A question about Calvinism

[webdog]

That assertion goes against Scripture, believing on our own would be a work.

Believing on our own or not put aside...believing is NEVER a work in any instance. This is the classic calvinist strawman that hold no weight whatsoever.

 

[annsni]

Hope you are feeling better soon. The kids have been sick for over a week...

I hope they feel better soon! I'm still here. Joanna needs to finish her math so I need to sit and keep her going until she's done...THEN I'll get to the couch.

This is a false dichotomy. If one is conceived sinless, they are conceived not separated from God already, not having done a thing. There is nothing they did or didn't do to be deemed not separated from God, hence it cannot be a work.
If man is conceived in "original sin" there is only one choice...faith in Christ.

Do you have any verses that show that we are conceived not separated from God? That anyone is at a point not separated from God?

 

[historyb]

Believing on our own or not put aside...believing is NEVER a work in any instance. This is the classic calvinist strawman that hold no weight whatsoever.

If you are asserting that man can believe on his own it sure is a work

 

[Amy.G]

That assertion goes against Scripture, believing on our own would be a work. Salvation is not by works lest any man should boast, if man could believe all by himself then he could boast in his work. So no you don't believe God is truly Sovereign, because if you did you must admit man does nothing as Scripture attest

Stop telling me that I don't believe in the sovereignty of God. It's not true.
Faith is not a work.
Eph 2
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I don't know why not, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean that is certain. I know the trap here, but what is the overall context and how is Christ speaking here. I can say He was address the leaders here and thier legalism, but they still could not ever stand against God's Will

It doesn't say that He was addressing only the leaders. He was addressing all of Jerusalem of which the majority rejected Him. He came to His own and His own received Him not.

He wanted to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not.

God gave them the choice. How does that remove His sovereignty???

 

[webdog]

If you are asserting that man can believe on his own it sure is a work

No, you are asserting this extra biblical qualifier for faith that is not supported in Scripture. Repeat...faith is NEVER a work in ANY instance.

 

[webdog]

Do you have any verses that show that we are conceived not separated from God? That anyone is at a point not separated from God?

This is like deja vu...haven't we been over this before?

I'll direct you to Paul's statements in Romans 7 where he attests to the fact he was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came (meaning he understood it's consequence) sin "sprang to life" and he died (spiritually).

 

[historyb]

Stop telling me that I don't believe in the sovereignty of God. It's not true.
Faith is not a work.
Eph 2
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

And you bring in red herrings, I never said Faith was a work. Believing by ourselves is a work, period and if you think we can believe in and of our selves than you negates God sovereignty

It doesn't say that He was addressing only the leaders. He was addressing all of Jerusalem of which the majority rejected Him. He came to His own and His own received Him not.

He wanted to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not.

God gave them the choice. How does that remove His sovereignty???

No your completely wrong as most Arminians are on that verse

 

[historyb]

No, you are asserting this extra biblical qualifier for faith that is not supported in Scripture. Repeat...faith is NEVER a work in ANY instance.

Joining the red herring club eh. I never said Faith is a work, no man can believe in their own by their selves to do such is a work plain and simple

 

[Allan]

That assertion goes against Scripture, believing on our own would be a work.

Actually you very wrong here. Believing not only is not but can not ever be considered a 'work'. Just read Romans 4:3-6

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

You did notice I hope where it states 'to the one who does not work but believes"

Salvation is not by works lest any man should boast, if man could believe all by himself then he could boast in his work.

I agree that salvation is not by works however as show above via scripture belief is not a work and can not be stated to be such.

I don't know why not, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean that is certain. I know the trap here, but what is the overall context and how is Christ speaking here. I can say He was address the leaders here and thier legalism, but they still could not ever stand against God's Will

You need to go back and check 'the context' of passage in question because it does in fact support her claim, verse 35 specifically establishes it as the Nation and not just or only the leaders. The OT is repleat with the Nation leaving their God to follow after various things, when God desired them to stay close to Him and in fellowship with Him, thus He desired to keep them safe and close as mother hen her children but they would not. The 'over all' context is just backpeddling in light of the problem that passage peresents.

