Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OF AUGUSTINE, FREE WILL, ORIGINAL SIN, GNOSTICISM AND CALVINISM

Such a person departs from the Historic faith that was once delivered to the saints and make up a version that they like, including a god who does what they think He should do.
See, I'm not Calvinist and I don't think God does what we think he should do.
It's unfair to pigeonhole all non-Calvinistic beliefs into one understanding.
 
I agree.
There are different types of grace that are spoken of.
Definitely, some type of grace must be received from God in order to just make us aware of Him, even if nothing else.
From reading on the net, I think I agree with prevenient grace the most.
If I understand it correctly:
God gives to each person enough grace to let Himself be revealed.
Then it's up to us to reply...this is why it's called synergism.
Prevenient grace is not taught in scripture. It is philosophy imposed on scripture, Like when your friend leighton says man is response-able. He thinks he is so clever :coffee
I believe the Perfect tense is the tense that refers to a completed action with ongoing results.

And the Aorist tense is not peculiar to time and has no English equivalent but representing it as a completed, past tense action is usually adequate in English translation.

This for me has been the best explanation of the Greek tenses I've found:

https://ezraproject.com/greek-tenses-explained/

The Perfect tense that you are most likely referring to (not the Aorist tense) is commonly misused to defend an aspect of Calvinism, particularly the 'new' Calvinism, and I use this resource to politely correct people in use of that tense.
The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20)

Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense "transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment." (The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans - Chapter 3)

MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that "Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice. (Borrow Believer's Bible Commentary)

Leon Morris - The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Borrow The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids)

Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."
 
See, I'm not Calvinist and I don't think God does what we think he should do.
It's unfair to pigeonhole all non-Calvinistic beliefs into one understanding.
Good point JB....sometimes we do that very thing not necessarily trying to pigeonhole a person, but labels save time in trying to say much in a short amount of time. I know the non cal in an effort to demonize Calvinism as a belief system often make caricatures that always lead to a hyper Calvinism distortion.
So with any non cal... they are going to be a semi pelagian to some extent. When a Cal zero's in to their position, they tend to shift the goalposts a bit, saying their position is more nuanced than that,
The problem is they have already posted numerous times and revealed what they do or do not understand.
My point is believe God and serve Him with all your strength and what you know now. Then as you grow you modify your view according to truth...not which "team" you are on.
I have seen on this board where a link is offered and a random person will say"oH he is a Calvinist" or that is a "reformed site" before they even read and say...is what is presented biblical and accurate???
 
See, I'm not Calvinist and I don't think God does what we think he should do.
It's unfair to pigeonhole all non-Calvinistic beliefs into one understanding.
What I have noticed over the years is most people are a mix.
On your phone, you have 5 green bars indicating battery strength.
it could be one fifth, or 4 fifths green bars.
With the 5 points as descriptive of the biblical teaching...most non cals like a little bit of the T,
all in on the P [but they say osas], but almost no bars on the L.
weak on the U, or the I 2-3 bars trying to explain it away.
A biblical cal is all in on all five...5 bars
 
What I have noticed over the years is most people are a mix.
On your phone, you have 5 green bars indicating battery strength.
it could be one fifth, or 4 fifths green bars.
With the 5 points as descriptive of the biblical teaching...most non cals like a little bit of the T,
all in on the P [but they say osas], but almost no bars on the L.
weak on the U, or the I 2-3 bars trying to explain it away.
A biblical cal is all in on all five...5 bars
Hmmm ... I like to use the 5 solas as a summary of Reformed theology rather you their TULIP response, though TULIP highlights the differences I suppose. Subjective comment.
.... hmmm, or the difference is Reformed theology is God-centered as opposed to man-centered.
 
Hmmm ... I like to use the 5 solas as a summary of Reformed theology rather you their TULIP response, though TULIP highlights the differences I suppose. Subjective comment.
.... hmmm, or the difference is Reformed theology is God-centered as opposed to man-centered.
Few outside of the Presbyterian know what the five solas are .
 
Prevenient grace is not taught in scripture. It is philosophy imposed on scripture, Like when your friend leighton says man is response-able. He thinks he is so clever :coffee

The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20)

Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense "transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment." (The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans - Chapter 3)

MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that "Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice. (Borrow Believer's Bible Commentary)

Leon Morris - The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Borrow The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids)

Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."
The aorist tense has nothing to do with time, but with an event.
It's not easy for the western mind to comprehend this.

I had posted links to this when we last spoke about this.
It doesn't matter that we understand any Greek at all.
We're having enough problems trying to understand the English.

Yeah, that Flowers,,,he's good.
Has good guests,
speaks intelligently,
knows about John Calvin.
Which is why it's called Calvinism.
 
What I have noticed over the years is most people are a mix.
On your phone, you have 5 green bars indicating battery strength.
it could be one fifth, or 4 fifths green bars.
With the 5 points as descriptive of the biblical teaching...most non cals like a little bit of the T,
all in on the P [but they say osas], but almost no bars on the L.
weak on the U, or the I 2-3 bars trying to explain it away.
A biblical cal is all in on all five...5 bars
Oh. This is so cute!
gettyimages-501204979-170667a.jpg

I love it!

