Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Soul_Tsunami]

Romans 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death

We are all spiritually dead until we accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1 NKJV). “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 2:13).

 

[QvQ]

We are all spiritually dead until we accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1 NKJV). “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 2:13).

The question was, where in the Bible does it state that Adam died spiritually, ever?
For Adam, the death in trespass and sin happened when he trespassed and sinned, the wages of sin.
I am glad you answered with more verses as Adam was dead in trespasses and sins, according to the verse you posted.

 

[oikonomia]

The question was, where in the Bible does it state that Adam died spiritually, ever?
For Adam, the death in trespass and sin happened when he trespassed and sinned, the wages of sin.
I am glad you answered with more verses as Adam was dead in trespasses and sins, according to the verse you posted.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

"For Adam, the death in trespass and sin happened when he trespassed and sinned, the wages of sin."

It must refer to a spiritual death - a death in which he lived out the remainder of his nine hundred and thirty years.
Genesis 5:5 - And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died.

After a long life dead spiritually in trespass and sin he finally physically expired as well. "Death in trespass and sin" is "in" and all during, not just AFTER.

 

[oikonomia]

Grace is also God granting the sinner that very repentance itself and knowledge of the truth (e.g., 2 Tim 2:25). More specifically, grace is the "unmerited favor" of God toward sinners who don't and can't deserve such generous divine gifts as these. (A related term is mercy, which refers to God's willingness, out of love and compassion, to refrain from giving sinners what they deserve according to the strict measure of justice.)

Grace is much more than this old definition "unmerited favor." I mean it is that but how much greater.

Grace is God being for us everything.
If you substituted "unmerited favor" everyplace you see "grace" in the NT you get a shotsighted view of grace.
But if you place "Christ being everything for us" where you see "grace" you get a better clearer picture of this grace.

Ie. But by the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace unto me did not turn out to be in vain, but, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me. (1 Cor. 15:10)

Substitute "Christ being everything FOR me" in place of "grace."

Ie. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ has died for nothing. (Gal. 2:21)

Here again - more than unmerited favor he doesn't nullify. But he doesn't nullify Christ in him being everything to and for him.

Galatians 6:18 - Christ in the believers is everything they need - The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

Here is grace is the Triune God being with the Christians to be everything needed by them.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14)

So grace is not only God's power over man but God's power of life IN man in Christ. He is with our innermost being if we would tap into
Him.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (Phil. 4;23)
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (Philm. 25)
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you. (2 Tim. 4:22)

This "Christ being EVERYTHING for us" is the reality in which we must stand.

Through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand . . . (Rom. 5:2)

The abundance of this grace will empower us to reign in life.

. . . much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
(Rom. 5:17)

Paul says it is no more he who lives but Christ who lives within him. But on the other hand he defines this as the grace of God which was with him.

Compare:
Galatians 2:20 - and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me;
First Cor. 15:10 - I labored more abundantly than all of them, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me.

"Not I but Christ" = "Not I but the grace of God which is with me."

This "unmerited favor" is the living Person of Christ in us being everything we need.

 

[Derf]

Art is a capacity, not an act of will. It is an inherent ability and an expression of self.
Interesting if you consider that sin is a capacity, an inherent ability and compulsion to satisfy our natures

Do you have any idea what you are saying? You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Just because we have a capacity for something doesn't mean we aren't responsible when we exercise that capacity. And your sin example is a perfect one to show this. Just because God created us with the capacity to sin doesn't mean we aren't guilty of our sin. Thus we can safely say that WE are the first causes of our sin.
However if God decrees each sin, we are NOT the first causes of our sin, and therefore are NOT responsible. In which case God is unjust for punishing us for our sin.

 

[Derf]

Romans 6: 23 For the wages of sin is death

And didn't Adam die physically? Or is he still walking around here somewhere?
Genesis 5:5 KJV — And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
What you won't find is a verse that says, "and Adam died that very day he ate from the tree." (I've looked)
And other people died the same way.
Romans 5:14 KJV — Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

What you won't find in Rom 5 is Paul explaining that all those people from Adam to Moses are still alive physically, but they died spiritually. Paul was talking about physical death.

This is a rabbit trail, but an interesting one.

 

[Derf]

In this definition of First cause, not the article "a". This is not THE First Cause. This use only admits one of the primary causes of anything; among the first, or among the more immediate. Not the same thing at all. God is not that kind of "first cause". To argue from this is to argue a different subject.

