The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism

[Winman]

Would say that if I was forced to choose between Barnes and Apostle paul, stick with paul, HINT he was the inspired one!

You are not choosing between Barnes and Paul, you are choosing between Augustine and Barnes.

I did not derive my intepretation of 1 Cor 15:22 from Barnes. I read it in context and knew Paul was speaking of physical death and resurrection, that is the topic of the whole chapter. Read for yourself and see.

I simply showed Barnes to show that real scholars disagree with your interpretation of scripture.

Original Sin is based almost solely on Augustine's interpretation of Romans 5:12, that is a historical fact. Without Rom 5:12, Augustine had no support for OS. The problem is, Augustine did not know Greek well and used a flawed Latin translation of this verse. Barnes addresses this as well.

For that (\~ef w\~). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom [Adam] all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

(1.) If (\~w\~) be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

(2.) If this had been its meaning, the preposition (\~en\~) would have been used. See Note of Erasmus on the place.

(3.) It comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that men sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account for that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4.) As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favours that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

Again, Barnes was a Calvinist, but he was an honest scholar. He says here that the Greek does not support the Latin Vulgate Augustine used or his interpretation of it.

Now I know you can find scholars who disagree with Barnes. Fine. We are back to square one, it is your scholar versus mine.

The problem with Augustine's interpretation is that it clearly violates God's word that a man is responsible for his own personal sin as shown in Ezekiel 18 and other scriptures.

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Calvinism teaches men are born children of the devil. God says all souls belong to him. He is speaking of the soul here, not the physical body. God says the soul that sinneth shall die. "Shall die" is future tense and shows we are not born dead. Romans 9:11 shows babies have not committed sin.

Eze 18:9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

That God is speaking of the spiritual condition of man is shown by the words "he is just". This is not speaking of physical death, but whether a man is just or a sinner in God's eyes.

Eze 18:18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.

This verse is not speaking of physical death, it is speaking of dying in our sins or iniquities. It is speaking of dying in the state of being a condemned sinner before God.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This verse is as clear as it gets. It begins by again repeating that the soul that sins shall die. Then God clearly and plainly states that the son shall not bear the inquity of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son.

If Calvinism is true, then God is a hypocrite, holding men accountable for their father's sin when he commanded men not to do so.

The problem is that you cannot distinquish between physical death and spiritual death. It is true that all men die physically as a CONSEQUENCE of Adam's sin, just as a bus driver might get drunk and drive off a cliff killing all his passengers. His passengers died as a consequence of the bus driver's sin, but his sin is not imputed to them, neither are they guilty of driving drunk. This is what Calvinists cannot distinguish.

 

[JesusFan]

But, according to Calvinism, no person is ever capable of choosing God unless God programs them to chose Him. Once you get past the double talk, God rejects people.

You are lookingf for the concept of "effectually applying the Grace of God towards reprobate sinners in order that they might beieve on Christ, and become saved!" NOT that God is our "puppet master", but that he actively decides to whom He will show mercy upon, and allows others to do as they would please to...

Again, if you weren't so heavily indoctrinated in the false theology of Calvinism you would see this. You eyes are closed to the truth.

Just saying that we are following the teachings of Jesus, Apostles Peter/John and Paul!

 

[webdog]

Again, you saying it's illogical doesn't make it so. I'll explain below. It is a sufficient payment for all. Glad we agree.

More double speak. Something cannot be both sufficient and not intended for someone. If it is not intended for someone, it's meaningless to that person, not sufficient.

No, that's exactly what you just said. "Whosoever (of the world) that believes will not perish. The atonement will not cover the sins of unbelievers. It was never intended to save the sins of unbelievers. In that very verse alone, it was intended to save whosoever out of the world that believes.
please stick to the subject

What do you mean "stick to the subject"? I'm discussing the subject.

If I buy 10 billion Snicker bars. Have I bought a sufficient number of Snicker bars for every person in the world to get one? Yes. So it's sufficient for all.

So your intention is to buy them for everyone?

Do I have to have any intention to give anyone one of these bars? No, that's separate. Do I believe God will save anyone that comes to him? Yes, but that doesn't change the sufficiency of it at all. Intention doesn't matter to the sufficiency of the payment.

*sigh* so if you have no intention of giving everyone a gift, how can you invite everyone to is? More double speak.

please stick to the subject at hand

Please quit trying to misdirect and imply that I am not.

Please address my points and not add in other things.

I've done just that. You just don't like the response.

Please stick to the subject.

Please quit trying to misdirect and imply that I am not.

like this entire post. You can't stay on subject

Hogwash. Please quit trying to misdirect and imply that I am not.

well, send me the link and I'll try to answer it.

Did just that. If it was not on this thread it was on the other. It is titled "compatibilism"

what is right and what is wrong. Why on earth would I ask you to answer something from my vantage point. Just answer the question

I've answered every question you have asked me.

please use my terms. I said believers.

