Need A True Explaination of Calvinism

[Allan]

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.

But man fulfills his resposiblity(spiritually) to the law in that he IS able to willingly offer that lawful substitute provided by God.

Man is responsible to the truth God reveals, and that is 'MY' contention in these particular matters.

Man is unable to DO meritorious good but that does not negate that man can choose that which is good on his behalf in which he fails. This is displayed in the Law and its sacrifices.

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

Now you are adding to the discussion something I have not contended which is "coming to God without God enabling".
Our definitions are different here in that you hold God must make the person able to respond in any positive way, while I contend God enables mans ability by revealing truth at which time man is now responsible for accepting or rejecting it.

Mans responsiblity is to whatever truth God has revealed to him, whether in nature or by revelation. Man is resposible toward how he deals with the truths God has revealed to him. Mans resposiblity to revealed truth in defined specifically in Rom 1-5 and how when man had the truth of God and KNEW the truth, he perverted it to fulfill his own pleasures and because of this God gave him over to his sins. (Rom 1 and 2)
but also in many other places in scripture

Edited in....
Also, to show man is resposible AND able in light of revealed truth - we have Peter stating this what asked what must we do [to be saved].

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 ¶ And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Umderstanding that man can not ACTUALLY save himself (they knew this becuase of the Law), but he can choose to accept the sacrifice made on his behalf and thereby recieve salvation to himself. IOW- due to God revealing there is a substitute man is now enabled to respond at that moment to the truth revealed to him.

Paul in speaking of reconsiling the world pleaded or begged them to BE reconsiled to God.
John also in all his works spoke of man being enabled in light of God revealing truth to be held responsible as to whether they accept or reject truth.

 

[Allan]

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..."

Editted...

First we must take the first 4 chapters to get what Paul was speaking to.
These first chapters speak specifically to the fact the man sinned when he KNEW the truth of God and perverted that truth to his own pleasures. It was due to THIS rejection of truth that God gave them over to their sins.
Then we come to chapter 5 where in Paul speaks to all men haved sinned.
In context of the preceeding chapters this MUST by context hold to those who know truth and reject it. However in chapter 5 he is speaking as to WHY men pervert that truth. It is because from Adam we inherrit a fallen or distorted nature that by its very essense LEADS or is the cause of one from the first breath of an infant to be bent towards a life of sinful rebellion to God. Man is only accoutable to the sin he has commited, period.

The judgement being passed to all men in context - is death (both physical and spiritual) but not the judicial judgment of damnation. That was the judgment (death in both the physical and spiritual aspects) passed from Adam to all men. This is why those who believe are not condemned but those who believe not are CONDEMNED ALREADY. (they rejected the truth God revealed and thereby sinned in the ultimate way of rejecting their only hope and assurance of their condemnation)
Remember It is appointed unto every man once to die AND THEN the judgment. The first is the judgment passed from Adam to all men in the physical and spiritual sense, however it is due to the spiritual sence that man WILL continue in seperated and therefore sinful lifestyle at which point THEN condemns that man whose soul has sinned against God as says the scriptures.

 

[johnp.]

In Other Words (IOW) whether it was Adam or you or me, all would have done the same thing.

But we didn't old chap. An inclination is not a sin and we were not told not to because we were not there. How does that make us guilty?

Adam was created innocent and not perfect.

JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.

What difference does innocence make Allan? But we are not innocent for God has bound all men over to sin.

That the man may reach out to one who will save him and do it all for him because without Him we are lost.

...He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Gen 3:22. Praise the Lord.

Answer to scripture man.

john.

 

[Allan]

But we didn't old chap. An inclination is not a sin and we were not told not to because we were not there. How does that make us guilty?



JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.

What difference does innocence make Allan? But we are not innocent for God has bound all men over to sin.



...He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Gen 3:22. Praise the Lord.

Answer to scripture man.

john.

I editted what I wrote because I was chasing rabbits with it. However, your contention is still far fetched.

Job was not innocent and is the very reason God repremanded him. I began to accuse God of not being just in what he PRESSUMED was God judging him but in fact was not. God showed Job just how little knowledge he had of God and His action being righteous or not , therefore Job was unable to challange what God did since he did not know everything that was actually going on.

