The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[Malachi]

That would be similar to why God commanded ALL His people the law of works to obey and live(Lev 18:5), when He had No plans to save any of them through the law(Gal 3:21), and when none could possibly obey the law (Gal 3:10).

So what you are claiming is that the Gospel call is in effect a sham.

 

[Chopper]

Actually it goes beyond that (defined in Theopedia and other sources):


As a consequence, Calvinists believe that people are regenerated BEFORE they believe. The Bible teaches the opposite (Jn 1:12,13).

Very good my friend. I am a Calvinist as long as his theology is in line with the Word of God. Unfortunately, there is missing in his teachings the ability for those who are not of the "elect" to become a child of God using their "free will". As you know, my doctrine of Salvation includes a "General Call Of The Gospel" which allows anyone to decide to follow Jesus or reject Him.

I find the theory of some Calvinists who believe that people are regenerated BEFORE they believe, to be utterly stupid and false. I believe that all those of Whom God elects to be saved, must at one time in their lives, surrender to the call of the Holy Spirit to repent of their sins, believe on Jesus Christ by faith, be baptized, and live holy and acceptable to our Master Owner, Jesus, the Christ of God.

The only thing that the "elect" have that others don't, is a guarantee to be saved at some time in their life, and to persevere until the end.

 

[ivdavid]

So what you are claiming is that the Gospel call is in effect a sham.

That would be your claim if you've similarly concluded that God giving the Law was in effect a sham.

 

[The_Epsicle]

We're getting off topic everyone, we weren't discussing predestination as per the OP which appears to have been edited recently so I'd ask you all take a look at it. Lets keep on topic, avoid referring to others ideas as a sham(even though they may very well be, show WHY it is a sham don't simply declare it), if you have an opinion support it with scripture otherwise we aren't accomplishing anything we're just bickering. We had a good discussion going on before this back and forth bickering started I would prefer that this thread doesn't get locked so we can continue to discuss these things.

Malachi, I responded to the points you brought up and you have ignored them I would appreciate if you would focus on some of the specifics I, or anyone else mentioned. You're trying to refute an entire denomination and even though I agree with some of the points you have made that is not the point of this thread, we are talking about specific points of doctrine not an entire doctrinal order so please stay on topic.

 

[Deborah13]

If the provisions within the law could effectively atone anyone from the curse, why would that person even need further redemption in Christ - so it's either Christ's redemption Or no provisions within the law.

For those who believed, had faith, as Abraham did, the atonement was a temporary covering, until the cross. That covering could not Take away sin permanently. No one can enter the kingdom of God in that condition. And then there is the matter of the conscience. But don't ask me to explain that.

You proceeded to explain, as I saw it, why justification is by faith and not by the law - a point that was never brought up or contested there.

That is the only way I can explain why I don't believe that God was not unjust, in giving the Law of Moses. God doesn't ask someone to do something and not give them a way to do it. Even Romans 1, tells us this. It is totally contrary to the nature of God.

5. I sought clarification on whether you seemed to deny the above point1 itself by perhaps stating that God was not the giver of the law of works.

God spoke to Moses. The old covenant, was absolutely given by God. I don't know what I said that could have lead to another understanding.

 

[The_Epsicle]

Good point Deborah, though I'd like to put it slightly differently. My belief is that Christ is the only atonement for our Sins, there is no way the Jews could be forgiven because of their Sin offerings, but they did those things as a sign of Faith and looking forward to the Messiah who would take away their Sins, though they did not see, they believed.

"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." - Hebrews 10:4

"Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect." - Hebrews 11:36-40 ESV

Every Jew before Christ was saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ, though they had not seen him or even knew His name, they knew he was promised by God and that God keeps his promises.

 

[Chopper]

Good point Deborah, though I'd like to put it slightly differently. My belief is that Christ is the only atonement for our Sins, there is no way the Jews could be forgiven because of their Sin offerings, but they did those things as a sign of Faith and looking forward to the Messiah who would take away their Sins, though they did not see, they believed.

"For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." - Hebrews 10:4

"Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect." - Hebrews 11:36-40 ESV

Every Jew before Christ was saved by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ, though they had not seen him or even knew His name, they knew he was promised by God and that God keeps his promises.

Every Jew before Christ was saved? Scripture for that statement please.

 

[The_Epsicle]

Oh please now you're just nitpicking at my words, you know full well that I meant the ones who truly believe, you know true Jews instead of false Jews.