So NOW you want me to answer from your vantage point :laugh:

now, as for you number 2, does "Christ's death penalty of sin (atonement), appease God's wrath against sin (propitiation), to defeat the curse of death, to redeem the physical universe and to reconcile sinners to Himself" of unbelievers?

Partially. Christ's death did appease sin, He did defeat death and will reconcile His creation. Not all of that applies to an unbeliever.

 

[matt wade]

Sorry, but please address what I believe, not what you think I believe. No person wants to choose God. In your system(unless you are Universalist) all those that die in their unbelief did not want to choose God. Same thing. Those that do come don't come because they were any better, but God changed their heart of stone(Ezekiel 36). This is though his grace as we shouldn't have had a chance in the first place. God was not obligated to save anyone.

Rejection implies one is coming and is prevented. Calvinism doesn't teach that people are coming and God rejects them.

If you want a Christlike discussion, I'm happy to have one. If you are going to continue your hateful comments, then I won't.

Hateful comments? You are the one who started this conversation by calling me a liar.

I've accurately represented Calvinism. I'll do it again:

1. All are invited.
2. None want to come.
3. God programs some to come.
4. God accepts all the come.
5. God sends the others to Hell because He didn't program them to come.

 

[jbh28]

What do you mean "stick to the subject"? I'm discussing the subject.

No, we are discussing if the atonement is sufficient for all but but only efficient for believers. Not about election or just choosing a few...

So your intention is to buy them for everyone?
*sigh* so if you have no intention of giving everyone a gift, how can you invite everyone to is? More double speak.

1. We are discussing the sufficiency of it. Is it sufficient if I don't intend to give everyone one of the Snicker bars? Yes or now.

Did just that. If it was not on this thread it was on the other. It is titled "compatibilism"

Thanks. I'll look for it after church

So NOW you want me to answer from your vantage point :laugh:

Again, why on earth would I ask you to answer something from my point of view?

Partially. Christ's death did appease sin, He did defeat death and will reconcile His creation. Not all of that applies to an unbeliever.

Ok, we are getting somewhere. So do you see what I'm saying. The atonement is sufficient for all people, but it's efficiency is limited to the believers. The atonement is efficient for the unbelievers. It was never intended to it to be efficient for unbelievers.

 

[jbh28]

Hateful comments? You are the one who started this conversation by calling me a liar.

You, I thought I had quoted Winman's post, not yours.

I've accurately represented Calvinism. I'll do it again:

1. All are invited.
2. None want to come.
3. God programs some to come.
4. God accepts all the come.
5. God sends the others to Hell because He didn't program them to come.

Sorry, but that's a lie. please refrain from it. It's interesting when I or other Calvinists say we believe A, but you seem to come in and say, no, you believe B. Why is that?

#3 is wrong. God changes their heart and they choose to come. He opens their eyes so they can now want to come.
#5 is terribly wrong. he sends then to hell because they are sinners and deserve hell and have rejected God.

If you say otherwise, you are lying about my beliefs. That's not being mean spirited to say you are lying. Do you notice that I don't do that about you. I don't change what you say and then attack my change. I don't misrepresent others. If I do, I apologize and change what I said.

 

[Winman]

Ok, we are getting somewhere. So do you see what I'm saying. The atonement is sufficient for all people, but it's efficiency is limited to the believers. The atonement is efficient for the unbelievers. It was never intended to it to be efficient for unbelievers.

Who determines if it is efficient in your system? God. Sure, you can buy a Snicker bar for everyone on earth, it is sufficient that all may have one. But YOU are the one holding these candy bars, if you do not give one to every man it is your fault it was not efficient.

 

[matt wade]

#3 is wrong. God changes their heart and they choose to come. He opens their eyes so they can now want to come.

As I said, God programs people to come to Him.

#5 is terribly wrong. he sends then to hell because they are sinners and deserve hell and have rejected God.

#5 is absolutely right. Without God's programming no one is able to be saved. So, if God doesn't select you for programming, you go to Hell. So, it's easy to get to "God sends the others to Hell because He didn't program them to come."

If you say otherwise, you are lying about my beliefs. That's not being mean spirited to say you are lying. Do you notice that I don't do that about you. I don't change what you say and then attack my change. I don't misrepresent others. If I do, I apologize and change what I said.

I'm not lying about your beliefs. I'm simply eliminating the double talk you do in order to pretty up your beliefs.

 

[webdog]

No, we are discussing if the atonement is sufficient for all but but only efficient for believers. Not about election or just choosing a few...

That aspect cannot be separated from the topic. Intent plays the biggest role.

1. We are discussing the sufficiency of it. Is it sufficient if I don't intend to give everyone one of the Snicker bars? Yes or now.

I've already said it's not sufficient since it was never intended.