Thank you! Thank you very much!
So saying that God is the first cause does NOT have to mean God decrees every act man commits, right? To quote a wise man, "To argue from this is to argue a different subject."

Thus, to argue that the first cause has to decree everything he derivatively causes is arguing 2 different things. However, if the other first causes, as I showed in the definition, are bound to cause those things without fail, then they themselves must be causes in such a way that they have no choice in the matter, and thus they cannot be first causes of their sin, which makes them not responsible for their sin.

 

[QvQ]

Do you have any idea what you are saying? You seem to be arguing against yourself.

Derf, you seem to be an atheist
1) God created the world and will judge the world. Otherwise He is elsewhere.
2) Man has sovereign will to decide right and wrong and the power to choose
3) Adam and his heirs only die physically not spiritually.
4) God has limited power of prophesy.
5) Jesus knew Judas would betray Him and Peter would deny Him Only because they were all three alive, therefore Christ engineered or used subtle clues from the two to determine their actions
6) The Holy Spirit is entirely absent.
And God is a way in the past First Cause and Source but there have been so many "first causes" since then that His role in creation is nullified. It is all natural law and the will of man.

 

[QvQ]

In this definition of First cause, not the article "a". This is not THE First Cause. This use only admits one of the primary causes of anything; among the first, or among the more immediate. Not the same thing at all. God is not that kind of "first cause". To argue from this is to argue a different subject.

Mark
There was a thread a while ago about Modal Collapse. I believe that is argument to defeat Aquinas First Cause proof of God.
I would have to do some research. There are some videos from that discussion

 

[Derf]

Derf, you seem to be an atheist

QvQ, you seem to be an atheist because you don't agree with me. Isn't it funny how well that works for either you or me. Thus, you should be wondering if it's effective to say such things.

And you should also realize that when you list #4, you demolish your assertion that I'm an atheist. Like I said, you seem to be arguing against yourself. Thanks for providing more evidence.

1) God created the world and will judge the world. Otherwise He is elsewhere.

Which I already told you is NOT what I said or believe.

2) Man has sovereign will to decide right and wrong and the power to choose

Right and wrong, no, but power to choose, yes.

3) Adam and his heirs only die physically not spiritually.

Explain what you mean by dying spiritually, and we can talk about it, but all you've heard me say is that Adam died physically as a result of eating of the tree, and as a result all men after him have died physically. That makes me an atheist?

4) God has limited power of prophesy.

Belieing in God makes me an atheist??

5) Jesus knew Judas would betray Him and Peter would deny Him Only because they were all three alive, therefore Christ engineered or used subtle clues from the two to determine their actions

Yep. Although "subtle clues" could be a separate discussion.

6) The Holy Spirit is entirely absent.

??? Can you show me a post that even hints I said this?

And God is a way in the past First Cause and Source but there have been so many "first causes" since then that His role in creation is nullified. It is all natural law and the will of man.

Again, can you show me anything I've posted that could be even slightly construed to mean this? I don't think you can, so you attack me personally. Such is hardly befitting.

 

[QvQ]

Again, can you show me anything I've posted that could be even slightly construed to mean this? I don't think you can, so you attack me personally. Such is hardly befitting.

I am not attacking you personally. I don't care whether you agree with me. Your beliefs are your own.
I am not going to get into an argument on every point.
Anyone can read your posts and decide for themselves what your personal beliefs are.

4) Believing in a god who can't tell the future is not believing in God

Isaiah 41: 21-23

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am not attacking you personally. I don't care whether you agree with me. Your believes are your own.
I am not going to get into an argument on every point.
Anyone can read your posts and decide for themselves what your personal beliefs are.

4) Believing in a god who can't tell the future is not believing in God

Isaiah 41: 21-23

One can believe in a god who fits any sort of parameters, but the God who reveals Himself in the Bible definitely knows all things, past, present, and future.

 

[Derf]

I am not attacking you personally. I don't care whether you agree with me. Your believes are your own.
I am not going to get into an argument on every point.
Anyone can read your posts and decide for themselves what your personal beliefs are.

4) Believing in a god who can't tell the future is not believing in God

Isaiah 41: 21-23

In other words, if I don't believe in a God that fits your parameters, then I'm an atheist? What if you don't believe in a God that fits God's parameters? Would that make you an atheist?

And who would be the more atheistic of such a comparison?

 

[QvQ]

In other words, if I don't believe in a God that fits your parameters, then I'm an atheist? What if you don't believe in a God that fits God's parameters? Would that make you an atheist?

