Understanding Calvinism

[heymikey80]

To answer your question, Adam was created a son of God and denied his inheritance with God through sin.

 

[billybtennessee]

To answer your question, Adam was created a son of God and denied his inheritance with God through sin.

'denied his inheritance'. Was Adam given freedom to do this, or purposely made to? Why did God warn him concerning? Was he accountable then, for this?

 

[Zeena]

To answer your question, Adam was created a son of God and denied his inheritance with God through sin.

Is this the calvinist view?

And what about hyper-calvinism?

Do they hold a different view?

 

[Zeena]

The real question is, would you even be persuaded if they did? Considering your presuppositions towards Calvinism, I highly doubt it.

Do you truly believe that any believer who is shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Truth as revealed from God, would rather believe a lie?

2 Cor 13:18
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

Even if they should rather believe a lie, God will take away that covering.

1 Cor 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

 

[Tzaousios]

Do you truly believe that any believer who is shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Truth as revealed from God, would rather believe a lie?

This is another tactic that is always used around here. It draws a false dichotomy between "us" (non-Calvinists), and "them/The Other" (Calvinists), by making insinuations about access to truth and the power of the Spirit.

You tell me, what do you mean to say about Calvinists as believers?

 

[Zeena]

This is another tactic that is always used around here. It draws a false dichotomy between "us" (non-Calvinists), and "them/The Other" (Calvinists), by making insinuations about access to truth and the power of the Spirit.

You tell me, what do you mean to say about Calvinists as believers?

I said any believer, whether they be calvinist or not.

Do you truly believe that any believer who is shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Truth as revealed from God, would rather believe a lie?

2 Cor 13:18
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

Even if they should rather believe a lie, God will take away that covering.

1 Cor 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

It's not theology that makes a believer, it's faith.

 

[Tzaousios]

I said any believer, whether they be calvinist or not.

Okay, then I do not see why you needed to make the distinction in the first place. Implicitly, everyone taking part in here is a believer. I have not seen anyone confess unbelief or apostacy lately.

It's not theology that makes a believer, it's faith.

That is a nice Hallmark card phrase. However, at the same time, being interested in and having a theology does not preclude the same person having faith. There is no "us" (the spiritually pure ones who rely only on faith), and "them/The Other" (the spiritually corrupted ones who rely on their carnal natures and theologies) taking part in this discussion.

 

[heymikey80]

Is this the calvinist view?

And what about hyper-calvinism?

Do they hold a different view?

What -- that Adam lost his inheritance through sin, or that he was a son of God?

The idea of "son of God" is limited, as Luke states it in a lineage form. So the question would be answered differently by different lines of Calvinism -- much more, Christianity. It's quite clear from Genesis that Adam was not procreated by God in the expected sense, and other passages point out Adam is not a god -- he is in fact made "a little lower than angels".

On the other hand, Adam was created "in the image of God", and in an uncorrupted form is ideally the visible image of God.

He defaced that image through the Fall, as well.

In addition, there are impacts on the physical construction of humanity as a result of the Fall. We break down, just as death has entered the entirety of creation through the Fall so it is also found in us.

So you'll find say in Strong's view a focus on the genetic impact of the Fall. But in the Covenantal view, that is the classic Reformed view, that genetic impact, while it exists, is accompanied by the covenantal view of representative federal headship, in which Adam had an inheritance with God through his creation and purpose by God, but by rejecting that purpose, Adam fell and lost that inheritance, and so too did his descendants.

Hpercalvinism is varied. There are some who think the elect are created differently. Others don't, but think it's useless to evangelize generally because God will save those He wills. Still others think it's improper to make a plea for conversion, seeing that God moves in people to convert them. Some are simply supralapsarian. Others are hyper-supra, thinking that God accomplished their salvation in eternity past. The point in all this is that God starts with promises, and then takes action on those promises; God ordains, and then brings about what He ordains. God prepares, then applies salvation.

 

[Zeena]

Okay, then I do not see why you needed to make the distinction in the first place. Implicitly, everyone taking part in here is a believer. I have not seen anyone confess unbelief or apostacy lately.

I didn't make the distinction, you did, here;

The real question is, would you even be persuaded if they did? Considering your presuppositions towards Calvinism, I highly doubt it.

That is a nice Hallmark card phrase. However, at the same time, being interested in and having a theology does not preclude the same person having faith.

Did I ever say it did?

There is no "us" (the spiritually pure ones who rely only on faith), and "them/The Other" (the spiritually corrupted ones who rely on their carnal natures and theologies) taking part in this discussion.

That's not what you implied above though.

Our sister was obviously taken aback by your statement, and here you are continuing headlong..

I would like to have PM'd this to you, but for the sake the sin was public, ergo a public appology is expected.

Not only so, but you accused me of 'using a tactic' as well.

Come now, let us rekindle our love in the bond of peace.

Is it because I chose the word 'they' in the previous post when referring to hyper-calvinists that you were intent to tear me down?
For even the Apostle Paul used such referrences when referring to others, not himself;

1 Cor 15:11
Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

I never thought I'd see the day I had to defend my english!

 

[Zeena]

What -- that Adam lost his inheritance through sin, or that he was a son of God?

That he was the son of God.

The idea of "son of God" is limited, as Luke states it in a lineage form. So the question would be answered differently by different lines of Calvinism -- much more, Christianity. It's quite clear from Genesis that Adam was not procreated by God in the expected sense, and other passages point out Adam is not a god -- he is in fact made "a little lower than angels".

On the other hand, Adam was created "in the image of God", and in an uncorrupted form is ideally the visible image of God.

He defaced that image through the Fall, as well.

In addition, there are impacts on the physical construction of humanity as a result of the Fall. We break down, just as death has entered the entirety of creation through the Fall so it is also found in us.

So you'll find say in Strong's view a focus on the genetic impact of the Fall. But in the Covenantal view, that is the classic Reformed view, that genetic impact, while it exists, is accompanied by the covenantal view of representative federal headship, in which Adam had an inheritance with God through his creation and purpose by God, but by rejecting that purpose, Adam fell and lost that inheritance, and so too did his descendants.

Hpercalvinism is varied. There are some who think the elect are created differently. Others don't, but think it's useless to evangelize generally because God will save those He wills. Still others think it's improper to make a plea for conversion, seeing that God moves in people to convert them. Some are simply supralapsarian. Others are hyper-supra, thinking that God accomplished their salvation in eternity past. The point in all this is that God starts with promises, and then takes action on those promises; God ordains, and then brings about what He ordains. God prepares, then applies salvation.

Then I await the OP's response.

Pinkman, you there?

 

[Pinkman]

The real question is, would you even be persuaded if they did? Considering your presuppositions towards Calvinism, I highly doubt it.

Hi Tzaoussios

That is not real real question at all. Neither is any comparison with arminianism.

The real question is for example what do Calvinists believe by 'Total depravity'

Is it e.g babies born obnoxious and odious to God ? Or does it mean we are "totally affected". Do all Calvinist hold the same views or even understand the canon of dordt the same ?

Having trawled through a lot of posts it seems clear to me why non Calvinists can get a bit confused as to what Calvinism actually is.

I reckon Calvinism can stand up to some severe scrutiny. Which is the purpose of the thread.

Thanks for your input and time in reading the posts.

 

[heymikey80]

The I await the OP's response.

Pinkman, you there?

That's nice. I just described the variation in Calvinistic views. There are variations, they're understood, they're actually described concisely in "The Imputation of Adam's Sin".

 

[Tzaousios]

That is not real real question at all. Neither is any comparison with arminianism.

It was a figure of speech. I was not talking about the OP there.

 

[Zeena]

That's nice. I just described the variation in Calvinistic views. There are variations, they're understood, they're actually described concisely in "The Imputation of Adam's Sin".

There is no pre-defined teaching?

 

[heymikey80]

The real question is for example what do Calvinists believe by 'Total depravity'

Why would that be a significant issue? For instance:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Is there some controversy to this assertion?

Is it e.g babies born obnoxious and odious to God ? Or does it mean we are "totally affected". Do all Calvinist hold the same views or even understand the canon of dordt the same ?

Are infants born pure?

Having trawled through a lot of posts it seems clear to me why non Calvinists can get a bit confused as to what Calvinism actually is.

Then it could be clearly stated.

To me the issue is that the questions themselves don't originate from within the Calvinistic viewpoint. As a result, the answer is varied, because the viewpoint it originates from, is not self-consistent and does not start with a solid foundation. So the questions themselves end up being the subject of criticism.

It's like a child asking, "Why can't I fly?" The answers are highly varied depending on what context the question comes from. You could go into a number of answers about the power it takes to fly, and about the forces and equipment it would take -- only to discover the child was wondering why he couldn't board the plane with sis.

 

[Pinkman]

Well, "snide remarks," "ad hominem," and "red herring" are merely rhetorical labels which you have applied in order to obfuscate my point.

Perhaps you (or readers) need a refresher of the nature of your interactions with Calvinists and Calvinism in Soteriology. Besides the usual insinuations of Calvinism as "doctrines of men/demons" and making God into a "Monster," I recall a specific instance where Calvinism was attempted to be pressed into the service of the feminist discourse of oppressive patriarchy and chauvinism. It was interesting, to say the least. I am sorry if it made me wonder why you were looking for more definitions when you provided some of your own, before.

The poster did not say any of the above. If some one did please prove the opposite.

 

[Tzaousios]

The poster did not say any of the above. If some one did please prove the opposite.

Is this an exercise in contrarianism or something? Read up on past debates and you will see what I mean.

 

[heymikey80]

On the other hand, making snide remarks about what I would or would not do with the answers (if they are ever given at all), is an ad hominem and a red herring-- two fallacies for the price of one!

o .... kay, the poster "2thePoint" did say quite a bit of the above.

 

[heymikey80]

There is no pre-defined teaching?

There is a range of responses that operates in the pale of Reformed teaching, as defined by the theology expressed by the statements of Scripture. These are summarized under the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Confession, or in the broadly Reformed group the London Confession. The Reformed church is a living, breathing church, ready to examine and reform toward Scripture. But it's an extensive analysis to accomplish at this point, just because of the corpus of learning and thought that have worked toward the present view.

For instance, mediate imputation of Adam's sin is a possibility in Reformed thinking. Yet no one's come up with a consistent approach that will satisfy the formidable challenge of Scriptural statements regarding mediate imputation. There have been advocates and representatives. But as they've learned of the challenges, they've tended to return back on realization of where it leads.

 

[Pinkman]

That he was the son of God.

Then I await the OP's response.

Pinkman, you there?

Hi I am back.

Was Adam the son of God ? No - at least not in the sense that Jesus was begotten not made. Adam was created.

J Calvin writes
"God not only foresaw the fall off the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity: but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7.

This is the supralapsarian Calvinist view ( The poster above clearly knows loads more about this than me).

We are all sons and daughters of God, after all we do call him 'Our father in heaven'. So I suppose it all comes down to how you understand the phrase 'the son of..'

Would you agree ?