It is epitmized in Prov 1:24-25;

Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Pro 1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof

 

[Allan]

Joining the red herring club eh. I never said Faith is a work, no man can believe in their own by their selves to do such is a work plain and simple

Wrong, you're still stating that belief is work. God does not believe for man thus man must believe himself.

But no one here deny's that no man will come to God much less believe in/on Jesus without the work of God upon them.

 

[Amy.G]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
It doesn't say that He was addressing only the leaders. He was addressing all of Jerusalem of which the majority rejected Him. He came to His own and His own received Him not.

He wanted to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks, but they would not.

God gave them the choice. How does that remove His sovereignty???

No your completely wrong as most Arminians are on that verse

So explain it to me. All you have said so far is that I am wrong. What does it mean that they "would not"?

BTW, I'm not an Arminian.
__________________

 

[Allan]

No your completely wrong as most Arminians are on that verse

It is apparent you haven't read many calvinists on these verses. Macarther and M.Henry agree that it refers to the nation. I look some more at others but so far apparently not all calvinists agree with you interpretation of the passage.

 

[historyb]

Wrong, you're still stating that belief is work. God does not believe for man thus man must believe himself.

But no one here deny's that no man will come to God much less believe in/on Jesus without the work of God upon them.

No I'm not, I am saying no man can come by himself. That's what others are saying that man can believe by themselves.

 

[gb93433]

Would you be able to respond had it not been for the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit convicts one of sin, righteous, and judgment. I guess that it would have been much like the people did in the OT.

 

[Allan]

No I'm not, I am saying no man can come by himself. That's what others are saying that man can believe by themselves.

Actually, ask them. On this issue they agree with what I stated.

You are assuming they are taking the Pelagian view of mans coming to God without any intervention by God toward him, or at least that appears to be what you are assuming. Even in Arminainism no man comes to God of nor by himself without God's intervension toward him.

 

[annsni]

This is like deja vu...haven't we been over this before?

I'll direct you to Paul's statements in Romans 7 where he attests to the fact he was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came (meaning he understood it's consequence) sin "sprang to life" and he died (spiritually).

Romans 7:13 refutes the idea that apart from the law one is sinless:

"Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure."

What about those who were outside the law - the Gentiles? Were they still spiritually alive because they didn't know the law? No. Sin and death existed before the law. The law did not bring the consequences of sin - otherwise Noah wouldn't have had to build an ark.

 

[Me4Him]

Me4Him, Good job on those scriptures. I agree with every one of them.

I especially liked Romans 5:18
Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If I understand your point, Jesus' righteousness has assured the justification of all men. This is certainly consistent with your view that all always means everybody without exception.

Or did you have something else in mind?

It does mean "ALL MEN", "whosoever will".

Consider the "WILL OF MAN" in the following verses.

Lu 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall "I DO" to inherit eternal life?

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mr 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Lu 12:22 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.

23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

Lu 12:29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.

31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Mr 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Lu 6:24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

Lu 12:21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

Jas 5:3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

Mt 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Lu 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

"Predestination doctrine" won't allow you to preach that we have a "CHOICE" between laying up treasures in this world or in heaven,

But that is the "CHOICE" Jesus placed before the "Rich ruler" when he asked, what shall I do to inherit eternal life.

and it's a "CHOICE" still placed before "ALL MEN".

 

[Tom Butler]

It does mean "ALL MEN", "whosoever will".

Maybe I'm just dense but I don't see how this answered the question I asked.

So let me ask a few to make sure I understand you.

Are you equating "all men" with "whosoever will?" That can't work because not every whosoever will trust Christ for salvation. Salvation is limited to the whosoever wills, and does not include the whosoever won'ts.

Are you really saying that in Romans 5:18 that in this phrase "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life" you define all men as everyone without exception?

If yes, do you understand the implications of holding to that definition? How is it not universalism?

If "all men" is not all men without exception, what is it?

To be clear, I believe "whosoever will" means just that and no more. Those who will.

 

[Allan]

Maybe I'm just dense but I don't see how this answered the question I asked.

So let me ask a few to make sure I understand you.

Are you equating "all men" with "whosoever will?" That can't work because not every whosoever will trust Christ for salvation. Salvation is limited to the whosoever wills, and does not include the whosoever won'ts.