Yes. All Christians believe we are born depraved...but still RESPONSE ABLE to reply to God. (sorry -bout that).
The P is different from OSAS. Think about it.
Some Cals don't believe in the L. Talk about talking away sovereignty from God !
The U. We, on this side, all HATE the U. So I don't agree with you on that one.
And it's REALLY EASY to "explain away".
In fact, it's the reason we have the NT !!
:)
 
Good point JB....sometimes we do that very thing not necessarily trying to pigeonhole a person, but labels save time in trying to say much in a short amount of time. I know the non cal in an effort to demonize Calvinism as a belief system often make caricatures that always lead to a hyper Calvinism distortion.
So with any non cal... they are going to be a semi pelagian to some extent. When a Cal zero's in to their position, they tend to shift the goalposts a bit, saying their position is more nuanced than that,
The problem is they have already posted numerous times and revealed what they do or do not understand.
My point is believe God and serve Him with all your strength and what you know now. Then as you grow you modify your view according to truth...not which "team" you are on.
I have seen on this board where a link is offered and a random person will say"oH he is a Calvinist" or that is a "reformed site" before they even read and say...is what is presented biblical and accurate???
Nice post.
I've used QotQuestions, but hey, it IS a reformed site.
But if it's good, it's good.
Sometimes Desiring God is good, but it IS a reformed site.
 
I wonder why?
Because the western churches outside of the reformed simply don't teach Sola scriptura.
I wonder why?
Nor Sola fide
What these mean and why

They don't even know why they aren't Catholics .or what the other three are .
Imagine i was a murder in jail and awaiting my execution .

You know this and just say Jesus saw you and fell madly in love with you.

That's the modern western church way of preaching the gospel .

The above was a sign I saw with my wife on the way home from a walk in the woods . I get simple signs but try finding what a church is by faith statements.i had to attend a hundred years old church and ask to really find out what they taught .I wanted to be sure if it was solid enough to raise jaci right should they be the church she went to for guidance .her cousins are buried there in that church cemetery and the former pastor lives next door at the time.

I get simplifying things but the Trinity and the basics are good things .while the church using the five solas or not(btw John Calvin didn't even come up with them it was martin Luther!!!)
Doesn't mean they are not apostate .
 
I don't believe we misrepresent reformed theology.
Well, Iconoclast , atpollard and I sure think you do. I grant that you know more than most Christians about it.

Example: Your recent statement that reform theology believes God is unjust, unloving and unmerciful is off the wall.
Maybe you meant to say that you believe that certain aspects of Reformed theology make you think that said theology is unjust, unloving and unmerciful, but that's not what you said.

But I sure do believe our side (whatever it's called) is constantly misrepresented.
Probably so. Your side's theology is not organized. There is much variance in opinion. You can't point out a place that details your doctrines. IF you are a Roman Catholic, which seems possible to me, then I grant RCs, like the Reform people have organized doctrines that can be studied.

I've used QotQuestions, but hey, it IS a reformed site.
I disagree, though they lean that way heavily. I've seen a Gotquestion answer saying they were 4-pointers (not that TULIP is only measurement, but it is easiest one). Another answer said they were on the fence on the 5th point.
They often mention varying opinions and then give their opinion. They almost always refer to scripture which is a Reformed trait.
Iconoclast atpollard .... You guys familiar with Gotquestions.org and if so, would you say it is a REFORMED site?
 
Oh. This is so cute!
View attachment 14902

I love it!

Yes. All Christians believe we are born depraved...but still RESPONSE ABLE to reply to God. (sorry -bout that).
The P is different from OSAS. Think about it.
Some Cals don't believe in the L. Talk about talking away sovereignty from God !
The U. We, on this side, all HATE the U. So I don't agree with you on that one.
And it's REALLY EASY to "explain away".
In fact, it's the reason we have the NT !!
:)
The doctrine of depravity came about with Augustine. There is no support in scripture for God viewing babies or small children as depraved which means void of all morals. We are not born depraved. That doctrine is the foundation stone for Calvinism and was probably born out of the Gnostics. I personally think is smacks of something the Accuser of the Brethren would say.
 
Well, Iconoclast , atpollard and I sure think you do. I grant that you know more than most Christians about it.

Example: Your recent statement that reform theology believes God is unjust, unloving and unmerciful is off the wall.
Maybe you meant to say that you believe that certain aspects of Reformed theology make you think that said theology is unjust, unloving and unmerciful, but that's not what you said.
No Calvinist is going to admit that their belief that God sends some to Hell without any hope MEANS he is unjust. That theology says so but no Calvinist is going to admit it. Now, do you believe God predestines some for Hell and some for Heaven or not?
Probably so. Your side's theology is not organized. There is much variance in opinion. You can't point out a place that details your doctrines.
We just don't have a label and what is more, we are more tolerant. The history of Calvin is one of terrible intolerance. And not all Calvinists agree or do you think you all do?
 
The doctrine of depravity came about with Augustine. There is no support in scripture for God viewing babies or small children as depraved which means void of all morals. We are not born depraved. That doctrine is the foundation stone for Calvinism and was probably born out of the Gnostics. I personally think is smacks of something the Accuser of the Brethren would say.
Moses and all wrote scripture taught it like here; Gen6
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
looks like depravity to me, or Solomon;
3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea,
also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

As a rule those who do not understand the fall, go for false theology as we see a few here are eager to follow stories
 
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
looks like depravity to me, or Solomon;
3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea,
also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

As a rule those who do not understand the fall, go for false theology as we see a few here are eager to follow stories
They don't start out that way:

13while evil men and imposters go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 2 Timothy 3:13

You don't become a slave to sin until you sin:

16Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:16
 
They don't start out that way:

13while evil men and imposters go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 2 Timothy 3:13

You don't become a slave to sin until you sin:

16Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:16
psalm51

5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
psalm58

3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
 
Back
Top