Where do you stand?

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SUNSTONE
I don't believe that man is scum bags who just can't help themselves from sinning.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scum bags" but I take it you mean that you do not believe in the total depravity of man's nature due to the Fall.  If that be the case, what do you think the effect of the Fall was on the nature of mankind?  Do you believe that there is still an "island of righteousness" at the core of fallen man?

God bless

 

[dignitized]

For man to be TOTALLY depraved it would require it to be impossible for man to do anything that is in any way good. That is simply not the case. There are examples everyday of self sacrifice by non-Christians.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Br. Max
For man to be TOTALLY depraved it would require it to be impossible for man to do anything that is in any way good.

Hmmm...gee...I wonder if Scripture says that:

Romans 3:12
They have all turned aside;
        They have together become unprofitable;
        THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, NO, NOT ONE."

By the way, I never said, "all mankind is totally depraved."  I said "all unregenerate man is depraved."  While we still struggle with our old nature after regeneration we have been given a new nature that desires to do for God's good pleasure.  Additionally, when we are not righteously motivated we are righteous before God on account of the obedience of Christ.

That is simply not the case.

That's not what Scripture says.

There are examples everyday of self sacrifice by non-Christians.

Give one example of a non-Christian doing something because of their faith in God.  Because, you should know what the Bible says on that:

Romans 14:23
for WHATEVER is not from faith is sin.

If these non-Christians are not doing something based on their faith in God then it is sin.

God bless

 

[SUNSTONE]

What I am saying is that people will sin and say "well no one is perfect" or "well I am just human". In other words they are just giving up, and making excuses for there sin.

 

[Gerry]

5 point Calvinist

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Br. Max
For man to be TOTALLY depraved it would require it to be impossible for man to do anything that is in any way good. That is simply not the case. There are examples everyday of self sacrifice by non-Christians.

I think that you are describing Utter depravity more accurately than total depravity.  The dfference is that in utter depravity man does the worst thing possible all the time.  This is not what Calvinism teaches.  It teaches total depravity which means that man is dead and cannot search for God.  Reformanist described it most accurately when he asked you if you know of a nonChristian who does because of their faith in God. Unregenerated man will never seek after God until God gives him the grace to do so.  Now the Calvinist way is the not the only way to believe if one holds total depravity. (just a note)

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Defender of the Faith 777

What part of Calvinism do you not agree with, and what part of Arminianism do you agree with?

I will try.

Okay I believe that many is totally depraved.  This is what Calvinists and Jacob Arminius believed.  Arminians today do not though.  But I think Paul's quote of scripture in Romans 3 shows that we can't come to God unless He gives us the grace.

Now I Also believe in OSAS.  This is of course a Calvinist teaching.  I kind of believe the same thing as Jacob Arminius though who was undecided on this topic.  I do not know because I can't know.  I think OSAS is the best explanation but there are tough verses and we can't know who is saved or not because we can't look at other people's hearts so I guess I believe OSAS but I can't say that absolutely one can't lose one's salvation.  However again I think OSAS lines up the best with scripture.

Now here come the hard part.

I believe in many ways in limited atonement.  God knew not all would be saved and when Christ died it was practically only for the elect.  I do think God offers salvation to all but the real question is can all accept His offer? Another words God said if yanyone has faith in me then they will be saved. But can all have this faith?  Here is where I kind of deviate from Calvinism.  I think that some have a better chance of having the faith but all have a chance. I do not think that God would be unjust to not give all enough grace to be able to choose but I think it more clearly goes with scripture and the how the God of scripture relates to us.  But this is hard and it is a question I a, still wrestling with.  I do not know exactly what this makes me but I believe in previent grace more than I believe that God only gave teh required grace to a few select ones. 

I can say much more but probably questions will help me make it more clear.  So ask away.  I am very close to Calvinism besides this one point of how God deals out his grace.  This is one of those questions where I realize that I know much but there is so much more that I do not know.  There is more I do not know than what I know.  I do kow that God is 100% sovereign and we are 100% responsible for our sins.  That we are not robots and that God is loving and merciful but also holy and righteous.  I know that He is God and only because of His mercy and grace to me and love for me am I saved.  That I do know.  I like discussing the other parts that I do not know but it seems I have more and more questions as I discuss it more and more. 

 

[seebs]

I've always been curious about the "totally depraved" and "grace" thing. I see people do things that sure don't *look* evil, and they don't all believe in God... So what does that mean? Grace is found in everyone? If so, what exactly is the meaningful difference between "we are totally depraved, but God grants us grace" and "we have both good and evil in us"?

 

[cenimo]

I voted Arminian but that label is a little misleading, this is why:

Calvinists are flat out Calvinists and predestinarians (their preferred termin stead of predestinationist,  I think) be it four or five point Calvinists.

Because of the predestination-free will issue, Calvinists label everyone who doesn't go for predestination as an Armiian, but that is a Calvinist term slapped on anyone who doesn't agree with their doctrine. There are millions of people in "Arminian churches" who have never heard the term.

As far as I know there are no "books of Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Campbell"  or any similar person in the Bible... I prefr to hear the words of Jesus, thank you

See Leviathan's posting on page 1 of this thread... exactly what I'm talking about...

ps

(for a real thrill, you can look up Jean Cauvin, Calvin's real name...and Jerome Bolsec, the fellow Calvin had burned at the stake, but that's another discussion)

 

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
I believe in many ways in limited atonement.  God knew not all would be saved and when Christ died it was practically only for the elect.  I do think God offers salvation to all but the real question is can all accept His offer? Another words God said if yanyone has faith in me then they will be saved. But can all have this faith?  Here is where I kind of deviate from Calvinism.  I think that some have a better chance of having the faith but all have a chance.

I don't mean to step on any toes DotF777, but I'd like to address this.  It's very important to note that the natural capacity for choosing God was not lost in the Fall.  What was lost was the moral inclination.  As I stated before (I'm not sure if it was this thread) Jonathan Edwards sums this up very concisely.  He said that "man will always choose according to his greatest desire or inclination at the moment."  Calvinism does not teach that man could not choose God, rather that he never would choose God because unregenerate man's greatest desire is never to please God.  For example, if you desire to lose weight you might go on a diet.  Now, right after you eat it is very easy to say, "I'm going to lose weight."  However, a number of hours later you will get hungry.    If all things stayed the same we would basically encounter a deadlocked battle of one against the other.  However, things do not stay the same.  Gradually, your desire for nourishment will increase and your desire to remain steadfast on your diet will relationally decrease.  As soon as your desire for food is greater than your desire to lose weight you will eat.  In a spiritual context this would work the same way.  For a regenerate person they have both the desire to please the flesh and the desire to please God.  Let's say you have a girlfriend.  You may desire to please your flesh and be with her sexually while at the same time desiring to be obedient to God's Word.  You will be obedient until such time as your desire to please your fleshly lusts exceeds your desire to remain obedient to God.  When it reaches that point, you will sin. 

BH, I strongly recommend the book Grace Unknown by R. C. Sproul.  It is absolutely incredible and explains every single thing in such a clear concise way that when you get done reading it you'll wonder why you haven't always seen things so clearly.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by seebs
I've always been curious about the "totally depraved" and "grace" thing. I see people do things that sure don't *look* evil, and they don't all believe in God...

Unregenerate man most definitely has the ability to perform works of civil virtue.  These works outwardly conform to the Law of God, but they are not motivated by a love for God.  As Scripture tells us, anything that is not from faith is sin:

Romans 14:23
for whatever is not from faith is sin.

So what does that mean? Grace is found in everyone?

God's grace is given to the just and the unjust:

Matthew 5:45
for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

The very first act of God's grace towards man is found in the second chapter of Genesis when He created man.  That is closely followed in chapter three when God, instead of imposing the eternal punishment that was earned by Adam's transgressions, He instead made divine providence by promising to send His Son.

It is God's grace that keeps us all from being utterly depraved.  Were it not for His restraing grace we'd probably all be Geoffrey Dahlmers.

The distinction that needs to be made is between this general grace and God's salvitic, or saving, grace.  This saving grace He reserves for those He has sovereignly chosen before the foundations of the world according to His private counsel.

If so, what exactly is the meaningful difference between "we are totally depraved, but God grants us grace" and "we have both good and evil in us"?

As I noted, if we attribute fallen man with the ability to choose both good and evil then we deny the necessity of Christ's death.  If we believe that fallen man could choose either good or evil with no specific inclination then, conceivably, he could always choose good and then we'd have to say that nothing was lost in the Fall.

God bless

 

[SnuP]

1)  Man has free will.  But there are more then just two choices and that is why so many are confused.  Both positions on this point are correct.  But they both miss the key issue.  Man has the freedom to choose to do what ever he wants, both good and evil.  But both of these choices are evil in God's eyes since they are not Godly.  You can choose to do good or evil or you can choose to do what God tells you.  Only the last choice is the right one since the first two are out of mans flesh.  The only thing is that it is impossible to do God's will unless you have a relationship with God, giving you a foundation to start with and sustain you to keep you from slipping back into acts of the flesh(whether good or evil).

2)  This second statement is in reference to Romans 8.  The problem is that in studing the scripture so many have become so ingrossed in trying to figure it out that they forgot about the first part of verse 29.  For those God foreknew.  God foreknew everyone.  And now for the rest of the verse.  He predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.  God has predestined everyone to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.  But since not everyone enters into that predestination, those people can not pertake of the calling, the justification, of the glory.  All of these things must be recieved and agreed with for them to take effect in a persons life.

3)  Universal redemption.  It should be obvious from my position on the last statement that I agree with the arminians here.

4)  and (Resistible regeneration)

5)  (Falling from grace) I agree with the arminians on both of these points.

So the verdic is that I agree completely with neither since they are both incomplete.  Rather as discribed in points one and two, I agree with Christ, not man.

 

[cenimo]

It's very hard to believe God would have people "born condemned"
(not chosen)

One of the best statements I've ever seen in this argument was by a former homosexual, who said when he was in that lifestyle and needed something to blame it on predestination fit like a glove.

To try and conince people that some have no hope and never will have is hardly evangelizing.

Jesus came to save all, and all means all, not any Calvinistic twisting of the definition of all (one from this nation, one from that nations, means all nations)

Calvinism and Acts 16:30-31 cannot both be right, IMHO.

 

[Ioustinos]

Originally posted by cenimo


Jesus came to save all, and all means all, not any Calvinistic twisting of the definition of all (one from this nation, one from that nations, means all nations)

1) Did Jesus save all mankind? Or just some?

2) What was the mystery that Paul revealed in the book of Ephesians?

Calvinism and Acts 16:30-31 cannot both be right, IMHO.

I believe it can Only those whom God gives His grace to will believe on Jesus Christ.

 

[sklippstein]

i didn't care for either selection......but voted anyways.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by SnuP
Man has the freedom to choose to do what ever he wants, both good and evil.  But both of these choices are evil in God's eyes since they are not Godly.  You can choose to do good or evil or you can choose to do what God tells you.  Only the last choice is the right one since the first two are out of mans flesh.

I'm going to strive to give you the benefit of my doubt because, to me, this makes no sense.  "Good" is defined as "what God says is good."  How can man choose "good" but it not be what God says is "good?"  If something is other than what God says is "good" then that would seem to negate it's goodness.  If all man can choose is what God would say is "evil," then wouldn't that mean that all of man's choices are "evil?"  "Good" is not determined by what man says is "good."  So, saying that man can choose what God says is "evil" makes the decision evil, regardless of what man determined as "good" or "evil."

This second statement is in reference to Romans 8.  The problem is that in studing the scripture so many have become so ingrossed in trying to figure it out that they forgot about the first part of verse 29.  For those God foreknew.

Before I address the rest, let me once again point out that "foreknew" DOES NOT just mean to "know before, or know about."  It implies an obvious relationship, a relationship of intimacy.

For those God foreknew.  God foreknew everyone.  And now for the rest of the verse.  He predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.

It amazes me how people regularly seek to prove their intelligence in a way that shows they have no understanding of what they're talking about.  If the verse says that "those that God foreknew (had an intimate relationship with) He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son" then those that He foreknew WILL BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.  To imply that God predestines, that is, determine the destination of prior to [the foundations of the world], and then there are some that were so predestined and yet were not conformed to the image of Christ is to blatantly say that God made a sovereign effort to bring something about and it didn't happen.  How do you even worship God if He cannot bring about His own Will.  It's one thing to think that man can resist God's power, as odd as that is, but to think that God cannot bring about that which He purposes to bring about is ridiculous.

God has predestined everyone to be conformed to the likeness of His Son.

Huh???!!!

But since not everyone enters into that predestination, those people can not pertake of the calling, the justification, of the glory.

Double Huh???!!!  God predestined everyone but not everyone enters that predestination???  What is predestination?  A building?

All of these things must be recieved and agreed with for them to take effect in a persons life.

Ooooohhhh, I get it now.  God has to have His creations permission and agreement before the death of God incarnate was of any value in a person's life.  Yeah.  That makes sense.

God bless

 

[dignitized]

SO reformationist - there has been a question burning in my heart for a long while now . . . How long have you been a frustrated preacher??

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Reformationist
I don't mean to step on any toes DotF777, but I'd like to address this.  It's very important to note that the natural capacity for choosing God was not lost in the Fall.  What was lost was the moral inclination.  As I stated before (I'm not sure if it was this thread) Jonathan Edwards sums this up very concisely.  He said that "man will always choose according to his greatest desire or inclination at the moment."  Calvinism does not teach that man could not choose God, rather that he never would choose God because unregenerate man's greatest desire is never to please God.  For example, if you desire to lose weight you might go on a diet.  Now, right after you eat it is very easy to say, "I'm going to lose weight."  However, a number of hours later you will get hungry.    If all things stayed the same we would basically encounter a deadlocked battle of one against the other.  However, things do not stay the same.  Gradually, your desire for nourishment will increase and your desire to remain steadfast on your diet will relationally decrease.  As soon as your desire for food is greater than your desire to lose weight you will eat.  In a spiritual context this would work the same way.  For a regenerate person they have both the desire to please the flesh and the desire to please God.  Let's say you have a girlfriend.  You may desire to please your flesh and be with her sexually while at the same time desiring to be obedient to God's Word.  You will be obedient until such time as your desire to please your fleshly lusts exceeds your desire to remain obedient to God.  When it reaches that point, you will sin.

 

Okay I am kind of confused if this was meant to me in some way but I know that Calvinism teaches what you say.  I hope I did not give the impression that I did not.  In fact I agree with this view.  Man in his natural state will never choose God not because he physically could not but because in his natural state man does not want to choose God.  Both Jacob Arminius and Calvin agree here.  The question is what does God do from there?  Does He partially regenerate all (previent grace) so that one can make a choice or does God fully regenerate only some and they all make the choice to choose God because He is irrresistable?  This I believe is the real question and point of contention between Calvinism and the theology of Jacob Arminius. I will not ARminians because many of them have a different theology their founder.  I would say that most ARminians have never heard of previent grace.  Heck most Christians have not heard of that term.   

BH, I strongly recommend the book Grace Unknown by R. C. Sproul.  It is absolutely incredible and explains every single thing in such a clear concise way that when you get done reading it you'll wonder why you haven't always seen things so clearly.

God bless [/B]

Thanks for the recomendation.  As you know I have read "willing to believe"  (I think that is the title) and "Chosen by God" by RC Sproul.  Both are great books.  I will read Grace unknown shortly after I finish what I am reading now.  I am in a spirtuality kick and I am reading Bernard of Clairvaux's "On loving God." 

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by cenimo


One of the best statements I've ever seen in this argument was by a former homosexual, who said when he was in that lifestyle and needed something to blame it on predestination fit like a glove.

Does one person using predestination as an excuse for sin that make it wrong? 

To try and conince people that some have no hope and never will have is hardly evangelizing. [/B]

But what if it is the truth? Do not talk to people about sin because it upsets them?  If you do speak about sin I could use the same argument on you.  couldn't I?

Jesus came to save all, and all means all, not any Calvinistic twisting of the definition of all (one from this nation, one from that nations, means all nations) [/B]

Well Jesaiah already addressed this but I will also.  jesus obviously knew before he came down to earth who was going to be saved and who was not.  Right?  So Jesus did not come to save all.  One could possibly say that He came to give all a chance to be saved but clearly I think we have to say that Jesus death was really only for the elect because only the ones who have faith in Him get the benefits of His sacrifice.  So when Jesus was hanging on the cross He knew who He was dying for and who He was not.  At least that is the way I see it. Again I think the real question is what does God do to take us from a totally depraved state to one in which we can choose Him?

Calvinism and Acts 16:30-31 cannot both be right, IMHO. [/B]

Acts 16:30-31
30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
(NAU)

I do not see Calvinism teaching anything to the contrary of this.  They believe that salvation comes through faith.  Again the real question is how can we go from a totally depraved state to a point in which we can choose God?  Some of the smaller questions that are related to this is Does God make it possible for everyone to choose Him or only some?  Does God fully or only partially regenerate us before our faith?  After God regenerates us can we not choose to have faith in Him or will we always choose to have faith?  There are more but the most basic question is the first one I asked. 

 

 

[cenimo]

Blackhawk

Well Jesaiah already addressed this but I will also. jesus obviously knew before he came down to earth who was going to be saved and who was not. Right? So Jesus did not come to save all.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

This is good and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to know the truth.