the gap in calvinism

Even reading your post here, I do not see this gap shown. Where is it? What are you talking about?

 

Calvinism has demonstrated no reluctance to observe that all are condemned as Children of Adam AND all are slaves to sin without Christ.

It has no problem stating (in That context) that God simply arbitrarily selects the elect - the FEW from among the MANY of Matt 7.

Calvinism never makes a claim to "fair" but rather it argues that ONCE we conclude that God is just in condemning lost humanity (and even most Arminians would agree - He is) THEN EVEN if God "claims" to "So Love the World" He doesn't really "have to do it" - it is only "His Word" after all.

Your idea that Calvinism must ignore the lost condition of all mankind as children of Adam - does not follow.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The only "gap" in this debate exists in the Arminian theory that the Lamb of God was a propitiation for the sins of some men who will ultimately be condemned. Of course there are many other gaps in Arminian theology, but time nor space will permit me to expound on the many errors of "free-will."

 

On the contrary - it looks to me as though you have pretty much exhausted the point.

The propitiation (atoning sacrifice) of Christ provides the currency in "suffering" owed by all lost humanity - but God holds application of that currency by His OWN rules - to "Whosoever Will" saying "I STAND at the door and KNOCK if anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door I WILL come IN" Rev 3:21.

The conditions are clear - God is not fire-hosing us with payment of our debt. Rather the blood of Christ - and suffering for our sins is carefully treasured - held for us to claim "IF we CONFESS our sins HE IS faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins AND to CLEANSE us from ALL unrighteousness".

It could not BE any clearer.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I was making a general statement. The Bible declares what it does and that is what we are to believe. There are many who are willing to questino the justice of God because he does not work as they think he should. I did not direct that to you. It was a general statement.

No discussion about what?? About imputing righteousness to the non-elect?? We do not discuss it becuase the Bible does not. If this is the gap you are compalining about, then it is a not a gap in Calvinism but a gap in Scripture. The scriptural discussion on imputation deals with modus operandi, nothing else. Imputation of sin does not require or deserve imputation of righteousness. Paul is only talking about the way that one becomes a sinner and one become righteous. He says that both happen in the same way.

For the non-elects??? What is your point?? As I say, I do not see this gap that you are concerned about. The imputation of sin to the non-elects stems from their being "in Adam." The imputation of righteousness to the elect stems from their being "in Christ." To talk of imputation of righteousness to those who are not "in Christ" is useless. That "gap" is no gap at all.

I don't remember where it has been discussed. Check out books like Schreiner's commentary on Romans, as well as Moo. There are some others as well. Again, I am not sure what you are looking for in terms of "purpose behind imputation of Adam's sin."

 

I wouldn't say that the imputation of righteousness was the purpose of hte imputation of Adam's sin. I don't think that follows. Have you seen someone say this?? I guess I could be convinced but I am not sure that Scripture presents it in terms of purpose.

It means that we are the descendants of Adam, that we are human, and that we have a sin nature passed down in traducianism.

Federal headship is the most reasonable view ... that is that Adam sinned as our federal head and thus sinned for all of us. Some take a seminal headship view that we were in Adam when he sinned, as in more of a genetic connection. Either way, we are sinners because of his sin. Because of that nature, we sin and are guilty of our own sin.

AGain, I am not sure I buy your first statement. Sin was imputed to all men because all are in Adam. That is irrespective of election. In other words, election is an "afterthought" for the purpose of imputation of sin.

Because they are in Adam.

Again, I am not sure what you are looking for here. Scripture does not talk in the terms that you talk of here. I can't recall this "purpose of imputation" becoming an issue though perhaps my mind slips. Where did you come up with this line of questioning? Perhaps a source for your question would help me understand what it is you are looking for.

 

Wrong. Adam made that move when he chose to sin as our federal head.

You are attributing sin to God and that is wrong. You cannot do that. I have already said that I don't buy the "primary reason" issue. They are condemned for their own sins. Read Rev 21:8; Rev 20:11-15, and a host of other passages that describe the condemnation that is brought on men for their own sin.

