Theology Question For Calvinist/Reformed Members

[ReverendRV]

I kept waiting for you to post it, but I guess you meant that I had to go find it from somewhere and read it. I clicked on the facebook link and all that came up was I could find things by clicking on date etc.

So could you just give me an example of how A'ism and Calvinism are compatible when it comes to election and predestination?

Those are not compatible, but I usually say Irresistible and Prevenient Grace are Compatible. Both are Irresistible and Prevenient...

 

[Arial]

Those are not compatible, but I usually say Irresistible and Prevenient Grace are Compatible. Both are Irresistible and Prevenient...

Well yes, unless one carries the prevenient grace too far and says that is enough for every human to make a choice and therefore it is not effectual in actually saving anyone. Which is what is usually done. Whereas Calvinism teaches that irresistible grace, or effectual grace which is more accurate to the doctrine, does save and is what saves---through faith which is a gift from God. A regeneration of a person's heart.

So for the two to be compatible, prevenient grace would need to be defined as it exists in Calvinism. And prevenient grace defined as it exists in the non-Calvinist in whatever way they are using it, if one were to declare them compatible or not compatible. And nine times out of ten, they are not.

 

[fastfredy0]

Lucifer rebellion against God is the cause of sin seducing mankind to violate the letter of the law death .

Agreed ... and God controls Lucifer (see Job for narrative example).

 

[Eleanor]

I believe Adam is the cause of us having a sin nature, but I do not believe Adam is the First Cause of us having a sin nature. It is in God that we live and breathe and have our being IMO. God is the the First Cause of Adam's sin nature being imputed to us IMO.

I think a distinction is made between the sin nature (for which there is no guilt) being inherited,
and the sin of Adam (for which there is guilt) being imputed,
thereby locking up all men in sin/guilt that all may be subject to his mercy (Ro 11:32).

Yes?

BTW, I'm runnin' low on *giggles*. . .

 

[Eleanor]

I say the following only as, "It seems to me". It is not doctrine, but a POV or something. I don't fully comprehend sin, nor the many things to which it is related, so...

I don't really disagree with Arial, except in the terminology. The WCF says that God ordains (by which I use the word, "causes") all things whatsoever comes to pass. I don't really see a mystery there, because the logic is so simple. If all things except for First Cause are effects, (whether they are also causes or not), then he caused that sin be, and that, even in all its worst particulars. But he did not author it, but the sinner is the author of his own sin. The twisting of what is good, the rebellion, are all on the part of the sinner.

The questions and objections that come to mind and that we think must be resolved or it remains mystery, are only our constructions, and not his.

I think a distinction is made between cause and ordain.

 

[Eleanor]

Lucifer rebellion against God is the cause of sin seducing mankind to violate the letter of the law death .

The letter of the law is the law, the written code.
The Spirit of the law is the Holy Spirit.

The letter (law) kills by its curse on disobedience.
The (Holy) Spirit gives life in writing that law on our hearts, giving the believer love for God's law and power to keep it, neither of which previously he had possessed.

The letter kills but the Spirit gives life does not mean that the external, literal sense of the law (Scripture) is deadly or unprofitable,
while the inner, spiritual sense gives life.

"The letter" is the law as an external standard before which all people, because they are lawbreakers, stand guilty and condemned to death.
"The Spirit" who gives life is the Spirit of God who writes the law inwardly on tablets of human hearts.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
But if you believe Adam's sin was imputed to all human individuals, couldn't I use the same sort of logic to say, "Since God imputed sin to all individual humans, and they are, as a result, sinners, then it was from God's choosing alone, and the fact that they are also self-rendered sinners is irrelevant to when and how he chose them?

No, and it is not "the same logic" at all.

Scripture is clear all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Isa. 53:6, Rom. 3:23) and through the one man's disobedience sin and death have come to all because all sinned (Rom. 5:12). Scripture does not place the causality on God or imputation. Adam is assigned causality, and he is assigned causality even though Eve was the first sinner! The best we could say in regards to divine causality is the structure of creation is that if a person disobeys God they then die (Gen. 2:17). What God specifically stated was "if you eat.... you will surely die," but we know from Romans five it was not that the forbidden kiwi was poisonous; it was due to the act of disobedience.

It is a design metric.

Automobile manufacturers design cars and trucks to run a certain way with certain maintenance aspects and certain prohibitions, all of which are specified by the manufacturer. For example, most cars in the US are made so they can run on 87 octane that is no more than 10% ethanol. Some cars are permitted to run with 15% ethanol. Most cars CAN run with 15% ethanol but long-term use of that much ethanol will eventually damage the motor. Alternatively, it is possible (although more financially costly) to run the auto on straight gasoline with zero ethanol, and premium gasoline usually comes with additives prolonging the life of the engine. So there are options. In this case there are several options. A person can choose, A, B, C, or D but choosing the option of poor gasoline will result in damage to the motor. The manufacturer did not cause the damage, but the manufacturer did "cause" the conditions by which that damage would occur of more effective, healthier options were not chosen. The cause of any such damage lays squarely with the one who does not follow the manufacturers original design specification and maintenance recommendations.

