The OTHER major mistake of Calvinism

[Skandelon]

In another thread Biblicist wrote:

The fallen nature operates under the "LAW OF SIN" which law spelled out in Romans 8:7 that operates in all who are "in the flesh" and that EXPLAINS why they "CANNOT" please God.

So it is not God who designed it! It is the ESSENCE of what Sin is and how sin operates. Sin SEPARATES from life found in God. Sin IS rebellion and the law of Sin IS rebellion as spelled out in Romans 8:7.

This is not difficult! You are trying to make hard what is very simple. Your attempt to blame God is irrational when the answer is starring you in the face in the very definition of what sin IS and what sin DOES by its VERY NATURE.

So, Biblicist denies that God decreed or designed for mankind to lose their ability to respond as a result of the fall. No doubt he does this because he denies 'double predestination' or 'Supralapsarianism.'

In this view, Biblicist attempts to maintain that mankind is condemned because of their sin, not God choosing, but how does that work with the Calvinistic application of Jacob and Esau?

Weren't they chosen for salvation and reprobation PRIOR to doing good or evil? How do you answer this?

 

[Inspector Javert]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Moreover....
Given the Infralapsarian viewpoint espoused....
"Sin" and it's "nature" is presented as though it's some fait-accompli of nature that God has no control over.

That particular brand of Calvinism pretends that the curse of sin and the ensuing inability to do right is some "Law" that God had absolutely no influence over...

Men fell from grace (not God's doing)
Since men fell, they inherited a nature irreparably always disposed towards evil (again, God had nothing to do with it)

They treat the curse for sin as some "fact of life" that God had nothing to do with.

Infralapsarianism is un-supportable. Completely un-supportable.

 

[agedman]

In another thread Biblicist wrote:

So, Biblicist denies that God decreed or designed for mankind to lose their ability to respond as a result of the fall. No doubt he does this because he denies 'double predestination' or 'Supralapsarianism.'

In this view, Biblicist attempts to maintain that mankind is condemned because of their sin, not God choosing, but how does that work with the Calvinistic application of Jacob and Esau?

Weren't they chosen for salvation and reprobation PRIOR to doing good or evil? How do you answer this?

Recopied here to apply to this new thread.

The non-cal would make some ethereal state in which God places the unbeliever that without the impulse of good or evil make a free will decision to accept or reject salvation.

That is just not Scriptural.

That the person is already condemned is the reason they have no innate ability to disregard that estate of rejection and condemnation.

Did God hate Esau "before he was born?" No! The Scriptures state that before the birth, God states that the older would serve the younger. It was to be throughout not only the life of the twins but for future generations.

When did God hate Esau? When as a corporate body the Edomites puffed themselves up as authorities above Israel. They assumed what God had not given to be assumed.

Malachi 1:

2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob; 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Though Edom says, “We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins”; thus says the Lord of hosts, “They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.” 5 Your eyes will see this and you will say, “The Lord be magnified beyond the border of Israel!”

​

Paul uses the promise and the passage of Malichi to show that not all who claim the fame play the same game or even in the same league.

The previous verses show the case:

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
​

How is this applicable to the non-cal?

Often the non-cal assumes condemnation is not already, and pretend some scheme in which they can express from their own innate free will what only God determine(d,s).

Just as characterized by Esau's descendents - condemned already.

 

[Skandelon]

Men fell from grace (not God's doing)
Since men fell, they inherited a nature irreparably always disposed towards evil (again, God had nothing to do with it)

Right. How do they support their understanding of Sovereignty given these facts? Did God's sovereignty take a break when these determinations were made? Was God just not able or willing to be involved in the punishment/consequent phase of the fall?

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Moreover....
Given the Infralapsarian viewpoint espoused....
"Sin" and it's "nature" is presented as though it's some fait-accompli of nature that God has no control over.

That particular brand of Calvinism pretends that the curse of sin and the ensuing inability to do right is some "Law" that God had absolutely no influence over...

Men fell from grace (not God's doing)
Since men fell, they inherited a nature irreparably always disposed towards evil (again, God had nothing to do with it)

They treat the curse for sin as some "fact of life" that God had nothing to do with.