The phrase you use on binding all men over to sin...in context is refering to Israel and not ALL mankind for if it were as you are contending then there is no elect for none can be if all are bound over to sin.

What needs to be answered. God kept ALL man from being bound over to sin by eating of the tree. Man COULD have eaten but God limited mans ability to completely remove himself forever the presense of God. Man could have taken that sin to it true course of utter destruction if God had not intervened.

But this is where you and I will ALWAYS be in disagrement, since you hold a view of God being the author of sin and the one who makes men sin, ext... and I do not. But I don't disagrements.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But man fulfills his resposiblity(spiritually) to the law in that he IS able to willingly offer that lawful substitute provided by God.

But why was that sacrifice necessary? Because he was unable to keep the Law.

Man is responsible to the truth God reveals, and that is 'MY' contention in these particular matters.

On that we agree.

Mans responsiblity is to whatever truth God has revealed to him, whether in nature or by revelation. Man is resposible toward how he deals with the truths God has revealed to him. Mans resposiblity to revealed truth in defined specifically in Rom 1-5 and how when man had the truth of God and KNEW the truth, he perverted it to fulfill his own pleasures and because of this God gave him over to his sins. (Rom 1 and 2)

Agreed, for the most part.
but also in many other places in scripture

Also, to show man is resposible AND able in light of revealed truth - we have Peter stating this what asked what must we do [to be saved].

Here you have added something in that I don’t agree with.



But enough said on my part.

 

[Allan]

Since It was me who took this thread WAY of course by answer others contentions. I would like to ask that we bring this back to the OP, please.
I will repost what I stated JUST BEFORE the great apostisy or falling away in this thread :laugh:

Originally Posted by Jarthur001
Hello Allan,

I agree with all of your history notes, and most all of you opinions on this post

I only repost two lines from that post..to address them. Going by historical views, would you agree that being that the "state of man" after the fall, was Pelagius main point, in that he denied total depravity making mans will full and free, that those that are Arminian and also deny man is dead, are not really in the middle of Armin/Calvin as they may think, but rather lean more toward Pelagianism?
You are very right when you say Arminians of the past believed in total depravity. They did not agree with each other on ways around this problem. But at least they addressed it. Yet I have found on the Baptist Board, 2-3 guys that seem to be fully into Pelagianism.

Actually no, I wouldn't place them in the same catagory.
Peleganism believed :

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will,[1] Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality...

Pelagius taught that the human will, tempered in good deeds and rigorous asceticism, was sufficient to live a sinless life. He told his followers that right action on the part of human beings was all that was necessary for salvation. To him, the grace of God was only an added advantage; helpful, but in no way essential. Pelagius disbelieved in original sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example, and that Christ’s good example offered humanity a path to salvation, not through sacrifice, but through instruction of the will. Jerome emerged as one of the chief critics of Pelagianism, because, according to Jerome, Pelagius' view essentially denied the work of the Messiah; he personally preferring 'teacher' or 'master' to any epithet implying divine power.

From good ol' Wiki.

This is very much the same theologically as Mormons and JW's and not at all in line with classical Arminianism, which espouses man is Totally depraved and if God by His Grace did not intercede on behalf of sinful man then man was doomed. They center on the "we are saved by Grace through Faith..." and not we come to God as we please and then God bestows grace and salvatin. Also in Arminianism the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus is not devoid of its power but it emphasized in great detail in contrast to the Pelegan and simi-pelegan where it is meaningless except that it is a quaint addition after the fact. This will be shown next.

Calvinists also make a great mistake in assuming the non-cal/non-Arm position is simi-Pelegan but this is do to not understanding the core belief of the simi-Pelegan which is

Semi-Pelagianism a Christian theological understanding about salvation; that is, how humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. The Semi-Pelagian teaching is derived from the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation (see below), and teaches that it is necessary for humans to make the first step toward God and then God will complete salvation...

