Thanks for this terrific thread.
Hope for the hopeless....Namely me.
I believe so much as you all but I struggle with some issues.
Nevertheless I believe the Calvinist makes more sense than most beliefs.
I will study this and the links.
Thanks Evee and welcome to the Reformed Calvinist home
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I have recently been discussing the Sovereignty of God as it relates to SIN.
I was very surprised to see a self proclaimed Calvinist deny secondary causes within God's Ultimate (overall) Cause.
Here is the hub of the issue , what exactly is God's role in determining sin , please remember there are several ways of determining something....
this quote will open up the issue...
"God's decree concerning sin was "permissive" not "efficacious" The best Scriptural term to describe God's relationship toward the inclusion of evil in his universe is "permit". God "allows" or "permits" his creatures to rebel. He is not to be thought of as being in them rebelling against his own moral principles. He has "allowed" (eiasen from eao) them to act upon their corrupted desires.
Acts 14:16 "and in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways;" Acts 17:30 "therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent."
Therefore we say that God is not the cause of sin. The term "cause" is used of that which is directly responsible for an action or that which directly brings a change or action into being. The sinner is the one held directly responsible for his sin and persons other than God are always considered the direct agents of evil. This is consistent with the traditional philosophical uses of the term (see Runes Dictionary of Philosophy pg. 48 where he identifies cause as that which is actually "responsible" for a change, motion or action.) To call God the "cause of sin" would be to use this term in an improper manner. Similarly it would be an error to call God the author of sin. An author is always the efficient cause of his work, and is responsible for it.
Is God not said to be the cause of evil?
Sometimes bad translations of the original biblical text can make God appear to be the author or cause of sin. But a more faithful translation shows the original intent of the passage. The Hebrew word ra` means "calamity, disaster, harm". It can only be used of something wicked as a derived and secondary usage. It is not equivalent with the Hebrew term kha-TAH' which means "sin, do evil, fail, miss". The second term is not used with respect to the actions of God. Only the first. God, as Lord of all creation, is certainly behind what we might term calamities or natural disasters. But such things are not evil in that they have no wicked intentions contrary to the revealed moral principles of God.
In Isaiah 45:7 the LORD (Jehovah) is said to "create" calamity. The NASB properly translates it; "...causing well-being, and creating calamity;" and the NIV translates; "...I bring prosperity and create disaster;". Sadly the old King James Version has rendered it in a moral sense: "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (KJV)
In Amos 3:6 the LORD (Jehovah) is said to be the cause of calamity when it occurs in a city. The NASB accurately translates; "... if a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" The NIV renders it; "... when a disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?". Again the older King James Version has translated it as moral evil: "... shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"
Ultimately we cannot truly solve the problem of sin's permission since God has not revealed the details explaining what he says he has done. There is no question concerning the fact of its permission since that is directly revealed. The problem we face has to do with God's employment of the evil deeds of creatures as a part of his certain plan. Even the Arminian concedes that God foreknows all things, including the advent of sin and its consequences. A.A. Hodge explains, "He (the Arminian) is unable as the Calvinist is to explain why God, notwithstanding that certain knowledge, did not change those conditions." (Confession of Faith pg. 68)
God is Not the Creator of sin:
Sin is not an independently existing created thing. It is an attribute, a moral condition of an agent which is contrary to moral good as defined by God's own nature. It is no more a created thing than is "good".
God's attributes are not created, they are eternal. Good is eternal because it is a characteristic of the divine nature. The creation of imperfect morally fallible and mutable creatures would bring into existence the possibility of the opposite of God's perfections. We see by revelation that in his relationship to such creatures and to the moral evil they produce, God intends to display his own perfections.
It is nothing short of blasphemy to say that God is the cause of sin, once we understand what the Bible reveals about God and sin. This doctrine establishes the reality of "Secondary Causes"
Though God is not the cause of sin, it does have a cause. Evil can only be found in the creature. Therefore the creature is the only efficient and proximate cause of sin. We are not created as just machines following impersonal programming. We are persons who act morally. We are responsible for our actions before God. This is why the doctrine of the decrees differs so completely from the doctrine of fatalism. "
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You know Cygnus, this is something that as a new calvinist, I've been struggling with. That last post really explained it pretty well, better than I've ever heard it explained. It explains why we are still held responsible for our sins--even though some are not "elected" unto grace(my first thought when I realized that election was a 'truth', was, "why are the un-elected damned then?" This kind of puts it into a better perspective for me, but still leaves me dealing with the issue of "free will", and where and how it fits into our daily walk with God.
thanks for the link!!
Hi Imblessed and thanks for the response , here is a couple of Quotes that I think are excellent , they come from a web page that seeks to answer objections to Regeneration (new Birth) preceedes our Faith (it Does) ....
