Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Hmmm, and who might the Calvinists be here? Does anyone here claim to be a Calvinist?

I am glad for my Arminian brothers in the Lord who know of the grace of God.

GolfJack, your post seems fairly simple to refute. Colossians 2:13 is about salvation, not election to be the Jewish remnant.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I love that verse. :-D It spells it right out in the same vein we were just talking about. When Paul says “through sanctification of the Spirit†he is talking about the Holy Spirit’s process of cleansing all those who repent and confess their sin and his leading them in the right ways of God, which naturally sets them apart from those who live ungodly in the world. When he says “belief of the truthâ€Â, he means the ones who believe the truth set forth by Christ and live according to that belief. These were chosen by God in that they have become part of the elect by these things that they do and have experienced through the Spirit. As GraceBwithU put it, “Paul is actually talking about God's promise of eternal life to the church or the elect. He is not talking about individuals. or who the elect would be.
God promised this before the world began to whosoever would believe i His son.â€Â

 

[Devekut]

Your statement above misses the terrible rebellion of sin. It minimizes the offense of our sins in the sight of God. Our sin was so bad, the wrath of God had to be poured out, and there was nothing of sufficient value to take our place but the very blood of the Son of God.

See...

I feel that Calvinism actually minmizes the offense of sin. If Adam's sin has rendered us incapable to even raise our poor, tired and sinful eyes to God and simply say "yes, I accept your grace" then sin has become this impersonal abstract force of which human beings are just the passive tools.

How am I, as an individual, in real rebellion against God if that rebellion occurs fully outside of my own volition? I am not in rebellion against God, whatever is inside me controling me is in rebellion. Calvin, being a lawyer, should know the importance of the mens rea, the guilty mind.

If I have the ability to turn to God and accept his saving grace from the power of sin...but then choose not to, surely I am much more culpable than the man who never had that choice to begin with.

 

[mondar]

Your statement above misses the terrible rebellion of sin. It minimizes the offense of our sins in the sight of God. Our sin was so bad, the wrath of God had to be poured out, and there was nothing of sufficient value to take our place but the very blood of the Son of God.

See...

I feel that Calvinism actually minmizes the offense of sin. If Adam's sin has rendered us incapable to even raise our poor, tired and sinful eyes to God and simply say "yes, I accept your grace" then sin has become this impersonal abstract force of which human beings are just the passive tools.

How am I, as an individual, in real rebellion against God if that rebellion occurs fully outside of my own volition? I am not in rebellion against God, whatever is inside me controling me is in rebellion. Calvin, being a lawyer, should know the importance of the mens rea, the guilty mind.

If I have the ability to turn to God and accept his saving grace from the power of sin...but then choose not to, surely I am much more culpable than the man who never had that choice to begin with.

Devekut,
The doctrine you espouse has long ago been espoused long ago by a man named Pelagius. It is condemned as heretical by both Rome and Protestants. Romans 5:19 is clear that we were all made sinners because Adam was our federal head. In other words, Romans 5 is saying we all sinned in Adam.

 

[mondar]

quote by mondar:
Hmmm, and who might the Calvinists be here? Does anyone here claim to be a Calvinist?

I am glad for my Arminian brothers in the Lord who know of the grace of God.

GolfJack, your post seems fairly simple to refute. Colossians 2:13 is about salvation, not election to be the Jewish remnant.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I love that verse. :-D It spells it right out in the same vein we were just talking about. When Paul says “through sanctification of the Spirit†he is talking about the Holy Spirit’s process of cleansing all those who repent and confess their sin and his leading them in the right ways of God, which naturally sets them apart from those who live ungodly in the world. When he says “belief of the truthâ€Â, he means the ones who believe the truth set forth by Christ and live according to that belief. These were chosen by God in that they have become part of the elect by these things that they do and have experienced through the Spirit. As GraceBwithU put it, “Paul is actually talking about God's promise of eternal life to the church or the elect. He is not talking about individuals. or who the elect would be.
God promised this before the world began to whosoever would believe in His son.â€Â

By the way, many of you are not even close to Arminianism, but are outright pelagians.

Nevertheless, the point I was making by my reference to 2nd Thes 2:13 is that it is impossible to say that all references to election in the bible are about Israels election. or the election of the remnant.

Also, I see your misunderstanding of the text. You think the dual phrase "in sanctification in the Holy Spirit and belief of truth" is a modifier of the word "chosen." This is a grammatical mistake. It modifies the word salvation.

Salvation includes the action of sanctification, and belief in truth. Election is based upon Gods choice.

