I have a question about Calvinism.

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCG, is it your opinion that ones doctrines have no impact on whether or not one is saved or their standing now before God, or is just Calvinism one way or another that makes no difference?

I am of the firm persuasion that doctrines do make a difference and that ones doctrines may be ones downfall. One, most likely, will eventually act in accordance to their beliefs, whether or not in accordance to righteousness and faith, or in disobedience and death. We should all consider the tendencies of the lifestyles our doctrines imbibe, should we not?

Does not the possibility exist that ones doctrinal beliefs might in fact impact ones lifestyle, intents and actions? I know some preach that sin in a believer’s life will never separate them from God, but I find Scripture to say something directly to the contrary. I say, make your calling and election certain. Prove your doctrines by the careful examination of Scripture. Be careful not to simply follow any doctrine, but rather give heed to ‘sound doctrine.’ Each one of us will make those choices and in the end God will be the final judge as to how well we did. May we exercise wisdom and pray for discernment and strength to live in accordance to sound doctrines reflecting the truth.

 

[TCGreek]

TCG, is it your opinion that ones doctrines have no impact on whether or not one is saved or their standing now before God, or is just Calvinism one way or another that makes no difference?

I am of the firm persuasion that doctrines do make a difference and that ones doctrines may be ones downfall. One, most likely, will eventually act in accordance to their beliefs, whether or not in accordance to righteousness and faith, or in disobedience and death. We should all consider the tendencies of the lifestyles our doctrines imbibe, should we not?

Does not the possibility exist that ones doctrinal beliefs might in fact impact ones lifestyle, intents and actions? I know some preach that sin in a believer’s life will never separate them from God, but I find Scripture to say something directly to the contrary. I say, make your calling and election certain. Prove your doctrines by the careful examination of Scripture. Be careful not to simply follow any doctrine, but rather give heed to ‘sound doctrine.’ Each one of us will make those choices and in the end God will be the final judge as to how well we did. May we exercise wisdom and pray for discernment and strength to live in accordance to sound doctrines reflecting the truth.

HP, I'm speaking of Calvinism.

But no one who has the Spirit of God says "Jesus be cursed" (1 Cor 12:3), so some doctrines are quite evidential, but we must take proper care in identifying those.

 

[Tom Butler]

As I pointed out and continue to say, the Calvinist's free will is no free will at all. “Freedom to do as one wills,” (using true Calvinist sentiments) are code words for necessity. The doing sustains to the will the notion of necessity not freedom. One can ONLY do as they will..

I'm assuming that everybody in this discussion believes in election, since the scriptures specifically teach it. We just disagree on the ground of election.

Non-Cals hold that God foresaw and foresees the faith of future believers and elected them on that basis.

HP, at that point (from a human concept of time), it becomes necessary that that future believer will believe. He cannot and will not do otherwise. He will not and cannot change his mind. He will exercise repentance and faith to salvation and it is not possible that he will do otherwise. And it has been so from eternity.

For God to foresee the exercise of faith by an individual is to make that eventuality absolutely necessary. If that individual actually does not exercise saving faith at the time God foresaw that he would, then God is not immutable, is not omniscient.

One must be careful that when he seeks to make a point about a doctrine he opposes, that the doctrine he embraces is not vulnerable to that same critique.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Just when it gets interesting I have an answer to prayer concerning a job that I must attend to. I hope to get back into these discussions as time permits, but that may be very limited for the near future. I am not avoiding anyone on purpose, but time restraints are about to limit my time on the list.

I will try my best to keep up to some degree. Carry on!

 

[InChrist]

If man has no free will (within the bounds of God's Sovereign will), to either choose life or death, then does he have free will to choose to do right over wrong?

If man has been forced to choose wrong and do wrong throughout his history because he unable to exercise his will to do otherwise. then doesn't that put responsibility for sin at God's door?

Within this line of thinking it would mean God is the creator of sin, the instigator of evil, responsible for the fall of man, the destruction of the creation which He deemed "good", and therefore makes Him as UNjust as they come.

Doesn't sound like the God I know.

 

[Tom Butler]

If it is true that those whom God foresees in eternity as exercising saving faith in time cannot do otherwise than be saved, then i suggest that the opposite is also true.

