Words that Calvinists IGNORE

chestertonrules, are you going to answer?

No, I meant the post that I spent hours answering for you. #54 and #55 in this thread.

Okay... how about the rest? ...I had a lot more than that in there, you know.

You are distorting scripture.

Let me help:

Romans 5:18 - Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

led=COMPLETED
leads=IN PROGRESS

Jesus is leading, but we must follow to reach the destination. All men can follow his lead, but none are forced to follow. Original sin has already led all men to condemnation.

Click to expand...

No you are distorting scripture, you actually validated his point, you are giving adams leading into death [past tense] more assurance and strength and perfection of accomplishement] than christ leading into life ..whereas the writer of romans is using the perfect contrast to bring his point acoss..

Just as adams one act of disobedience was succesful in accomplishing death, so likewise the second adams act of obedience was successful in accompling life..

The elect are not born in this world having to choose spiritual death, it was a choice already made, so likewise, the elect dont have to choose to be spirtually reborn, thats a choice made for them..

Jesus christ the second adam via His resurrection provides and activates the newbirth of the elect..

1 pet 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

By the way, chestertonrules, do you actually read the entirety of each of my posts?

chestertonrules said,It's easy to see that one is in past tense and the other in future tense. I did not miss that. (If I am not mistaken, those words aren't actually in the Greek, anyway.) But the implication is certainly the same, and easy to understand: one's over with, the other is coming.

But that wasn't my point, chestertonrules. The point is in the parallels that Paul is employing in his prose. Like I said, you are asserting that, because it's in future tense, one of the statements is only declaring possibility, whereas the other, because it's in past tense, declares certainty.

And that... for all men. Every last one. In your scheme, that seems to fit with the facts, so far: you say that it says that all men before Christ are certainly condemned (a fact revealed, you say, because it's in past tense) and that all men after Christ have a chance to possibly be justified (a fact revealed, you say, because it's in future tense).

Let's put both verses here in the way you are reading them:

18 One trespass led to condemnation for all men. One act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 One man's disobedience made many sinners. One man's obedience will make many righteous.

Here's where I think your scheme suffers: the next verse, Romans 5:19, which says, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

In this case, why does he only say "many"? Tell me if my answering is what you would say: "Because only many will be made righteous--not all, of course, because not all people will be saved--only those who, of their own free will, believe and accept Jesus." Accurate? If so, then what of the previous clause? The previous clause said that only "many" were made sinners. You said before that the past tense was what enabled you to conclude that verse 18 truly meant that all men were condemned. But this is past tense, too, and it only says many were made sinners. Now which one is it? Is it many condemned and sinners (and some not), or all condemned and sinners? And you were so emphatic on the point of inclusion--i.e., pretty much that the word "all" must absolutely never be interpreted as anything but "every last single human being who ever lived, lives now, or ever will live." Why do you not explain the next verse, verse 19? Why not be as emphatic on the word "many," as well?

Of course, the verses actually read:

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Those words are actually there in the Greek, you know, hos and houto. Do you think they're extraneous? The way you're reading the passage, you're acting like they don't even exist. No, they're there for a very specific reason. I've already gone through and painstakingly explained that reason, but you seem to have ignored it. You say that I'm making an "elaborate effort to avoid the simple meaning in Romans 5," but this is obviously not true. I'm taking great pains to make sure I know what the passage is actually saying, according to the style and grammar of the author. In other words, if I didn't know any better, I'd think that the "so" in John 3:16 actually means "very much" rather than its true Greek (houto) meaning, "in this manner." But since learning that it is not, I do not treat it as though it were. Same with Romans 5.I wasn't arguing that point, chestertonrules. I was demonstrating that people often misinterpret one Greek word in order to prove their point, which makes their argument invalid. You came back as though your reply was a counterargument or something. It's attacking a point that I didn't even make.Again, this would only be true if you totally ignored the style and grammar of the passage.

Before I move on to your next post, please tell me why this consideration of the passage is most certainly, in your opinion, not correct:And please tell me why you've not addressed anything about this parallel relationship between Adam and Christ to which I have referred in this discussion.

chestertonrules said,Partly correct, partly incorrect. "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God' . . . Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God" (Romans 3:9-11, 19). Since all men are under sin, God requires justice for disobedience. Thus, "choosing" some men for hell is misleading; it really is men who deserve to go to hell for their sins. On the other hand, the ones who go to heaven did not deserve it, but were recipients of God's unmerited grace. The Bible is absolutely replete with that declaration. We're going to see what that means, however, in point 3.