 

[francisdesales]

The doctrine you espouse has long ago been espoused long ago by a man named Pelagius. It is condemned as heretical by both Rome and Protestants. Romans 5:19 is clear that we were all made sinners because Adam was our federal head. In other words, Romans 5 is saying we all sinned in Adam.

Mondar,

Here is another common Calvinist mistake... They don't know what Pelagianism is. If you are going to use the definition, you need to learn what it means, just as in total depravity.

Pelagianism is the denial of original sin and God's grace that is necessary to overcome that sin. It is not about man having absolutely no ability to raise their minds in desire to a higher power. That is the error invented by those who cannot accept synergy.

"Pelagius denied the primitive state in paradise and original sin (cf. P. L., XXX, 678, "Insaniunt, qui de Adam per traducem asserunt ad nos venire peccatum"), insisted on the naturalness of concupiscence and the death of the body, and ascribed the actual existence and universality of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin. As all his ideas were chiefly rooted in the old, pagan philosophy, especially in the popular system of the Stoics, rather than in Christianity, he regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), when steeled by asceticism, as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue. The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Dekut is certainly not "espousing" Pelagianism, that is simply the stock accusation that Calvinists use when they are confronted with synergism - clearly showing that they base their accusations on incorrect definitions. But then again, I don't know anything about Calvinists, nor have I ever addressed this issue before...

Regards

 

[Devekut]

Mondar,

I do not deny original sin, or the deeply wounded nature of man. What original sin has done is to prevent us from every achieving the perfection that God desires for us. It has not destroyed our capacity to turn towards God though it certainly obstructs it, otherwise we would have to argue that the Jews had never turned towards God. I think the clear biblical testament is that the Jews infact co-operated with God and accepted the designation of being his People, although they clearly did so imperfectly.


Because of original sin, what we need to do as human beings is to "raise our poor, tired and sinful eyes to God and simply accept His grace". Through Christ, the stain of original sin is removed and through our co-operation with grace, God will perfect us.

 

[unred typo]

Mondar, I am not a Pelagianist or a pelagian, or an Arminian nor do I need to follow any man but Christ nor read any words but his nor be lead by any spirit except the Holy Spirit. The reason I find I need the assistance of Biblical scholars is to explain the manmade doctrines that they have so profusely “espoused†both today and “long agoâ€Â. If it weren’t for them, life would be a simple affair of loving God and fellow man. The fellowship of other believers of God would be sweet and uninterrupted by bouts of doctrinal disputes. But oh no, good grief and alas. Man feels he must construct a standard to measure every other man to determine his salvation and not follow the measure that Christ gave to each man to evaluate his own standing before God.

(I am going to add clarification to my post here since I see that GraceBwithU has already posted since this one

If this is truly the pelagian view, I do most assuredly disagree with it:

The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace."

The blood of Christ is absolutely necessary to remove our sin on a daily basis, as we repent and confess it as sin. We do have the ability to resist the devil, if we have faith to do so. It is the duty of fellow believers to help others retain that faith, which is the belief and assurance that by keeping the commands of Christ we will be awarded eternal life. We are assured by God himself that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us and that he will not allow us to be tempted above that which we are able to withstand. We are not a dishrag in God’s hands.

The Bible warns us to put the same amount and intensity of human effort into following Christ that we put into following the world, the flesh and the devil, if we are to receive the reward of eternal life. When we have given our all, we must admit we have not given a fraction of what he has given us in return. How could we repay such mercy and grace that the God of all creation would humble himself in Christ as a man and die, giving the blood of his own son for our sin so that we could inherit eternal life? There is no comparison.

 

[GraceBwithU]

By the way, many of you are not even close to Arminianism, but are outright pelagians.

Actually I'm a Christian. I follow Christ not John Calvin our any other man.

Nevertheless, the point I was making by my reference to 2nd Thes 2:13 is that it is impossible to say that all references to election in the bible are about Israels election. or the election of the remnant.

I haven’t ever said this.

"As in the verse below. One must understand that Jesus is talking to His disciples, not the world. They did not choose they were chosen.

John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

These are special individuals chosen here does not pertain to the world.

The "book of life" (elect) is made up of the following:

Chapter one (predestined);

Individuals chosen for the purpose of ordaining God’s plan for salvation, setting up the foundational seeds of Christianity and spreading the gospels.(disciples, John the Baptist, etc)

Individuals such as Moses, writers of the Bible, prophets, etc.

Individuals carrying the seed of the redeemer, ( the seed - Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem…Abraham…Isaac…Jacob…Judah…Jesse…David…Mary…Immanuel-Christ)

Remnant of Israel.

