Psalms 51:5

HP: DHK, my point is not to be unkind, but you move from one contradiction to another. If there is a contradiction in ones theology, it does not suffice to simply say I am not a Calvinist or simply ignore the contradiction. Neither does it suffice to simply restate ones position. The stark contradictions need to be removed.

What you fail to realize concerning Calvinism is that when you accept the same premise as Calvinism, in this case original sin, logic necessitates it other points. When you say I believe this point and that point of Calvinism, yet try and stop short of the logical ends necessitated by its original premise, you are fighting as one that beateth the wind to separate yourself from that system of thought. The only thing you will be seen as is inconsistent and illogical and at times clearly contradictory. The same goes for any Arminian that accepts the Calvinistic/Augustinian dogma of original sin, yet tries to separate themselves from the errors of the Calvinistic system. Although they see the error in the ends of Calvinistic thought, much the same you do at least in some measure, yet their counter arguments, although in some small measure point to some relevant truth, still fail to ‘logically’ escape the traps original sin has necessitated. I view Arminians as logically inconsistent as well, although I do say,”Oh those blessed inconsistencies!”


Let me try again. You stated first, “A man that is spiritually dead (separated from God) is still able to respond to God. He needs to be reconciled to God.”

Then you make a statement contradictory to that statement by saying, “The natural man does not do good. He cannot.” Hence my question to you if responding to God is good? If responding to God is good, you cannot have it both ways DHK. Either man CANNOT do any good, or he can. Why not respond something like the following: ‘Yes, man in his natural state is capable of doing good as he can respond to God when God speaks to him.’ Why not simply admit that the word ‘cannot’ was not in keeping with your true sentiments, and that man can at least under one situation. If you would answer in that manner at least I could see you are attempting to eliminate the contradiction between your two statements.

 

Now for the second contradiction of DHK.

HP: First you say that you are not a Calvinist, because you do not believe man has to be regenerated to respond to the gospel (which I as well admit as the truth) and that man can respond to the gospel at least, BUT then you turn around and make a clearly Calvinistic remark that “salvation is all of God.” DHK, if it is ALL of God, that eliminates any part man is required to play, including but not limited to, his ability to respond. I care not how may times you tell me that man does not need to be regenerated to be saved, if you turn around and tell me that man plays no part in salvation, you have just contradicted yourself again, or in the least rendered any ‘response to God’ needed for salvation to nothing other than the necessitated activity of God Himself apart from man doing anything. That is pure Calvinism. What you are calling man’s ability to respond is nothing more than the necessitated effort of God, 'causing' certain men, as in the 'the elect' to respond. That shows about the same amount of freedom in responding as a rock responds with a thud to the ground after it is kicked off a cliff. There is not a bit of actual response 'caused' by man associated with freedom in the response you say man is able to do. You are simply creating a sophistic response, i.e., by saying natural man is able to respond to God, when in fact according to your quote above, man has absolutely nothing to do with any response. Its is “all of God” according to you, remember?

Again, you are simply creating sophistic arguments that have no meaning in reality, created to try and distance yourself from the logical ends of Calvinism you desire to distance yourself from. You will never succeed the rate you are going, you will simply remain espousing contradictory statements that do nothing in reality to distance yourself from the very same ends as Calvinism expressly believes. That end is stated by yourself in clear terms in a way every Calvinist would be proud of, i.e., “Salvation is ALL of God.”

Now on the other hand, if you would be willing to recognize the clear distinction between the grounds of salvation and the conditions of salvation, you could say regarding the grounds of salvation, it indeed is ALL of God, and of the conditions of salvation, ‘Man MUST OF NECESSITY COOPERATE WITH GOD FOR SALVATION TO BECOME A REALITY IN OUR LIVES.’ Again, speaking of the grounds of salvation it is indeed all of God, but as for the conditions of salvation, man is indeed active, without which no man shall be saved.

Hence my question back to you DHK. If it is indeed ALL of God, how can any alleged response by man have anything to do with gaining salvation, other than being the mere necessitated response coerced upon the elect by God (irresistable grace, i.e., the elect only doing as they are directly enabled to do by God) as every Calvinist would admit to???

