What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

No question avoided. . .

I addressed your assertion--that neither imputed guilt nor fallen nature, which you equate, means we are born condemned--with Scripture to the contrary.

Couldn't be any more thorough, simple and clear.

No one is guilty of sin until they sin.


Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Deuteronomy 24:6
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

 

[misput]

Yes. . .

I don't know what you mean by "sinners." Do you mean "fallen nature?"
For our fallen nature is the reason we sin.
Are you saying we are not sinners until we actually do sin?

Is a skunk a skunk because he sprays, or does he spray because he is a skunk?

Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners?

The answer is the same for both.

Adam's imputed guilt simply means we are guilty of condemnation.

His inherited fallen nature makes us sinners from birth, just like baby skunks and rattlesnakes are skunks and rattlesnakes from birth, it is their nature.

Likewise, sinner is our natural nature.

Thank you for your direct reply. Hope you don't charge for all the extra : )

 

[RickReads]

No one is guilty of sin until they sin.


Ezekiel 18:20
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Deuteronomy 24:6
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

I should have remembered those verses. Well done.

 

[RickReads]

True. I'm not the police, but that was a bit rude, to put right out there in public.

The new birth IS regeneration. This conversation has taken on a surreal quality.

The new birth is about the circumcision made without hands, becoming a new creature, entering the body of Christ, becoming an heir in the commonwealth of Israel, and getting sealed until the day of Redemption so yeah it's about a few other things besides washing you clean via regeneration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, you got me right. A heart enslaved to sin can be convicted, which leads to repentance, which leads to regeneration by the Holy Spirit/salvation.

What other passages would you say deny it? If you have a long list, just give me a few of the passages that you feel most clearly deny it.

Maybe I should ask Clare for the list.

Well... let me try to answer this. It seems to me your thinking is pretty vague; for instance, you say "...convicted, which leads to repentance, which leads to regeneration." You don't say HOW they are (or can be) convicted, nor how that leads to repentance, or how repentance leads to regeneration. You may suppose you (and others) have given some obvious references showing that from Scripture, and even some showing HOW, in Scripture, but I haven't seen them. Nor have I seen any reasoning that to me makes sense without that first mountain being moved out of the way: "The unregenerate are spiritually dead."

You said that you identify with the Arminians in this matter —(that the things God uses to draw people to himself come before the regeneration, but 'awaken the heart sufficiently' (I suppose?) to make a real decision for Christ. To my mind, Arminians have engineered a half-breed. How does one sort of become alive?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think the "rash on your forehead" was from "mopping the floor clean" with you.

I thought it was an off-the-wall, absolutely irrelevant and completely inane remark, yet sounding like a weighty indictment, and couldn't stop laughing at how off-the-wall-irrelevant, inane and creative it was, and ready to declare him a comedic genius, when I realized it was not. . .very disappointing. . .it still makes me laugh when I think of it that way.

Turns out it is my misunderstanding that is the comedic genius in the house.

Love the point of view. This place is a kaleidoscope sometimes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

His call to repentance; his call to all men everywhere; his words that convey the ability to choose all throughout the scriptures. (The words you claim mean something different than what they say.) By the way, its interesting that Calvinism needs its own dictionary. Anytime they don't want a word or passage to mean what it actually says - oh, its an anthropomorphism.

You have a point. We (ALL) go farther into anthropomorphism than we realize, to attribute our concepts of human qualities to God, that we use human language to describe so poorly, forgetting all the other attributes / qualities of God are UNLIKE US, yet none of them is without the others.

We want God to work according to our notions of love and fairness. We want a kindly grandfather. We want him to respect us.

But God is not tame, and everything, including we, were made by him and for him, not for ourselves. There isn't a whole lot to us for him to consider, nothing that we deserve. He owes us nothing. But we demand equality!

BTW, I didn't see any of God's claims, in your list of 3 items there. And the fact you infer a claim from a command or a 'call' doesn't mean there is one implied —certainly not the one you demand to see.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You really think that I`m that deep of a thinker? Weird.

Oh my yes!

 

[Mark Quayle]

I might have, but where among 2174 posts???

Ok. If you can defeat the rest of Romans 7,8 and 9, or Phil 2:1-10, I'll provide more.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It resides in the disposition, which is of the natural order, no?

My dog's disposition is not a spiritual thing.

I'm not saying the sin nature IS (or is not) the disposition, but yes, certainly, if it is not THE disposition, it causes the disposition. But by the 'natural order', do you mean only physical things? I'm not sure how natural order applies here. Our sin nature necessarily includes rebellion against God, which is something a dog is not capable of.

