confused about Calvin

He is spiritually dead meaning he is spiritually sick? Ok, you've now crossed into total liberalism. Congratuations.

Personally, I was totally dead in trespasses and sins. I was without hope. I thank God for saving me. You on the other hand are a much better man than I. You weren't spiritually dead, as the Bible says, you were just "sick". You were still good enough to be able to make right decisions. You must be the third Adam or something.

 

jw, you are coming across as arrogant and rude. If you cannot have meaningful dialogue, I will not continue discussing this with you.

Having said that, if you are spiritually dead, meaning you are separated from God, you can't be well, meaning you are VERY SICK spiritually. I do not deny that man is dead in sin. Dead in sin does NOT mean inconscious or having the inability to have faith. This is man's doctrine, and it is not biblical. Again, keep the dialoge cordial or I am done.

 

One of the more famous passages calvinism rips from context. This is like saying I will give money to whoever I give money to. </font>[/QUOTE]Webdog,

I would be very interested in your thorough explanation of Romans 9. Especially in light of the context of chapter 8 and then 10 and 11.

 

Webdog,

Here is the biblical doctrine:

"What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;" (Romans 3:9-10, ESV)

"“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”" (Romans 3:18, ESV)

"For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.” " (John 3:20-21, ESV)

(notice - whoever does what is true shows that his deeds have been carried out in God.)

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans 8:7-8, ESV)

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—" (Ephesians 2:1-2, ESV)

"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26, ESV)

"They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." (Ephesians 4:18, ESV)

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44, ESV)

"It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—" (John 6:45, ESV)

The Bible teaches we are DEAD.

Now, you show us where it says we are sick.

 

webdog does some linguistic gymnastics in various posts:

The Bible also calls God a "fair, merciful" God. Your view of God is anything but.

A "fair" God would save no one at all, because everyone has transgressed his law and is deserving of death. So I can easily concede that God isn't fair. Salvation isn't about fairness.

God is merciful because he has chosen to save some of them instead of giving them what they deserve.

Only in the most convoluted "logic" could it be less merciful to save some people than to save no people.

He is spiritually dead, meaning he is spiritually sick...

So "spiritually dead" means spiritually not dead.

Oh . . . kay.

One of the more famous passages calvinism rips from context. This is like saying I will give money to whoever I give money to.

One, yes, if you think you can trivialize God's grace by likening rescue from eternal damnation as though he were spotting someone a few bucks.

Two, yes, if it's my money, I can give it to whomever I please, for any reason I please (or no reason at all). My prerogative is my own, just as God's prerogative is his own.

 

Apologies.

The Bible never describes man as "spiritually sick". Being dead does not mean "sick". You can even see this in nature. Go to the cemetary and pour asprine on the graves, the people won't come hopping out, I promise.

If man is dead in sin, and unable to make righteous decisions - then how does man suddenly choose God (i.e. a righteous decision)? Paul wreslted with this very problem in Romans 7.

Part 1 of 2

 

Additionally, Paul thoroughly describes the human condition in Romans 3..

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Did you seek after God? The Bible says you didn't.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Did you make a good, righteous decision from the goodness in your heart? The Bible says you didn't.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
This is what you were. Hateful. Speaking nothing but death, deceit, poison. A murderer.
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Your way was damnation, and justly so. You did not know the way of peace. You had no concept of godliness.
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
You did not even fear the Lord. You had no desire to turn to Him.

If the Bible is true, it was impossible for you to be saved. You couldn't even seek God, how then could you have righteous faith in Him?

Similarly Paul describes our hopeless situation in Eph 2...

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
God quickened you. You were not sick, but dead.
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Your god was Satan himself. You walked according to his purpose. He certainly didn't lead you to Christ...
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desiresa of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
By very NATURE we were children of wrath. Everything about us cried out for judgment.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
Wow! What love! We were DEAD in sins. But God was rich in mercy and love. As John said, "we love Him because He first loved us."- not because we had enough goodness in our hearts to love Him.
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What is the gift of God? Grace? Faith? Salvation? Nope, it's all of the above. The word translated "that" is neuter here, whereas "faith" and "grace" are feminine words. There is no neuter noun for "that" to refer back to, and therefore must refer to the whole shabang. God gave you the faith and the grace which results in salvation.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Ooooh, but not only that, God gave you the good works. You can't even take credit for walking that old lady across the street. God before ordained your good works. What a mighty God we serve!

Paul also expresses man's condition in 2 Cor...

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
That's right, the Gospel was hidden to you. How did you learn it... well, Paul tells us:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
GOD had to open your eyes. You didn't turn to Him in faith, and then see the Gospel. No, God opened your eyes so you could see the Gospel, and so you could turn to Him.

Part 2 of 2

 

This is the only scope of fairness mentioned throughout Scripture?
Col 4:1 Masters, supply your slaves with what is right and fair , since you know that you too have a Master in heaven.
My Master has supplied me and every other human to ever live with the what is right and FAIR...the "supplies". It is man's choice not to have faith which damns.

Eze 18:29 But the house of Israel says: The Lord's way isn't fair. Is it My ways that are unfair, house of Israel? Instead, isn't it your ways that are unfair ?
Man's ways, better read man's choice. Nobody will be without excuse on judgement day, not because God picks and chooses, but because of man's choice to follow or reject Christ.

Let the twisting begin
Spiritually dead = spiritual separation from God. You do not agree? This is fact. This does not mean spiritually unable to choose (spiritually unconscious).

 

It is common sense that by default if God doesn't elect those to hell, He ultimately elects the rest to hell. There is no way of getting around that.</font>[/QUOTE] No. That is neither common sense or the default meaning.

My "election" of my wife was not a default condemnation of all other women.

