John Reformed
New member
Originally posted by LightSon
Godrulz,
Be vewy careful not to fall for Z trick question.
Once one accepts the plain bible truth that mankind is dead in sin, the Scriptures become a whole lot easier to understand.
Does Calvinism limit God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
Once one accepts the plain bible truth that mankind is dead in sin, the Scriptures become a whole lot easier to understand.
Death= separation. You can be alive and spiritually and morally dead. It is a metaphor, not a literal analogy that leads to 'total depravity'. Spiritual death does not mean we have no personality (will, intellect, emotions). We cannot save ourselves, but that does not mean that we do not have a God-shaped vacuum that is restless and seeks to fill the void until we encounter God (Augustine).
Ephesians 1:5 is about corporate, not individual election. He does not arbitrarily save some and damn others. He wants all to be part of the Body of Christ. If they are not, it is because they refused His will and plan for them (God is loving, not a Dictator).
Last edited:
John:
The atonement accomplished everything that God intended. It was PROVISION for the salvation of all men.
He also created a world where He valued love, free will, personality, and relationships. The downside to this is the possibility and risk that not all would be reconciled and some would 'hate God' to the end. This grieves God and breaks His heart. I would not call this a failure on God's part. He did everything He could, within His chosen parameters, to redeem man.
He is not the only moral agent in the universe i.e. Satan, demons, man. Is the fall of Lucifer and Adam a failure on God's part? Or is it a possibility (not a certainty) inherent in the type of creation God chose to create (vs robots, Dicatator)?
The failure is on OUR part, not God's.
Both our views end up with precious people separated from Him unnecessarily forever. The cure for spiritual cancer and death itself was freely available for whomsoever will. God did not just chose a handful to demonstrate mercy on, and chose the majority to perish as a contrast?! This is odious (do not spiritualize it into the sovereign will of God) and insults the clear revelation of His character and ways. One view distorts the great heart of God. The other supports Scripture and reality that man can be stupid and selfish to the point of eternal ruin, despite the roadblocks of the cross and the love and power of God.
I would suggest the Calvinistic 'blueprint' world view is much more problematic than the 'warfare model' Jesus demonstrated about the Kingdom of God in His ministry (and He is the full revelation of the character and ways of God the Father). i.e. God created everything very good and He intended it to be paradise forever. We messed up big time to the point that God regretted making man (grieved...change in His disposition) and was going to wipe us out...But Noah found favor...
In the fullness of time Jesus came to oppose sin, sickness, and evil (including Satan). He did not affirm the chaos of the planet as the sovereign will of God. He died and rose again assuring the victory. The final victory will be achieved when He returns to set up His eternal kingdom. In the meantime, many will perish, contrary to the will and heart of God. God did not fail. It is a consequence of the wise and loving way God chose to create the universe. The alternative would be to have robots. Could God not have created a perfect world? He did! The possibility of sin and 'failure' was inherent in creation (unless love and free will would be sacrificed, a world less glorious and wise).
God Rules! We rebel. He will be vindicated.
The atonement accomplished everything that God intended. It was PROVISION for the salvation of all men.
He also created a world where He valued love, free will, personality, and relationships. The downside to this is the possibility and risk that not all would be reconciled and some would 'hate God' to the end. This grieves God and breaks His heart. I would not call this a failure on God's part. He did everything He could, within His chosen parameters, to redeem man.
He is not the only moral agent in the universe i.e. Satan, demons, man. Is the fall of Lucifer and Adam a failure on God's part? Or is it a possibility (not a certainty) inherent in the type of creation God chose to create (vs robots, Dicatator)?
The failure is on OUR part, not God's.
Both our views end up with precious people separated from Him unnecessarily forever. The cure for spiritual cancer and death itself was freely available for whomsoever will. God did not just chose a handful to demonstrate mercy on, and chose the majority to perish as a contrast?! This is odious (do not spiritualize it into the sovereign will of God) and insults the clear revelation of His character and ways. One view distorts the great heart of God. The other supports Scripture and reality that man can be stupid and selfish to the point of eternal ruin, despite the roadblocks of the cross and the love and power of God.
