Need A True Explaination of Calvinism

How I wish Calvinists understood this! Good job, allan (and congrats from me, too! You have quite a "brood" now, eh?)

skypair

 

Me too. I am not sure who believes what you just said. I certainly don't. But I will try to respond anyway.

I think scripturally this is proven wrong. Israel had the responsibility to keep the law. That was their agreement and that was the Mosaic covenant. However, they were unable to because of sin.

Yes you are correct. But remember the ability is a moral inability, not a physical one.

Here is where I think we would be better served by defining words biblically. A word has meaning only in the context in which it is used. You give five definitions that are different and a word in context does not mean all five. It means one. Most Calvinists used the word "responsible" in teh first definition: liable to give account. Some would use it in the fourth, as able to make decisions. I think that is perfectly compatible with Calvinism, though I use the first definition.

No. Ability and responsibility are both nouns, I believe. Responsible may be used as an adjective, but not responsibility.

God didn't give man responsibility. Man has inherent responsibility inasmuch as he is God's creation and is responsible to answer to God.

I don't think stating it over and over again makes it right. I think the Bible declares it to be wrong. Do you believe Israel had the ability to keep the Law?

I think what you have just engaged in, Allan, is a philosophical argument. Notice that you have not used Scripture to make your point. You have used philosophy, a dictionary, and an attempt at logic (which is flawed, IMO).

Technically you can, but if you exegete the Scriptures you will not. The point is that any five of the points can be argued for with Scripture without reference to the other four points. The points are all related to be sure, but the exegetical evidence stands alone.

The five points are called a systematized theology, not because they depend on one another, but because they relate to one another. All systematic theology is is the demonstration of the relation of various exegetical points to each other. The doctrine of God's omniscience and the doctrine of eschatology are both a part of systematic theology and they relate. That does not mean that they depend on each other.

 

The law was given to show men they could not obtain salvation through a good or self-righteous living - It is not of works because we fall short. In that same law however, they could choose to appropriate the sacrificial offering on their behalf covering their short comings on the merit of Gods provision, if they will but obey and recieve.

I know what we are discussing.

Great idea, show me one instance where the word resposible or resposiblity appears. We get the 'idea' or figurative language of "responsible" from the fact God says to do and man must respond or pay the consequense of disobedience.

Yes, but they all corrispond to the same root meaning though its applications can be varied according to context or sentence structure. And as I showed, the root meaning is established in the fact one must be able to do in order to be held accountable. Please show otherwise.

Correct, I actually meant 'responsible' instead of 'responsibilty'. If one is 'responsible' (adj) to do something (as in being commanded) then one must also have the ability (noun) in which to do it, just as one who is able (adj) to do a thing has the 'responsiblity' (noun) of doing in conjunction with a command. They go hand in hand and are unseperatable from one another as each defines the meaning of the other.

Scripture please. I can show God telling man do and then God judging man for not doing in countless places throughout the Word, thereby showing God giving man resposiblity to the truth He reveals.

So you agree that man is responsible as Gods creation to answer for what man did with the truths God revealed.?

As I stated earlier, the law was given to show man could not be saved according to our works. BUT in that same law in which man could not keep it all - all the time and thus showing inability of himself, we know they could choose to appropriate the sacrificial offering (given in the law also to be followed) on their behalf covering their short comings on the merit of Gods provision, if they will but obey and recieve.

I noticed you did the same. However, we are both speaking of a subject we both agree is scriptural and established within the scriptures that man is responsible. So I don't see how your contention that I am playing the field of the philosophical unless you are contending your veiw is actaully a philosophical proposition regarding mans responsiblity. I have assumed you knew enough scripture to establish that man is responsible for what he does with the truths God reveals.
I used a dictionary since the word we both contend is scriptural in its rendering is also not actually a word in the scripture to get a 'scriptural' definition. So I used its natural and actaul definition in commons where in we both articulate the word form in accordance with the natural meaning through which it is rendered.

All alone on some points. :laugh:
Well at least to you.

In order for them to be able to withstand scrutiny they must. They are interwoven and necessitate a dependency in some regard on and to each other.

 

Exactly. So I am not sure how you then turn around and argue against yourself. Man could not keep the Law. It was impossible. He did not have the ability to keep the Law, but he was responsible for his disobedience to it. That is why a sacrifice was necessary.

