note: Interesting that a Calvinist would plead with people to believe when he believes that God alone determines whether we believe or not, that our decisions have no effect on it because we aren't really even allowed to make any decisions on our own, and that the elect are predestined to believe no matter what happens. Why would they plead with someone to do something that was already predestined to happen? A "Calvinist evangelist" is a huge oxymoron, as if evangelism is actually needed in Calvinism, as if it makes a difference.] As for my critics, yes, even obnoxious morons like you can be saved. My concern is not so much about whether embryos can exercise faith, but that as annoying and unintelligent as you are, whether you can exercise faith….. As for the embryos, if they perish, they will go where God decides – if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell; if they all ascend to heaven, then they ascend to heaven – but if they live, I will talk to them in a few years.”
But wait… there’s more… Cheung says: “Perhaps the same applies to those who are mentally retarded, although there seems to be no biblical evidence to say that some mentally retarded people are saved, since there seems to be no equivalent examples in Scripture. Their salvation is only a possibility. It is also possible that all mentally retarded people are damned. If this is the case, it would be misleading to complain that they are punished for being mentally retarded; rather, on the basis of the doctrine of reprobation, they would be created as damned individuals in the first place. There is no theological problem either way.”
There’s that Doctrine of Grace! They are not being impeded from salvation by being handicapped… they were created to be damned anyway!! Comforting! So… if you spend 40 years taking care of your mentally-challenged child who will never have the mental capacity to call on Christ, at least you can be comforted to know that it was not because he was mentally slow…. it just cuz he was damned all along. I am sure this will comfort all those parents.
[My note: Seriously, people, if this doesn't anger you, to see what Calvinism does to God's character and Jesus's sacrifice and people's hope of salvation, then you need to look into it some more. Trust me, Calvinism is coming to a church near you. Know what they teach. Know their tricks and their double-speak. And know why it's so very wrong!]
Fromoverhere continues: But just in case Cheung was not clear enough… “In itself, I have no problem with the idea that for anyone to receive salvation, in the absolute sense and without exception, he must exhibit a conscious faith in the gospel. This would mean that those who are unable to exercise faith are all damned to hell, and this would include infants and the mentally retarded, if we assume that they cannot exercise faith. I have no misgivings about this.” Phew… I wouldn’t want him to have misgivings about that!
My response to fromoverhere: "The quotes from Cheung make me want to cry. Those kinds of teachings are when my blood starts boiling and when I pull out my stronger language and, yes, when I start calling Calvinism “heresy.’ (I try not to do that often, but when they start condemning people to hell that Jesus came to die for … when they start denying salvation for those whom God loves and whom Jesus came to save … when they deem anyone out of reach of God’s grace and forgiveness … well, then I WILL pull out the “heresy” card! Because it doesn’t get much more wretched and vile than that.)