Chapter two (Free will);

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â€Â


God has made his gift of salvation available to all. He may have chosen some for special purposes to insure that His will would be done, but he did not choose any for damnation. He has made it possible for all to freely choose to believe in His son. “for God so loved the WORLD…â€Â

How could God hold some one accountable for their sins, if He gave that person no choice to be saved?

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

I do not deny original sin, or the deeply wounded nature of man. What original sin has done is to prevent us from every achieving the perfection that God desires for us. It has not destroyed our capacity to turn towards God though it certainly obstructs it, otherwise we would have to argue that the Jews had never turned towards God. I think the clear biblical testament is that the Jews infact co-operated with God and accepted the designation of being his People, although they clearly did so imperfectly.


Because of original sin, what we need to do as human beings is to "raise our poor, tired and sinful eyes to God and simply accept His grace". Through Christ, the stain of original sin is removed and through our co-operation with grace, God will perfect us.

You are not viewing original sin in a scriptural way. I notice your phrase "deeply wounded nature of man." This is not the doctrine of original sin. Ephesians 2:1 tells us our nature is worse then deeply wounded, it is dead.
Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

The result of this dead nature is that we are children of wrath.
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

To make the case that we are merely deeply wounded, is not really orthodox theology. Devekut, I believe even your Catholic Theology admits this (feel free to instruct me if I am wrong). If you check the council of Trent, it admits to complete original sin, but then goes on to claim that there is a provenient (sp?) grace that restores man to the place where his free will is again restored. Yet there is not such teaching in the scriptures.

John 6:44 is so very clear. It is impossible to refute. "No man can come to me." The word "can" speaks of ability (Dunamai). No one has the ability to come to Christ. Before one comes to Christ there must be the drawing of the Father.

Even in light of your last statement that man is merely deeply wounded, I cannot withdraw my statement that such a teaching is not orthodox, but Pelagian.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Here is a description of unconditional election. It came from a Calvinist website called The Calvinist Corner.

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

“He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His willâ€Â, any choosing that God may have done was for is kind intention to all mankind, not just a few.

“without any considerationâ€Â, Rubbish, God does nothing without reason.

The word “lovingkindness†appears 26 times in the Bible. In all cases is was speaking of and attribute of God. God is a loving God.

God is sovereign. All evangelical Christians--whether Arminians or Calvinists--have no doubt about this fundamental truth. But how does God express his sovereignty? Is God a master puppeteer, pulling our strings? Or has he graciously given his children freedom to respond to his love?

 

[mondar]

By the way, many of you are not even close to Arminianism, but are outright pelagians.

Actually I'm a Christian. I follow Christ not John Calvin our any other man.

GBWU,
Your statement above is not the deepest statement a person could make. It is a common mistake people make who are not familiar with the theological short-hand that is often used. The moniker "Calvinism" does not refer to a follower of John Calvin. Actually, the term as used today refers to the Synod of Dort. If you read some history, you will understand that even the accrostic TULIP is reactionary. The original Remonstrants were originally part of the reformed Camp, but they protested the common Reformed doctrine on 5 points. The synod of Dort met, and affirmed that all 5 of their points are biblically incorrect. The TULIP acronym is actually a reaction against the 5 statements of the Remonstrants. It is those who agree with the statement of the Synod of Dort that are commonly called Calvinists. The TULIP acronym is probably not the best vocabulary to choose t describe the theology commonly referred to as Calvinism.

Also, Pelagianism and Arminianism are terms used in theological short hand. None of the terms describe a follower of Jacob Arminius, John Calvin, or Pelagius. Arminism is at times called "Semi-Pelagianism." It might make it more difficult to understand what is said when theological short hand is used, but the use of these terms seems to be here to stay.

But it would be a complete misunderstanding of the terms to assume that you are somehow a better Christian because you do not use such terms.

Nevertheless, the point I was making by my reference to 2nd Thes 2:13 is that it is impossible to say that all references to election in the bible are about Israels election. or the election of the remnant.

I haven’t ever said this.

You lost me here. Possibly I attributed a statement to you made by someone else. It does get a little confusing I have so many people who want to argue the points I make.

It might be helpful if you demonstrate how your position differs from others in this conversation.

"As in the verse below. One must understand that Jesus is talking to His disciples, not the world. They did not choose they were chosen.

John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

These are special individuals chosen here does not pertain to the world.

The "book of life" (elect) is made up of the following:

Chapter one (predestined);

Individuals chosen for the purpose of ordaining God’s plan for salvation, setting up the foundational seeds of Christianity and spreading the gospels.(disciples, John the Baptist, etc)

Individuals such as Moses, writers of the Bible, prophets, etc.