The use of a particular word is not at issue. The Bible clearly talks about the concepts of responsibility.

I don’t think you showed that at all. And to show otherwise, you already admitted that the Law proves you wrong. I am not sure you realize you admitted that, but you did.

When I say God didn’t give man responsibility. I mean that responsibility is inherent in creation. It is not something God gives per se.

Absolutely. Every Calvinist believes this.

Yes, exactly. So man was responsible to do something he could not do (keep the Law).

 

Then someone should take me in hand and explain exactly what Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" means please.

john.

 

I need to take issue with this paragraph because I get irritated with incompleteness of these alternatives. Non-Calvinists (Arminians) don't necessary explain their position as being "God foreknowing that some people would believe." That an overly simplictic and incomplete view. (no offense to skypair, I'm sure the purpose was to be brief, but I do think this needs to be clarified.)

The two main passages where predestination is used (Rom. 8 and Eph 1) Paul clearly expresses that we (believers) are predestined to become "conformed to Christ's image" and "to be adopted as sons." It never teaches that God predestines (causes/determines) certain individuals to believe, instead it indicates that God has determined to conform and adopt all those who do believe. So, its not so much about God simply looking down through the corrodors of time to see who believes and then predestining them to believe...that is silly. Instead it is simply God determining the means by which he will conform and adopt all those who believe. Nothing is said about God irresistably making certain people believe while leaving others without hope.

 

Pastor Timothy,

If you have not already gotten lost in the host of responses I pray that as you study this doctrine you will take a careful look at the doctrine of Total Depravity in the Calvinistic system. As a former Calvinist myself, I believe this is the root of the Calvinistic error.

Calvinists believe that the fall of man in the garden caused all men to be born in a condition where they are totally unable to respond in faith to the gospel message unless they are first regenerated by divine irresistable power.

Scripture never supports such a view. It does support a view by which men "grow hardened" or "become calloused" to the revelation of God over a period of time and indeed can be judicially blinded and thus sealed in that state of rebellion while God accomplishes greater redemptive purposes through their unbelief (as seen in the case of Pharaoh in the OT or the nation of Israel in the NT). However, there is a very big difference between the belief that all men are born essestially hardened (unable to see, hear and respond to God's revelations) and they belief that men become hardened over time after continual rebellion. That is a distinction Calvinists don't not make correctly, IMO.

 

[QUOTE="Allan]One can not be responsible unless one has the ability to DO or NOT do something.[/QUOTE]

I think this line of reasoning is flawed.
Do you accept that God made all men responsible for Adam's sin?
How can we be responsible according your definition?


We didn't sin. Adam did.
Yet God has deemed all man accountable. responsible.
So we are responsible and are under condemnation as a result.

So this is what I have been thinking about.
Did man exercise his free will when he was birthed into this world as a son of Adam and therefore an inheritor of a sin nature?
If man was not free in this area, yet is still responsible and under condemnation as a result, then your definition of "responsible" is flawed.

Men are responsible because there is a Lawgiver over them who will call them to account. Rom. 14:12
On a final note, God cannot be responsible for man's sin, because there is no lawgiver over Him to whom He is accountable. Who can say to God, "Why did you make me this way?" Or "what have you done?".

 

Sin entered the world through one man and thus we all have fallen natures, which are inclined toward sin. So, are we condemned for Adam's sin, or are we condemned for our sin which comes as a result of Adam's sin? I think there is much to be discussed on that topic and you just seem to assume your position. Just as we don't inherent the righteousness of Christ until we personally possess faith in Christ, maybe we don't inherent the condemnation of sin until we personally sin??? Either way the result is the same, I know, but it presents a point of clarification which allows for personal responsibility rather than the idea of inherited condemnation...something scripture seems to support in other texts.

 

Herein lies the problem. We are not all responsible for Adam's sin, we are responsible for our sin, and our sin only.

 

I'm taking Romans 5 at it's word, when Adam died, so did his race. When Adam sinned, all sinned.
I'm also taking David at his word in Psalm 51 that he was sinful from conception.
IOW, I believe in the doctrine of original sin.

I don't know if I agree with this premise.