Again, why on earth would I ask you to answer something from my point of view?

Did you not tell me to use YOUR terms?!?

Ok, we are getting somewhere. So do you see what I'm saying. The atonement is sufficient for all people, but it's efficiency is limited to the believers. The atonement is efficient for the unbelievers. It was never intended to it to be efficient for unbelievers.

I wouldn't say it is sufficient for the unbeliever if it was never made for them.

 

[Herald]

The clear implication of Jn 3:21 is that not only had God already wrought within them, these had also been 'doing the truth' prior to coming to Christ.

How do you explain that?

Just so everyone can read the passage you cited let me post it:

John 3:21 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

You're making an assumption that those who practice the truth (in this passage) are doing so prior to salvation. I believe that assumption is in error.
Lets look at how John used the same word for "practice" (poieo) in his first epistle. It has the same exact meaning as John 3.

1 John 2:29 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

1 John 3:4 4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

1 John 3:7-9 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The word practice gives the thought of laboring or specializing in something. A doctor has a medical practice. A lawyer has a legal practice. They specialize in those things. The sinner specializes in sin. Why? Because he has a sin nature and can do nothing else but sin. As believers we also have the capacity to sin. But unlike unbelievers we no longer practice sin; we no longer specialize in it.

John 3:21 is referring to a believer. Only a believer would be without fear in presenting his works before God. The sinner would rather hide in the shadows or in darkness.

 

[Don]

1. All are invited.
2. None want to come.
3. God programs some to come.
4. God accepts all the come.
5. God sends the others to Hell because He didn't program them to come.

#3 is wrong. God changes their heart and they choose to come. He opens their eyes so they can now want to come.

This requires further explanation: God changes their heart, and they now have the choice to come? Or do they always choose to come?

#5 is terribly wrong. he sends then to hell because they are sinners and deserve hell and have rejected God.

From a calvinist viewpoint, this must be re-worded as: "God allows them to continue on the road to hell." As has been abundantly made clear here by the calvinist supporters, sinners are already on the way to hell; thus, it takes a further argument/discussion to explain/defend the exact definition of "sends."

 

[Herald]

From a calvinist viewpoint, this must be re-worded as: "God allows them to continue on the road to hell." As has been abundantly made clear here by the calvinist supporters, sinners are already on the way to hell; thus, it takes a further argument/discussion to explain/defend the exact definition of "sends."

Don, this isn't so much directed at you, I'm just making a categorical distinction between the non-elect under the Calvinistic model. There are two lapsarian views that address this issue. The first, infralapsarianism, teaches that God does not choose any to go to hell; He simply passes over those who are not elect. Suralapsarianism teaches that God purposefully chooses both the elect and non-elect. A middle of the road position is Amyraldism. Amyraldism teaches that God provided a salvation sufficient for all but it is only efficient for the elect. The non-Calvinist view, Arminianism, teaches that salvation was made available to all and that those who accept it are then elect. No commentary here, just an explanation of the various views.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As I said, God programs people to come to Him.




#5 is absolutely right. Without God's programming no one is able to be saved. So, if God doesn't select you for programming, you go to Hell. So, it's easy to get to "God sends the others to Hell because He didn't program them to come."



I'm not lying about your beliefs. I'm simply eliminating the double talk you do in order to pretty up your beliefs.

Oh Heck....you have to be joking:laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

.....You're making an assumption that those who practice the truth (in this passage) are doing so prior to salvation. I believe that assumption is in error.

And you're making the common, erroneous, prevailing assumption that 'salvation' [soteria, deliverance] and 'saved' [sozo, delivered] are synonymous with the birth from above and the acquisition of the free gift of eternal life.

Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee. 1 Tim 4:16

Are we to conclude from this that Timothy was not yet born from above? Or those he taught?

...... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Phil 2:12,13

Are we to conclude from this that the birth from above comes from our works? Also note the distinction made here between salvation and God working within us.

Our salvation is an ongoing affair and not a one time event and our faith or faithfulness (steadfastness) has everything to do with it. The birth from above i.e.,regeneration, on the other hand, is a one time event that we are 100% totally passive in:

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13

Lets look at how John used the same word for "practice" (poieo) in his first epistle. It has the same exact meaning as John 3.

1 John 2:29 29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

That totally supports the biblical position that good works spring from a heart that has had the work of the law written upon it. Changed heart first, then good works, which includes faith. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit.

He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life;......Jn 3:36

.....He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life,...Jn5:24

... He that believeth hath eternal life. Jn 6:47

Eternal life comes not from belief; those that believe have already been made alive.

1 John 3:4 4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

By their fruits you shall know them.

1 John 3:7-9 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Same as above.

The word practice gives the thought of laboring or specializing in something. A doctor has a medical practice. A lawyer has a legal practice. They specialize in those things. The sinner specializes in sin. Why? Because he has a sin nature and can do nothing else but sin. As believers we also have the capacity to sin. But unlike unbelievers we no longer practice sin; we no longer specialize in it.