"Regeneration indeed precedes faith but occurs instantaneously so that the regenerated sinner, whose heart of stone has been changed to a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27), believes without hesitation. There is no person who is regenerate that does not believe in Christ and His finished work immediately. God isn't just regenerating us to nothing but rather unto faith since we now understand the things of God whereas before we did not (1 Cor 2:14). Regeneration itself carries with it the concept of having eyes to see. It is true that one remains passive (or resistant) until regenerated but this must be defined. Our fallen unregenerate nature does not want the things of God and will always reject Him when left on our own unless Christ calls us. This is what Christ speaks of in John 6 when He says that:
“the Spirit quickens, the flesh counts for nothing....the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him....For this reason I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted from the Father.” 6:63-65
Only God’s chosen will be "quickened" by the Spirit and none will come to Christ unless the Father grants it. The flesh and will count for nothing - it is the Spirit that gives life. The contrast is striking and just as people did not see the meaning in Jesus day there are many who still do not understand in our own. Christ emphasizes the truth of God's effectual work in salvation throughout John chapter 6 (John 6:37,39,44,63,65). In regeneration, the disposition of our heart is changed so we will want to believe ... no one comes to Christ kicking and screaming - all come willingly as evidenced by abundant verses in Scripture."
..........
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"According to my Bible man is to repent and believe in order to be saved, but also it most definitively states that man, because of the effects of the fall on all his faculties, including his will, is wholly unable to repent and believe without divine regenerative grace.. Man's faculties not only do not have the ability to receive Bible truth but do not even have the slightest desire to do so. Our unbelief is clearly an act of the will is it not? - it is what we desire most when in our unregenerate state. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
To preach the first two points, but, at the same time, to abandon the third is not preaching the full counsel of God and to distort the Gospel. It unfortunately gives a false understanding of the effect of the fall on the human race and of our true redemptive need. It communicates only part of what the Bible teaches on sin. It passes by the most critical point of our need as fallen beings, that is, our total lack of ability to overcome our hatred of God and love of darkness. Unfortunately the modern distorted understanding of the Gospel which leaves out man's inability is woefully incomplete. Modern evangelicalism has driven down an empty road because it has failed to preach the whole counsel of God. It is a confused "gospel" that has no clear teaching on man's responsibility as well as his inability. It is terribly mistaken to assume that those dead in sin have the moral ability to carry out God's command to believe and obey. As an example, man cannot understand Spiritual things until given a new nature (1 Cor 2:14) He cannot come to faith unless the Father has given them to the Son from eternity and is irresistibly called by the Holy Spirit (John 6:37,39,44,45,63-65; Eph 1:4,5) Jesus and Paul, as clearly shown by these references, both teach the third point in their Gospel, so why should we leave it out?
It must be made clear that an unregenerate sinner cannot come to Christ until he is given the new birth. Before that time he only desires what is according to his nature, sin. Man has no part whatever in regeneration since it is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit. And just as we needed Christ as a penal substitution to pay the penalty of our sin, we also needed the work of the Holy Spirit to give us a new nature through regeneration. The Son of God delivers us from the penalty of sin, but the Holy Spirit alone can deliver us from the totalizing effects the fall had on our will and ability. It is the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration through the preaching of the word that enables us to savingly receive the vicarious atoning work of Christ in genuine faith. The Triune God works together in our salvation - the Father elects us, the Son redeems us and the Holy Spirit regenerates, indwells and sanctifies us. We truly dishonor God when we do not acknowledge his grace for all of our salvation. It amazes me to see so many modern evangelicals say that the sinner must first give the Spirit permission to regenerate them. GUFFAW!!!
This new "gospel of freewillism" has the deep rooted problem in that it fails to understand that man's part, repentance and faith, are the witness, the result and fruit of God's inner work in the soul. Those who teach that God will reward your faith with the New Birth, is to misapprehend the gospel message by not giving glory to God where it is due.
The modern "gospel" teaches man's responsibility (which is correct), but fails to teach his inability."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hi Cygnus since this is your thread and I feel a very important one.
Would it be ok to ask questions about the faith and things we want to know, but have a hard time finding the answer?
If you say no you would rather not, that is ok too.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hi Cygnus since this is your thread and I feel a very important one.
Would it be ok to ask questions about the faith and things we want to know, but have a hard time finding the answer?
If you say no you would rather not, that is ok too.
Hi Evee , I am sure if you seek answers we will try and answer , I think it only becomes a problem when some folks come arguing and criticising then we send for the bouncers
Fire away sister! (and I will run and hide) and I will try and help.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I am having a little bit of trouble understanding the freewill no freewill, but I am getting closer I believe.
If anyone wants to help me understand it thanks in advance.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I had always believed in freewill but yet I believe God has to call us first.
We can't come to God unless he calls, I had always believed.
I am also interested in predestiny.
I had believed in predestiny yet someone said I was wrong.
I am a little mixed up but the links are helping.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I am having a little bit of trouble understanding the freewill no freewill, but I am getting closer I believe.
If anyone wants to help me understand it thanks in advance.
Free-will is a difficult concept because it means different things to different people.
Here's my take on it , the type of Free-will we do have is limited.
I can choose many things but I cannot ignore my heart (my mind where my reason and emotions lay ) The heart is the thing that governs our wills , hence the reason why Jesus said over and over "You must be born again" a new heart is what is needed then the will can follow God!
Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life. (Pr 4:23)
Also when it comes to our Freedom , it is NEVER independant of God , He knows exactly what we are going to do (and think before we even think it) and He reserves the Right to steer our descisions any way He sees fit!
I will add some more later if you like . Greetings Cygnus
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by cygnusx1; 31st October 2004 at 05:50 PM.
Linear Mode