That is, that those whom God foresees in eternity as rejecting the claims of Christ cannot do otherwise. They will not and cannot change their minds at some point. They are eternally lost.

Can someone whom God foresees will exercise saving faith actually will to do the opposite at some point? Not if God is omniscient and immutable.

Can God over-ride the will of someone whom he foresees as rejecting Christ down the road and cause him to believe? To say yes is to say that God has arrayed his omnipotence against his omniscience and immutability.

Understand that I don't equate foreknowledge with foresight. God's foreknowledge is grounded in his purpose and will. He knows because he has decreed that it will be so. Romans 8:29 clearly teaches that God foreknows "whom," not "what."

God's does foresee, but his will and purpose are not reactions to foresight.

God's determination to save some has always been his determination. If God foresees, then elects, then he has changed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: Can someone whom God foresees will exercise saving faith actually will to do the opposite at some point? Not if God is omniscient and immutable.

HP: Tom, I do not believe we are approaching this issue as we should. I started a new thread that I hope establishes the truth of the matter. It is entitled, ‘The Foreknowledge of God and Matters of Morality’

 

[Tom Butler]

HP: Tom, I do not believe we are approaching this issue as we should. I started a new thread that I hope establishes the truth of the matter. It is entitled, ‘The Foreknowledge of God and Matters of Morality’

Good idea, HP

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Scarlett: How does the passage in the story of the rich, young ruler (specifically Mark 10:21), where Jesus looks at the young man and loves him fit in with a Calvinistic viewpoint of no free will?

HP: Has your question been answered or not in your own mind? Are there any points you would like to see debated to clear up any questions you might have?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jim1999: Calvin did not teach so-called double predestination.

HP: Have you had a chance to bone up on the true sentiments of Calvin yet? What did he believe concerning double predestination according to his own words?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, you charged me with not having my terminolgy straight. I countered that charge in post #56. If you are going to charge someone with not having their terminology straight, does not fairness demand that you support that charge with evidence?

I am still awaiting a reasonable response to the charge you made.

 

[DHK]

DHK, you charged me with not having my terminolgy straight. I countered that charge in post #56. If you are going to charge someone with not having their terminology straight, does not fairness demand that you support that charge with evidence?

I am still awaiting a reasonable response to the charge you made.

First take a look at this quote from an official church bulletin from the Catholic Church:

Aborted babies dying with Original Sin on their souls.

Mrs Brown, I pray you have a holy and joyful Advent and Christmastide.
A previous commenter, Mr Yurich, denied the Churches perrenial teaching that unbaptized infants cannot enter into the Beatific Vision, with God in heaven.
We can hope and pray that God, who is not bound by His Sacraments, will give the aborted baby the Sacrament of Baptism, but we do not know this for sure. All we know for sure, is taught us by the Church, wherein that the Ordinary means of attaining heaven is by having Original Sin wiped out through water, and the Holy Ghost, or Desire [which takes a free act of the will, infants cannot do this] or blood [which we are taught by Holy Mother Church entails dying as a martyr, dying directly for Christ] is this the case in abortion? It does not seem likely. May I conclude with a quote from the great teacher of the Truth, Father Hardon:
"WHAT IS THE FATE OF UNBAPTIZED INFANTS? The fate of the unbaptized infants is left to the mercy of God. It is generally taught that the souls of those who depart this life with original sin on their souls, but without actual sin, go to limbo."
Anything else is speculation.

http://www.catholic-bulletin.blogspot.com/2008/12/ewtncom-aborted-babies-dying-with.html

Generally speaking, the term "original sin" is a Catholic term. Even defined as a Catholic original sin is wiped away shortly after birth with infant baptism. Obviously we don't believe this. This is quite contrary to orthodox Christian belief that man has a depraved nature or sin nature that was passed down to him from Adam. It is a result of the fall.


For as by one man, sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.

--The teaching of that verse (along with the rest of Romans 5 is crystal clear concerning the depraved nature of man. Start there and read right through to the end of chapter eight. How one could not be convinced that man does not have a depraved or sin nature is beyond me. The teaching is very clear.



As for original sin, Adam committed the first sin--that is original. But the concept that the RCC gives it is different then what the orthodoxy of Biblical Christianity teaches.