A question for you: You have stated in this thread in two places, "The elect are those who remain in the love of Jesus, those who obey his commands. God already knows who will reject him" (21), and "Calvinists claim that God created some men for the express purpose of damning them" (22). If God already knows that in the future, most people will never, ever, ever accept Him, and He knows that their certain and sure end is painful torment in Hell... how is that different from what you charge Calvinists? He created them just the same, in either scenario, didn't He? They rejected Him just the same, in either scenario, didn't they? Now, you might reply, "But no! For in the Calvinist scheme, it was already all planned out, and they didn't even have a chance or possibility of being saved!" Is it really a chance or possibility of being saved when God knows that they will never accept, when God knows perfectly and absolutely that they will go to Hell, anyway? Why would it be somehow "more loving" for God to do this? In this sense, isn't it God taunting those damned men, because He pretends to offer a chance or possibility of salvation, all the while knowing that they're actually going to go to Hell, no matter what? "No matter what," of course, because God knows the future perfectly, doesn't He? And He knows the destination of every creature, doesn't He?Correct, per Jesus' words: "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:14-15). Jesus made a distinction in this passage and surrounding of those who were and who were not His sheep, which signifies a difference between those for whom He is laying down His life and those for whom He is not laying down His life. "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9). Again, for a group and not for another group. Remember, though, that Calvinism teaches that there is actually a period of sin in which the elect lives--i.e., as "unregenerated." It's why the Westminster Confession of Faith reads in chapter 11, section 4, "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them." "In due time," being the key phrase there. Thus, I think that any inclination of ours to seek God only comes from the Holy Spirit (since, as in point 1, we naturally do not seek God).Incorrect, and surprisingly ignorant. You may think Calvinists twists words here and there to make their doctrine fit the Bible--whatever, you're allowed to think that--but to charge them with blatantly ignoring the entirety of each of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life is absolutely deplorable and untrue. You think they say that we can be saved without following Jesus? There is such a thing called Hyper-Calvinism, you know, and it is not the same thing as Calvinism. What you have just charged Calvinists here is something that Calvinists do not believe, but Hyper-Calvinists likely do. Among others on this list (click here) is a statement of the exact same thing you accuse of Calvinists: "that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do." The "fifth point" in Calvinism, the doctrine called "Preservation of the Saints," sincerely admits that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved, but the Westminster Confession of Faith continues on to say, in chapter 17, section 2, that it depends also upon "the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them." And what does that Spirit do? Produces growth in a person! Thus, the human being who walks and follows Jesus ought also to grow in Him and in His Spirit. We become more like Him and less like the "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3) that we once were. It's been said that this, sanctification, is the one synergistic aspect of our salvation; the rest is entirely of God, monergistic, a sole actor.Mostly correct. Westminster of Confession, chapter 18, section 3, "Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves." We cannot turn away so as to make Jesus' justification for their sins all for naught, for Jesus does not fail in what He does, but we can still sin, and in that sense, all sinning is a turning away from God.But so far, you have demonstrated that you refuse correction, even on points as simple as these. Historic Calvinism has always rejected the errors you are attributing to it (it's in writing, too, by the way).

Erg. I jumped to a conclusion; just... let me know when you're actually finished answering all the points you're going to answer. It'd be a lot easier if you could do this all in one posting, as I have.

chestertonrules said,Actually, Paul said it first in Romans 4:4. Your mocking is asserting that you believe your works earn you salvation, that God gives you salvation, that it's your due, that it's given because of what you've done. False.

Hi chestertonrules,

I think that you are correct in some things ~~ but stated them in such a way that raised objection. Unconditional election means all man in the fall became separated from God by sin. In a state of separation from God who is 100% Light and Good ~~ the spirit of man became 100% dark and evil. Can anything completely separated from 100% Light and Good be anything but 100% dark and evil? Of course not. God is not in man's unregenerate spirit. That's why man must be born anew in man's spirit in a 100% light and good spirit from God.

Now, AFTER we are born of God from above... with a 100% light and good spirit from God born of God's Spirit ~~ we are a new creation. BECAUSE WE ARE a new creation... we do light and good things as we work out our salvation in progressive sanctification that shows forth the praises of God and produces the fruit of the Spirit and good works by faith. None of this sanctification occurs to become or to be saved; nor were we chosen on the basis of good works or fruit or faith that we possessed any different than all others ~~ having been equally separated from God through sin and the fall of man in death,darkness, sin and evil spiritually.


None of us ever said, "Because we are saved by grace ~~~ we don't 'have to' produce good works." No, by nature we WILL produce good works, sanctification, faith, fruits BECAUSE we are regenerated... not to get regenerated or stay regenerated. That's where we object. And I know I also object to any saying that a real, true spiritual salvation does not produce fruit and good works. Of course it does.. by very nature. From the Calvinist position, we object to all slander against our salvation that declares that because we are saved by grace we were saved TO license rather than good works ~~ which is an assault on the very Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit who produces good works.

Just because we refuse to take credit or rob God's glory in declaring these works and fruit and sanctification to be in and of ourselves apart from God ~~ this does not mean we deny that these works and fruit and sanctifiation are produced in us through the Holy Spirit and by God to whom we give all glory for His work in and through us. Our humility in giving God the glory is no basis to slander us as if we declare God by the Holy Spirit shall produce no fruit nor works nor sanctification.

The slander is an intentional misunderstanding, it appears to us, of what we say as we give God the glory for our salvation and all subsequent works of the Holy Spirit in and through us ~~ for apart from Christ, we boldly agree with scripture, we can do nothing. To God be the glory. Great things He hath done. (That's total Bible talking not any label of "Calvinist" or "hypercalvinist"... that's just us giving glory to God and not taking it for ourselves ~~ rather than us denying the reality of good fruits, good works, and sanctification as the position is falsely accused of.)

There are some (and I hope you are not one of them) who willfully misunderstand it to falsely accuse our Christian characters and witness of things like license and being lax or lazy or lacking in spiritual fervor... SIMPLY for the sake of deference to God and humility before Jesus Christ in refusing to rob God's glory for His work in us in Jesus' name!!

Grace and peace.

Chestertonrules,

You say God created the lake of fire for the devil and his angels, planned the creation of every human being, PUT the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the center of the Garden... KNOWING most of humanity would not be recovered from the fall in this life.

God is 100% responsible for the creation of every human being He created knowing with full foreknowledge they would not be functionally recovered from the fall in this life.

God, in your view, by creating them with that full foreknowledge... predestined them to hell VIA creation, setting that tree in the center of the Garden and choosing to let Satan come into the Garden to tempt KNOWING also that if HE CHOSE to let Satan into the Garden ~~ eternal hell (from your pov) would be the predestinated result for the vast majority of all mankind.

That's no moral high ground. Same end result?? Same difference. God could have done things differently and effected a different result.

Grace and peace.