The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

I've answered every question you have asked me.

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

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

 

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.

 

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...

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.

Thanks. I'll look for it after church

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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."

 

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

 

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

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.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Same as above.

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

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

You don't understand regeneration before belief?


Does regeneration necessarily precede conversion?

By Thomas R. Schreiner