And who would be the more atheistic of such a comparison?

Or some other religion.
We are not of the same faith. I don't see where the god you propose has any power or relevance in the general scheme of things.
You may believe in your god, I will believe in mine but to accept your arguments so far would lead me to not believe in God, therefore, for me you are atheist, as far as my faith is concerned.
If I lead you to believe that God is powerless and irrelevant, then I rightly could be labeled atheist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thank you! Thank you very much!
So saying that God is the first cause does NOT have to mean God decrees every act man commits, right? To quote a wise man, "To argue from this is to argue a different subject."

Wrong. How do you come to that conclusion? If God is THE First Cause, and Omniscient and, of course, Omnipotent, how is it even possible that something could come to pass apart from his decreeing it to be so? There is no other first cause, no other principle, no other law, no other fact, that can come to bear without his specifically intending that it do so.

Thus, to argue that the first cause has to decree everything he derivatively causes is arguing 2 different things. However, if the other first causes, as I showed in the definition, are bound to cause those things without fail, then they themselves must be causes in such a way that they have no choice in the matter, and thus they cannot be first causes of their sin, which makes them not responsible for their sin.

I certainly hope you mean, "it logically has to be" —not that HE HAS TO. God isn't obligated to do anything. They are not first causes. They are "immediate causes".

But your logic is the same as 100 others who think God operates on our level. To you, the word "responsible" can only mean "to blame" if what comes to pass is bad. Therefore, to you, it makes no difference who is the immediate cause, and who decreed all things. Your only way out, in the end analysis, is to assume that mere chance holds a power over what God has decreed.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Or some other religion.
We are not of the same faith. I don't see where the god you propose has any power or relevance in the general scheme of things.
You may believe in your god, I will believe in mine but to accept your arguments so far would lead me to not believe in God, therefore, for me you are atheist, as far as my faith is concerned.
If I lead you to believe that God is powerless and irrelevant, then I rightly could be labeled atheist.

Do you believe the Nicene
creed? If so, then you are not an atheist. If not, then you should not be posting here at CF.

Does Derf believe the Nicene creed? If he does then you owe him an apology for calling him an atheist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark
There was a thread a while ago about Modal Collapse. I believe that is argument to defeat Aquinas First Cause proof of God.
I would have to do some research. There are some videos from that discussion

I assume you are referring to "The five ways"? I have my own problems with them, but I don't recall hearing about Modal Collapse. You know, though —what really bothers me here in all this is the notion that man's constructions are altogether valid. Just look at the assumption that our actions and God's actions are on the same level as far as reality, nevermind the same moral level. The fact we must separate these as two categories says something of us. God doesn't separate them.

 

[QvQ]

Do you believe the Nicene
creed? If so, then you are not an atheist. If not, then you should not be posting here at CF.

Does Derf believe the Nicene creed? If he does then you owe him an apology for calling him an atheist.

Absolutely believe in the Nicene Creed.

Derf may be a different faith or religion that still believes in the Nicene Creed.

 

[QvQ]

but I don't recall hearing about Modal Collapse.

The way I understand it is that in a logical series, if one premise is untrue then the entire modal collapses.
I think the ones who attack Tulip state that if one is disproven, then all are false because of the logical sequence.
It is an interesting topic. I don't know that much about it but it is a classic way to defeat a logical argument, which Aquinas' First Cause as proof of God is a logical argument.

 

[Derf]

Or some other religion.

Yes, for sure.

We are not of the same faith.

So now let's approach some of these areas where you say I don't believe in your God, and I'm saying you don't believe in the God of the bible.

I don't see where the god you propose has any power or relevance in the general scheme of things.

So if God cannot handle situations that arise without Him planning every last detail, would you agree He's powerless? After all a chessmaster who has to play both sides of the board to win is not really much of a chessmaster, is he?

You may believe in your god, I will believe in mine but to accept your arguments so far would lead me to not believe in God, therefore, for me you are atheist, as far as my faith is concerned.

It might lead to not believe in the God you have devised, but if you're wrong, then wouldn't that be a good thing?

If I lead you to believe that God is powerless and irrelevant, then I rightly could be labeled atheist.

In our world, which has the appearance, at least of a world where there are multiple chessplayers. There's Satan, there are despots that attack God's people, there are everyday people that reject God's right to tell them What to do. What you've told me is that unless God actually decreed for them to be exactly as they are, then God can't actually defeat them, right?

I think you just labelled yourself an atheist.