To you it has been given to know...

[XrzrX]

Nature is nature. It does not have to have a theological definition.

In this discussion it does.

ANd that is how I am using it. What are we? Sinners. Why do we sin? Because it is our nature to sin. Why is it our nature to sin? Because our father Adam became a sinner and we are like our father. (Basic biology).

Incorrect. How do you feel about sin? Feel "Natural" to you? Surely doesn't to me.. that ought to tell you something...

JESUS the Son, has two natures: God and man. The Father does not have two natures. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures.

Granted.. but Jesus is God, therefore not incorrect to say "God has 2 Natures. For the benefit of clarity however, I agree with your correction.

Man was created very good. Not corrupt, but corruptible. Mortal---ABLE to die, but would not die with access to the tree of life. Through Adam we became doomed to death and corrupted. At the resurrection of the dead in Christ, or if we remain alive when Christ returns, we will still be us as the individuals that we are, but we will be changed to immortal and uncorruptible. (1 Cor 15). Obviously that is not now. Positionally and legally we are justified through faith in Christ, our sins having been canceled---Jesus paid the debt.

"He who believes will never die", again.. we are eternal now, new creations now.. perfect, holy, righteous Now. We get a tent befitting our new nature, not a new nature befitting our glorified tent.

 

[Carbon]

I do believe in 'original sin', that brought sin and death into the world.. and for most of my life the same definition as you. But frankly, thanks to Calvinism I've come to reevaluate the doctrine, and I find it wanting. Scripture states we are saved from our own sin, not Adam's sin.

Okay, thanks for your explanation.

 

[Josheb]

Calvinist doctrine, which I will grant.. is pretty inconsistent so yes, misnomer to call it 'yours'. The contradiction is clear. Blind people don't need truth obscured for them, it's redundant.. and idea it's a "mercy" against further 'accountability' is frankly ridiculous.. in fact, twisted and perverse.

I do not find a single sentence in that post correct and think it foolish, and likely ill-informed. If the op was intended solely as a rag on Cals then I also find it disingenuous and hope you can and will muster enough integrity to have a civil and engaging discussion because, "The inquiry is to explain what appears to be a massive contradiction in your doctrine," is neither. Be better than that.

And, btw, While I am wholeheartedly monergist, my fellow Cals in this forum will tell you that I 1) do not fit neatly into a monolithic Calvinism and 2) know very well how to make the case for monergism without once appealing to Calvin. Calvinism is a spectrum of believes centered around a core set of doctrines. There is a lot of diversity within the pale of orthodox Calvinism, so I encourage you not to treat everyone the same, as if they all believed a Calvinism you disbelieve. That would make you a bigot. I hope that is not you.

Of course, if this op was intended solely as a veiled rag on Cals, then none of what I just posted will make any difference.

 

[XrzrX]

I do not find a single sentence in that post correct and think it foolish, and likely ill-informed. If the op was intended solely as a rag on Cals then I also find it disingenuous and hope you can and will muster enough integrity to have a civil and engaging discussion because, "The inquiry is to explain what appears to be a massive contradiction in your doctrine," is neither. Be better than that.

And, btw, While I am wholeheartedly monergist, my fellow Cals in this forum will tell you that I 1) do not fit neatly into a monolithic Calvinism and 2) know very well how to make the case for monergism without once appealing to Calvin. Calvinism is a spectrum of believes centered around a core set of doctrines. There is a lot of diversity within the pale of orthodox Calvinism, so I encourage you not to treat everyone the same, as if they all believed a Calvinism you disbelieve. That would make you a bigot. I hope that is not you.

Of course, if this op was intended solely as a veiled rag on Cals, then none of what I just posted will make any difference.

I believe your umbrage is not completely unfounded since my delivery is imperfect, even if in good faith. I apologize for undue offense, I'm certainly one of God's most unpolished stones. That said, as I've said, Calvinism tests the boundaries of my patience. My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility as I would with say, Mormonism or JW, or RCs. RCs being the closest analogy, in that it's considered by mainstream to not be "heresy" or "anathema", and so, the 'goal' is to find reconciliation.. not absolute irreconcilable division. Of course, we know well it's irreconcilable.. yet, Church Inc. is willing to feign, which.. I cannot see as other than a lie. Similarly, like RC, Calvinism claims the 'same Gospel'.. presenting that doctrinal reconciliation is somehow possible.. however, this narrow definition of what amounts to 'heresy' is arguably lacking, in that even a proper definition of the Gospel, which has an improper doctrine of Atonement.. is no Gospel at all, and therefore 'another gospel'. A real Gospel, presented as "unavailable" to "certain people" is NOT the Gospel. It's a stumbling block, and an enemy to the Gospel. A more insidious wolf than any flagrantly "definitionally false gospel". So yes, it's a dire struggle for me to be 'civil' in the face of such a destructive set of doctrines. But, I don't make the rules.. and so, try my best to do to others as I would have done to me.. and that demands the assumption of good faith, patience and the understanding you feel hasn't been given. So yes, I always try to be better, and do better. Point taken.

