Need A True Explaination of Calvinism

Huh?
Jesus is saying that those who hear and believe have eternal life and they will not be condemned. IOW, they will not "come into judgement".

Interesting you bring up this passage.
I've always wanted to know what the non-Calvinistic interpretation of John 5:21 is.

 

...and? Where did you go to check it out?

Let's show some consistency. "Dead", according to you guys equates the spiritual with the physical...both corpses. "Alive" should be similar, then. We already know that Paul was alive physically apart from the law, so what other kind of "life" could he have had?

 

commentaries and another theology forum
This is what I said when you first brought up the verse and my answer is the same:

Paul was dead in his sins prior to his conversion.
He thought as a dutiful Pharisee that he was alive. But when he was convicted of sin through the law, he understood his true position before the Law. Dead and guilty.

why assume that since that would contradict other passages that you are familiar with? Eph. 2:1 for example.

This is why I asked you if you looked into what Paul meant.
Cause if can't mean physical life, and it can't mean that Paul was spiritually alive and in Christ, then Paul must mean something else.
And that something else is what I proposed.
Paul, remembering back, recounts now in hindsight, what he thought about his position as a lawkeeper.
But now he sees that when he really understood what the commandments required of him and how he measured up, his sin confronted him and he then saw himself as "dead" in his sins. The commandement that was to bring him life, brought death because of the deceptiveness of his sin(which was self-righteousness and pride).

 

Unfortunately, that's not what the text says. It doesn't say "he thought" he was alive. You have to read that into the text to come up with your theory. He said emphatically "I WAS alive...". He wasn't speaking about what he thought his standing was with God as a pharissee.

It doesn't contradict at all. If anything, Eph. 2 puts the passage in Romans in perspective.

You assume it doesn't mean spiritually alive, but that is what I believe Paul was stressing.

 

Okay, I just checked yet another commentary, which I think makes you right, but not for the reason you seemed to be suggesting, since you have yet to actually speak directly about what the Paul was saying, other than he was spiritually alive.

Actually before I post what the other commentary says, I am interested in what you think the verse is speaking about since you say Paul was spirtually alive.
I'll get you started:
Paul was spiritually alive(which means____________...) apart from the law, but when __________...

Feel free to use your own words of course.

 

I think I stepped in a little to quickly and didn't read complety what was the discussion.

The contention that Webdog is making concerning Paul being alive specifically references Paul in a type of innocent state (not knowing all his good pharasaical deeds were worthless) and there for in his unknowing state seemed happy and apparenetly alive to God because there was not condemning words against him from the Law or God. But when the Law illumiated this farse Paul immediately died Knowing he was in sin and seperated from God, when he realized the Law was a spiritual Law.

My part that I stated was actaully more to the fact that man is not so dead that he is lifeless and unable but that even IN that dead state man can hear and believe truth thereby passin from death into life.

I was stating there are not two types of "life" portraied to and of believers. As in, one life being regeneration (to be made alive or given new life) and then the second life is salvation. There is only one type of life and that is salvation. Either you are made alive and are saved before you believe, or you are made alive after you believe due to salvation.

But in both cases (as in many other scriptures) the premise is substantally established that there is life (in a sense) in those spiritally dead because it is a figurative language used to convey that we are outside the life IN God and therefore seperated from true life and so dead.

We can hear and know the truth of God in our dead state (Rom 1-4) and are held responsible to accept it (faith) inspite of our inabilty to do it for ourselves. We can not save ourselves by any righteous acts or living but God has provided the means of our salvation if we will just accept the truth it conveys and rely on the work of another instead of ourselves.

It is a mirror of the OT Law and Atonement.

 

Webdog,
Just wondering if you're going to explain what you think Paul meant?

 

So you take it to mean that Paul was spiritually alive while unconverted, then once he was aware of his sin, he died and became separated from God?

Well, then you've just described "ill", not "dead".
Why would the Bible speak of being us being "dead in our sins" if what it really is meant is that man is "in a coma" so to speak.
Why speak of being "dead" if that's not accurate?
I've read that you know Greek, what is the word for dead in Eph. 2:1 and how is it used there and elsewhere?

Who says that?

You lost me Allan.

If there's anything else to respond to in your post, I'll have to get to it later.
Got to run.

 

Dead, spiritually speaking, means separated, not corpse. You are equating the physical with the spiritual.

 

That is not remotely what I stated. I said:
QUOTE
"Paul being alive specifically references Paul in a type of innocent state (not knowing all his good pharasaical deeds were worthless) and there for in his unknowing state seemed happy and apparenetly alive to God because there was not condemning words against him from the Law or God. But when the Law illumiated this farse Paul immediately died Knowing he was in sin and seperated from God, when he realized the Law was a spiritual Law. "

IOW- He was not REALLY alive but only thought he was BECAUSE he saw or knew of nothing that contradicted what he THOUGHT he knew.

Web is 100% accurate in that you are confusing dead spiritually with being dead physically. Scripture does not support your contention. To be alive, is to be IN God and therefore the converse of that is, to NOT be alive is to not be IN God. God is life and outside of God there is no real life at all but a mere shadow of the truth.

