Theology Question For Calvinist/Reformed Members

[GeneZ]

I meant, are you asking someone what their problem is with Calvinism? Or are you asking Calvinists what their problem is with the the notion of God arranging for man to choose to believe in God, and then Christ?

God does arrange it, by raising the dead to life.

I was told numerous times, that since man in his fallen state is incapable of of believing in God, that God must make man
to believe. That man can not choose to do so.

My understanding is the God is capable to making man able to do what man normally can not do when left without God's enabling. .

I do understand that man in his fallen state is dominated by depravity.
But, I have yet to see a Calvinist able to say what it is that causes man to be caught in such a quagmire.
They will cite verses that they will use to reinforce their belief that man has no ability to believe.
But they can never say why and how it is so other than we are fallen and depraved.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Temple?
There were no blood sacrifices in the Garden.

No atonement ever needed....

A Temple (altar) was not needed until after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden..

Thus, proving you have never read a single word of what Beale has written on the matter.

I find it really weird when people object to an idea they don't understand or have even read about.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I meant, are you asking someone what their problem is with Calvinism? Or are you asking Calvinists what their problem is with the the notion of God arranging for man to choose to believe in God, and then Christ?

God does arrange it, by raising the dead to life.

I was told numerous times, that since man in his fallen state is incapable of of believing in God, that God must make man
to believe. That man can not choose to do so.

Man can choose to do so, in keeping with the fact that it is already done, in him. "We do so because it is so", is one way of looking at it. This life does not revolve around us. What we do, to include choosing, believing, repenting, walking in faith, is according to God's decree, but it is most obvious concerning regeneration.

My understanding is the God is capable to making man able to do what man normally can not do when left without God's enabling.

It is not just the principle of God being able, but of God actually doing, not to give a person the ability to believe, but to give them faith. Salvific faith is not of human origin. It is the result of the Spirit of God taking up residence within those to whom God chose to show mercy.

I do understand that man in his fallen state is dominated by depravity.
But, I have yet to see a Calvinist able to say what it is that causes man to be caught in such a quagmire.

I'll take your word for it, but it really is simple. In Adam, all sin; all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death, and:

Ephesians 2: 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

And Romans 8: 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

And there are many other verses, but, keeping this simple...

They will cite verses that they will use to reinforce their belief that man has no ability to believe.
But they can never say why and how it is so other than we are fallen and depraved.

You really never heard that until one is born again of the Spirit, that he is DEAD?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

Predestination is a taxing doctrine. Luther wrote more about it than Calvin. Calvin warned people not to be the curious cat. Because this doctrine is a labyrinth which once you enter beyond what Scripture reveals there's no coming out.​

 

[makesends]

Predestination is a taxing doctrine. Luther wrote more about it than Calvin. Calvin warned people not to be the curious cat. Because this doctrine is a labyrinth which once you enter beyond what Scripture reveals there's no coming out.​

Which came first? Do we use reason to understand Scripture? Or do we use Scripture by which to reason? Both, and both at once. We actually can't help but meditate (reason, think about it,) on Scripture.

Predestination is simple. God created. All else is subsequent. Intentionally. THAT is predestination, no?

Can anybody show me something God did not intend? Can anybody show me something God did not in one way or another cause? Not so far, except by their own reasoning which denies the simple logic of causation.

 

[GeneZ]

Thus, proving you have never read a single word of what Beale has written on the matter.

I find it really weird when people object to an idea they don't understand or have even read about.

I read enough...

Beale presents the garden of Eden as the first archetypal temple from which later Old Testament temples derived their imagery and symbolism, all pointing toward the final restoration of God's dwelling with humanity in the new creation.

What's missed? Christians with the permanent indwelling Spirit are now the Temple.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Which came first? Do we use reason to understand Scripture? Or do we use Scripture by which to reason? Both, and both at once. We actually can't help but meditate (reason, think about it,) on Scripture.

Predestination is simple. God created. All else is subsequent. Intentionally. THAT is predestination, no?

Can anybody show me something God did not intend? Can anybody show me something God did not in one way or another cause? Not so far, except by their own reasoning which denies the simple logic of causation.

Give me a minute for quote Calvin, because it goes deeper. Give me a day or two.

 

[GeneZ]

And Romans 8: 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

If God took your soul out of your flesh?
Would you want to sin?

 

[Eleanor]

I was told numerous times, that since man in his fallen state is incapable of of believing in God, that God must make man
to believe. That man can not choose to do so.
My understanding is the God is capable to making man able to do what man normally can not do when left without God's enabling. .
I do understand that man in his fallen state is dominated by depravity.
But, I have yet to see a Calvinist able to say what it is that causes man to be caught in such a quagmire.
They will cite verses that they will use to reinforce their belief that man has no ability to believe.
But they can never say why and how it is so other than we are fallen and depraved.

Fallen, depraved = spiritually dead. . .spiritually dead men can't see (Jn 3:3-5) nor can they hear (Jn 8:47) spiritual things.