Pelagianism is the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit. According to semi-Pelagianism, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then completes the salvation process

In this view (simi-peliganism) we actually have more of a traditional Catholic view in that man and God are co-equals in their salvation. God does not seek man (which is the same as the pelegan view) however when man seeks after God (with no divine influence attributed) God rewards man by giving him salvation and grace instead of the Pelegan view where we have man earning salvation through good works and grace is just a bonus but not necessary. Again we see God is either secondary according to these veiws as well or al least not primary. However scripture shows God coming to man who of and by himself will not seek God because man is depraved due to his sin nature.

Many Arminians disagree with this generalization and believe it is libellous to Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the many other Arminians that maintain original sin and total depravity.

To address the 2nd line..
Views on election seem to be the line in the sand. It is for Calvinist, this I'm sure of. If you do not believe in election, as other Calvinist, we will never claim you.

Personally, I think it is coupled with "Limited Atonement". But in either case it brings it back to my contention that because every point is established by the point preceeding it, you can not be a True Calvinist unless you maintain the minimum perspective of all 5 points.

 

[Allan]

But enough said on my part.

Thank you however, for your attention and responces. It was good.

Enjoy your family.

 

[Jarthur001]

Allan,

Originally Posted by Jarthur001
Hello Allan,

I agree with all of your history notes, and most all of you opinions on this post

I only repost two lines from that post..to address them. Going by historical views, would you agree that being that the "state of man" after the fall, was Pelagius main point, in that he denied total depravity making mans will full and free, that those that are Arminian and also deny man is dead, are not really in the middle of Armin/Calvin as they may think, but rather lean more toward Pelagianism?
You are very right when you say Arminians of the past believed in total depravity. They did not agree with each other on ways around this problem. But at least they addressed it. Yet I have found on the Baptist Board, 2-3 guys that seem to be fully into Pelagianism.

Actually no, I wouldn't place them in the same catagory.
Peleganism believed
Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will,[1] Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality...



From good ol' Wiki.

Indeed...

Therefore I rest my case. We have a few men on this board that says man is not dead from the fall. That God has given men a will to chose, and this WILL is the GRACE that the Bible is talking about, given to man. They have said just as Pelagius, there is a little good in all men.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Read Romans 2:14

Let me ask this:

If we are all totally depraved, how is it that
unsaved man, by nature, do that which is
in the Law?
See Romans 2:14.

I'm asking.....I'm not roping people into
arguments.

If unsaved man is depraved, how do they
do the things in the law? Which law?

 

[Allan]

Allan,



Indeed...

Therefore I rest my case. We have a few men on this board that says man is not dead from the fall. That God has given men a will to chose, and this WILL is the GRACE that the Bible is talking about, given to man. They have said just as Pelagius, there is a little good in all men.

Maybe for those 2 or 3 people, but you can't rest your case on the above because the VAST MAJORITY of Non-Cal/Non-Arm do not believe in the main aspect or thrust of that which makes it a Pelegan theology. The fact that man can come to God WITHOUT divine aid or intervention but can at will be saved INSPITE of God and what He may desire. They contend that the death was Jesus has no bearing and was not even needed (you seem to be leaving that out). It is this nonsense which is what made it a heresy and I agree. The same with Semi-Peleganism since grace is deemed as benificial but un-necessary. You are trying to lump people into a catagory because what they believe matches a small portion of what those two groups hold that is not the main thrust of their views.

Remember also that Pelegan doesn't consider man dead in ANY sense of the word because they believed we are still alive spiritually with no fallen, depraved, or in least distorted nature since it was created by God and therefore they assumed divine (without sin or taint). Therefore Adam was a bad example only and NO conequences aside from the bad example passed forth to mankind.

That is why I contend that the Vast Majority of non-cals can not be called these in the context of their theology JUST as 4 pointers or less can not Truly be called Calvinists in that they too do not hold to the full known views of that system of theology. The fact we believe God has given us a will that is held responsible in no way equates to a Pelegan or semi-Pelegan heresy because we NEVER contend his arguements aside from the wording - free will. We do not even hold to the same definition concerning that wording.

