Calvinists do some very odd things. They will demand that "circumcision of the heart" IS regeneration but deny that anything else is regeneration that does not suit them. The capitalize on the fact that the new birth is actually only mentioned explicitly a few times in the Bible. They then decide for themselves to define whichever other references in Scripture are references to the new birth or not by keeping one eye on their creed.

(Fred) I am curious if you can provide us with some examples of Calvinists redefining words? If regeneration is only mentioned explicitly a few times, could you please give us those explicit references also?

Of course, they will all say the "context" and "hermeneutics" determines these things. But if you watch the it is plain to see that TULIP is giving all the orders.

(Fred) Hmmm. I always understood that my hermeneutics and context was giving my TULIP all the orders. Of course, Arminians/Roman Catholics do the same thing. They will say "context" "hermeneutics" but it is painfully obvious that it is their aristotelian/Thomist philosophy giving all the orders.


"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns