A Defense of Calvinism

[Epiphoskei]

Van, you have no credibility because you assert without proof, and when proof to the contrary is provided, you don't even try to interact with it, you just repeat the same error.

You asserted that James 2:5 means God chooses people who have faith. We proved you wrong over and over again.

You asserted that Ephesians 1:4 means God chose us when after we believed, and christ before the foundation of the world. We proved you wrong over and over again.

You say Atonement is unlimited due to I John 2:2 but neglect to note that that requires God to condemn guiltless (atoned) people for their expiated (atoned) sins.

You force everything into dichotomies, so that when we very carefully explain that within Calvinism man's genuine will and God's control, even as far as exhaustive determinism, do not conflict, you hear "man has no choice."

You have no knowledge of Greek, but you retranslate the Bible to make it say things that you prefer it would say, but which are grammatically the wrong translation.

And you do not admit when you have been proven wrong, but ignore it and say "Calvinism is wrong because of James 2:5." If Paul himself were to resurrect and tell you that you're wrong, would you even believe him?

 

[Easystreet]

.

 

[nobdysfool]

Calvinist dance around the sound solid verses to re-define statements and words to support an false philosophy.

In your opinion, which does rise to the level of Truth. Please learn the difference.

 

[cygnusx1]

if God shows mercy to all then it matters not a jot if all acept it , they all must be saved , if some are not saved it is because God showed them justice not mercy!


for none Calvinists the idea of "shown mercy" means nothing more than making mercy POSSIBLE !

 

[Van]

Van, you have no credibility because you assert without proof, and when proof to the contrary is provided, you don't even try to interact with it, you just repeat the same error.

Wishful thinking. I am the one that posts the proofs.

I do assert that James 2:5 says God chooses those who are poor as to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him. The text is crystal. You said Greek grammar requires "to be" to be inserted. I said, no and that you did not understand the Greek grammar construction of the verse. I also said, if a linking verb was needed, and it is not, that "who are" or "they are" could be inserted, such that the verse would read, "poor as to the world, they are rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him.

And to support this view, I told you it was consistent with the view of Robertson, who was an expert in Greek grammar.

You asserted that Ephesians 1:4 means God chose us when after we believed, and christ before the foundation of the world.

No, that is not the meaning of Ephesians 1:4. I said the passage is talking about the blessings of being "in Christ." And the first blessing mentioned, in verse 4, is that we share in Christ's election before the foundation of the world. As one of the redeemed, we share in our Redeemer's election, and this demonstrates that God's love for us, all the redeemed, is from everlasting, for you do not choose a Redeemer, unless you plan to redeem. Hence, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

But on the other hand, the Calvinist view, whether you share it or not, that Ephesians 1:4 means God chose us individually to be placed in Him before the foundation of the world, I offered proofs that this was wrong. Two proofs. First, the idea conflicts with 1 Peter 2:9-10, where scripture says God chose us to be a member of His people after we had lived not as a people. Thus the choice of us occurs during our physical lives, not before the foundation of the world. Second, addressing your view, that we were placed in Christ before the foundation of the world, which is not the Calvinist view, is impossible for if we are in Christ we are holy and blameless, for who can bring a charge against God's elect. However, every believer was once in a sinful unholy state, therefore we could not have been "in Him" before we were conceived in iniquity.

You say Atonement is unlimited due to I John 2:2 but neglect to note that that requires God to condemn guiltless (atoned) people for their expiated (atoned) sins.

No, I say Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all mankind. 1 John 2:2. Now, for those actually spiritually placed in Christ, they are forgiven, their sins are washed away by the precious blood of Christ. So the statement I have not noted and disproved again the discredited "double jeopardy" argument is in error. I try to say Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is a false doctrine, because I agree that only those spiritually placed in Christ receive the atonement, for only they are made alive together with Christ, only they are united with Christ, and washed with His blood, the circumcision of the Christ.

If "God ordains whosoever comes to pass" (Westminister Confession) then man has no choice. Reformed Truth accepts this and correctly says those who reject this point of Calvinism engage in double speak.

You have no knowledge of Greek, but you retranslate the Bible to make it say things that you prefer it would say, but which are grammatically the wrong translation.

Well I certainly have no knowlege of Greek grammar, but I can read English, and therefore when Greek grammar experts tell me "to be" is not required by the Greek grammar, I believe them. And I know the decription they use for the actual Greek grammar construction of James 2:5, but you do not mention it, so I have concluded, based on the objective evidence, that you, sir, do not understand the Greek grammar of James 2:5, even though you undoubtedly know way more about Greek grammar in general than I do. And futher, I did not "retranslate" the verse. I used a translation that is consistent with several translations, including the NASB which puts "to be" in italics which means the words are not in the text and can be deleted.

So again, you have been demonstrated to be wrong, and I have supported my position with multiply translations, and the commentary of Robertson.

 

[cygnusx1]

Van, you have no credibility because you assert without proof, and when proof to the contrary is provided, you don't even try to interact with it, you just repeat the same error.

You asserted that James 2:5 means God chooses people who have faith. We proved you wrong over and over again.

You asserted that Ephesians 1:4 means God chose us when after we believed, and christ before the foundation of the world. We proved you wrong over and over again.

You say Atonement is unlimited due to I John 2:2 but neglect to note that that requires God to condemn guiltless (atoned) people for their expiated (atoned) sins.

You force everything into dichotomies, so that when we very carefully explain that within Calvinism man's genuine will and God's control, even as far as exhaustive determinism, do not conflict, you hear "man has no choice."

You have no knowledge of Greek, but you retranslate the Bible to make it say things that you prefer it would say, but which are grammatically the wrong translation.

And you do not admit when you have been proven wrong, but ignore it and say "Calvinism is wrong because of James 2:5." If Paul himself were to resurrect and tell you that you're wrong, would you even believe him?

 

[Van]

Calvinism cannot be defended with scripture or truth. the doctrine of total spiritual inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22. The doctrine of Unconditional Election, is demonstrated false by James 2:5. The doctrine Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2. The doctrine of Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13, where men entering heaven, and therefore under the supposed influence of irresisable grace, are turned aside, thus the grace is resisable.
Bottom line, four of the five points of the TULIP are unbiblical, and are not true.

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnusx1, are you sure you're a Calvinist? So then what you're saying is that all people were predestined, some through His choice (original covenant) some through Christ (new covenant.) Wow, I think you've got it! But, I'm not sure you're a Calvinist then. Better change your profile.

YES i AM SURE

 

[Reformationist]

The primary reason people take issue with Calvinism is because embracing it forces one to cease admiring oneself and seeking one's own glory and begin to see themselves as they truly are, unworthy of redemption and unable to do anything to justify or facilitate receiving it. The very idea that they may have been born again apart from anything they did or measure of merit God saw in them is most offensive to them. Sure, they'll deny this, and most vehemently, but it doesn't change the fact that, despite their acknowledgement of man's fallen condition, they believe he retains some measure of moral ability to choose to submit to God while likewise contending that if they had chosen, of their own "free will," to reject God's impotent offer, He would have been powerless to gather them. They even go so far as to, in many cases, contend that God places this impotency upon Himself, as if the Creator would, or could, ever condescend to be impotent in the face of man's obstinacy.

 

[light_eclipseca]

We are saved by grace through faith.

Now grace that is earned is not grace at all. Even faith is considered a gift from God.

Why should we pray for the unbeliever if it is totally up to them? God cannot change their hearts according to Pelagianism because that would be violating their free-will. No Calvinist states that people do not have choices. They only state that God chooses what people will choose him.

The Pelagian states that men choose who God chooses. So either man determines God, or God determines man. It's your choice. I personally believe that God hardened Pharoah's heart to disobedience (Ex), chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they could do anything to deserve it (Rom 9), caused Nebudchanezar to become insane (Dan 4), this is the same God who holds all (including choice) of our ways in His hands (Dan 5:23), who raises all of the men that he draws on the last day and who decalres to us that we cannot come to him unless he causes us to come to him (John 6:44), who controls kingdoms, and who wrote all of my days in his book before one of them even came to be (Ps 139).

I believe that Paul needed to defend God's ethics in Romans 9 because of this doctrine. If the doctrine of free-will were correct, then why would he not just state that? He could have said to us, "No, you've got it all wrong. God does not choose out of his own purpose, but he chooses because men choose him." It is much easier to accept afterall that it is not God's choice; but ours. Then God is not blamed for someone not being elect by him. Why does he then feel the need to defend God? Because at first glance and according to human emotion there must be some sort of unjustness with God if he elects some and does not elect others. If this was not his purpose for defending God, then what was? Rom 9:14 - is there unjustness with God? Romans 9:15-16 states, "For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy."

Rom 9:19 - Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.

 

[light_eclipseca]

The primary reason people take issue with Calvinism is because embracing it forces one to cease admiring oneself and seeking one's own glory and begin to see themselves as they truly are, unworthy of redemption and unable to do anything to justify or facilitate receiving it. The very idea that they may have been born again apart from anything they did or measure of merit God saw in them is most offensive to them. Sure, they'll deny this, and most vehemently, but it doesn't change the fact that, despite their acknowledgement of man's fallen condition, they believe he retains some measure of moral ability to choose to submit to God while likewise contending that if they had chosen, of their own "free will," to reject God's impotent offer, He would have been powerless to gather them. They even go so far as to, in many cases, contend that God places this impotency upon Himself, as if the Creator would, or could, ever condescend to be impotent in the face of man's obstinacy.

I do not believe that people do not believe Calvinism because it forces pride out of them. I think it has more to do with the idea that it makes God to be the cause of a man's reprobation, and this is difficult to accept. When someone proved to me that it is God's choice that causes men to believe or not, I did not want to accept it because of this. It made the problem of evil much more difficult to resolve in my mind. The day that I accepted it, however, I realized that I was determining what I felt was right and wrong instead of realizing that God is good and that even if he chooses that some are saved and some are not, He is still good. It was not me that saved me, because I can only choose evil and I gave myself over to the Spirit who sanctifies me because God caused me to. I took no credit for my salvation at that point and I realized that God has his purposes that we cannot begin to understand. He is truly in control and we are not. So, the reason I had difficulty was because I felt that God was then sending people to hell without their decision. Then, I realized that they decided too; but only because God did not decide to elect them. I still don't know if I believe in passive or active electin though. Double predestination still seems somewhat harsh; but I cannot let that be my standard of truth. I think that we should be fair to the Pelagian/Arminian, even though they do not believe the truth about the doctrine.

 

[Reformationist]

We are saved by grace through faith.

Now grace that is earned is not grace at all. Even faith is considered a gift from God.

Why should we pray for the unbeliever if it is totally up to them? God cannot change their hearts according to Pelagianism because that would be violating their free-will. No Calvinist states that people do not have choices. They only state that God chooses what people will choose him.

The Pelagian states that men choose who God chooses. So either man determines God, or God determines man. It's your choice. I personally believe that God hardened Pharoah's heart to disobedience (Ex), chose Jacob and rejected Esau before they could do anything to deserve it (Rom 9), caused Nebudchanezar to become insane (Dan 4), this is the same God who holds all (including choice) of our ways in His hands (Dan 5:23), who raises all of the men that he draws on the last day and who decalres to us that we cannot come to him unless he causes us to come to him (John 6:44), who controls kingdoms, and who wrote all of my days in his book before one of them even came to be (Ps 139).

I believe that Paul needed to defend God's ethics in Romans 9 because of this doctrine. If the doctrine of free-will were correct, then why would he not just state that? He could have said to us, "No, you've got it all wrong. God does not choose out of his own purpose, but he chooses because men choose him." It is much easier to accept afterall that it is not God's choice; but ours. Then God is not blamed for someone not being elect by him. Why does he then feel the need to defend God? Because at first glance and according to human emotion there must be some sort of unjustness with God if he elects some and does not elect others. If this was not his purpose for defending God, then what was? Rom 9:14 - is there unjustness with God? Romans 9:15-16 states, "For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy."

Rom 9:19 - Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.

It is the very method that Paul employs in Romans 9, that of stating the obvious objection to the idea of election and then giving the God centered response that recognizes God's authority in all things that come to pass, that proves, without doubt, that the Arminian "man's autonomy" view is unbiblical.

Nicely stated light_eclipseca.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I do not believe that people do not believe Calvinism because it forces pride out of them. I think it has more to do with the idea that it makes God to be the cause of a man's reprobation, and this is difficult to accept.

The problem is that God isn't the cause of man's reprobation, at least not in the sense that the Arminian seeks to portray. Man was created without a nature inclined to sin. Of his own volition, and for reasons I could not begin to explain, he that was without a sinful disposition chose to disobey God. It is by the volitional choice of man that post-Fall man inherits his reprobation. Once again, however, pride enters in, as an accusation of unfairness springs forth over God's decree that Adam's progeny would inherit his guilt. This, of course, stems from the prideful notion that there are, at least, some that would not have chosen to disobey. This argument is flawed as, by their objection, they show their affiliation with Adam's choice to rebel because they, like he, rebel at the notion that God has the right to impose His judgment where they feel they should be innocent.

When someone proved to me that it is God's choice that causes men to believe or not, I did not want to accept it because of this. It made the problem of evil much more difficult to resolve in my mind. The day that I accepted it, however, I realized that I was determining what I felt was right and wrong instead of realizing that God is good and that even if he chooses that some are saved and some are not, He is still good. It was not me that saved me, because I can only choose evil and I gave myself over to the Spirit who sanctifies me because God caused me to. I took no credit for my salvation at that point and I realized that God has his purposes that we cannot begin to understand. He is truly in control and we are not. So, the reason I had difficulty was because I felt that God was then sending people to hell without their decision. Then, I realized that they decided too; but only because God did not decide to elect them. I still don't know if I believe in passive or active electin though. Double predestination still seems somewhat harsh; but I cannot let that be my standard of truth. I think that we should be fair to the Pelagian/Arminian, even though they do not believe the truth about the doctrine.

That, too, is addressed in the chapter that you reference in your previous post. Romans 9 speaks to the heart of that very issue, man decrying God's choice to hold him [man] accountable for acting in accordance with the nature with which God had created him. Paul rebukes the notion with that acknowledgement that it is God, not man, who determines the purpose for His creation.

Anyway, to me, it mostly boils down to pride. Rarely, when all the fluff is pulled away, does the objection made by the Arminian revolve around the idea that God causes man to be evil. It matters not to him that he is evil in his own right, irrespective of his standing before God on the basis of Adam's disobedience. The obvious flaw to this logic, of course, is that when one cry's foul for God's choice to hold man accountable for what Adam did, he nullifies the right to call it righteous to hold him righteous by God's work.

God bless

 

[light_eclipseca]

Ya, I guess just for me, I didn't care so much about my own ability to choose God. Although I did and do have pride, it doesn't seem to me that this was the only thing that kept me from believing that God chose me. I also cared about the problem of evil being complicated. I realize now that the truth can be complicated though.

 

[JAL]

The obvious flaw to this logic, of course, is that when one cry's foul for God's choice to hold man accountable for what Adam did, he nullifies the right to call it righteous to hold him righteous by God's work.

The obvious flaw in your logic is that, while Adamic representation (federalism) is inherently unjust, atonement is perfectly just.

Why so? Give it some thought. You're a smart guy, I'll bet you'll figure out why in a couple of minutes. (Took me a couple of years).

 

[JAL]

Let's establish some ground rules here, namely that the claim, "We humans don't understand God's concept of justice" doesn't fly, for several reasons.

To begin with, suppose you attend a physics convention. All the great minds of our time are there. You stand up and say, "I have a new theory, called space-time warpage, which will solve many of the scientific challenges of our day."

They reply, "Great, tell us about it, so we can put it to use as soon as possible."

You reply, "Well, I would tell you about, but the problem is that it transcends human understanding. None of us can understaned it."

I think at that point they would have security escort you out the door!

That KIND of statement is inappropriate for an intelligent discussion. Likewise the person who says his theology cannot be understood should shut up because to utter humanly unintelligible words serves no useful purpose in an intelligent theological discussion.

And yet oddly enough, Federalists often state, "God's justice is beyond human understanding." What they should RATHER say is , "We Federalists don't even HAVE a theory of God's justice, we clearly don't know what we are talking about when we say that God condemns all men for Adam's sin, and therefore we should have kept our mouths shut from the beginning." Let's not PRETEND to have a theory of divine justice when in fact we don't have anything humanly intelligible, shall we?

Secondly, a theologian must be logically consistent. For example he is not to endorse a moral relatavism which proposes one standard of justice for man, another for God.

What then is the human concept of justice? I think pretty much everyone would agree that justice is fairness, meaning that the guilty (those who voluntarily transgressed) merit punishment, and those who have NOT voluntarily transgressed are innocent.

To believe in atonement is to admit that God holds to this same concept of justice (i.e fairness). Why so? Because if fairness isn't vital to God, He could put us all in heaven without having to worry about the atonement. It works like this. (1) Fairness demands that the guilty don't get the same reward as the innocent (at least not until the sentence has been served). (2) Therefore God served the sentence Himself, on the cross.

A third reason it is inappropriate to say, "My theory of divine justice is beyond human understanding" or to say "God isn't bound to regular ol' fairness" is that such renders the biblical promises self-contradictory. Why so? Because if virtues such as "love" and "justice" and "mercy" and "integrity" were qualitatively different for God than for man, than the biblical promises that God will "love" us with "justice" and "mercy" for all eternity - promises which purport to console us - BECOME CAUSE FOR ALARM.

A fourth argument that God holds to "regular ol' fairness" as His standard of justice is Ezekiel's testimony (Ezek 18) where God says that a child shall not be held guilty for the sins of His parents. Thus the children of Adam cannot be punished for his sins, if God be not a liar.

Since Adamic representation logically contradicts fairness, it is a logical contradiction to regard the God of federalism as a just God. Indeed, imagine a human judge who punished all men for the transgression of one, when in fact it was in his power to punish only the one. We would say that such a judge is literally at the ZENITH of evil. And federalists claim that their doctrine GLORIFIES God? Please.

The federalist will reply, "But Christ federally respresented men on the cross. This is proof that federalism (representationalism) is unavoidable."
Umm...No. Clearly Christ did NOT represent us federally. Rather He atoned for us, and the two have nothing to do with each other.

First of all, we see that atonement is just, that is, it fits into "regular ol' fairness" as all men understand it. Suppose for example my sister gets a speeding ticket. I offer to pay for it - but note that I earned this money by my own blood, sweat, and tears. Thus by paying the ticket, I am doing PRECISELY what Christ did on the cross - He shed His own blood, sweat, and tears to pay for our sins. To admit that it is okay to pay for someone's speeding ticket is to admit that atonement is a just concept.
Now I will show that His atonement was not federal (representational). In representationalism, the status of the rep determines the status of the people. As long as that rep remains innocent, the people are innocent. The status of the people has NOTHING to do with any behavior on their part. By definition, everything depends on the rep. Notice that Christ was ALWAYS innocent, even before the cross. Therefore if Christ were the federal rep of the human race, there would be no need to atone (and God would be unjust for sending Him needlessly to die). We would ALL be innocent (the whole human race) as long as Christ remained innocent. No human being would go to hell. Thus federalism logically contradicts the atonement.

Federalism leads to an absurd concept of "justice". For example, after Eve sinned, she should have killed Adam before he had a chance to sin. Since the rep would have died innocent, she too would have been innocent by representation. What kind of God would reward Eve for wanton murder?


Federalism is a contradiction in terms. Vizualize.
(1) Adam is our rep. Therefore we are guilty by representation.
(2) Christ is our rep. Therefore we are innocent by represesentation.

Huh? Which is it? Innocent? Or guilty? Someone will reply, "Well, Adam WAS our rep, but since he is no longer our rep, and now that Christ is our rep, we are now innocent." But if God can so remove Adam from rep-hood, then none of us would have been guilty in the first place! What kind of God has the option to remove Adam from rep-hood before it harms the rest of us and yet refrains from doing so?

Since federalism is both (a)logically self-contradictory and (b) contradictory to the atonement, a reasonable solution is to come up with a JUST explanation of how all men could be guilty in Adam.

There is only one solution (I challenge you to prove me wrong).

The solution is that God only created one soul, named Adam, but this one soul is of a subsantance which can be broken into parts, (presumably this would mean that the soul is a physical substance). Eve's soul was part of Adam's soul (taken physically from his ribs).

When Adam sinned, all his soul became stained with sin (i.e. depraved, addicted to sin). God then removed most of his soul to a place of suspended animation, and then Adam lived a fairly normal life (now being an individual separate and distinct from the rest of his soul).

At every human conception, God merges a portion of this sin-stained soul with the embryo. This is the SOURCE of universal human depravity. YOU, my friend, are Adam, even though can't remember choosing that fruit. YOU chose the fruit. I am NOT saying that your soul was "with Adam" - you ARE Adam. God punishes the GUILTY (we who actually sinned).

Why don't I remember? Same reason Christ couldn't remember anything as a newborn babe. He even had to learn Hebrew. I can't get into all that here.

One term I like to use for the human soul, therefore, is MULTIPLICITY. A mind is one mind, one individual, but since the component parts of this mind are, themselves, mind, a physical separation of the components from each other results in their individualization (they evolve into increasingly distinct individuals).


Now I am prepared to answer the objection, "But isn't Scripture federal when it says that the sins of the parents fall upon the children?"

Absolutely not. That would be unjust. These children are ALREADY GUILTY in Adam. They have hell to pay, and it is only by God's patience that they are not yet in hell. When their parents sin, however, they provoke God's anger (essentially exhausting His patience) and thus bring down upon their children the very judgment that these children deserve. So they are REALLY suffering for their own sin in Adam, NOT for the sins of their parents, which would be unjust (see Ezek 18).

 

[JAL]

I decided to move the post to a new thread.

http://foru.ms/t6252325-why-federalism-is-self-contradictory.html#post39694970

Please direct any replies to the new locaion.

 

[Reformationist]

I guess no one wanted to respond after you light_eclipseca. Way to kill the thread.

 

[JayJay77]

Reformationist, it's been a long while. Good to see you still arguing for Calvanism!

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist, it's been a long while. Good to see you still arguing for Calvanism!

Thanks bro. It's nice to be missed.