They must be born again (to eternal life in the sovereign new birth of Jn 3:3-8) to spiritually see and hear (Jn 8:47, 1 Jn 4:6) the things of God.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
And Romans 8: 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

If God took your soul out of your flesh?
Would you want to sin?

Huh? What?

Why do you go there?

But that will happen when I die, then the soul "reunited" with my glorified body, in which case I will not even consider sinning. That is, of course, UNLESS I don't belong to him, in which case, yes, I couldn't help but sin and that, with all my will.

So what's your point?

 

[GeneZ]

makesends said:
And Romans 8: 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

Huh? What?

Why do you go there?

But that will happen when I die, then the soul "reunited" with my glorified body, in which case I will not even consider sinning. That is, of course, UNLESS I don't belong to him, in which case, yes, I couldn't help but sin and that, with all my will.

So what's your point?

If tomorrow your soul were placed in your resurrection body?
You would no longer be functioning as total depravity... would you?

 

[makesends]

If tomorrow your soul were placed in your resurrection body?
You would no longer be functioning as total depravity... would you?

Of course not, if I belong to him! What is your point??

 

[GeneZ]

Of course not, if I belong to him! What is your point??

The point is....

The source of man's depravity is not his soul.
Its his flesh that was passed down by Adam's seed.
Its the flesh that causes the soul to be unable to believe if the flesh is left unchecked.

Therefore? Man is not totally depraved.
As long as the flesh is free to dominate?
That soul will not be free to choose as God desires.
As you yourself acknowledged..
The soul without the flesh is not depraved.
Its his flesh that enslaves our soul.
Enslaves until God intervenes with His power of grace.

God's grace when administered to a person will in essence "lock up the flesh" while God presents needed truth pertaining to salvation.
In that manner? A soul which has been temporarily will be made free of the sin nature. And, as a result?
That soul (under grace) is placed into a position to choose free of the domination of the flesh.

That is why man has to be saved by grace....

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The source of man's depravity is not his soul. It's his flesh that was passed down by Adam's seed. It's the flesh that causes the soul to be unable to believe, if the flesh is left unchecked.

Therefore? Man is not totally depraved.

As Christians, we believe that sin entered the world through Adam, from whom it was passed along to all mankind, which raises an obvious question: How is it passed along?

I don’t believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically ("the flesh"), as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it’s not in our reproductive cells (gametes) by which we procreate. To put the matter in other words, I don’t think humans can be genetically modified to be sinless.

As I understand it, sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool). Sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. Some Christians think that having no genetic connection to Adam would entail being free of original sin, but that only makes sense if sin is genetic, something contained in gametes, and I am not aware of any reason to think that it is. Both Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance. We can find this point being expressed by Derek Kidner in his commentary on Genesis (emphasis mine):

Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind "in Adam" and our common status as sinners through his offense are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent [expressed in such terms as found in Hebrews 7:9-10] … Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, …"

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 30.
​

Paternity plays no role in either Adam's sin or Christ's righteousness.

The source of man's depravity is not his soul. It's his flesh that was passed down by Adam's seed. It's the flesh that causes the soul to be unable to believe, if the flesh is left unchecked. … As long as the flesh is free to dominate? That soul will not be free to choose as God desires. … It's his flesh that enslaves [his] soul. … God's grace, when administered to a person, will in essence "lock up the flesh" … That soul (under grace) is placed into a position to choose free of the domination of the flesh.

Please tell me that I'm not the only one catching a Gnostic scent from his post.

 

[GeneZ]

As Christians, we believe that sin entered the world through Adam, from whom it was passed along to all mankind, which raises an obvious question: How is it passed along?

I don’t believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically ("the flesh"), as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it’s not in our reproductive cells (gametes) by which we procreate. To put the matter in other words, I don’t think humans can be genetically modified to be sinless.

As I understand it, sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool). Sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. Some Christians think that having no genetic connection to Adam would entail being free of original sin, but that only makes sense if sin is genetic, something contained in gametes, and I am not aware of any reason to think that it is. Both Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance. We can find this point being expressed by Derek Kidner in his commentary on Genesis (emphasis mine):

​

Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind "in Adam" and our common status as sinners through his offense are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent [expressed in such terms as found in Hebrews 7:9-10] … Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, …"​

​

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 30.​

​

Paternity plays no role in either Adam's sin or Christ's righteousness.




Please tell me that I'm not the only one catching a Gnostic scent from his post.

Stick with the word and stop looking for ways to impugn and INSINUATE with innuendo...

Romans 7:17-18a

So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.​

Can you deal with that much?

So now it is no longer I (his soul) who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.​

Paul was differentiating between who he is (his soul) and his flesh (sinful nature that naturally dominated over his soul).

Can you think straight on that?

 

[makesends]

The point is....

The source of man's depravity is not his soul.
Its his flesh that was passed down by Adam's seed.
Its the flesh that causes the soul to be unable to believe if the flesh is left unchecked.

Therefore? Man is not totally depraved.
As long as the flesh is free to dominate?
That soul will not be free to choose as God desires.
As you yourself acknowledged..
The soul without the flesh is not depraved.
Its his flesh that enslaves our soul.
Enslaves until God intervenes with His power of grace.