So regarding "the True explanation of Calvinism" must be a course that brings one into FULL acceptance of all the most basic 5 points (a view I believe is Reformed Baptist) and potentially farthur into the systematized teachings of historical Calvinism (which hopefully not the unbiblical portions - infant baptism ext..) So in the same regard the Non-Cal to be properly labeled MUSt (as the Calvinist) hold to all of a particular theology if a label is to have ANY real meaning other than ad hominim or slander. That at least is IMO.

Good to hear from you again James. :wavey:

 

[Allan]

I don't remember but has anyone post the the basic 5 points and their condensed meanings with scripture so the OP'er can evalute then and come to their own conclusion.

Rather than give links (that few people actaully take the time to read through) just post the 5 points and definitions and at the botton give a link to a more indepth web article so the OP'er and others who wish to explore these teachings can do so at whatever depth of study they wish.

I do remember people posting different links to different views of calvinism but I don't remember if any came at this in a basic way first to allow thought and THEN post their web pages and books to read for a greater study if they wish to delve deeper.

Forgive me if this was done already. :thumbs:

 

[skypair]

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.)

Skandelon, I was making the "FREE WILL" case -- not the Arminian one. I think most of Christendom has gone beyond Arminianism and much has also superceded Cavlinism as well!

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."[/quote Exactly right!

It never teaches that God predestines (causes/determines) certain individuals to believe,...

You're right here, too. In fact, scripture says God "foreknows" who will believe and then predestines them to be conformed and adopted.

instead it indicates that God has determined to conform and adopt all those who do believe.

There you go. Perfect!

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.

Indeed it is, skan.

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.[/QUOTE] I hope you see that we are on the "same page," skandlon.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

Seems pretty clear to me --- Adam caused us all to fall into temptation (sin nature) but only after we knew the commandments/law like Paul said in Rom 7.

BTW, we call "sin nature" in it's innocent innate form "survival instinct." All our survival instincts (hunger, thirst, sex, attention, etc.), when we become men and women, blossom into "survival" desires -- that is, SIN.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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.

Larry, I can't help but interject myself into this convo. Israel was responsible and the COULD keep the law --- through faith!

The law is no different today that it was then. It brings us to faith. And so, yes, as Allan has been trying to say, we ARE responsible because we ARE able by choosing Christ to be obedient to the law.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Let me ask this:

If we are all totally depraved, how is it that
unsaved man, by nature, do that which is
in the Law?
See Romans 2:14.

I'm asking.....I'm not roping people into
arguments.

If unsaved man is depraved, how do they
do the things in the law? Which law?

jd -- you ask a good question which Calvinism cannot answer and which unearths a flaw in that theology. An unsaved heathen can, by nature, do that which is in the Law because of his soul.

Now no Calvinist that I know of has accounted for this singular duty of the soul -- that it is the conscienciousness of right and wrong and actually gives our spirit (mind, emotions, and will) to have a choice of doing right and wrong.

If we say we are created by God, we realize that He put a witness of Himself within each of us. C.S. Lewis (I've been reading him lately again) shows that we ALL have this witness of right and wrong - fairness - that comes from somewhere outside of us (God). It is the "Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1

In an ideal world, Calvinists would begin to investigate these things and come off of some of their more deceptive tenets.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I don't remember but has anyone post the the basic 5 points and their condensed meanings with scripture so the OP'er can evalute then and come to their own conclusion.

Rather than give links (that few people actaully take the time to read through) just post the 5 points and definitions and at the botton give a link to a more indepth web article so the OP'er and others who wish to explore these teachings can do so at whatever depth of study they wish.

I do remember people posting different links to different views of calvinism but I don't remember if any came at this in a basic way first to allow thought and THEN post their web pages and books to read for a greater study if they wish to delve deeper.

Forgive me if this was done already. :thumbs:

I gave my interpretation pages ago -- but the OP poster is gone, Allan. Maybe found his answers on another board, yah think?

skypair

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Seems pretty clear to me --- Adam caused us all to fall into temptation (sin nature) but only after we knew the commandments/law like Paul said in Rom 7.