 

double post

 

Romans 5 says through one man sin entered, and THROUGH sin we all die, not through Adam we all die. When Adam sinned...Adam sinned, the entire human race didn't. The entire race from Adam on was born with a sin nature, but not Adam's original sin. If we are all born guilty, born "dead" why does Paul tell us different?

Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

 

I don't think Paul meant he had spiritual life apart from the law.
I think he means that he didn't know he was dead in his sin until the commandment came and then sin deceived him and put him to death.
I'm not sure on that, but that's kind of what I'm thinking now.

On the otherhand, your reference to Romans 5 doesn't help you, since verse 12 says that "death came to all men, because all sinned". Verse19 says it again, "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners..."

So where does that leave us?

 

I think the key is sinned...past tense. We all have sinned. We know that sin is the transgression of God's law. An infant doesn't know that. I think Paul is very clear in Romans 7 that it was upon the knowledge of God's law and breaking it that he died. If it were only knowledge of spiritual death, and not death itself, not only would have have said that, chapters 5 and 6 wouldn't really mean anything. Sin is breaking God's law. An infant is not a sinner for the sole reason they were conceived.

 

As I indicated earlier, I'm not quite sure what Paul meant in Romans 7. I need to look at it.
What about Romans 5?

It says that death came to all men, because all sinned. 12
It says that if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace come by one man. 15
It says just through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners. 19

I'm not sure how else one can take such collective condemnation.

Also with regards to infants, you need to address Psalm 51.

 

Pastor Larry, I never amitted the law proves me wrong (even accidentally) but you.
What I have showed is that under the law one can not of himself be righteous in perfection by obedience to the whole at all times. BUT I also showed that under the law one can be accounted righteous like one who is keeping the whole of the law through or by the sin offering that is willingly given in obedience to the Law. So in one sense we can not keep the law to save ourselves but in another sense we KEEP THE LAW by willingly appropriating the sin sacrifice to cover those sin committed against the law and thereby nullifying any judicial requirments to their condemnation. You keep missing that point. The law was given to be obeyed in both senses. In one you in sin can not fulfill due to obedience but in the other we in sin can obey the Law to justification by obedience of and to the appropriatioin of the sacrifice.

As stated we are responsible to keep the whole of the law at all times and if not able we responsible to do or offer up the only other thing (God provision of the sin sacrifice) that stands in our place.

We are resposible because we are able.

BTW - the word is a issue because it is what you keep coming back to.

 

so when you said that Israel "could not" keep the Law, you really meant that they could? And you accuse me of changing definitions???

Seriously though, Israel was responsible to keep the Law, but they were unable to keep the Law. Do you disagree with that?

Exactly.They were not able.

Offering sacrifices is not keeping the Law. Offering sacrifices is becaus eyou didn't keep the Law.

Not it wasn't. But all that's beside the point. The fact is that Israel was responsible to keep the whole Law, but was unable to do so. So responsibility, in Scripture, is clearly not based on ability.

Yes, exactly. This is proof of my point, and a contradiction of yours.

But that contradicts everything you said above

 

I appolgize for such brief responses due to helping with my children at present, because they are obviously cause confusion.
BTW - Offering sacrifices IS keeping the Law and part of the judicial reason for condemnation of those who reject the sacrifice offered in accordance with that same Law

So let us back track.
Is or is not offering up sacrifices obeying the law unto righteousness and a right standing with God?

If it is not, then explain.
If so, then we see that man is yes, unable to save himself by his works (but not unable to know and do truth in a limited sense) and therefore is resposible to acknowledge this failing in himself and accept the Lawful substitute in which he is able to choose to take his place.

The law was given (as stated) to show men can not save themselves by works in accordance with the mirror image righteousness of God (the Law) as the standard. However, IN THE LAW man is able to choose that which God has provided as an appropriate substitute on his behalf and positioning the person once again in a propor relationship to God as though one has Kept The Law.

 

No problem. That is time better spent than doing this stuff. We are recovering from a first birthday party here ... chocolate cake and ice cream all over the place. But it was fun

Yes, but it is not keeping the whole Law. And keeping the whole Law is what Israel was responsible to do and unable to do.

Yes, but it is only part.

Yes. As you say, he is unable, but he is still responsible. The very fact that he had to offer an atoning sacrifice means that he was responsible, and his failure had to be atoned for.

Is he? Is he able to come to God without God's prior enabling? I don't think you have proven that at all.