God's grace when administered to a person will in essence "lock up the flesh" while God presents needed truth pertaining to salvation.
In that manner? A soul which has been temporarily will be made free of the sin nature. And, as a result?
That soul (under grace) is placed into a position to choose free of the domination of the flesh.

That is why man has to be saved by grace....

Well, wait a minute. Doesn't this notion by itself reduce then to whether saved or not before death, death frees one from his depravity? One consigned to the Lake of Fire subsequent to death no longer hates God?

 

[GeneZ]

Well, wait a minute. Doesn't this notion by itself reduce then to whether saved or not before death, death frees one from his depravity? One consigned to the Lake of Fire subsequent to death no longer hates God?

That is the key to knowing the cause cause of going to the Lake of Fire...

For, if salvation is all about the soul's attitude?
Then what takes over a soul when grace holds down the sin nature to let the soul decide? EVIL! Not sin.
Satan's fall began with evil in his heart... He rejected God from a perfect state of being. Unlike us, he had no sin nature when he rejected God!

Evil and sin are not the same thing. Jesus did not die for evil. He died for our sins.

Jesus could not die for evil! For it would require that he reject Himself if that were the case..

​

2 Thessalonians 3:1-2​

​

Finally, brothers, pray for us that the Lord’s message may spread rapidly ​

and be honored, just as it was with you, and that we may be delivered ​

from wicked and evil men, for not all have faith.​

​

Note: It does not say..."sinful men."

No one's sins are sending them to the Lake of Fire.
For Jesus paid for all their sins.
They go to the Lake of Fire because of evil.
For they freely chose (like Satan did) to reject the Lord!
No one is going to the Lake of Fire for their sins!

1 John 2:2​

​

He is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, ​

and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

The penalty for all man's sins had been dealt with by God with having Jesus on the Cross!

and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

​

God is not simple minded....


........

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Stick with the word and stop looking for ways to impugn and INSINUATE with innuendo ...

Romans 7:17-18a

So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.​

Can you deal with that much?

So now it is no longer I (his soul) who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.​

Paul was differentiating between who he is (his soul) and his flesh (sinful nature that naturally dominated over his soul).

Can you think straight on that?

"For when we were in the flesh," Paul said (verse 5). Does Paul think we no longer have physical bodies? No, of course not, because for Paul "the flesh" is not a reference to physical bodies as distinct from immaterial souls. Rather, Paul distinguishes between those in the flesh and those in the Spirit, the old humanity in Adam versus the new humanity in Christ, the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit (Rom 7:5-6; cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:1-3; Gal 5:16-25; Eph 2:3). "Live by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh," he says (Gal 5:16), because "those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (v. 25).

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.

-- Romans 8:3-9.
​

 

[Eleanor]

As Christians, we believe that sin entered the world through Adam, from whom it was passed along to all mankind, which raises an obvious question: How is it passed along?
I don’t believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically ("the flesh"), as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it’s not in our reproductive cells (gametes) by which we procreate. To put the matter in other words, I don’t think humans can be genetically modified to be sinless.
As I understand it, sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool). Sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. Some Christians think that having no genetic connection to Adam would entail being free of original sin, but that only makes sense if sin is genetic, something contained in gametes, and I am not aware of any reason to think that it is. Both Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance. We can find this point being expressed by Derek Kidner in his commentary on Genesis (emphasis mine):

Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind "in Adam" and our common status as sinners through his offense are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent [expressed in such terms as found in Hebrews 7:9-10] … Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, …"​

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 30.​

Paternity plays no role in either Adam's sin or Christ's righteousness.

Both Adam's sin (Ro 5:12-14) and Christ's righteousness (justification) (Ro 4:5, 1 Co 5:21) are imputed to us.

 

[GeneZ]

"For when we were in the flesh," Paul said (verse 5). Does Paul think we no longer have physical bodies? No, of course not, because for Paul "the flesh" is not a reference to physical bodies as distinct from immaterial souls. Rather, Paul distinguishes between those in the flesh and those in the Spirit, the old humanity in Adam versus the new humanity in Christ, the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit (Rom 7:5-6; cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:1-3; Gal 5:16-25; Eph 2:3). "Live by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh," he says (Gal 5:16), because "those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (v. 25).

​

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.​

​

For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.​

​

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him.​

​

-- Romans 8:3-9.​

​

You keep missing the point and use many words to do so....

What your response is telling me is that you believe you no longer can sin.

Paul was being specific about his flesh.
You are in a body now,and your flesh can motivate even your biblical way of thinking.
Pride is the enemy and downfall of the liberal theologian. As well as the legalistic theologian.

But both will exist for the time being.
Because its a part of the conflict and testing needed for believers who are going on to maturity.

2 Timothy 4:3 tells us what is that reality in the spiritual warfare.

​

For the time will come when they will not put up with sound doctrine. ​

Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great ​

number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."​

You teach what you prefer to hear. Because?
You instinctively know there are others like you in attitude who will prefer it.
You are simply "one of the many."

Have a nice Day.