You can eat the fruit from any of the trees but one. ​

​

Hey! Let's go eat the fruit of that one tree from which God told us not to eat and see if what He told us would happen will happen.​

The manufacturer did not impute the damage; it is a simple cause-and-effect relationship between design specifications and recommended compliance. The same sort of analogy can be made with the human diet. Eating healthy provides better quality and quantity of life (generally) and while it is possible to eat all the chocolate and drink all the soda one desires, that diet will have adverse effect. Likewise, arsenic and antifreeze CAN be ingested, but doing so is fatal. Manufacturer's design specifications. You're free to choose but you are not free to choose absent consequences.

Disobedience brings death, not God.

I believe this is what Paul is referring to when he mentions "the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). Simply put, if you sin then you die.

My bad. I see that I wasn't clear as to what I meant. I very well understand that Adam's sin imputed isn't the same thing as the sin inherited. And, I didn't mean that people sin as a result of the guilt imputed. What I was trying to say is that the inherited sin/ self-derivation alone are not the only thing to consider in why/how/for what purpose God made individuals.

As you probably know, I believe God had in mind precisely his use for each one when he made each one. Ford does not make particular individual vehicles. It makes a general pool of vehicles —so much so that they must put individual VIN numbers on each one, so they can be told apart. God doesn't do this.

makesends said:
I'm just not sure how the fact that they are self-rendered sinners means that God didn't create anyone specifically for one end or the other.

Ford Motor Company does not make cars that do not run.

They make cars that run. They also make cars that run and can be rendered unrunnable. Perhaps a better analogy would be that of an automobile collision. I recently had a car I owned totaled. The manufacturer made a fine vehicle; it was a good vehicle without defect, and it ran well. Due to a collision, the car needed repair. My insurance company decided it would be more cost effective to consider the car totaled and write me a check that I could then use as I choose, in my case to purchase another car. The insurance company could also have chosen to repair the car. The insurance company does this all day long every day. For all of the many, many, many cars damaged on any given day, the insurance company decides which ones to repair and which ones not to repair. This is an imperfect analogy, of course, because the sinfully dead disobedient do not get paid a profit for their disobedience. They suffer loss.

I don't see how this shows that God doesn't create each individual person for his use of them, in spite of their self-rendered sinner status. God is not Ford. Maybe we are arguing two different things. (Since we must separate concepts that God probably doesn't), I think that God 'conceiving' his idea, 'drawing up' his plan/decree (concerning humans), and the execution of all its particulars, and the end of it all, are one and the same thing. WE are the ones who must separate it into a logical sequence we can follow. I think that his creation = his decree = the whole story of temporal reality = what he had in mind —The Body, The Bride, The Dwelling Place, etc.

But I DON'T mean by that, that he created us sinful. But I DO mean by that, that our eternal end was pre-determined FROM THE BEGINNING.

But I DO agree that the punishment is a direct result of one's own sinning.

 

[fastfredy0]

I think a distinction is made between the sin nature (for which there is no guilt) being inherited,
and the sin of Adam (for which there is guilt) being imputed,
thereby locking up all men in sin/guilt that all may be subject to his mercy (Ro 11:32).

Yes?

I don't know. I think I agree. I looked at my notes and they seem to agree with you.
The fact of natural union accounts for the inheritance of a corrupt nature, but does not account for the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin. As a consequence of our inherited corruption we become guilty, because out of that nature come forth sinful actions. How can we account for the fact, however, that the effects of the curse, including death, fall upon those who have not yet sinned. It must be by the fact of imputation, which in turn rests, not on the inherited nature, but on the relation to Adam as our representative. Author Unknown

BTW, I'm runnin' low on *giggles*. . .

I'll try to do better
I did go to the Dating Revelation thread mistakenly the other day thinking there would be romantic advice for dating but found it to be another theological initiative. .... you can laugh at me for that
Aside: Would have been a more interesting thread if my interpretation had been correct *giggle*

 

[fastfredy0]

I think a distinction is made between cause and ordain.

.... as meaning God ordains what He will cause?

 

[Eleanor]

.... as meaning God ordains what He will cause?

. . .or causes what he ordains?

I think meaning that ordaining (sin) is not causing (sin).

 

[Eleanor]

I don't know. I think I agree. I looked at my notes and they seem to agree with you.
The fact of natural union accounts for the inheritance of a corrupt nature, but does not account for the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin. As a consequence of our inherited corruption we become guilty, because out of that nature come forth sinful actions. How can we account for the fact, however, that the effects of the curse, including death, fall upon those who have not yet sinned. It must be by the fact of imputation, which in turn rests, not on the inherited nature, but on the relation to Adam as our representative. Author Unknown

Perxactly!

I'll try to do better
I did go to the Dating Revelation thread mistakenly the other day thinking there would be romantic advice for dating but found it to be another theological initiative. .... you can laugh at me for that
Aside: Would have been a more interesting thread if my interpretation had been correct *giggle*

Thanks, but don't bend yourself outa' shape over it

 

[Mr GLee]

The letter of the law is the law, the written code.
The Spirit of the law is the Holy Spirit.