BTW, we call "sin nature" in it's innocent innate form "survival instinct." All our survival instincts (hunger, thirst, sex, attention, etc.), when we become men and women, blossom into "survival" desires -- that is, SIN.

skypair

Actually, nowhere does Romans 5 talk about "temptation" or "sin nature".
That's you reading it into the passage, just like you did with the Proverbs, et al and saying God determines "consequences".
What the passage definitely says that in Adam, all sinned.
Not that they became sinful, but that they were made sinners.
And as a result of this sin, death came.
And thanks to Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones for helping me understanding this next important point.
Why do infants, not having practiced their own sin, die?
Because, death is always the punishment for sin, therefore if an infant dies, it has died because it is guilty of sin. And the only reason it can be guilty of sin is due to Paul's explanantion that in Adam, all sinned.
And so the argument follows that just as by Adam's disobedience we were made sinners, so by Christ's obedience, we are made righteous. In each case, we are represented by our federal head, Adam first, then Christ.
There is lots more I could say about this, as it is a wonderful passage, but I think those points are enough to think about.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

jd -- you ask a good question which Calvinism cannot answer and which unearths a flaw in that theology. An unsaved heathen can, by nature, do that which is in the Law because of his soul.

Now no Calvinist that I know of has accounted for this singular duty of the soul -- that it is the conscienciousness of right and wrong and actually gives our spirit (mind, emotions, and will) to have a choice of doing right and wrong.

If we say we are created by God, we realize that He put a witness of Himself within each of us. C.S. Lewis (I've been reading him lately again) shows that we ALL have this witness of right and wrong - fairness - that comes from somewhere outside of us (God). It is the "Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1

In an ideal world, Calvinists would begin to investigate these things and come off of some of their more deceptive tenets.

skypair

Should I post this as a separate thread?

 

[webdog]

Actually, nowhere does Romans 5 talk about "temptation" or "sin nature".
That's you reading it into the passage, just like you did with the Proverbs, et al and saying God determines "consequences".
What the passage definitely says that in Adam, all sinned.
Not that they became sinful, but that they were made sinners.
And as a result of this sin, death came.
And thanks to Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones for helping me understanding this next important point.
Why do infants, not having practiced their own sin, die?
Because, death is always the punishment for sin, therefore if an infant dies, it has died because it is guilty of sin. And the only reason it can be guilty of sin is due to Paul's explanantion that in Adam, all sinned.
And so the argument follows that just as by Adam's disobedience we were made sinners, so by Christ's obedience, we are made righteous. In each case, we are represented by our federal head, Adam first, then Christ.
There is lots more I could say about this, as it is a wonderful passage, but I think those points are enough to think about.

Please explain the sin a one month old (from conception) miscarried child has committed. They still die. What about the fertilized egg that never transplants into the uterus? What sin was committed there?

I think you are equating physical death and spiritual death as being one in the same. If this is the case, and the infant dies physically because of it's sin, then it would have to follow that it also died spiritually because of sin.

How do you reconcile that with this verse? Using your reasoning, the Bible teaches univeralism...
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Please explain the sin a one month old (from conception) miscarried child has committed. They still die.

Exactly, the point. The child has not committed their own sin, yet they die. And death is the result of sin. You deny this?
So why do infants experience death if they have no sin of their own to perish for?
The answer is because they are sinners, made such by Adam's sin.
No one has addressed why Paul says "death came to all men, because all sinned". vs. 12
Notice Paul does not say, "they have sinned", nor "they are sinful".
Why don't you address this phrase or the one in vs. 19, which says, "just as through the disobedience of one man, the many were made sinners..."

What about the fertilized egg that never transplants into the uterus? What sin was committed there?

If it dies, then it is affected by sin. Death came because of sin.

I think you are equating physical death and spiritual death as being one in the same. If this is the case, and the infant dies physically because of it's sin, then it would have to follow that it also died spiritually because of sin.

I'm not following. Can you elaborate?
[quote="Webdog"How do you reconcile that with this verse? Using your reasoning, the Bible teaches univeralism...
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
[/QUOTE]
I don't see univeralism in this verse.
I see it as talking about those who are "in Christ".
Don't you?