 

DHK, by no means use my words. I was just giving you an example of a statement that might in some way help clear up the contradiction. By all means, choose words of your own. :thumbs:

 

DHK, if salvation is indeed 'ALL' of God, how can any alleged response by man have anything to do with gaining salvation, other than being the mere necessitated response coerced upon the elect by God (irresistable grace, i.e., the elect only doing as they are directly enabled to do by God) as every Calvinist would admit to???

 

Let the reader note carefully, this debate is not about, nor driven by, the love of argumentation on my part, but rather is centered in the love of truth. The doctrines we hold are indeed important and will without fail guide ones moral intents and subsequent actions. When we look around and witness the low ebb of morality even within the so-called Church, rest assured that false notions and unsound doctrines have played a clear role in that corruption.

Of a truth, if Psalms 51:5 indicates moral depravity from birth, the underlying cause of sin is indeed ones sinful nature, and man does in fact have something to blame for his sins. If that is the truth, the blame for ones sin lies squarely on that cause and not the individual themselves necessitated to sin by such a nature. Scripture no where blames ones sinful nature for sin, but everywhere blames the individual themselves for the choices they have made. The seat of all morality lies in the will of man and the choice they make, and not in the depraved sensibilities we inherit from Adam.

God blames man for sin. The simple matter of moral blame shows clearly that the cause is NOT some sinful nature from birth, but rather has its impetus in the choices of the will itself, choices freely chosen without force or coercion. If man is to be properly blamed and justly punished for his moral choices, he must of necessity have been able to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances apart from any considerations of punishment or rewards. If mans will is not free to from intents contrary to sin, no just blame can be predicated of his intents or subsequent actions. Sin is at its core, willing rebellion against a known commandment of God. Sin is not, nor can it be, necessitated from some nature classified as sinful from birth.

Of a truth, the only biblical definition given to sin involves a willful transgression to a known commandment of God, something impossible to conceive of from birth and something not taught in Palms 51:5 by any stretch of the imagination.

 

The verse in and of itself in no wise answers directly the question I asked.

DHK, you always get up tight when you believe others misrepresent you, but when I get down to the serious questions that need to be asked you recoil into a favorite proof text, a text clearly subject to interpretation. Is the response to God’s influence you like to speak of nothing more to you than irresistible grace is to a Calvinist? So far you have given me nothing that separates you from the well known tenants of Calvinism. Here is your chance to separate yourself once and for all from that connection………if in fact there is any meaningful difference. Your so-called response to God’s influences appear to me nothing short of being in lock step with pure irresistible grace granted to the elect. It's all of God and none of man correct?

 

HP: DHK, you are espousing purely Calvinistic doctrines. You sophistic arguments about not believing in irresistible grace is a chimera, because irresistible grace is nothing more than a logical byproduct of the Calvinistic notions you say you are in agreement with. First you tell us it is “all of God” and then you say we need to choose. You are flat out self contradictory in your statements in the same manner all that follow Calvinism are. You say you need to choose, and then tell us you believe in election. If election is true in that God elects some to salvation, you of necessity either have to agree with double predestination or you are again flatly contradicting your own stated belief. In reality your decision can have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome due to your stated position of election. It was all predetermined before you ever came onto the scene. Either you were elected and of necessity do what you should do, or you are not elected and could not be one of the elect period. So much for any choosing or choice you try and tell us about. So much from distancing yourself from the system of thought you would have us believe you detest. You embrace it as truth on the hand and say you despise it on the other. Which one are we to believe???

DHK, tell us how you escape the dark pitfalls of Calvinism, i.e., deterministic fatalism and double predestination, when you say it is all of God and that you believe in election??? You can tell us all day long to believe you are not a Calvinist, but would that work for a Catholic on this board that espoused RCC doctrine and tells us they are not a Catholic? I think not. Changing a logical outcome of a particular notion driven by logical necessity only makes you one thing, logically inconsistent and confused as to the real ramifications of your own stated beliefs.

You are certainly able to believe as you wish and contradict yourself whenever you so desire, but do not be alarmed when some see through your contradictions and find them in lock step with the maelstrom of confusion the Calvinistic system in reality is.

 

JSM17, you are right on.:thumbs: What so many do not realize is that when you start off from the position of Augustinian original sin, Calvinism is the logical end of that belief. Thank God for the inconsistencies of the Arminians who start off from original sin but quickly disallow any guilt associated with it. Oh those blessed inconsistencies.