Are you really saying that in Romans 5:18 that in this phrase "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life" you define all men as everyone without exception?

If yes, do you understand the implications of holding to that definition? How is it not universalism?

If "all men" is not all men without exception, what is it?

To be clear, I believe "whosoever will" means just that and no more. Those who will.

Actaully, IF I may interject something here, no the verse is not speaking of universalism though it is refering consistantly to all men without exception in the surrounding passages which necessite this one to is not saying 'all men' is inclusive and then in the same sentenance "all men" is exclusive.

Now I don't agree with much of Me4Him's views (no offence Me4Him) however in this he/she is correct.

Matthew Henry states it this way:

(1.) There is a free gift come upon all men, that is, it is made and offered promiscuously to all. The salvation wrought is a common salvation; the proposals are general, the tender free; whoever will may come, and take of these waters of life. This free gift is to all believers, upon their believing, unto justification of life. It is not only a justification that frees from death, but that entitles to life.

Now here is the problem in the above. Since God is sincerly offering salvation to all men (without exception - as many Calvinists agree, yes Rippon I mean a large number here), and since it is to all men, then in order for God not to be liar in the offering of salvation propitiation had to be made for all. Otherwise how can you offer something you can not give and not be a liar and a fraud. Can we say this about God? No we can not thus the only logical conclusion is that if God offers salvation toward all men and commands all men everywhere to repent (the gospel) then He did something that ensures His offer is legitimate and true even toward those who will reject it.

On the same verse John Calvin one of the premeirs of his day regarding the grace doctrines said of this passage:

18. Therefore, etc. This is a defective sentence; it will be complete if the words condemnation and justification be read in the nominative case; as doubtless you must do in order to complete the sense. We have here the general conclusion from the preceding comparison; for, omitting the mention of the intervening explanation, he now completes the comparison, “As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness — δικαιοσύνην, but the justification — δικαίωμα, 173173 of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.

Side commentary to this portion "173" states:
The meaning of this word is evident here; for it stands in contrast with παράπτωμα — offense or transgression, in the former clause, and is identical in sense with ὑπακόη — obedience, in the next verse. It means what is appointed and adjudged as right; and hence it is rendered “ordinance,” Luke 1:6; “judgment,” Romans 1:32; and, in Romans 5:16, “justification,” when it stands opposed to κατάκριμα — condemnation, and means absolution, acquittal, as the determination of the judge. It signifies here, that what Christ did was according to God’s appointment; it was something directly contrary to offense or transgression; and what it was is explained in the next verse by the word “obedience.” Wolfius says, that δικαίωμα is the satisfaction of Christ, or his active and passive obedience, Romans 5:19, — that δικαιοσύνη is the merit of Christ, obtained by has death and applied to us by faith, Romans 3:22, — and that δικαίωσις is the act of justification which follows from the satisfaction of Christ, apprehended by faith. — Ed.

 

[Me4Him]

Maybe I'm just dense but I don't see how this answered the question I asked.

So let me ask a few to make sure I understand you.

Are you equating "all men" with "whosoever will?" That can't work because not every whosoever will trust Christ for salvation. Salvation is limited to the whosoever wills, and does not include the whosoever won'ts.

Are you really saying that in Romans 5:18 that in this phrase "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life" you define all men as everyone without exception?

If yes, do you understand the implications of holding to that definition? How is it not universalism?

If "all men" is not all men without exception, what is it?

To be clear, I believe "whosoever will" means just that and no more. Those who will.

The "free gift" is available to "ALL" who will accept it.

The rich ruler asked "What must "I DO", Jesus said don't trust in your riches, (money) sell all you have and follow me.

The rich ruler was given a "CHOICE", Jesus or money.

"ALL MEN" are given the same "Choice", Jesus or the world.

Satan offer Jesus all the riches/kingdom of the world if he would worship him,

Money is a "powerful influence" in people's "CHOICES".

1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil:

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (money)

The rich ruler was one of the many called, but not among the few chosen,

Because (evidently) he chose to keep his money and walk away.

But the "Free gift" had been offer to him, as it is to "ALL MEN".