Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

[thatbrian]

That is an excuse and not a very good one. People are nasty because it is their heart to be that way and no other reason.

I trust your opinion on this, as you are an expert in the field.

 

[thatbrian]

the "young, restless, and Reformed" can be a pretty nasty bunch. I think it's because many have been exposed to shallow doctrine for a long time before becoming Calvinists.

Some might be "nasty", but I would say that they are angry , and they are angry as a result of their experience.

I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church and when I heard the gospel at 17 from a relative who had recently been saved, it was for the very first time, in spite of the hundreds of masses and catechism classes I had attended. To say I was angry at the RCC for not preaching the gospel would be an huge understatement, and the outrage I felt was justified. That experience was repeated after 2+ decades of life in a shallow, wishy washy semi-Pelagian church which gave me a gospel-less "Christianity" which was nothing more than moralism. It was law-light. It was "moralistic, therapeutic, deism".

Do I still hate what both of these places who are charged with preaching the gospel have done to me and millions of others? I do.

 

[Rippon]

I care, especially when calvies use words, that they make up, to create false dichotomies. Monergism only has a theological use and it was recently made up. The idea cannot found in scripture, at all, when synergism can and even then synergism is never used in the context of soteriology.

So the use of these two words to create a false dichotomy (i.e. you are either a monergist or you are a synergist.)

We cannot have peaceful discussions because Calvies want to impose their terms, which we reject, on others. No one wants that no [sic] will they accept that. Its nothing but bullying pure and simple. Now the term calvinist has such a bad connotation that calvies are running from it as fast as they can to their made up terms such a monergyst.[sic]

Thus speaks the local Free-Willy.

 

[JonC]

@JonC, you liked this post but I am interested in whether you agree with my statement on the federal headship view or not.

I do agree with your statement.

I also believe that in the Garden Adam was mankind as a whole and we have his nature. So it is not just that Adam sinned, but also that Adam demonstrated what all of mankind would do (he showed us our natures).

I believe that Adam was both the federal head of the human race and a demonstration or definition of what we are ontologically.

 

[Reformed]

I do agree with your statement.

I also believe that in the Garden Adam was mankind as a whole and we have his nature. So it is not just that Adam sinned, but also that Adam demonstrated what all of mankind would do (he showed us our natures).

I believe that Adam was both the federal head of the human race and a demonstration or definition of what we are ontologically.

The Federal Headship view (for those unfamiliar with it) means that Adam was humanities fair and just representative. He was created without sin. He had an ability no human since (save Christ) has ever had; the ability not to sin. When Adam sinner he did so federally; acting on our behalf. All of Adam's posterity were effected. While we did not commit the actual sin of Adam, it is as though we did since Adam sinned on our behalf. But lest we think we are better than Adam, we are also sinner's because of our sin. "For all have sinned" (Romans 3:23).

As far as Adam being representative of mankind as a whole, I think that is an unnecessary distinction. He federally represented mankind through his sin, but I think that it is as far as it goes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

The Federal Headship view (for those unfamiliar with it) means that Adam was humanities fair and just representative. He was created without sin. He had an ability no human since (save Christ) has ever had; the ability not to sin. When Adam sinner he did so federally; acting on our behalf. All of Adam's posterity were effected. While we did not commit the actual sin of Adam, it is as though we did since Adam sinned on our behalf. But lest we think we are better than Adam, we are also sinner's because of our sin. "For all have sinned" (Romans 3:23).

As far as Adam being representative of mankind as a whole, I think that is an unnecessary distinction. He federally represented mankind through his sin, but I think that it is as far as it goes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I believe this in part. When I responded, I mean that I agree that Adam was our federal head and a fair and just representative (federal head, but not necessarily Federal Headship view). Adam was created without sin just as we are made without sin (I do not believe that when God "knits" us in our mother's womb He weaves sin into our being). He is the representative of mankind, of the human race. I do not believe when Adam sinned his posterity was affected in an ontological sense or in a judicial sense.

The difference is that I believe when Adam sinned he demonstrated our nature against God's demands upon us. He is, in this sense, us and therefore he represented us. I believe the same true of the headship of Christ. Christ's obedience is not attributed to us in the judicial sense, but Christ shows us who we are in Him - we walk in the Light because that is who we are.

 

[Reformed]

I believe this in part. When I responded, I mean that I agree that Adam was our federal head and a fair and just representative (federal head, but not necessarily Federal Headship view). Adam was created without sin just as we are made without sin (I do not believe that when God "knits" us in our mother's womb He weaves sin into our being). He is the representative of mankind, of the human race. I do not believe when Adam sinned his posterity was affected in an ontological sense or in a judicial sense.

The difference is that I believe when Adam sinned he demonstrated our nature against God's demands upon us. He is, in this sense, us and therefore he represented us. I believe the same true of the headship of Christ. Christ's obedience is not attributed to us in the judicial sense, but Christ shows us who we are in Him - we walk in the Light because that is who we are.

Jon,

This is why I am such a stickler for defining words and terms. When you said you agreed with my post about Adam being our federal head, I surmised you did not agree in the way the Reformers viewed Adam's federal headship. It is not that I am trying to put you on the spot; it is that good theology requires careful and complete vetting. For instance, I do believe Adam's sin was considered by God as an act of all people, and thus all people sinned in Adam. The converse of that is Pelagius' view that man is born tabula rasa and Adam was responsible for his own sin (although God cursed creation and humanity with death). I do not believe God "weaves sin into our being". God is not the author sin. I believe the Bible teaches that sin was imputed to humanity through Adam's disobedience. Call it a curse if you will, that is binding on Adam's posterity.