The letter (law) kills by its curse on disobedience.
The (Holy) Spirit gives life in writing that law on our hearts, giving the believer love for God's law and power to keep it, neither of which previously he had possessed.

The letter kills but the Spirit gives life does not mean that the external, literal sense of the law (Scripture) is deadly or unprofitable,
while the inner, spiritual sense gives life.

"The letter" is the law as an external standard before which all people, because they are lawbreakers, stand guilty and condemned to death.
"The Spirit" who gives life is the Spirit of God who writes the law inwardly on tablets of human hearts.

It is appointed in dying that mankind die once , No retrial or double jeopardy Scripture is the "book of law" the living tol for judging . It not only contains law But is God's tool under judgment of death never to rise.

Deuteronomy 31:25-27King James Version That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death?


It will not be part of the new promised order. The death of death. Death the suffering of hell on earth will be tossed in the fiery of God judgment called a lake.

 

[Mr GLee]

. . .or causes what he ordains?

I think meaning that ordaining (sin) is not causing (sin).

He creates an evil against evil doer Sometimes punishing another nation for sin with another sinful nation . God does not promote sin.

 

[Mr GLee]

Agreed ... and God controls Lucifer (see Job for narrative example).

Yes we are saved by the fullness of His grace the whole cost of salvation through the faith of Christ . Christ's labor of love .You could say a creative love.

The law "Let there be"and its testimony . . . "mankind was good"

Adam and Eve violated the letter of the law by obeying the voice of a stranger and lusting after its beauty. God cut off the legs of the serpent .He does not have a leg to stand on .

Can't separate faith from works the reward grace . Again no faith no voice as working testimony. If there is no "let there faithfully be " Nothing changes nothing .

Remember we are reckoned as no faith, no power

His faith is powerful.

Faith is a living work of God not a work of our own. . we are his workmanship not formed by human hands.

Hebrews 11: 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

He rewards us with the amount needed to pay the full wage of sin .No more, no less.

 

[makesends]

He creates an evil against evil doer Sometimes punishing another nation for sin with another sinful nation . God does not promote sin.

Funny how our words lead us around by the mouth.

 

[ReverendRV]

Well yes, unless one carries the prevenient grace too far and says that is enough for every human to make a choice and therefore it is not effectual in actually saving anyone. Which is what is usually done. Whereas Calvinism teaches that irresistible grace, or effectual grace which is more accurate to the doctrine, does save and is what saves---through faith which is a gift from God. A regeneration of a person's heart.

So for the two to be compatible, prevenient grace would need to be defined as it exists in Calvinism. And prevenient grace defined as it exists in the non-Calvinist in whatever way they are using it, if one were to declare them compatible or not compatible. And nine times out of ten, they are not.

Sure, Arminianism isn't Compatible with Calvinism, but Compatibalism should be about Doctrines being Compatible with the Bible; not Calvinism...

None of Arminianism and Provisionism is Compatible with Calvinism...

 

[Arial]

Sure, Arminianism isn't Compatible with Calvinism, but Compatibalism should be about Doctrines being Compatible with the Bible; not Calvinism...

None of Arminianism and Provisionism is Compatible with Calvinism...

Yes I know. I was asking about a statement you made that said you were 5 point Calvinist but also close to A'ist. Not your exact words but how I took the post. So I asked, don't they contradict each other in places. No biggie.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes I know. I was asking about a statement you made that said you were 5 point Calvinist but also close to A'ist. Not your exact words but how I took the post. So I asked, don't they contradict each other in places. No biggie.

I don't think this is contradictory, let me explain...

Let's say there are three types of Calvinism, there could be more; Hyper Calvinism, Traditional Calvinism and New Calvinism. Hyper Calvinism is further away from A'ism than your standard Traditional Calvinism is. New Calvinism is closer to A'ism than standard Traditional Calvinism is. Linearly, some Calvinists can be closer to A'ism than other Calvinists are...

Since you are not Hyper, you are closer on the sliding scale to A'ism than @brightfame52 is...

 

[Arial]

I don't think this is contradictory, let me explain...

Let's say there are three types of Calvinism, there could be more; Hyper Calvinism, Evangelical Calvinism and New Calvinism. Hyper Calvinism is further away from A'ism than standard Evangelical Calvinism is. New Calvinism is closer to A'ism than standard Evangelical Calvinism is. Linearly, some Calvinists can be closer to A'ism than other Calvinists are...

Since you are not Hyper, you are closer to A'ism than @brightfame52 is...

OK. I see what you are saying.

 

[Josheb]

I don't see how this shows that God doesn't create each individual person for his use of them, in spite of their self-rendered sinner status.

Beyond repeating what I have already posted I am now sure how to make it any clearer. All creatures the Creator created are created for His use, and His use alone. That holds true for the sinless creatures He first made all, the sinful creatures He knew would ensue, and the elect that would be changed. Thinking "before" and "after" is misguided.