 

[Chopper]

Oh please now you're just nitpicking at my words, you know full well that I meant the ones who truly believe, you know true Jews instead of false Jews.

I don't know you from Adam. You're a new member. I would suggest that the next time you post, use Scripture and make your points very clear. It appears to me that you are sprinkling the Old Covenant with New Covenant theology. The Old Covenant Jews did not believe in Yashua Jesus. They were either faithful to follow YHVH's Commands, Statues, and Rules, or they didn't.

 

[Deborah13]

Good point Deborah, though I'd like to put it slightly differently. My belief is that Christ is the only atonement for our Sins, there is no way the Jews could be forgiven because of their Sin offerings, but they did those things as a sign of Faith and looking forward to the Messiah who would take away their Sins, though they did not see, they believed.

I almost missed your post. You should have gotten an alert, for this one from me to you. I highlighted what you wrote and the button comes up to press +Quote. Love that feature.
Or @ sign followed by avatar name, tags that person without quoting them.

Any who, I agree with you that only the blood of Christ takes away sin. However, I think those who were of faith, when they repented they were forgiven, in that their repented sin could not stand in the away of their relationship with God, or receiving His blessings. Surely Job sinned at sometime but God blessed him and said he was righteous. And David, he had to have been forgiven. So I think the Taking Away of sin, was necessary for eternal justification, by the eternal sacrifice, Christ.
Heb 6:13 For to Abraham God, having made promise, seeing He was able to swear by no greater, did swear by Himself,
Heb 6:14 saying, `Blessing indeed I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee;'
Heb 6:15 and so, having patiently endured, he did obtain the promise; [after the cross]

 

[The_Epsicle]

Deborah: I think we're close enough on this one not to "quarrel over words" so to speak.

Chopper: Old and New Covenant theology are the same, they both point to Christ as the atonement for our Sin. One looks ahead for salvation and one looks back, Christ died for all Sins past, present, and future(Romans 6:10 ESV)(1 Peter 3:18 ESV).
Sorry for snapping at you, I've been on hold with government organizations all day , I lashed my anger out at you and that was wrong.

 

[JLB]

Certain reformed doctrines are still intensely debated - and given the number of locked threads concerning these, I hope we could focus our discussion on simply the roots of the issues. For eg: instead of discussing Unconditional Election as such, we could try more specifically discussing if God is indeed partial or not, as the doctrine seemingly implies - and instead of discussing Total Depravity as a whole, we could discuss if God commands the impossible of man and still holds him responsible for failure or not. For it's not the reformed doctrines themselves that are problematic but rather the character of God that these paint - we could try discussing if and where we differ on the very attributes of God to clear up possible misconceptions on either side.

If I may, I'd like to start with the attributes of God as seen in reference to Gal 3.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

This is referring to God's promise to Abraham - "In you shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:8). And the law is said to annul this promised blessing because of the curse it effects on all (Gal 3:10). And Christ upholds the promise by redeeming us from the curse (Gal 3:13-14).

Neither can the blessing to the children of Abraham come by means of the law since that would then violate the promise (Gal 3:18) - which we know the law does not and cannot do, since the law was never meant to give life (Gal 3:21).

The first point I'd like to discuss over is - Is God fair or unfair in holding people to the curse of a law that was never meant to be a provision of life? Is it acceptable to command man to obey the law and judge him for not doing so, while knowing fully the inevitable intended outcome is that of disobedience?

The law of Moses wasn't given to "man", as in mankind.

The law of Moses was given to the children of Israel, who were destined to live in the land of Israel.

Exceptions were made for those Gentiles who wanted to join them, which required physical circumcision, and adherence to the requirements of the law.

The law of Moses was added to the Abrahamic Covenant until the Seed should come.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

This is referring to God's promise to Abraham - "In you shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:8).

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
The gentile nations were never under the Law of Moses.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
However, individuals could choose to become full members of the nation of Israel and bringing themselves under the Law of Moses. Such as Ruth (Ruth 1:16) and men who were circumcised. (Ex. 12:48)

Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Was Abraham and the other OT saints cursed or blessed? I say they were blessed. Surely no one believes that David was cursed when he died, or Elijah and the 7,000, that God said had been reserved. Abraham, Sarah, Moses, David, Isaiah, Job, etc. were reserved because of their faith in the coming Redeemer.

Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

So the Law of Moses, could not make the Abrahamic covenant void. It was still in effect, through the OT, for those that would believe it.

And the law is said to annul this promised blessing because of the curse it effects on all (Gal 3:10).

I not sure I understand this statement, in lieu of Gen. 3:17.
But this is how I understand v 3:10...
The/A curse is a penalty, not just for breaking the Law of Moses, but any of God's Law, including whatever law God put on the conscience of the gentiles. That is why a curse effected everyone, not just the Jews. It's just in this case, that is what Paul is having to deal with, the Jews teachings of the works of the Moses Law for justification. Number one circumcision.

 

[Sinthesis]

The first point I'd like to discuss over is - Is God fair or unfair in holding people to the curse of a law that was never meant to be a provision of life? Is it acceptable to command man to obey the law and judge him for not doing so, while knowing fully the inevitable intended outcome is that of disobedience?

Gal 3:10 ¶ For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Gen 3:14 - And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 - And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed isthe ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 - Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 - In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.​

No law is a provision of life. Given original sin, God is perfectly fair to reward us all with death. The command to obey laws was never for the purpose of personal salvation, rather it was to prepare the way for God's work which saves. In other words, you must repent, but only Jesus can save. If you refuse to repent, then there are consequences. God has never required we do what only He can do. Instead we confess and repent of our human failings, then trust Him to do what only He can do.

Gal 3:21 - Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if therehad been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Heb 8:7 - For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.​

Law was only ever to be just part of the salvation promise, whereby it convicts us of our inability to save ourselves so that we must in faith turn to God for salvation.

 

[ivdavid]

Lets keep on topic, avoid referring to others ideas as a sham(even though they may very well be, show WHY it is a sham don't simply declare it), if you have an opinion support it with scripture otherwise we aren't accomplishing anything we're just bickering.

That seems a tad unfair. I never saw ourselves as bickering - in fact, I thought that line of argument was getting along just fine. I know it's quite easy to veer off topic and get into personal attacks - but that wasn't what was happening, at least as I saw it. I guess with the increase in locked threads, people can get over-sensitive - but let's not cut out hyperbole and satire from our conversations when they're still dealing with the point of discussion -

The overarching objective of mine is to discuss the possible validity of doctrines such as total depravity - and while there may be many more points against it, I've identified one major point as people being unable to accept that God would hold man responsible to do good while knowing man is totally depraved. Malachi confirmed this when he said God would be unrighteous if He commanded something impossible of man. To which, I tried drawing the analogy of God giving the Law to man which is impossible to man. Malachi used the valid rhetorical device of hyperbole to exaggerate the logical end (a sham) of my interpretation - wherein I tried correcting him by showing that this was not the logical end, given the same hyperbole doesn't conclude correctly when applied to the analogy of the law.

What part of the above conversation flow seems to disrupt the forum decorum? We're still discussing ideas, beliefs and doctrines and not each other or other people - I speak for myself on this, but I hopefully assume Malachi would hold the same views. Of course, I'd want him to address the other issues raised too - but we can neither presume his time-availability nor his willingness to respond.

 

[ivdavid]

That[declaring that justification is by faith and not by law] is the only way I can explain why I don't believe that God was not unjust, in giving the Law of Moses. God doesn't ask someone to do something and not give them a way to do it. Even Romans 1, tells us this. It is totally contrary to the nature of God.(colored text are my additions)

"God doesn't ask someone to do something and not give them a way to do it" - that's the crux of what we're discussing. Since you hold that to be totally contrary to the nature of God, no matter what other doctrines are put forth, you would naturally and logically reject them as long as they attacked the very nature of God - I believe I would too. But what if this is an assumption on just our part - and that it is still within God's righteous nature to ask someone to do something while not giving them a way to do it?

Wherein I focused on God giving the law - Did not God ask His people to confirm all the words of the law to do them, and not fall under the curse (Deut 27:26)? Is anyone able to continue in all the things written in the book of the law to do them, and not fall under the curse(Gal 3:10)? Isn't this a classic case of God having asked man to do something which is impossible of man at least once so far?

Of course, if the point of argument had been over God asking His people to simply get justified - Your argument is perfectly applicable. You would show that even though justification didn't come by the law, God did provide faith as the means to get justified - and therefore this getting justified itself is not an impossibility that God requires of man. But as I said earlier, this is not the present point of focus. In fact, whenever we contrast faith against law, we're essentially acknowledging the impossibility of keeping the law - isn't that evidence enough of God having required the impossible of man?