As far as Christ, there is a distinct judicial aspect of Christ's obedience on behalf of the Elect. The Elect are declared righteous through the actions of another (alien righteousness) - Christ. This is a legal declaration. We seem to disagree on this, so it is important to bring this to the forefront. Intellectual honesty in a debate is a good thing, no?

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely. My argument for individual election for awhile has been that the Elect is made up of individuals.
I believe that there are obvious aspects of the Cross that imply both penal and substitution. But I don't believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct.

That would be sue to you having a faulty view regarding the effects of the Fall, and on sinful human natures that we have all received as a result of that!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe Adam was representative of all mankind.

So we would have received within us the same judgement of God, so we all were born in his likeness, and thus spiritually dead, sinners by nature!

 

[Yeshua1]

You've just answered your question. We sin by walking away from God, ignoring God, placing our will over God's, and making up gods in our image. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Scripture tells us of two types of nature - the "flesh" and the "spirit". The flesh in and of itself is not sin, but man's inclination to the flesh leads to sin (read James 1).

We have all a nature in us, the part of that wills us to sin and disbelieve God, all are born with the natural bent to sin....

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe this in part. When I responded, I mean that I agree that Adam was our federal head and a fair and just representative (federal head, but not necessarily Federal Headship view). Adam was created without sin just as we are made without sin (I do not believe that when God "knits" us in our mother's womb He weaves sin into our being). He is the representative of mankind, of the human race. I do not believe when Adam sinned his posterity was affected in an ontological sense or in a judicial sense.

The difference is that I believe when Adam sinned he demonstrated our nature against God's demands upon us. He is, in this sense, us and therefore he represented us. I believe the same true of the headship of Christ. Christ's obedience is not attributed to us in the judicial sense, but Christ shows us who we are in Him - we walk in the Light because that is who we are.

Humans, save for jesus, are born with the nature that has us in rebellion and self willed apart from God right from the start!

 

[JonC]

So we would have received within us the same judgement of God, so we all were born in his likeness, and thus spiritually dead, sinners by nature!

We would die, yes. But you are ignoring that it is appointed to men once to die and then the judgment.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon,

This is why I am such a stickler for defining words and terms. When you said you agreed with my post about Adam being our federal head, I surmised you did not agree in the way the Reformers viewed Adam's federal headship. It is not that I am trying to put you on the spot; it is that good theology requires careful and complete vetting. For instance, I do believe Adam's sin was considered by God as an act of all people, and thus all people sinned in Adam. The converse of that is Pelagius' view that man is born tabula rasa and Adam was responsible for his own sin (although God cursed creation and humanity with death). I do not believe God "weaves sin into our being". God is not the author sin. I believe the Bible teaches that sin was imputed to humanity through Adam's disobedience. Call it a curse if you will, that is binding on Adam's posterity.

As far as Christ, there is a distinct judicial aspect of Christ's obedience on behalf of the Elect. The Elect are declared righteous through the actions of another (alien righteousness) - Christ. This is a legal declaration. We seem to disagree on this, so it is important to bring this to the forefront. Intellectual honesty in a debate is a good thing, no?

Jesus could not have the exact same human nature as we all have, as that would have meant that God would have seen Him in Adam and dead in His own sins, and not qualified to save us!
And we cannot just refuse to sin ourselves, and to say Jesus did by just relying upon the Holy Spirit, as Jesus was/is God in human flesh, and we are not!

 

[Yeshua1]

We would die, yes. But you are ignoring that it is appointed to men once to die and then the judgment.

God judged all of humanity to receive spiritual /physical death, and the judgement after this life is something else entirely!

 

[JonC]

Humans, save for jesus, are born with the nature that has us in rebellion and self willed apart from God right from the start!

Provide a verse that calls nature itself sinful.

 

[Yeshua1]

@JonC, you liked this post but I am interested in whether you agree with my statement on the federal headship view or not.

Based upon what he has posted, he severely disagrees with the reformed view on this, and the Fall effects on us...

 

[Yeshua1]

Provide a verse that calls nature itself sinful.

Romans 8:3, Romans 6:6, Colossians 3:5, to name a few!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brother, I do not need to be right. I want to be right if for no other reason than I do not want to intentionally mispresent the scriptures.

I wasn’t suggesting you personally had the need... rather I was sighting it in general

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe this in part. When I responded, I mean that I agree that Adam was our federal head and a fair and just representative (federal head, but not necessarily Federal Headship view). Adam was created without sin just as we are made without sin (I do not believe that when God "knits" us in our mother's womb He weaves sin into our being). He is the representative of mankind, of the human race. I do not believe when Adam sinned his posterity was affected in an ontological sense or in a judicial sense.

The difference is that I believe when Adam sinned he demonstrated our nature against God's demands upon us. He is, in this sense, us and therefore he represented us. I believe the same true of the headship of Christ. Christ's obedience is not attributed to us in the judicial sense, but Christ shows us who we are in Him - we walk in the Light because that is who we are.

Adam sinned, became a sinner, and humans are born with sin natures now as a result...
We are not born as blank natures, with a choice to be sinners or not!

 

[JonC]

Romans 8:3, Romans 6:6, Colossians 3:5, to name a few!

Try again (these speak of sinful flesh NOT the sin of birth...not nature itself being sin).

And that Christ came in both the likeness of the Father and sinful flesh should have been a hint to you. (You just attributed sin to Christ or denied He is God).