Individuals carrying the seed of the redeemer, ( the seed - Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem…Abraham…Isaac…Jacob…Judah…Jesse…David…Mary…Immanuel-Christ)

Remnant of Israel.

Chapter two (Free will);

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â€Â

When I first heard Calvinists say that the world in this text is the elect, it sounded strange to my hears. The word "world" here is not every individual in every place in every time, the word "world" is all kinds of people. The word "world" has different meanings in different contexts. This is obvious, just look at 1 John 2:15. In that context the world is something evil.

One thing that assisted me in understanding this is that the word "whosoever" does not actually occur in the greek text. Every major translation has the word in, but the indefinate relative pronoun is does not occur in an greek text. Actually it is a participle.... "The one who believes"

That might be mumbo-jumbo for you, I dont know. The verse is actually saying that "God love all kinds of people so that the believing ones might have everlasting life."

Notice John 3:18 speaks of the unbelieving ones as condemned already. How can they be condemned already if there is always a change that they can choose God of their own sovereign, libertarian, free will?

God has made his gift of salvation available to all. He may have chosen some for special purposes to insure that His will would be done, but he did not choose any for damnation. He has made it possible for all to freely choose to believe in His son. “for God so loved the WORLD…â€Â

How could God hold some one accountable for their sins, if He gave that person no choice to be saved?[/quote]

Accountability is the great stumbling block of so many. The assumption is that there must be free will to allow for accountability. First, the word free will occurs only with reference to certain sacrifices. Except for this it is not a biblical term. Also, responsibility does not come from free will or the ability to choose, it comes from revelation. Notice in Romans 1:20 that man is "without excuse," not because he has free will, but because God has revealed himself in nature to man.

The assumption that there must be free will or man cannot be responsible, is not a biblical teaching. Man is responsible because of Gods revelation in nature. Please read Romans 1:20 and tell me why man is without excuse.

 

[mondar]

Here is a description of unconditional election. It came from a Calvinist website called The Calvinist Corner.

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

“He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His willâ€Â, any choosing that God may have done was for is kind intention to all mankind, not just a few.

“without any considerationâ€Â, Rubbish, God does nothing without reason.

The word “lovingkindness†appears 26 times in the Bible. In all cases is was speaking of and attribute of God. God is a loving God.

God is sovereign. All evangelical Christians--whether Arminians or Calvinists--have no doubt about this fundamental truth. But how does God express his sovereignty? Is God a master puppeteer, pulling our strings? Or has he graciously given his children freedom to respond to his love?

You failed to understand the quote you pasted. The writer postulated that God chooses not based upon anything in man, but only according to his own free will (Gods). If you disagree with that, it behooves you to state what God saw in man that merited or earned salvation.

 

[Devekut]

Mondar,

"as for you, you were dead in your transgressions" - Ephesians 2:1

It doesn't bother you that the earliest Christians never interpreted this in the Calvinist sense? This has always been acknowledged to indicate the very grave condition of our nature. We are dead in sin because it prevents us from the perfection that God desires, it prevents us from sharing in His Life.

We must remember that virtually all Christians were synergists until the Reformation, yet there was no shortage of understanding how lost humanity was in sin (and of course, continues to be).

We must return to the question, if we are to apply "dead in your transgressions" with such absolutism, then why is that we have retained so many other moral senses? How did we continue to be partially obedient to our consciences? How do we exhibit genuine selflessness and love?

We can not say we are so dead as to be fully incapable of even looking to God, but not so dead as to be kind to stranger and pursue the various moral goods of which God Himself is the source!

 

[GraceBwithU]

Here is a description of unconditional election. It came from a Calvinist website called The Calvinist Corner.

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

“He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His willâ€Â, any choosing that God may have done was for is kind intention to all mankind, not just a few.

“without any considerationâ€Â, Rubbish, God does nothing without reason.

The word “lovingkindness†appears 26 times in the Bible. In all cases is was speaking of and attribute of God. God is a loving God.

God is sovereign. All evangelical Christians--whether Arminians or Calvinists--have no doubt about this fundamental truth. But how does God express his sovereignty? Is God a master puppeteer, pulling our strings? Or has he graciously given his children freedom to respond to his love?

You failed to understand the quote you pasted. The writer postulated that God chooses not based upon anything in man, but only according to his own free will (Gods). If you disagree with that, it behooves you to state what God saw in man that merited or earned salvation.

Actually I did understand what I pasted. I was pointing out that what I pasted was rubbish and goes against everything the Bible teaches us of God...The Fact that the person that wrote this had the lack of presences of mind to mention kind intention of God in the same context that he indicates His cruelty, shows the lack of thought that actually went into creating the T.U.L.I.P.

The god of Calvinism is NOT the God of the Bible.

And furthermore, I never mentioned God choosing man because of is merits to salvation. Here again this statement you have made, demonstrates the blind one-track mind of most Calvinist. Just more assumptions that hold about the same weight that Calvins assunptions of predestination. This man knew less about predestination of the Bible than and teenager.

Any choosing that God did was for a reason, a reason larger than just flipping a coin or choosing all of His elect ahead of time. Those chosen were to insure that is will to mankind would be ordained, that his salvation plan would come to past. That all of is plan would com to past. It is easy to who God chose by name, they all played very important parts in applying God’s will. Joe doe down the street is a fruit of His salvation plan. It is ripened by hearing the gospel and freely accepting to believe in His Son, then is reaped by God’s Grace and election.
:D :D :wink: :-?

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

"as for you, you were dead in your transgressions" - Ephesians 2:1

It doesn't bother you that the earliest Christians never interpreted this in the Calvinist sense? This has always been acknowledged to indicate the very grave condition of our nature. We are dead in sin because it prevents us from the perfection that God desires, it prevents us from sharing in His Life.

We must remember that virtually all Christians were synergists until the Reformation, yet there was no shortage of understanding how lost humanity was in sin (and of course, continues to be).

We must return to the question, if we are to apply "dead in your transgressions" with such absolutism, then why is that we have retained so many other moral senses? How did we continue to be partially obedient to our consciences? How do we exhibit genuine selflessness and love?

We can not say we are so dead as to be fully incapable of even looking to God, but not so dead as to be kind to stranger and pursue the various moral goods of which God Himself is the source!

Devekut,
I must admit I am not a good student of Church history, and do not have the skill to carry on a detailed discussion of the ECFs. On the other hand, I would not say I know nothing. I must admit that I view Romes quotes of Church history and statements by Romanists as suspect. Reading the ECFs is like walking into a book store. There are books from every theological viewpoint under the sun. If you wish me to admit that I think the ECFs often erred, I would be happy to do that. In many ways, I think current commentators have a better understanding of the scriptures then the ECFs.

Furthermore, I do not know exact statements by Augustine, but I expect that most likely he was a monergist.

My view of Ephesians 1 is exegetically and textually based. I think the text stands on its own. The statement that we are dead in sin and truspasses can easily be connected with fallen human nature. Also, the very analogy of dead, can never mean very very sick.

 

[mondar]

Here is a description of unconditional election. It came from a Calvinist website called The Calvinist Corner.

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

“He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His willâ€Â, any choosing that God may have done was for is kind intention to all mankind, not just a few.

“without any considerationâ€Â, Rubbish, God does nothing without reason.

The word “lovingkindness†appears 26 times in the Bible. In all cases is was speaking of and attribute of God. God is a loving God.

God is sovereign. All evangelical Christians--whether Arminians or Calvinists--have no doubt about this fundamental truth. But how does God express his sovereignty? Is God a master puppeteer, pulling our strings? Or has he graciously given his children freedom to respond to his love?

You failed to understand the quote you pasted. The writer postulated that God chooses not based upon anything in man, but only according to his own free will (Gods). If you disagree with that, it behooves you to state what God saw in man that merited or earned salvation.

Actually I did understand what I pasted. I was pointing out that what I pasted was rubbish and goes against everything the Bible teaches us of God...The Fact that the person that wrote this had the lack of presences of mind to mention kind intention of God in the same context that he indicates His cruelty, shows the lack of thought that actually went into creating the T.U.L.I.P.

Can you show me where the person talked about God cruelty? This is something you made up and placed into his comments.

The god of Calvinism is NOT the God of the Bible.

Typical assertions based upon tradition.

And furthermore, I never mentioned God choosing man because of is merits to salvation. Here again this statement you have made, demonstrates the blind one-track mind of most Calvinist.

Your running with the works crowd in this BB. Interesting that you would deny there is merit salvation. Yet if election is based on something God saw in us, then there is some sort of merit salvation. If God chose us based upon some decision we made, we can someday stand before God and claim that while we may not have done so much, at least we made a better decision then this sinner who made the wrong decision.

Faith is the work of God in man, and not the work of man for God.

Just more assumptions that hold about the same weight that Calvins assunptions of predestination. This man knew less about predestination of the Bible than and teenager.