The ones with the law written in their hearts do by nature the things of the law. They are doers of the truth.

John 3:21 is referring to a believer. Only a believer would be without fear in presenting his works before God. The sinner would rather hide in the shadows or in darkness.

No, this one is not yet a believer, before they had even come to the light God had already wrought within them. It's life before belief, dead men do nothing.

 

[Don]

Don, this isn't so much directed at you, I'm just making a categorical distinction between the non-elect under the Calvinistic model. There are two lapsarian views that address this issue. The first, infralapsarianism, teaches that God does not choose any to go to hell; He simply passes over those who are not elect. Suralapsarianism teaches that God purposefully chooses both the elect and non-elect. A middle of the road position is Amyraldism. Amyraldism teaches that God provided a salvation sufficient for all but it is only efficient for the elect. The non-Calvinist view, Arminianism, teaches that salvation was made available to all and that those who accept it are then elect. No commentary here, just an explanation of the various views.

Understood (I actually addressed this same distinction in a different thread); unfortunately, most of the calvinists here don't identify which "circle" of calvinism they ascribe to...but that can also be said of the arminians here, who don't identify themselves as classical arminianists or wesleyan arminianists; or the fringe viewpoints (which are arguably not "orthodox" arminianism) of open theism, pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, etc.

Since we don't specify, we're relegated to generalities...and sometimes (actually, more often than not on this board), the generalities lead to accusations of what the opposite side believes that aren't actually what either side believes.

 

[Herald]

No, this one is not yet a believer, before they had even come to the light God had already wrought within them. It's life before belief, dead men do nothing.

I honestly have no idea where to begin. The only thing I can do is get to the heart of your post. If I am understanding your view correctly it is that man really isn't fallen. The Fall (Genesis 3) really didn't change things for the human race. If man really is fallen in all his faculties then there is no way he can do anything than would be pleasing to God. In fact, he doesn't even posses the desire.

1 Corinthians 2:14-15 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

The natural man (the unsaved man) not only doesn't accept the things of the Spirit of God, he considers them foolishness because he cannot understand them. Conversely the spiritual man (v. 15) does understand. There is absolutely no way that the John 3:21 can refer to one who is not born again, born from above, regenerated, or whatever term you want to use to describe the new birth.

 

[matt wade]

Oh Heck....you have to be joking:laugh:

Not in the slightest. I don't think combating false theology is a joking matter.

 

[Herald]

Understood (I actually addressed this same distinction in a different thread); unfortunately, most of the calvinists here don't identify which "circle" of calvinism they ascribe to...but that can also be said of the arminians here, who don't identify themselves as classical arminianists or wesleyan arminianists; or the fringe viewpoints (which are arguably not "orthodox" arminianism) of open theism, pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, etc.

Since we don't specify, we're relegated to generalities...and sometimes (actually, more often than not on this board), the generalities lead to accusations of what the opposite side believes that aren't actually what either side believes.

Don, I'm not one to add to the confusion. I have no problem stating that I hold to supralapsarianism.

 

[kyredneck]

I honestly have no idea where to begin. The only thing I can do is get to the heart of your post. If I am understanding your view correctly it is that man really isn't fallen. The Fall (Genesis 3) really didn't change things for the human race. If man really is fallen in all his faculties then there is no way he can do anything than would be pleasing to God. In fact, he doesn't even posses the desire.

1 Corinthians 2:14-15 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

The natural man (the unsaved man) not only doesn't accept the things of the Spirit of God, he considers them foolishness because he cannot understand them. Conversely the spiritual man (v. 15) does understand. There is absolutely no way that the John 3:21 can refer to one who is not born again, born from above, regenerated, or whatever term you want to use to describe the new birth.

You don't understand regeneration before belief?


Does regeneration necessarily precede conversion?

By Thomas R. Schreiner

 

[Herald]

You don't understand regeneration before belief?


Does regeneration necessarily precede conversion?

By Thomas R. Schreiner

No. I don't understand YOU. I mean no disrespect. I work very hard not to personally offend in my posts. If my theology offends, then so be it.

I understanding perfectly well that regeneration proceeds salvation in the ordo salutis. The term "regeneration" is used in the vernacular to describe salvation. However, if the discussion turns to the ordo salutis then "regeneration" has to be used properly.

There is no evidence to support the view that there is a noticeable pause between regeneration and salvation. Regeneration and the new birth are so closely related that, for all practical purposes, they are the same thing. The way Ezekiel describes the two you would need a skill of surgeon to dissect them.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Ezekiel describes regeneration (new heart and new spirit) and salvation (put My Spirit within you) in one context. Yes. There is an order, but that order is indiscernible.