I don't give the seminally transmitted sin nature. But to the point of the question, yes Scripture makes it clear that everyone is responsible for their own sin and their own condemnation.

I don't buy your whole line of reasoning because I do not see it in Scripture. I am limited by that, rather than driven by the logic that you seem to be putting into this. Scripture declares imputation of sin and the righteousness of God in judgment. That is enough for me.

 

There are many things to point out where Calvinists fall outside the safey-net.

First, they violate the attribute of Divine Justice. He is never partial.

Second, they violate the attribute of Divine Love; because in fact there is no love found in sending sinners to Hell, if they do not have a chance to believe in Jesus.

Thirdly, they violate the attribute of Divine Mercy; Romans 11:32 indicates that the Lord has mercy on all Jews and Gentiles.

Another gap is that man is not totally depraved because then God could not have access to any sinner to change their life. We are tainted with depravity but we are also created in the image of God. [James 3:9]

They create a gap in God's panoply of grace by suggesting that the Lord picks some for eternal destruction without a shimmering of regret, coming from Augustine's understanding of God via the secular philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. To these philosophers God was an impersonal god.

We could go on but this will point to the correction of these errors.

 

You, as usual, have yet to hit one error. You have offered only your own philosophy without true understanding of what Calvinism teaches in a thread dredged up from over a year ago.

 

Pastor Larry,

Really I did not look back on old posts; and as usual you are wrong. Draw up the old post and you compare it for us.

Regards,
Ray

 

Monergist:

Think of it this way. If 'doctor' Berrian were an angel, he would probably be among the 1/3 who rebelled.

He has no idea, none at all, of what Scriptural humility before God is, and what complete, unquestioning, total surrender to God's sovereignty means.

 

It's not surprising. Here is the definition of theology:

1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world
2 a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>
3 : a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

Compare this to Ray's argumens, and you'll see that the irony is staggering.

A theologian is nothing more than a philosopher whose focus is God. Whether or not a theologian uses some scripture in the process, the job of a theologian is not to focus on what scripture says, but to come up with opinions on the attributes of God and make these attributes the central point of their system of belief.

Having established a system of theology, the theologian then re-interprets the scripture through those filters, tossing out whatever doesn't "rhyme" with his definition of God's attributes and re-interpreting whatever is necessary in order to make the scriptures "rhyme" with their concept of God's attributes.

Put more simply, Ray either derived opinions from theology books or conjured up his own opinions (or both) on what constitutes "Divine Justice", "Divine Love", and other "Divine Attributes" of God. Then, having drawing his conclusions about these attributes, he extracted his concept of soteriology from these opinions.

Wherever scripture plainly contradicts these opinions, that scripture must be either rejected or re-interpreted to match the theology.

There are two amazing ironies here. First, Ray has unwittingly adopted the methodology of the very people he criticizes -- Plato and Aristotle, since his soteriology is based on theological philosophy, not scriptural exegesis.

Second, this is the grave error of Popery against which the early reformers protested. Popes decided that it was within their right to redefine the meaning of scripture according to their philosophy, and it was assumed that whatever the Pope said was true, even if it contradicted scripture.

The reformers, Martin Luther in particular, rejected that approach, which led to the catch-phrase "sola scriptura". To put it bluntly, "sola scriptura" means to hell with your theological philosopy - you have no right to impose it upon the scriptures. Let the scriptures, and the scriptures alone, be the final authority on what is true.

In the end, Ray is making the classical Roman Catholic error, all the while claiming that Calvinism is an error that stems from Roman Catholicism. If it weren't so serious an error, it would almost be humorous.

 

No, actually Ray, you are wrong. You dredged up a thread from over a year ago. Look at the date on teh post directly above yours. It is August 04, 2003. That is over a year ago (which is what I said).

 

Ray,

Check your PMs.

Larry

[ August 18, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]