Heh, GBWU, this is so shallow. Rather then engage me in duscussion over the meaning of the word predestination in Romans and Ephesians (I already brought them up) you merely resort to name calling and bad mouthing Calvins knowledge of predestination.

Sigh, I am surprised how little you seem to be grasping of the discussion. Maybe it because I am not the greatest writer. We already went over the use of the term Calvinist, that a Calvinist is not neccessarily one who reads and follows the teachings of John Calvin.

Any choosing that God did was for a reason, a reason larger than just flipping a coin or choosing all of His elect ahead of time. Those chosen were to insure that is will to mankind would be ordained, that his salvation plan would come to past. That all of is plan would com to past. It is easy to who God chose by name, they all played very important parts in applying God’s will. Joe doe down the street is a fruit of His salvation plan. It is ripened by hearing the gospel and freely accepting to believe in His Son, then is reaped by God’s Grace and election.
:D :D :wink: :-?

 

[francisdesales]

My view of Ephesians 1 is exegetically and textually based. I think the text stands on its own. The statement that we are dead in sin and truspasses can easily be connected with fallen human nature. Also, the very analogy of dead, can never mean very very sick.

Another common mistake made by Calvinists and some other Protestants who think that being "dead in sin" means that one CANNOT respond to God.

Being "dead in sin" is a spiritual malady, not a physical one. Yet, I have seen Calvinists use this comparison all the time. They point out that the spiritually dead man is like Lazarus, unable to respond to God at all. This is comparing apples to oranges and incorrectly puts one in the "totally depraved" camp - or is being in the "totally depraved" camp force that theology onto the interpretation of Ephesians 1? I'd choose the later.

As an example of how Jesus taught on this relationship and meaning of being spiritually dead, we should consult Luke 15, as Christ Himself speaks of being dead - spiritually. To understand what "being dead to sin" is, we must understand that we are SPIRITUALLY dead, not PHYSICALLLY dead - and must use THOSE examples that Christ gives us regarding spiritual death.

We all know the story of the Prodigal Son. We all know that the son was not "dead" physically. But Jesus calls the man "dead"

Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight and am no longer worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe and put [it] on him and put a ring on his hand and shoes on [his] feet and bring here the fatted calf and kill [it], and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. Luke 15:21-24

And he said unto him, Son, thou art always with me, and all that I have is thine. It was necessary that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. Luke 15:31-32

THIS is the meaning of being "dead in sin". Not that one cannot return, because obviously, the son DID return. And the Father did not go and retrieve him, according to the story. Being spiritually dead, thus, is quite different than being physically dead. Thus, when we look at Ephesians 1, we should understand that being "dead in sin" does not mean one is as such physically dead, but that one's relationship with God is cut off. That is what being "dead in sin" means. Not that we cannot return to God - but that we are CURRENTLY out of a relationship with God.

Examples from OT and NT...

He that has the Son has life; [and] he that does not have the Son of God does not have life. 1 John 5:12.

We have a relationship with God when we have the Son abiding within us - which we know when we obey the Commandments. If we don't, we do not have the Son within us and we may even be dead in sin - and have not life.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed and keep all my statutes and live according to judgment and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his rebellions that he has committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; by his righteousness that he has done he shall live. Do I desire perchance the death of the wicked? said the Lord GOD, Shall he not live if he should leave his ways? Ez 18:21-23

Again, the wicked CAN turn to God and CAN keep God's commandments by his will and God's grace - and he shall surely live - have a relationship with God. Ezekiel could not mean physical death, because even the rightous physically die. Note, when speaking of spiritual life and death, MAN DOES HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TURN/RETURN TO GOD. We presume that God's graces are involved, but the Scriptures make it crystal clear that man is also involved and is not merely a puppet. Thus, the dreaded and most hated word in the Calvinist dictionary, synergy, is seen, even to a degree before one becomes regenerated.

I would like the Calvinisit to note the last verse, which fits nicely with 1 Tim 2:3 and absolutely refutes that idea that God makes men SPECIFICALLY and ONLY so that He can toss them into hell. Forget about double predestination.

Regards

 

[GraceBwithU]

Hi,

[quote="mondarâ€Â] Can you show me where the person talked about God cruelty? This is something you made up and placed into his comments.[/quote]

The comment is about unconditional election, the theology that God chooses one for salvation and one for condemnation is ignoring Gods lovingkindness and accenting cruelty.

[quote="mondarâ€Â] If God chose us based upon some decision we made, we can someday stand before God and claim that while we may not have done so much, at least we made a better decision then this sinner who made the wrong decision. [/quote]

This is the typical twisting that Calvinists do to the belief in free will. They added your own words and thoughts to the belief.