 

[ReverendRV]

I believe your umbrage is not completely unfounded since my delivery is imperfect, even if in good faith. I apologize for undue offense, I'm certainly one of God's most unpolished stones. That said, as I've said, Calvinism tests the boundaries of my patience. My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility as I would with say, Mormonism or JW, or RCs. RCs being the closest analogy, in that it's considered by mainstream to not be "heresy" or "anathema", and so, the 'goal' is to find reconciliation.. not absolute irreconcilable division. Of course, we know well it's irreconcilable.. yet, Church Inc. is willing to feign, which.. I cannot see as other than a lie. Similarly, like RC, Calvinism claims the 'same Gospel'.. presenting that doctrinal reconciliation is somehow possible.. however, this narrow definition of what amounts to 'heresy' is arguably lacking, in that even a proper definition of the Gospel, which has an improper doctrine of Atonement.. is no Gospel at all, and therefore 'another gospel'. A real Gospel, presented as "unavailable" to "certain people" is NOT the Gospel. It's a stumbling block, and an enemy to the Gospel. A more insidious wolf than any flagrantly "definitionally false gospel". So yes, it's a dire struggle for me to be 'civil' in the face of such a destructive set of doctrines. But, I don't make the rules.. and so, try my best to do to others as I would have done to me.. and that demands the assumption of good faith, patience and the understanding you feel hasn't been given. So yes, I always try to be better, and do better. Point taken.

I want Posters to treat me like I'm in their Sunday School Class amongst their Peers; among their Wives and their Friends. We will act, listen and debate better there. When I make a good point, your Peers will wonder what's wrong with you if you don't agree...

I find that in this kind of environment, it's hard for me to lose. Your Peers won't respect your responses...

 

[XrzrX]

I want Posters to treat me like I'm in their Sunday School Class amongst their Peers; among their Wives and their Friends. We will act, listen and debate better. When someone makes a good point, your Peers will wonder what's wrong with you if you don't agree...

I find that in this kind of environment, it's hard for me to lose. Your Peers won't respect those responses...

Well, I try to always remember a similar tenet, to conduct myself with all people as I do with those I care most about.. because I do care about all people. And most importantly, that I am continually, unceasingly in the presence of my Creator closer than my own breath.. a Witness to my every thought and action. It's "modifying" to say the least.

 

[ReverendRV]

Well, I try to always remember a similar tenet, to conduct myself with all people as I do with those I care most about.. because I do care about all people. And most importantly, that I am continually, unceasingly in the presence of my Creator closer than my own breath.. a Witness to my every thought and action. It's "modifying" to say the least.

If we were in your Sunday School Class, would you answer me when I ask you; "Since you agree Grace precedes Faith, are we Totally Unable to have Faith until Grace appears?"

You see how this works? Your friends will hear you say Yes, or hear you avoid...

 

[XrzrX]

If we were in your Sunday School Class, would you answer me when I ask you; "Since you agree Grace precedes Faith, you are Totally Unable to have Faith until Grace appears?"

You see how this works? Your friends will hear you say Yes, or hear you avoid...

I would state we're not playing ping pong.

 

[ReverendRV]

I would state we're not playing ping pong.

See what I mean?

 

[XrzrX]

See what I mean?

Doesn't count if I knew you were gonna say that!

 

[ReverendRV]

Doesn't count if I knew you were gonna say that!

It counts...

You wouldn't have said that. You would have said Yes; because your friends would have said Yes. It's a simple question. You want to avoid giving an answer here; but in front of your friends, you would agree with Orthodoxy. You would get the A+

 

[XrzrX]

It counts...

You wouldn't have said that. You would have said Yes; because your friends would have said Yes. It's a simple question. You want to avoid giving an answer here; but in front of your friends, you would agree with Orthodoxy. You would get the A+

I all seriousness, I repeat the answer I previously gave.. which elucidates truth, not garners points, that is not about "chronology", it's about design. Our very design is corporate grace.. common grace. All creation is 'preceded by common grace', which in truth.. not "technicality" is Not what you posit. So again, it isn't ping pong.. it's not game of points.. it's truth vs error.

 

[Hazelelponi]

My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility

Could have fooled me.

Calvinism tests the boundaries of my patience. My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility as I would with say, Mormonism or JW, or RCs. RCs being the closest analogy

Elsewhere you have called everyone Judaizers too.

Do you want to know how I feel? Since feelings seem important to you:

“I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.”
—Psalm 120:7

^^^^

I brought you into a space where iron sharpens iron, not where swords are drawn to cut down the brethren. Your words have grieved me—and I am to blame for every insult you make to the brothers because I invited you here.

All you do is try to cut down the people who offered me love and friendship and a place to talk about my faith and people who like to talk about it.

And you come swords drawn hoping to kill and maim those I have chosen to love.

I have always been naive and too trusting. You have pointed that out to me again, naive and too trusting, because I thought you were something different entirely. I thought you were a Christian, and I invited you to a place I see as a garden, and you brought the chainsaw.