John Wesley knew full well that his doctrines held a seed or error, but was evidently unable in his lifetime to ever pinpoint what to him was that latent nagging feeling that his theology was “far too close to Calvinism.” I believe without a doubt the source of those perceptive intuitions of Wesley was in fact the false notion of original sin. Therein is the seed of error that will land any and everyone that accepts that Augustinian notion either in the lap of Calvinism or far too close to it for comfort.

 

DHK, you are beside yourself. Others do not know what you believe DHK?? Contrary to what you must believe, some can read and have memories and thousands of posts written by you to reflect upon.

You have referred to my beliefs as heretical, blasphemy etc. You have tried to paint me with the same brush you would paint a Mormon and associated my beliefs with heathen, tell me that I am ignoring Scripture etc. ……and then have the audacity to tell me I am railing or attacking you via ‘ad hominem’ remarks for associating you with a well know system of thought called Calvinism???? Speaking of something pitiful and ones credibility being in question DHK…….

Let’s see. Calvinism teaches Augustinian original sin. You have clearly stated you believe that. Calvinism teaches unconditional election. You say you believe in election, which if not clarified carefully (which you have made no attempt to do) means the exact same thing as well as told us that salvation is “all of God”. Calvinism believes in limited atonement, which the doctrine of election by necessity implies. Calvinism believes in irresistible grace which again is nothing more than the necessity conclusion of comments like “salvation is all of God.” Are you going to tell us that a mere man can thwart the predetermined election of God?? Calvinism believes in the perseverance of the saints or OSAS just as you clearly do with your comments about it not mattering what you do or what sin you commit or whether or not you repent as long as you have been saved at one time your eternity is secure.

It does not matter to me what you desire to call yourself, Calvinism and its implications are well known and documented beliefs. There is absolutely no injustice to refer to the beliefs just mentioned as Calvinistic beliefs, and no injustice to you or anyone else to point out the clear connection that exists between what you say and what Calvinism purports, nor to point out the glaring contradictions in either Calvinistic notions or those of your own.

Neither yourself nor any one admitting to holding Calvinistic beliefs fails to contradict themselves at every turn. You tell us in one breath we need to believe and then in the other breath tell us it is “all of God.” If you cannot see the clear contradiction in your stated beliefs you might consider pinching yourself. Besides erroneous beliefs, Calvinism is a maelstrom of confusion due to the flat contradictions at every turn. They tell the sinner he needs to believe, and then in another breath tell him that it is "all of God." They tell the sinner he needs to repent and then tell them it doesn’t matter what sin they commit if they have been born again, all past present and future sins are automatically covered by the blood and forgiven. They tell the sinner they need to accept Christ, and then they tell them God elects some to salvation and some He does not elect, leaving the sinner wondering, I wonder if I am one of the lucky ones? They tell the sinner if they repeat these words or those words that they have eternal life, yet tell the sinner in another breath man has nothing to do with salvation, “IT IS ALL OF GOD” remember???

DHK, you need a stark reality check. It is one thing to believe something, and another to get all upset when one points out the glaring contradictions to such a position. As to whether or not you are a liar, I will let your own mouth convict you. It is YOUR stated position, not mine, that ALL men are lairs, or will you deny that stated position also? You might consider this Scriptural admonition: Ps 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.

There are many uncertainties in anyone’s theology/philosophy. We are finite beings. One thing we should never entertain in our theology or ones philosophy is glaring contradictions. It is an affront to a Holy Wise and Just God to attempt to place the absurdities upon Him or His Holy word with comments like ‘His ways are higher than our ways’ when trying to provide cover for our glaring contradictions. If there are stark contradiction in ones theology/philosophy, it is either in their theology or their philosophy that the error lies, and not within God’s understanding or truth. Our job as theologians and philosophers is to try and find the source of the contradiction and eliminate them to the best of our abilities.

Truth never contradicts truth.

 

HP: But to the contrary you would have us believe. Your position makes this implication: Death when it is finished bringeth forth sin.

Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If man is born dead, sin follows death, not sin bringing forth death as Scripture indicates. Remember what Scripture states is the cause of all men dying. It is not due to their sinful nature or Adam, but rather because “all have sinned.”

HP: Can you not distinguish between the foolishness of a child and sin? Where do Scriptures indicate that foolishness is by necessity sin or that all foolishness is sin, especially that of a child?

1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.