I would suggest the Calvinistic 'blueprint' world view is much more problematic than the 'warfare model' Jesus demonstrated about the Kingdom of God in His ministry (and He is the full revelation of the character and ways of God the Father). i.e. God created everything very good and He intended it to be paradise forever. We messed up big time to the point that God regretted making man (grieved...change in His disposition) and was going to wipe us out...But Noah found favor...
In the fullness of time Jesus came to oppose sin, sickness, and evil (including Satan). He did not affirm the chaos of the planet as the sovereign will of God. He died and rose again assuring the victory. The final victory will be achieved when He returns to set up His eternal kingdom. In the meantime, many will perish, contrary to the will and heart of God. God did not fail. It is a consequence of the wise and loving way God chose to create the universe. The alternative would be to have robots. Could God not have created a perfect world? He did! The possibility of sin and 'failure' was inherent in creation (unless love and free will would be sacrificed, a world less glorious and wise).
God Rules! We rebel. He will be vindicated.
Epinephrine is a provision to help save people from cardiac arrest. It is efficacious IF and WHEN it is used. It does not work if it is not injected. The problem is not with the epinephrine, it is with the person giving or receiving it. Pardon me for this limited, flawed analogy...but...
The atonement is efficacious only if we receive Christ (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3; I Jn.; Romans, etc.). IF we reject the Gospel to the end, the remedy does not apply. We have not met the conditions of salvation, even though the atonement itself was effective in making salvation possible.
Salvation is a free gift. We need to receive the free gift for it to be ours. Relationship, the heart of salvation, must be freely entered into and maintained. The loving God does not 'rape' people forcing Himself on them. Regrettably (and yet the wisdom of God), man can reject the antidote to sin and death. His resurrection is glorious, but some chose to hate God at the expense of their souls. Calvinism is a convoluted attempt to rationalize how God can be in 'control' and yet have so many perish (which could not be the true desire of any benevolent being...I know, no one is worthy, but think about it...)
The atonement is efficacious only if we receive Christ (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3; I Jn.; Romans, etc.). IF we reject the Gospel to the end, the remedy does not apply. We have not met the conditions of salvation, even though the atonement itself was effective in making salvation possible.
Salvation is a free gift. We need to receive the free gift for it to be ours. Relationship, the heart of salvation, must be freely entered into and maintained. The loving God does not 'rape' people forcing Himself on them. Regrettably (and yet the wisdom of God), man can reject the antidote to sin and death. His resurrection is glorious, but some chose to hate God at the expense of their souls. Calvinism is a convoluted attempt to rationalize how God can be in 'control' and yet have so many perish (which could not be the true desire of any benevolent being...I know, no one is worthy, but think about it...)
John Reformed
New member
The problem lies in the heart of man. It's desires are opposed to faith on Christ. It is a heart of stone. Man is a slave to sin. Slaves are not free to choose.
It is all so plain that I feel silly having to point these facts out!
I thought you guys do not believe that total depravity means as bad as you can possibly be with no ability.
Augustine's Bondage of the Will comes out of his own failure to overcome the flesh. Its TULIP ideas do not come out of Scripture.
God would not command us to repent, believe, and obey if it was absolutely impossible to respond with our will, intellect, and emotions to His conviction, love, truth, and Gospel. He energizes our will and intellect as we concurrently respond resulting in a climax of repentance, faith, and regeneration. Salvation is of God, but that does not mean we are merely passive recipients of regeneration whether we want to live for Him or not. He is a gentleman who does everything possible for our best interests (love). This does not mean He violates us and gives no consideration to how we respond to truth and light. Love, not a legal transaction.
Augustine's Bondage of the Will comes out of his own failure to overcome the flesh. Its TULIP ideas do not come out of Scripture.
God would not command us to repent, believe, and obey if it was absolutely impossible to respond with our will, intellect, and emotions to His conviction, love, truth, and Gospel. He energizes our will and intellect as we concurrently respond resulting in a climax of repentance, faith, and regeneration. Salvation is of God, but that does not mean we are merely passive recipients of regeneration whether we want to live for Him or not. He is a gentleman who does everything possible for our best interests (love). This does not mean He violates us and gives no consideration to how we respond to truth and light. Love, not a legal transaction.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Godrulz,
No, total depravity does not mean we are as bad as we can possibly be. It does mean we are without ability to do good, to repent or believe on our own.
Doesn't God command people to love him with all their heart, too? And is this also possible for spiritually dead men? We can't obey any of the commands of God without his power, and even as believers, we still make no contribution to our righteous deeds.
1CO 4:7 What do you have that you did not receive?
Scripture does give passive pictures of regeneration, though:
TIT 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit...
A baby is completely passive when it is being born or washed.
COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins...
But how can a dead person love or respond? First a resurrection is needed. And that doesn't violate people.
Blessings,
Lee
No, total depravity does not mean we are as bad as we can possibly be. It does mean we are without ability to do good, to repent or believe on our own.
Doesn't God command people to love him with all their heart, too? And is this also possible for spiritually dead men? We can't obey any of the commands of God without his power, and even as believers, we still make no contribution to our righteous deeds.
1CO 4:7 What do you have that you did not receive?
Scripture does give passive pictures of regeneration, though:
TIT 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit...
A baby is completely passive when it is being born or washed.
COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins...
But how can a dead person love or respond? First a resurrection is needed. And that doesn't violate people.
Blessings,
Lee
Titus 3:5 does not support infant baptism. The Bible teaches believer's baptism.
If we give a cup of water in the name of Jesus for His glory and the good of man (motive= love vs selfishness), this has merit (not for salvation, but reward/works). It is our will, intellect, and emotions that actually give the cup.
Though salvation is of God, He still calls us to freely surrender and be willing to change our ultimate intention from living for self to living for God and others. The Bible then exhorts us to make obedient choices (with the Spirit's help). i.e. if we used to murder and rob, it is in our power to not shoot people with a gun or mug people for money. It is irrational to think all moral or sinful choices are foisted on us by God (I assume you really do not believe this).
Scripture does not portray salvation and surrender in a love relationship as a unilateral thing.
God does make us alive, but this happens when we bow our knees in surrender. The metaphor of being dead/separated in our sins simply does not mean we have no will. God impartially draws all men and would save everyone if it would be wise and just to do so (this is the heart and character of God revealed in Scripture). The fact that not all are saved shows that our wills are a factor in the equation.
If we give a cup of water in the name of Jesus for His glory and the good of man (motive= love vs selfishness), this has merit (not for salvation, but reward/works). It is our will, intellect, and emotions that actually give the cup.
Though salvation is of God, He still calls us to freely surrender and be willing to change our ultimate intention from living for self to living for God and others. The Bible then exhorts us to make obedient choices (with the Spirit's help). i.e. if we used to murder and rob, it is in our power to not shoot people with a gun or mug people for money. It is irrational to think all moral or sinful choices are foisted on us by God (I assume you really do not believe this).
Scripture does not portray salvation and surrender in a love relationship as a unilateral thing.
God does make us alive, but this happens when we bow our knees in surrender. The metaphor of being dead/separated in our sins simply does not mean we have no will. God impartially draws all men and would save everyone if it would be wise and just to do so (this is the heart and character of God revealed in Scripture). The fact that not all are saved shows that our wills are a factor in the equation.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Godrulz,
I agree! I was saying that the Scripture pictures salvation (for every believer) as a baby being born and washed, in which picture the baby is completely passive.
No merit is ours, though, I think:
RO 4:2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God.
I think here Paul is saying that even if Abraham could have earned salvation through works, even then he still couldn't have done any boasting.
I think believers have a choice:
GAL 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature...
But not unbelievers! Now I wouldn't say "foisted on us by God." But part of his plan, yes, I would say that, part of his plan for good:
GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.
I would say that it does, though:
2TI 2:26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Here is a verse that I would mention to you:
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
Now however you define the group "all Israel", it appears here that God has a definite group in mind, who will all believe and be saved. But how is that possible, if this depends on free will choices?
Also, this verse:
JN 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
"Draw" here is a very strong word:
JN 21:11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it.
This is the same word used in all these verses, which does not mean just invitation or attraction, there is no chance of refusal, here, actually!
Blessings,
Lee
I agree! I was saying that the Scripture pictures salvation (for every believer) as a baby being born and washed, in which picture the baby is completely passive.
No merit is ours, though, I think:
RO 4:2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God.
I think here Paul is saying that even if Abraham could have earned salvation through works, even then he still couldn't have done any boasting.
I think believers have a choice:
GAL 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature...
But not unbelievers! Now I wouldn't say "foisted on us by God." But part of his plan, yes, I would say that, part of his plan for good:
GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.
I would say that it does, though:
2TI 2:26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Here is a verse that I would mention to you:
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
Now however you define the group "all Israel", it appears here that God has a definite group in mind, who will all believe and be saved. But how is that possible, if this depends on free will choices?
Also, this verse:
JN 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
"Draw" here is a very strong word:
JN 21:11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it.
This is the same word used in all these verses, which does not mean just invitation or attraction, there is no chance of refusal, here, actually!
Blessings,
Lee
As we continually make sinful choices, this leads to habits, character, and ultimately destiny. A baby starts out innocent (I do not believe in Augustinian original sin). Through life we all chose to live for the flesh creating a bondage. In the extreme, the devil can have authority to bind some people as a consequence. 2 Timothy is not a proof-text that all humans are bound directly by Satan (there are not enough demons to go around, nor is it necessary when we are so rebellious on our own, thank you). Paul referred to a specific group that had degenerated to that point. James 1 makes it clear that it is our evil desire (not God's predestination or Satan's control) that leads to temptation, sin, and death.
John Reformed
New member
Well...now I know where your coming from. Your a pelagian; an adherent to a doctrine that the church has for centurys deemed heretical! I urge you most strongly to examine yourself and what it is that you believe.
What does this tell us about about mankind? Does it not demonstrate our natural propensity to love evil? Every single child of Adam, has chosen to rebel against their Creator. One would have thought that, out of the uncounted billions of humans, at least one would have remained loyal!
Wake up sleeper! You pretend to know what is
unknowable: "there are not enough demons to go around"; "Paul referred to a specific group". Where do you get these ideas?
No one is saying that God or Satan may be blamed for our sinning.
I know that it is my own fault when I give into temptation. I also know that, to resist temptation, grace must be given me to stand against it. By grace I have been saved and by grace I will perservere to the end.
Jam 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
You can't get any plainer than the verse above. By God's will we are born again, and by His grace we are firstfruits (to take away the firstfruits of the productions of the earth which was offered to God. The first portion of the dough, from which sacred loaves were to be prepared. Hence term used of persons consecrated
to God for all time.). (Stongs Concordance)
Lucifer and Adam did not have a sin nature, yet they sinned as an act of the will. I believe we form a nature by wrong moral choices. There is nothing back of the will lodged in our physical body inherited from Adam that makes us sin (if there was, we would not be responsible or blameworthy).
Do we sin because we are sinners (Augustinian original sin)?
Or, are we sinners because we sin (I think this is more Scriptural...a few proof texts aside)?
When we are babies we act like the King. Everyone and everything caters to us because we dependent and self-centered. The problem is that as we grow, we still egotistically live in the Kingdom of Self. We are used to the desires of our flesh being satisfied. We live like we are #1 in the universe, rather than God. The desires of the flesh dominate us. Our motives, thoughts, and actions fall short of God's holy perfection. We have a physical depravity, living in a fallen world, that predisposes us (not causes us) to live in the flesh. We are not inherently morally depraved, but are born innocent having no moral choices for or against us. Adam is responsible for his own sin, as are we (though the consequences of the Fall affected the entire planet and humanity).
We do not need anyone to teach us to sin. We naturally chose a selfish life, apart from a knowledge of or surrender to God. When the Spirit convicts us and we understand the person and work of Christ, we can mock God and persist in rebellion or we can take a baby step and say: "Lord have mercy on me a sinner...Just as I am without one plea...Lord, I come to thee". When we give up and invite God to invade our life, He comes in and transforms us. If we are not WILLING to repent and obey, He will wait until we are. If He forced Himself on us, this would violate love, freedom, justice, holiness, relationships, etc.
So, the fact that Lucifer and Adam sinned from a state of perfection without a preexisting 'sin nature" (NIV translation is actually 'flesh' in the Greek== sin nature is a preconceived Catholic theology...the Federal Headship of Adam THEORY), is a precedent to prove that we do not need a physical nature to cause us to sin. We can sin because we can love and obey. We cannot blame it on God, the devil, or Adam. "The soul that sins is the one that will die." = Ezekiel
As we give into the flesh over the years, a sinful nature is formed where it is easier to live for self than even consider living for God. When we have a climatic renunciation of Self and repent and declare Him Lord of my life (not just the universe), our lives are changed and Christ is now King instead of King Baby-Self.
John:
I believe Pelagius has been misrepresented at times. I do not agree with some of his heresies.
If you want to label me, try "semi-Pelagian" or more Wesleyan-Arminian (are they heretics too because they are not Calvinistic?)
Charles G. Finney was one of the greatest revivalist and thinkers ever. God mightily used him in great revivals seeing thousands swept into the kingdom with fruit that remained. This was in an era where Calvinists were ineffective and impotent due to their theology (they were a dead church unable to bring life to the dying). Being a lawyer, he cogently exegeted Scripture showing where Calvinism distorted the plain teaching of Scripture. He developed a biblical theology that rightly understood what sin is, what the atonement accomplished, etc. He passionately preached the Gospel and the power of God changed lives. In contrast, the Calvinists were passive thinking the heathen were not converted because God did not want to. There where some Calvinists (?Whitefield) who did see results. John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, etc. might have different theologies, but were effective evangelists.
It is possible to be a Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist and love God and the lost and be effective for God. I think some theologies though, can lead to ineffectiveness or false conversions.
I believe Pelagius has been misrepresented at times. I do not agree with some of his heresies.
If you want to label me, try "semi-Pelagian" or more Wesleyan-Arminian (are they heretics too because they are not Calvinistic?)
Charles G. Finney was one of the greatest revivalist and thinkers ever. God mightily used him in great revivals seeing thousands swept into the kingdom with fruit that remained. This was in an era where Calvinists were ineffective and impotent due to their theology (they were a dead church unable to bring life to the dying). Being a lawyer, he cogently exegeted Scripture showing where Calvinism distorted the plain teaching of Scripture. He developed a biblical theology that rightly understood what sin is, what the atonement accomplished, etc. He passionately preached the Gospel and the power of God changed lives. In contrast, the Calvinists were passive thinking the heathen were not converted because God did not want to. There where some Calvinists (?Whitefield) who did see results. John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, etc. might have different theologies, but were effective evangelists.
It is possible to be a Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist and love God and the lost and be effective for God. I think some theologies though, can lead to ineffectiveness or false conversions.
Swordsman
New member
Who's will? God's or man's?
Book, chapter, verse please?
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
And no, this wasn't a quote by Augustine, it was from Paul the apostle to the church of Ephesus chapter 2 verses 1-3.
Scriptural? Book, chapter, verse please.
So why do we all chose sin over God? Can we control it? Does sin seem to have a natural feeling to us, or is it just a mere arbitrary choice to commit on our part? And furthermore, why is it so hard for us to stop sinning?
Z Man
New member
In other words, all Finney did was speak powerful words that gave people the goosebumps, i.e., more "alive". His preaching was based on feelings and emotions, not Scripture. And so is the theology he believed in and all those who support his views. If it doesn't feel good, or if you go to a church and don't get goosebumps, then it is concluded that God is not in that church.
Sickening.... :down:
John Reformed
New member
Which of his hereseys do you agree with (Aside from the supposed innonency of Adams seed)?
Your rejection of "original sin" puts you on the outside both of those camps.
It is typical of free willists to view salvation as the ultimate conclusion of God's work of creation. But it is not; It is the penultimate! The ultimate is the glory which He shall recieve from His creatures and the creation itself.
It is my contention that Open Theism, as well as all seriously flawed theologies, diminish that glory due Him. They do so by forcing the Scripture to say other than it actually does. You would have us to believe that God, Omniscient and Omnipresent, is ignorant of things that are yet to occur; That He is limited by the unknown!
I am happy to say that my God is greater than I can think or imagine. His ways are not my ways and His thoughts are infinitely higher than my own. It is a pity that you are striving to create an image of God that will appeal to human vanity.
I'm sure that your theology would have been well recieved at the Acropolis. He would fit in with the rest of the crowd on Mount Olympus.
I have tempered my thoughts in the hope that you will not be provoked by them. I believe you are well-meaning, but, decieved by the spirit of this age.
John