All is in God's decree, but it does make me cry anyway, as I wouldn't invite someone who would do this knowingly,

As standing before God I am actually sorry for the insults the brothers and sisters have to endure because of this.

 

[Arial]

In this discussion it does.

OK, What is the theological definition of "nature"? I'll be waiting.

Incorrect. How do you feel about sin? Feel "Natural" to you? Surely doesn't to me.. that ought to tell you something...

Uhhh---really? Are you confusing the conviction of the Holy Spirit when we sin with our "nature"?

"He who believes will never die", again.. we are eternal now, new creations now.. perfect, holy, righteous Now. We get a tent befitting our new nature, not a new nature befitting our glorified tent.

Not according to 1 Cor 15:12-58

 

[Paul]

It's about the discernment given to the followers of Christ...and not to the non-followers.

Jesus spoke in parables not to confuse us but to invite us if we have ears to hear.

First of all, that was to Israel a rebellious and obstinate people. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. A people who put the importance in the written code for others but swallowed a Camal in regard to themselves all at the expense of Love and mercy which God desires.

It was to fulfil these words spoken to such a people so that they would remain in their unbelief.

“The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding.
otherwise, they might turn and be forgiven!’

They were cut off for our sake. "The gentiles"
Apostle Paul=>"that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

But after Jesus had risen from the dead everything has been made clear to all. Nothing has been hidden.

 

[ReverendRV]

First of all, that was to Israel a rebellious and obstinate people.

Weren't the Disciples also Jews; and it was given to them to Understand?

 

[Arial]

But after Jesus had risen from the dead everything has been made clear to all. Nothing has been hidden.

If that were true, all would believe and be saved. There wouldn't be any outside the kingdom.

 

[Arial]

That said, as I've said, Calvinism tests the boundaries of my patience. My desire is to conduct myself with the same civility as I would with say, Mormonism or JW, or RCs.

Then I can only guess that you also treat them with the same lack of civility as you do us.

Well, I try to always remember a similar tenet, to conduct myself with all people as I do with those I care most about.. because I do care about all people.

Then I can only guess that you do not conduct yourself with the people you care about most, any differently than how you conduct yourself with us.

A real Gospel, presented as "unavailable" to "certain people" is NOT the Gospel. It's a stumbling block, and an enemy to the Gospel. A more insidious wolf than any flagrantly "definitionally false gospel". So yes, it's a dire struggle for me to be 'civil' in the face of such a destructive set of doctrines.

Consider this: Instead of coming here for the purpose of bashing a whole section of the brotherhood, as though they were less than another whole section of the brotherhood, come trying to understand why they believe what they do. Come willing to listen and to learn, and to debate the issues properly. That means when someone asks you to give your interpretation of specific passages, because if your interpretation is different than theirs, those things can be looked into and debated, using the full council of God.

For centuries, starting with the apostles, Christians believed what we find in the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP). (Not what an opponent thinks they are saying. Not based on an emotional reaction with no examination). For a few centuries after the Protestant Reformation which produced the Confessions of Faith, God fearing, redeemed men and women have held to the doctrinal views in them, all of which were scripturally supported with care. Have you read any of them? Due diligence of teaching was given to the children and adults coming into the community. There was no need of pleading and begging anyone to choose to believe, or to come forward and invite Jesus to be your Lord, and salvation connected to that action alone. They understood that the believing was God's wheel house, not theirs. They understood their wheel house was to faithfully teach from the word of God.

Jesus was central to the teaching. Who he is, what he did, how and why it was necessary that he do it and in the way he did. The cross. Christ and him crucified. What was not central to the teaching and the exposition of the word, was "God only elects some people to be saved." That was not the Gospel they preached. It is not the Gospel that is preached now. Christ and him crucified was the gospel they preached. Election and predestination are doctrines that flow out of who God is and who humanity is in relation to him.

So maybe you should try to understand them by listening to them when they answer your questions, answering them when they ask questions, carrying on an honest and faithful discussion, instead treating them as though they are a heretical cult, and the most disgusting one of all.

So what is your interpretation of Eph 2:8-9.

 

[Eleanor]

No, I see "Adam 'brought" death into the world"... I do Not see.. through God's imputation of his sin to all mankind. I see that as an Addition.

That is in the light of the rest of the NT, in particular, Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19.

Please exegete Ro 5:17-19 in the light of its context and in agreement with the rest of the NT.

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to (not "of".. "To".. to what?) all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of LIFE to all men."
I would argue it's "condemnation TO death"... a death sentence.

Adam's sin brought both spiritual death and physical death, "dying, you shall die."

The contrasting parallels of Ro 5:18-19 are between spiritual eternal death and spiritual eternal life, between condemnation and justification (i.e., declaration of "not guilty," sentence of acquittal, pronouncement of sinlessness).

 

[CrowCross]

Indeed. . .we are born condemned by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19), which imputation of Adam's sin to all those of Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousess of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

The good news is we can have our sins imputed to Christ jesus...and His righteousness imputed to us.