Either way, my point is not to say that the sin nature is NOT passed down genetically, but that I'm not convinced to the degree that I teach it for fact.

'Inheritance' applied to Christ in more than simply physical fashion, I think. For example, he inherited a name above every other name. (Hebrews 1:4) So, I think, it can be that the sin nature is a simple inherited physical (DNA) disposition affecting our spirit, (self-determination, self-centeredness, independence, etc.) or it can be spiritual by natural descent, as I still don't know how all spiritual principles work. It may even be both.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The new birth is about the circumcision made without hands, becoming a new creature, entering the body of Christ, becoming an heir in the commonwealth of Israel, and getting sealed until the day of Redemption so yeah it's about a few other things besides washing you clean via regeneration.

But you are claiming that the "new birth" is not "regeneration"? Your descriptions certainly sound like regeneration to me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The cause-effect relationship I see is first qualify for the grace filled promise in Acts 2:38-39, and then receive the grace of Ephesians 2. I love Ephesians 2.

If you first must do something to qualify for Grace, it is not all of Grace, and you have merit whereof to boast.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Free will: Galatians 6:7 says God rewards sowing to the spirit, so get in on the opportunity.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

I just can't over this. You really think this fact of choosing to do what is lasting and good, and the place of this choosing within the order of cause and effect, proves that freewill is uncaused —i.e. that choices by the creature are not pre-determined?

 

[misput]

Ro 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
For this verse to correlate the way some claim, all mankind would have to receive imputed righteousness from God as well as supposedly all mankind receives imputed condemnation, having no choice in either process. What some are missing is there is a process involving each individual in each case.
Hint:
Ro 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
PS: Please do not hack my post, example; highlight all but two words of a sentence and reply to that when the two words are the main point of the sentence. Of course you can dismiss this request but I can also dismiss your post, kemosabe : )

 

[Greg Cheney]

You have a point. We (ALL) go farther into anthropomorphism than we realize, to attribute our concepts of human qualities to God, that we use human language to describe so poorly, forgetting all the other attributes / qualities of God are UNLIKE US, yet none of them is without the others.

We want God to work according to our notions of love and fairness. We want a kindly grandfather. We want him to respect us.

But God is not tame, and everything, including we, were made by him and for him, not for ourselves. There isn't a whole lot to us for him to consider, nothing that we deserve. He owes us nothing. But we demand equality!

BTW, I didn't see any of God's claims, in your list of 3 items there. And the fact you infer a claim from a command or a 'call' doesn't mean there is one implied —certainly not the one you demand to see.

Its not difficult. God's call to all men to repent is his claim that they have the ability to do so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Its not difficult. God's call to all men to repent is his claim that they have the ability to do so.

Show how the command (or even "the call") implies the ability to obey. While you are on it, google the "is - ought" dilemma.

 

[Greg Cheney]

Show how the command (or even "the call") implies the ability to obey. While you are on it, google the "is - ought" dilemma.

God does not toy with people as you might suggest. I do not consider the Lord to be a "trickster". I believe that God commands us to repent and that God would not do so unless we are able. Otherwise it is chicanery. The doctrines of Calvinism are poison and they slander the Lord. But at least you all are good for providing head-scratching ideas.

 

[Greg Cheney]

If you first must do something to qualify for Grace, it is not all of Grace, and you have merit whereof to boast.

Grace is not unconditional. There is a difference between self-merit and repentance and obedience. God gives grace to the humble but resists the proud. Nowhere does God say "you people better repent of thinking you need to obey me to have my favor", he condemned self-righteousness and dead works. Calvinists butcher biblical terms; most serious people know that.

 

[John Mullally]

I just can't over this. You really think this fact of choosing to do what is lasting and good, and the place of this choosing within the order of cause and effect, proves that freewill is uncaused —i.e. that choices by the creature are not pre-determined?

I never have anything approaching those kinds of thoughts.

As a believer, choosing should be our response to following the direction in God's word and the leading of the Holy Spirit (mainly our conscience and our gut). When we error, we ask for forgiveness and make an adjustment.

Side Comment: Long ago as a school boy, I remembered hearing this acronym from the Navigators that really stuck with me - ACTS: Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication.

 

[RickReads]

But you are claiming that the "new birth" is not "regeneration"? Your descriptions certainly sound like regeneration to me.

You and Clare have forced me to get technical. Normally I`d let it go. So try and get this because I don't want to add another 500 pages of a sideways circular debate. Regeneration in reference to conversion is found just once in the Bible and refers to the washing away of sin. The new birth is a reference to the complete process.

Your idea of regeneration is a Calvinist construct. Unbiblical.