No, I have described what dead means in it biblical and scriptural sense.

Interesting you should ask that.
The Greek word for dead is "nekros' and it has a proper and metephorical definition. The proper defintion refers to the physical and the metaphorical refers to spiritual. Since a spirit can not die it can not be literally dead or else hell would be pointless. But let us look at the same word used toward Christians and see if your definition of being lifeless and unable holds any water. :smilewinkgrin:

We will stop there just because it will illistrate my point well enough.
We see in the above passages that we as 'believers' ARE dead TO sin. By your definition of dead that means that we are unable to respond to sin and lifeless to it, therefore in order for any believer TO sin God must first enable us to do so.
You can't have a defintion of the spiritual term of death for one thing and then redefine for another. Your application of the physical death used to describe the spiritual aspect distorts to meaning of the scriptures into a most hideous heresy.

Paul never states a man is unable because he is dead, but that in his seperation from God by his sin nature man would not seek after God, and even IF he would he is unable due to his sin nature to DO any good thing worthy of salvic merit.

I have to go and eat, but will get back to you in a bit.

 

Ok, back.

Did that last statement make sense to you, cause it lost me after coming back and re-reading it, but I didn't have time to edit or tweek it since my wife called for supper and that is important here.

Let me rephrase it if I may.
Paul never states man is unable to respond to the truth God reveals to him in a positive way because of or due to man being dead in his sin. However, in mans seperation from God (due to his sin nature) man would/will not seek after God of or for himself, and even IF he would/will man is unable to DO (in act or deed) any good thing worthy of salvic merit of or for himself (due to his sin nature). All man can do is accept what God in His awesome grace offers to man for and on mans behalf. Man does nothing (as in works) but accepts the truth God has revealed. Yet this belief COULD be counted as the ONLY work as man can do that is acceptable in the sight of God but only in a figuritive sense.

In proper context look at John 6:

Many Calvinists I know love this verse to proof text that believing or Faith is from God and then quote this verse and state something to this effect:
"See in passage where Jesus Himself says This Is Gods Work that You Beleive..."
When in fact they have distorted and impued the context. Look BACK at the preceeding verse:

or other translations put it this way:
They replied, "What does God want us to do?"
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Jhn 6:28 - Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Jhn 6:28 - Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
Which are all correlary to the original Greek.

Then Jesus ANSWERS their question by saying this is the "work of God" in RESPONCE to THEIR question about the "Work of God" or better the work God wants them do. Notice please that Jesus DOESN"T say anything in the effect of You can't do anything but it is Gods work in you. However, it DOES state to the effect that "This is the work God desires, that you believe...". As a matter of fact there is no other possible way it can mean anything else according to the the context which maintains consistantly with this premise set forth as they Jews answer in the very next passage:

They said (outside the Old English) "in light of what Jesus had just stated (therefore), what proof (sign) will you give to us to vallidate you are the one God sent whom we are to believe on. What will you do" - Allan's paraphrase Ch 6:30.

Jesus understood their question and he answered them, and they in turn also understood what Jesus stated and is the very reason they asked to see a sign from Him that He is the one sent from God.

I can take this all the through John 6 showing that man must believe but it is God who reveals and draws men to Jesus, just as God sent Jesus to man. God is soveriegn in all that is done from sending Jesus to drawing men to Jesus (revealing truth) but man is responsible to believe and the converse - responsible for their rejection.

Responsible for accepting.

Responsible for rejecting.

Showing mans responsiblity for both aspects.

Moving on:
Remember He is the bread of God which is come down from Heaven and gives life to the World. To clarify who the world is Jesus is speaking about, take notice (and I'm sure you know) that Jesus stated in verse 32 "my Father give to YOU the true bread of Heaven, and then in verse 36 Jesus states to those who God the Father gave the true bread to... You have seen me and beleive not! God gave the true bread to the unbelieving as well as the believing? Believe it.

Take some time and try this study:
Look up the word "World" in the OT. And notice how many times it relates to anyone other than the wicked and sinful man (as well as geographically and globally But I'm specifically refering to "world" as a people) and then match up how many times it is used in refering to the children of God. Now what is defined in the OT must maintain its definition everywhere else in scripture ESPECIALLY if an ENTIRE section of scrpture (such as the OT maintains consistantly that definition) never alters it rendering. The NT writter would know this and especially the Holy Spirit who authored the OT will not deviate from that which He has established already as plain reading of the text. I do not contend "world" means all mankind but ALL Sinful and Wicked Man. Scripture calls Gods children, children of God or His Kingdom but Never does God call His children the World. I understand that will make some scriptures you hold to disagree with some aspects of your theology but what is truth is truth regardless of what we want to believe. The term 'world' does in fact have biblical definitions which deal in geography and the sinful and wicked man (with varitions of both but still maintaining their intrinsic root meanings).

This deals specifically with the fact that man is not dead in the sense or definition of physically dead, because Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only but the sins of the Whole World.

That means the world could respond postitivly but the majority will not. But they will choose to remain in unbelief and God will at that point give them over to their sins.

