What on earth?

Webdog, SDA and Catholic are different categories for labels; they would correspond to Presbyterian or Baptist and have some objectivity to them. Your reductio ad absurdum misses the mark. I'm all for labels that reasonably have objective meaning, but "calvinism" and posters on this board have demonstrated to me that it's a useless term here (and other places).

Your "pelagian" label is an example that is similar to "calvinism" and it proves my point. You'd be surprised what gets called pelagian and compare it to what Pelagius and his followers like Julian of Eclanum really believed. If it's that hard to objectively define "pelagian," why bother wondering who is a "hyper-pelagian?"

BJ

 

I agree with you Jack, but hang around here long enough, and you will notice at least one vocal proponent (Johnp) says unequivocally that God is the author of, and immediate cause of, sin.

 

Brandon, I can surely sympathize with your sentiment here. The evidence on this board indicates that there are many stripes of "Calvinists". So let's concede your argument for now - is there a good shorthand label other than "Calvinism" to use to describe someone's soteriological views that accord with the WCF, LBC and other "calvinist" confessions of faith? Or are you not into shorthand?

 

Fair enough, shorthand is necessary for brevity. I don't have another label other than "doctrines of grace," but not too many people use that phrase and it's a little presumptuous. But I have long since been weary of dumb arguments against "calvinism" that surface from time to time here all because of the label itself and whose name it bears.

 

Isa 40:28

Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Directing isn't unalterable nor is it an appointment or absolute control. Problem is not everyone will follow directions. In fact most don't.
MB

 

Why don't you look up the word translated "directeth" to see what it means?

 

Why don't you look up the word translated "directeth" to see what it means?

 

How can that be? If it was a judgement for his sin then how did he sin in the first place if he had no inclination to sin?

Not a trick question.

HankD

 

Hi Russel;

We all know what it means. Maybe it means something differently to you than what it means to me. We don't all take direction, if we did we wouldn't sin. The comandments are directives from God yet there isn't one man on this earth that has followed them perfectly. So why not give us your definition. Then prove it with scripture.
MB

 

Okay, I think I see where the miscommunication is. We're each using the word "inclined" differently. I wouldn't say Adam had "no inclination to sin" in the way you're using the word. Adam was able to sin before that fall, but his nature itself wasn't corrupted yet, so he wasn't in the same condition as fallen people are: not able not to sin. We don't have the ability be perfect, but Adam, as he was created, did. He wasn't perfect, but he started out with the abiltiy to be perfect.

I guess when I used the word inclined, I was thinking more of something like an inclined plane: the marble can roll in one direction only. After the fall, we're like marbles on an inclined plane. As soon as we can move, the direction is downward, away from God and toward sin.

Adam's situation, in that sense, would be more like a marble on a perfectly balanced plane. The plane tilts in the way the marble rolls.

 

The word has a range of meanings, just like every word does. See the definition here. You'll see it runs the range from number 1—mastermind, engineer, organize, orchestrate—through number 4 (which is the definition you are using)—give directions to; point somebody into a certain direction—to number 10—steer, maneuver, etc.


We need to figure out what force the word direct takes in this particular case. We do that by context, and by looking up the Hebrew word that direct translates. The underlying word has nothing to do with pointing someone in one direction, but rather with establishing something or determining something or making something certain. More like the first definition of direct in the English dictionary.

 

I will thank you to express my belief properly Andy T, thank you.


john.

 

Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience...

And if you think that this includes Adam then you are a determinist and if you think this does not then you are indeterminist russel? Which? Did Adam have free will or not?

john.

 

I for one am thankful that we are not pringles, stamped out in theological uniformity. People that generaly consider themselves Calvinists have disputes among themselves, just like non-calvinists. Calvinism is a definable theological term because I can "point" (no pun intended) to a set of doctrines that describe it. Hyper-calvinism can not be defined with any certainty. Those that have tried to do it (and as far as I know, all of them are Calvinists) have done nothing more than string together a few unrelated unorthodox doctrines and tried to make the label stick on the practitioners of those doctrines.

If any one needs proof that the reformed family is not monolithic, just take a look around the internet at the controversy J. McArthur has stirred up over his insistence on a dispy/premil view of eschatology, accusing non-premils of not being good Calvinists.

BTW I've decided to raise my flag as a committed Amil. And I've recently learned that I am a Clarkian presuppositionalist. Isn't learning big words fun?

 

Nice to know someone else has been there isn't JD? Sounds good.

I have been challenge by a person on one forum to go to a geological society here in Nottingham to speak with the boffins about life, the universe and everything. Please pray that I am not destroyed by science. Or the pub that we are going to visit after.

john.

 

What is a boffin? Translate into American South for me.

 

Scientists JD.

john.

 

I'll take your word for it. (no pun intended)
And learning little words can be fun too!