If you offer a lost and homeless person your protection and assurance of security for ever in your home, and the homeless person accepts it. There is no merit in the homeless person’s decision to accept. The offer and the giving of the security are through your graciousness and mercy, no credit for the gift can be given to the receiver. He could not accept unless offered. If he chooses to accept freely, he is very thankful. He is filled with unbelievable joy. His life has been saved.

Furthermore, let us say that you are running a shelter and there is no limit to your resources. You can shelter any one that wants the shelter. Would you offer it to only some and turn others away even though you had plenty of room? Also, if the person that you offered this, declined, would you force him to come live in the shelter?

God loves the “world†and has offered His shelter to whosoever will believe in His son. God does not love you more than me or me more than you. He offers eternal live to all. But some do not accept it.

[quote="mondarâ€Â] Sigh, I am surprised how little you seem to be grasping of the discussion. Maybe it because I am not the greatest writer. We already went over the use of the term Calvinist, that a Calvinist is not neccessarily one who reads and follows the teachings of John Calvin. [/quote]

Good point. I’m not always the best in explaining things in writing either. I’m much better in person. :D If I have misunderstood you in any way I apologize.

 

[Devekut]

Mondar,

Synergy is by far the norm of early Christian theology. I'm not even aware of writings that oppose it, but there may be some. I think it would certainly lend creedance to your cause if you could demonstrate that "co-operative" grace was not always taught and that there were those amongst the early Christians that taught man had no role in co-operating with God if salvation is to be effected.

In order to deny something so vital to Christian theology throughout the ages as synergism, do you not feel compelled to justify this interpretation in light of actual Christian history? If this can not be done, does it not, in the least, suggest that this Calvinist interpretation might be novel rather than original?

Furthermore, I do not know exact statements by Augustine, but I expect that most likely he was a monergist.

Certainly St. Augustine's writings devalued the capacity of humanity's free-will and brought to extreme attention the depravity of our nature. He was not, however, a mongerist:

"Lord, even at this moment you are delivering from this terrifying abyss the soul who seeks for you and thirsts for your delights, whose heart tells you "I have sought your face; your face Lord I will seek (Psalm26:8)" The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book I (28)


In fact, mongerism completely contradicts the tale of the "Prodigal Son" who is unworthy and debased by greed and yet, by the grace of his father, is accepted to the diner Table because he has returned to repent.

In this story note that the prodigal son repents asking that he even be made a servant. Yet his father throws him a feast!!

This is all that synergism teaches, merely that in order for our salvation to be delivered a repentent heart, a co-operative heart, moved by freedom of will, must be involved.

 

[francisdesales]

Mondar,

Synergy is by far the norm of early Christian theology. I'm not even aware of writings that oppose it, but there may be some. I think it would certainly lend creedance to your cause if you could demonstrate that "co-operative" grace was not always taught and that there were those amongst the early Christians that taught man had no role in co-operating with God if salvation is to be effected.

Mondar is just regurgiating the party line spouted off by Calvinists who clearly are not aware of Church writings or the Bible. The Bible clearly says that man cooperates with God. Here is something I posted to them on another thread - and got no answer there, either.

We are God’s Fellow Workers:

1 Cor 3:8-10 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds

2 Cor 6: 1 As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain.

Phil 2: 12-13 continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Ex 18:3-5 One son was named Gershom, for Moses said, "I have become an alien in a foreign land"; 4 and the other was named Eliezer, for he said, "My father's God was my helper; he saved me from the sword of Pharaoh."

Deut 33:29 Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD ? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword

Ps 27:9 Do not hide your face from me, do not turn your servant away in anger; you have been my helper. Do not reject me or forsake me, O God my Savior.

Ps 118:7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies.

Hos 13:9 "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper.

Heb 13:6 So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"

Jer 18:10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Mat 5:43-47 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Mat 12:35 (Luke 6:45) The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.

3 John 1:11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.


As to early Catholic writings, they are synergistic through and through...

St Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ephraim, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and many other Eastern Catholics believed in cooperation of man with God. That is without doubt. But cooperation and free will were also a feature of the Western Church, as well. Below are some of the many Church Fathers BEFORE the Nicean Council of 325 AD. I certainly did not include every quote they make, (Irenaeus and Justin made a number, as did Hermas) but there is a diversity of figures to show that the West, as well as the East, believed the man had the freedom to choose or reject God.