The WHY behind God doing this is equally important - God gives the law which is impossible to be kept by man.. to show man that he is indeed Unable to do it -> which would lead him to seek what renders him unable -> which would lead him to the knowledge of deceitful sin being pervasively present in his flesh, which he was reluctant/ignorant to acknowledge by himself until this point -> which would lead him to forsaking any reliance on the flesh and to throw himself upon our Saviour.

Secondly, the commandment is holy, just and good. It reflects God's nature Himself. Why should anyone expect God to lower His perfect standards to suit the abilities of fallen man, when such corruption of sin was not caused by God at all? Why can't we see it as just God declaring His own standards which we happen to find impossible because of sin in us - and not necessarily because God intended and plotted for them to be specifically impossible to man? Why should we demand that God be obligated to remove such impossibilities for us - when it would serve God's purposes to use these impossibilities to teach man further truths about His own nature?

So again, what is so very unrighteous about God requiring the impossible of man, when it glorifies His standards and serves His other purposes?

 

[ivdavid]

The law of Moses wasn't given to "man", as in mankind.

True. But does this alter the flow of argument thus far here?

Besides, I simply mention 'law' to denote the 'law of works' - which mankind all over has grasped at in one form or the other.

 

[ivdavid]

Was Abraham and the other OT saints cursed or blessed? I say they were blessed.

Of course. But they were not blessed because they kept the law - the law was impossible to these too. They were blessed apart from the law through faith. No arguments there. Just drawing attention again to the fact that the law still was impossible to every man who was required to keep it.

The/A curse is a penalty, not just for breaking the Law of Moses, but any of God's Law, including whatever law God put on the conscience of the gentiles.

True. I agree.
I mention "law" as in "law of works" - i guess it encompasses the law of moses to the jews and the law in the consciences of the gentiles. And yes, it was specifically spelt out to the jews - and paul makes reference in this context in Gal 3. But what bearing does any of this have on the overall flow of argument? Do you feel I have inferred something wrongly by not mentioning this distinction?

 

[ivdavid]

Law was only ever to be just part of the salvation promise, whereby it convicts us of our inability to save ourselves so that we must in faith turn to God for salvation.

True. I agree.
But how does it convict us of our Inability to save ourselves - by showing us our constant failings in trying to keep the law given to us unto life and not curse/death, which is where you seem to probably disagree upon.

No law is a provision of life.

Did you mean that no law had any provision of life in itself inherently - Or did you mean that though a law may have rendered provision of life, God intended none to attain unto it through the law, but apart from it through faith?
I believe the latter because Lev 18:5 denies the former.

God has never required we do what only He can do.

Did God never require His people to continue in all things in the book of the law to do them(Gal 3:10, Deut 27:26) - isn't that something impossible of man, which Christ alone fulfilled?

 

[Chopper]

Deborah: I think we're close enough on this one not to "quarrel over words" so to speak.

Chopper: Old and New Covenant theology are the same, they both point to Christ as the atonement for our Sin. One looks ahead for salvation and one looks back, Christ died for all Sins past, present, and future(Romans 6:10 ESV)(1 Peter 3:18 ESV).
Sorry for snapping at you, I've been on hold with government organizations all day , I lashed my anger out at you and that was wrong.

I understand my new young friend. No offense taken. Mine was only an observation. You will come to realize, as we journey along in this Forum, that I'm an old country preacher. I'm what men call a "Biblicist". One of my favorite instructions from the Word of God is, 1Corinthians 4:6 "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

I find this instruction from the Apostle Paul to his Corinthian Brothers as a caution to stay strictly in and by the Word of God. It's when we add our preconceptions and opinions to any Scripture that we can run into trouble. You see, many followers of Jesus are also followers of their own ego's and want to impress those of whom they communicate with, their lofty ability to teach what the Scripture does not teach.

As a Baptist Pastor, I was constantly aware of my own pride. It was amazing how many times I set out to pray to impress the people instead of to speak to our Holy God Who is not the least bit interested in a prayer fueled by man's pride. Also there is the sermon. Is the sermon to please people, and get plenty of Amen's? Or is it built on the Word of God thru the Holy Spirit. My pride wanted to be popular, but my heart belonged to my Master and I had to stop writing my sermon and turn to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and curb the awful thing called pride....Honestly? Still do!

Love You