 

[trustitl]

The teaching of that verse (along with the rest of Romans 5 is crystal clear concerning the depraved nature of man. Start there and read right through to the end of chapter eight. How one could not be convinced that man does not have a depraved or sin nature is beyond me. The teaching is very clear.

After I was saved I could not get through Romans with any understanding. I tried but it made no sense. It was not until about 4 years age did I figure out why. The translation I was reading had replaced "flesh" with sinful nature and changed what Paul was saying.

Read Romans with flesh where it belongs and it will start to make sense without having to do blacksmith interpretations where one twists, turns, and bends things to fit.

 

[DHK]

After I was saved I could not get through Romans with any understanding. I tried but it made no sense. It was not until about 4 years age did I figure out why. The translation I was reading had replaced "flesh" with sinful nature and changed what Paul was saying.

Read Romans with flesh where it belongs and it will start to make sense without having to do blacksmith interpretations where one twists, turns, and bends things to fit.

I think the translators would know better. You should have trusted them.

 

[trustitl]

I think the translators would know better. You should have trusted them.

Surely you are aware that the NIV translators put down what they THINK Paul was trying to say rather than simply putting down the word for sarx as being flesh. There is a Greek word for sinful and a Greek word for nature. Paul would have used them if that was what he wanted to say.

The use of "sinful nature" was based on a doctrine rather than basing doctrine on the words of scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: The use of "sinful nature" was based on a doctrine rather than basing doctrine on the words of scripture.

HP: It is good that you mentioned that translation error. :thumbsup: That is precisely one of the reasons I believe such translations are indeed corrupted and as such should not be used or considered to be an accurate translation at all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Generally speaking, the term "original sin" is a Catholic term.

HP: I would disagree completely. The term original sin is known throughout the Church world, Catholic and Protestant, to mean nothing other than constitutional moral depravity from birth. Certainly I agree with you that there are differences of opinions as to what happens to infants that die with original sin, but that is beside the point. I am in no way confusing terminology by classifying total moral depravity from birth as original sin. You can find the term ‘original sin’ used by numerous Churches in their manuals and doctrinal and theological books that are far from Roman Catholics. It is not simply or generally a Catholic term, but I will not labor that point with you in debate. Believe as you will.

 

[DHK]

Surely you are aware that the NIV translators put down what they THINK Paul was trying to say rather than simply putting down the word for sarx as being flesh. There is a Greek word for sinful and a Greek word for nature. Paul would have used them if that was what he wanted to say.

The use of "sinful nature" was based on a doctrine rather than basing doctrine on the words of scripture.

I don't believe you have accurate information.
You should visit this website:

http://www.tniv.info/abouttnivbible.php

You definitely have a wrong concept of the word "flesh."
Context gives meaning. Thayer's lexicon gives about four meanings to the word sarx. The first one is obvious. When in the OT, the command to the Levitical priests is "and thou shalt eat the flesh thereof," we know that it is speaking of the flesh of an animal. That normally is the definition of the word (meat), but not always.

Here is another definition that is found in the context of Romans 8:5 and throughout the Romans chapters 7 and 8.

4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God. (Thayers)

 

[Rippon]

HP: It is good that you mentioned that translation error. :thumbsup: That is precisely one of the reasons I believe such translations are indeed corrupted and as such should not be used or considered to be an accurate translation at all.

Don't tell me that you are KJVO!

By the way,you are using the term "corrupted" in a sense not used by textual critics.

 

[trustitl]

I don't believe you have accurate information.
You should visit this website:

http://www.tniv.info/abouttnivbible.php

You definitely have a wrong concept of the word "flesh."
Context gives meaning. Thayer's lexicon gives about four meanings to the word sarx. The first one is obvious. When in the OT, the command to the Levitical priests is "and thou shalt eat the flesh thereof," we know that it is speaking of the flesh of an animal. That normally is the definition of the word (meat), but not always.

Here is another definition that is found in the context of Romans 8:5 and throughout the Romans chapters 7 and 8.

Surely you didn't think this would carry any weight.

Clearly you like the words chosen by the NIV and now TNIV writers for they support your understanding of the intended meaning in certain passages. I will not chase another red herring however.

I will use a modern translation to explain how I see this:

"A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear." II Tim. 4:3 GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)