(I wrote this vs. a Calvinist who thought that the East was the "source" of synergism and that the West was always monergistic. If only he had read something other than a few of Augustine's works)

If then," [he saith,] "man is lord of all the creatures of God and masters all things, cannot he also master these commandments Aye," saith he, "the man that hath the Lord in his heart can master [all things and] all these commandments. But they that have the Lord on their lips, while their heart is hardened, and are far from the Lord, to them these commandments are hard and inaccessible. Therefore do ye, who are empty and fickle in the faith, set your Lord in your heart, and ye shall perceive that nothing is easier than these commandments, nor sweeter, nor more gentle. THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 1.44 (thought to have been written from Rome by the brother of Pope Pius)

In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things, he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. JUSTIN MARTYR: THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN, Chapter 28

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made. JUSTIN MARTYR: THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN --CHAP. 43

God has always preserved freedom, and the power of self-government in man, while at the same time He issued His own exhortations, in order that those who do not obey Him should be righteously judged (condemned) because they have not obeyed Him; and that those who have obeyed and believed on Him should be honoured with immortality IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES, BOOK IV, Chapter 15

(Chapter Heading of "Against Heresies") MEN ARE POSSESSED OF FREE WILL, AND ENDOWED WITH THE FACULTY OF MAKING A CHOICE. IT IS NOT TRUE, THEREFORE, THAT SOME ARE BY NATURE GOOD, AND OTHERS BAD

This expression [of our Lord], "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK IV CHAP. 37

I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the Creator's subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. TERTULLIAN, THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION, BOOK II, Chapter 5

But although we shall be understood, from our argument, to be only so affirming man's unshackled power over his will, that what happens to him should be laid to his own charge, and not to God's, yet that you may not object, even now, that he ought not to have been so constituted, since his liberty and power of will might turn out to be injurious, I will first of all maintain that he was rightly so constituted, that I may with the greater confidence commend both his actual constitution, and the additional fact of its being worthy of the Divine Being; the cause which led to man's being created with such a constitution being shown to be the better one. Moreover, man thus constituted will be protected by both the goodness of God and by His purpose, both of which are always found in concert in our God. For His purpose is no purpose without goodness; nor is His goodness goodness without a purpose …What could be found so worthy as the image and likeness of God? This also was undoubtedly good and reasonable. Therefore it was proper that (he who is) the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of himself; so that this very thing--namely, freedom of will and self-command--might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him. TERTULLIAN: THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION, BOOK II, Chapter 6

That rich man did go his way who had not "received" the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and was abandoned by the Lord to his own opinion. Nor will "harshness" be on this account imputed to Christ, the Found of the vicious action of each individual free-will. "Behold," saith He, "I have set before thee good and evil." Choose that which is good: if you cannot, because you will not--for that you can if you will He has shown, because He has proposed each to your free-will--you ought to depart from Him whose will you do not. TERTULLIAN -- PART THIRD: ON REPENTANCE – Chapter 6. He repeats this paragraph verbatim in MONOGAMY – Chapter 14.

Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God. HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME, THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES, BOOK X Chapter 29

For he who gives precepts for the life, ought to remove every method of excuse, that he may impose upon men the necessity of obedience, not by any constraint, but by a sense of shame, and yet may leave them liberty, that a reward may be appointed for those who obey, because it was in their power not to obey if they so wished;and a punishment for those who do not obey, because it was in their power to obey if they so wished. How then can excuse be removed, unless the teacher should practise what he teaches, and as it were go before and hold out his hand to one who is about to follow? But how can one practise what he teaches, unless he is like him whom he teaches? For if he be subject to no passion, a man may thus answer him who is the teacher: It is my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and weak flesh: it is this which covets, which is angry, which fears pain and death. And thus I am led on against my will; and I sin, not because it is my wish, but because I am compelled. I myself perceive that I sin; but the necessity imposed by my frailty, which I am unable to resist, impels me. What will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things? How will he refute and convict a man who shall allege the frailty of the flesh as an excuse for his faults, unless he himself also shall be clothed with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue? LACTANTIS, THE DIVINE INSTITUTES, Book IV, Chapter 24
-----------
That pretty much covers the major writers of the first few centuries - both the Bible and the first Christians proclaim that God gives man free will and that grace and free will cooperate. What further proof do we need that Christianity is synergistic? It is the poor Calvinist who invents such things to justify their heretical and un-Christian stance regarding the relationship between God and man, one that goes much deeper than a mere legal stance.

With such a diversity of writers proclaiming that man has free will, it is only obstinancy that can explain how someone could continue to hold the Calvinist point of view after seeing the evidence from Christian writers of the first 300 years.

Regards