Being able to believe they refused to receive not the truth of God which THEY KNEW, and it was for THAT reason God gave them over to believe their lie that they ALL might be damned who WOULD NOT believe.

 

This is where free-willers are painted into a corner. There are two ways you can interpret this verse.

1. "This is the work of God, or a work God does".

2. "This is the work required by God".

If you pick #1, you have abandoned your foundation for believing in free will. If you pick #2, you're saying the Bible defines faith as a work, which means free-willism teaches salvation is by works.

 

Actually no it doesn't.
In light of the fact, Jesus is answering their question about what 'work' can we do that is acceptable to God?
Jesus is answering/correcting their question in the same form they gave to illistrate that it ISN"T a deed or act (work as they understood it) but is in fact asking them to believe something, this was something they knew ISN'T a work. (answer #3)

Faith and works are seperate things.

 

Let's have a look at the text again.

I see. So when Jesus says, "This is the work (gr. ergon) of God", he really means "This is the non-work that God requires".

The text, once again, is "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." That reads exceptionally straightforward to me. I don't have to change the order of the words, the meaning of the words, or the obvious intent of the words to understand it as "This is the work of God", or "God's work".

The only thing I can do to twist these words to make them mean something other than the obvious is to is make the words mean "this is the work God requires". Now, remember, which isn't what it says at all. I have to read that interpretation into the text.

But you want to go even one step farther, which is two degrees removed from the plain reading of the text. You want it to say "Did I say something about a work of God? Oh, sorry, allow me to correct myself and while I'm doing it, let me correct your misunderstanding. No work is involved on your part. You must simply believe on the one God sent, i.e., me, and belief isn't a work. I don't know what got into me when I said 'This is the work of God'. I'm quite embarrassed, actually, for confusing the whole issue."

 

Don't kiss the blarney stone! Someone peed on it! Ooops. Too late! :laugh:

Rom 4:5, npeterely -- "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

How many times are you going to look at THIS verse and say that belief is a work?? IT AIN'T. I choose door #2. raying:

skypair

 

Jesus said, "The work of God...believe..." Faith is a work and it is explicit.

john.

 

You must not understand what I'm getting at. I agree with you that faith is not a work of man. But that is the only logical alternative interpretation to the most plain reading of the text. The plain reading of the text is that "to believe on Him who He sent" is God's work in us, not something we can do of our own will. And that harmonizes with the rest of scripture perfectly, "For it is God who works in you to will and to do according to His good purpose."

Any other interpretation (it is the work God requires of us, or it is the non-work required of us) is just plain silly.

 

Actaully you are wrong np.
It does not at all harmonize in ANY fashion with the context of the verses surrounding it.
The preceeding verse ... what must we do...
The verse ... The work is Gods work not yours- (according to your assumption)
the suceeding verse ... show us something that WE may see, and WE may believe.

Not to mention the other verse surrounding those.

So in context we see it thus:
preceeding verse - what must we do..
Verse in context - for you to be approved you must believe...
suceeding verse - show us something then that We may see and We may believe...

Thayers Lexicon rederns the meaning of "ergon" in John 6:29 meaning thus:
the works required and approved by God.
Ergo - this is the work required and approved by God, that you believe...

So though you may contend my understanding of Greek may be lax or inept, there are many Greek Lexicons which agree, one of which I just quoted from.

I think maybe I need to define something because it could very well be issue setting up the contention. The concept of work is not just ONE aspect but TWO. One which scripture speaks to the majority of the time because it is in context to what the people thought they should be doing in a physical sense, and the other is spiritual.

1. One is physical 'work' (for righteousness and Gods favor) in which no man can 'work' in act of deed in any salvic or meritorious way.

2. The other is spiritual and a seperate type of 'work' from the physical one descibed above in which mans seeks after to show righteousness. This type of work (figuritively speaking) is the ONLY thing acceptable to God and must be done on the part of man in order TO BE saved. (even Calvinists agree here - you are not saved unless you have believed)

I say 'figuritively speaking' because it was not a known (or better - accepted) concept to the Jewish people at that time. Meaning one could be righteous apart from their works (acts and deeds). Jesus was using this understanding of 'works' (that made man acceptable to God) to illistrate the only true 'work' that God approved of and it was a spiritual work not a physical one.

Now, contrast THAT with verse 27, in which Jesus tells them NOT to labor or work for that which is temporal but for that which is eternal. It is a contrast of physical verses spiritual and that man can not 'work' anything in or for righteousness any physical sense of the word that it may be applied to himself.

Therefore Jesus was showing what they understood as the way to be approved to God through righteous deeds and acts was not the thing God desired to be done becuase Man could not do it in any salvic way.
Gods work (figuritively speaking regarding the action that can be taken) is to believe on Him whom God the Father sent.

 

I can see how you get this but I would suggest another interpretation; the work of God is to believe i.e. God's work is that which gives us faith,

 

I want to emphasis the fact that faith is a work, same as npetreley, and therefore if a free willer wants to assert that they believed then they are working for their salvation but salvation is by grace. They climb in another way.
Jesus says that it's God's work in us as you say but if they don't like that then they can work for a living because Jesus says that belief is a work.

Good to meet you.

john.