Infralapsarianism is un-supportable. Completely un-supportable.

The infra vs supra debate is just dumb. When beginning one of these debates you should start out with "Assuming God thinks and acts in a linear progression, one thought or action leading to another, exactly like us finite mortals then......".

 

[agedman]

A bit of help offered to us old timers, and to keep the casual and causal reader informed, here is a quick guide of the topics on this thread. It presents in chart form the essence of each view and a very concise explanation.

Notes on Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, Amyraldism and Arminianism.
Taken from work by Phil Johnson published on Spurgeon.org

 

[agedman]

The infra vs supra debate is just dumb. When beginning one of these debates you should start out with "Assuming God thinks and acts in a linear progression, one thought or action leading to another, exactly like us finite mortals then......".

My very first thought when reading this post was "I Am."

God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are not constrained by time and distance.

The end is as just as known as the beginning and just as present with God.

That He chooses to constrict humans to a linear progression (or digression) is as He appoints. He can back up time as easily as He can skip over time.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

My very first thought when reading this post was "I Am."

God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are not constrained by time and distance.

The end is as just as known as the beginning and just as present with God.

That He chooses to constrict humans to a linear progression (or digression) is as He appoints. He can back up time as easily as He can skip over time.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

In another thread Biblicist wrote:

So, Biblicist denies that God decreed or designed for mankind to lose their ability to respond as a result of the fall. No doubt he does this because he denies 'double predestination' or 'Supralapsarianism.'

In this view, Biblicist attempts to maintain that mankind is condemned because of their sin, not God choosing, but how does that work with the Calvinistic application of Jacob and Esau?

Weren't they chosen for salvation and reprobation PRIOR to doing good or evil? How do you answer this?

Biblicist argues that it is God own choice NOT to enable the lost to do anything but rebel against His Word (to leave them in their fallen state) that results in their continued rejection of His own Gospel no matter the unlimited reach of the Gospel going into ALL the World and God's own WILL that "all men should come to repentance".

Biblicist's view still makes God the cause of His own lament.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

In another thread Biblicist wrote:

So, Biblicist denies that God decreed or designed for mankind to lose their ability to respond as a result of the fall. No doubt he does this because he denies 'double predestination' or 'Supralapsarianism.'

In this view, Biblicist attempts to maintain that mankind is condemned because of their sin, not God choosing, but how does that work with the Calvinistic application of Jacob and Esau?

Weren't they chosen for salvation and reprobation PRIOR to doing good or evil? How do you answer this?

Very simple! Because I am not a superlapsarian the decree of unconditional particular election follows the decree of universal fall and condemnation. Therefore, we are the "children of wrath even as others" in regard to the fall and condemnation. However, "but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes" while the rest are not objects of elective love. Since election is "unconditional" then it is not determined either by the fallen person of Jacob or Esau or their future works good or evil.

 

[Skandelon]

Very simple! Because I am not a superlapsarian the decree of unconditional particular election follows the decree of universal fall and condemnation. Therefore, we are the "children of wrath even as others" in regard to the fall and condemnation. However, "but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes" while the rest are not objects of elective love. Since election is "unconditional" then it is not determined either by the fallen person of Jacob or Esau or their future works good or evil.

Again, do you all carry around some kind of decoder ring to help explain all these complexities? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, do you all carry around some kind of decoder ring to help explain all these complexities? :smilewinkgrin:

Nothing complex about what I said. Just read it more slowly and note the cause versus effect relationships in what I said.

 

[Skandelon]

Nothing complex about what I said. Just read it more slowly and note the cause versus effect relationships in what I said.

“When the man's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense” -Ed Abbey

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Very simple! Because I am not a superlapsarian ...

No one is. The term is supralapsarian. Maybe a new decoder ring is in order? :laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Therefore, we are the "children of wrath even as others" in regard to the fall and condemnation. However, "but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes" while the rest are not objects of elective love.

Making God out to be the cause of His own lament.

The Calvinist argument cannot stop itself from making that mistake.

in Christ,

Bob