I have used the illustration and it still holds true: Imagine a fireman goes into a burning crack house where he finds 3 junkies passed out on the floor. The last one who had been conscious had started the fire. All of them were guilty. None of them deserved to be saved any more than any other... especially not at the risk of the fireman's life.

By his own choice, the fireman picks one man up and races from the house just before it collapses. He elected one... but he didn't deserve it. He didn't elect two others... and they didn't deserve it either.

The fireman bears no guilt for the two men that perished. They willfully engaged in sin that they knew could destroy them. The saved man's salvation was not caused by his will nor was it a violation of his will.

God does not "elect" people to hell. All people are headed to hell of their own volition. His stopping some is an act of grace that in no way is deserved... nor does it render Him guilty for not stopping all.

 

webdog said:

This is the only scope of fairness mentioned throughout Scripture?

We aren't talking about "Scripture," but God's justice and mercy as it pertains to soteriology. We weren't discussing the treatment of slaves.

Let the twisting begin

Too late!

Spiritually dead = spiritual separation from God. You do not agree?

Notwithstanding your little three-way equation ("dead" = "separated" = "sick") designed to confuse the issue, someone who is dead isn't sick.

This is fact. This does not mean spiritually unable to choose (spiritually unconscious).

You're right. Dead doesn't mean unconscious, it means dead.

 

Your analogy is weak but to extend it to your position...

If you had the ability to save drunks about to run off a cliff and all you did was "wave" and give them a "chance" to pull over... how could that possibly make you less of a monster?

They've already been given a chance to pull over... just like sinners are given the chance to obey the law. But still, they are driving headlong, willfully toward destruction.

You have made God a hapless, powerless, merciless, graceless flagman who can't save those who won't save themselves first.

 

What is this a direct quote from ("As it is written...")? Psalm 14. This is talking about the "fool...has said in his heart 'there is no God'." In it's proper context, this make perfect sense as if you do not believe there is a God, you surely will not seek him. This does not mean man is not to seek God as He commands...
Amo 5:14 Seek good and not evil so that you may live , and the LORD, the God of Hosts, will be with you, as you have claimed.
Amo 5:15 Hate evil and love good ; establish justice in the gate. Perhaps the LORD, the God of Hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
The proper context of Romans 3 is the "fool". If it's not, then God is a liar as He commands us to seek Him.

 

Perhaps you didn't. Are you arguing that sin is not willful?

Yes. That would make your analogy consistent with your allegation that God elects some to hell. They would like to have salvation but God locked those poor good people into their condemnation. NO!

If they were willfully reckless, disobedient to the Law, and intentionally doing something that they knew was wrong and destructive then- no.

 

...herein lies your problem.

You are confusing the issue by tying the three together. Dead = separated. If you are separated, there obviously is something wrong! This is common sense, no?

Oh really? Spiritually dead means physically dead? Spiritually dead means not being able to make choices...even those God gives us? So when Adam and Eve became "dead", they ceased to make any decisions spiritually throuout their lives? I don't think so. Quit reading the reformers dictionary of what "dead" means.

 

IOW's, words don't mean what they mean or even anything closely paralleling what they mean if the words are contradict your position... right?

I don't know about you but I am not personally confused about the difference between a very sick person and a dead person. It is a fairly concrete distinction. Sick people can be given a medical cure... Dead people require a miraculous resurrection. Salvation is just such a miracle.

 

webdog said:

...herein lies your problem.

Your inability to stick to the specific topic at hand is not my problem, sir.

You are confusing the issue by tying the three together. Dead = separated.

It is you who tied the three together. You claim in one post that "He is spiritually dead, meaning he is spiritually sick" - meaning that dead = sick.

Here in this post, you equate dead with separated.

It is axiomatic that if A=B and A=C, then B=C. Hence, by your own logic, dead is sick is separated.

Do not blame me for your own confusion, sir.

Oh really? Spiritually dead means physically dead?

No, it means spiritually dead. I said nothing about physical death. If you can't keep your terms straight, just say so without trying to change the subject with smoke and mirrors.

Spiritually dead means not being able to make choices.

Wrong again. Unregenerate people make choices all the time. They are incapable of making God-honouring choices because, with respect to God, they are dead.

 

Thanks, JohnP; Now I know two that actually read my Calvinism comments. I assure all that what I've said is completely serious, and I'm not pulling anyone's leg, so I will repeat both for the third and final time, and add a clue. I am not copying and pasting, so the exact words may vary slightly. The first was a question:
#1.) Has anyone considered that Calvin was not a Calvinist and Arminius was not an Arminian?
#2.) There is no real difference between Calvinism, on one hand, and Arminianism on the other in the final analysis. Think about it.
Ed

 

Both the question and the answer affect the other, BTW.
Ed

 

Probably true.

"No real difference" probably goes too far. No effective difference is closer to the truth.

The two points of view IMO differ less on their view of God than of man. Both recognizes that God foreknows who will be saved. I don't know of an Arminian who argues a) that God couldn't effect that outcome if He wished and b) that His foreknowledge could be changed by men. Maybe some do but I haven't seen it.

That's why I have said before that if you are going to take the view of man and starting point that Arminianism takes- open theism is a more logical conclusion. It is the only way man's choice can really be his own without any prior approval from God.

 

EdSutton said:

#1.) Has anyone considered that Calvin was not a Calvinist and Arminius was not an Arminian?

Sure, but at least in the case of Calvin, having done some research into what he believed, I rejected that consideration.

#2.) There is no real difference between Calvinism, on one hand, and Arminianism on the other in the final analysis. Think about it.

Since the five points of the Remonstrants (the Arminians), and the corresponding five points of the Synod of Dort (the Calvinists) are each diametric opposites, it is absurd to say there is no real difference. There is a very great difference.