# Where is Calvinism flawed?



## dog8food (Jan 13, 2016)

Since John Calvin was merely a human with a great theological mind, in your personal opinion, where would you say Calvinism falls short?


----------



## rickclayfan (Jan 13, 2016)

Calvinism existed before Calvin. He is merely a prominent theologian of the movement. The Puritans, for instance, who existed several decades after Calvin, did not base their theology off of Calvin's writings as an ultimate foundation. They referenced him, but did not use him as a foundation. Scripture is the grand field of study of the towering giants of the Reformed movement.

Calvinism, therefore, is not the product of one man, but is the cumulative product of the laborious and diligent work of great men of eminence through the centuries.

Where does it fall short or where is it flawed? The flaws that many find with it are preconceived notions of what God's moral attributes (justice, holiness, goodness) are and how God is supposed to act (according to these notions). Calvinism is an honest dissection of scriptural truth. Are we called upon to explain the inconceivable truths? Only as far as Scripture reveals, but no further (speculation does more harm than good). Many reject Calvinism merely because they do not know how to reconcile it with the god of their fancy. Calvinism is not flawed because it cannot answer some hard questions. The imperative duty of all men is to submit to all the Scripture teaches and not shy away from what it reveals due to the finitude of our puny minds. Calvinism, I believe, is the sole system that implicitly submits to God's word. Historic Calvinism I mean.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 13, 2016)

In the fact that we call the truth Calvinism.


----------



## DW1689 (Jan 13, 2016)

Tim is right - equating Calvinism with only Calvin is to miss the mark. Carl Trueman points out that when we call the Reformed faith Calvinism we give Calvin a place of prominence that he didn't actually have amongst those that came after him. 

This I think was/is one of the biggest flaws of the YRR movement - it reduces Calvinism to TULIP, failing to recognise that it is part of a wonderfully rich and nuanced Reformed tradition that developed over many years by many brilliant minds! 

I know you were probably asking about flaws in Calvinism as a 'system', but I think the biggest flaw in Calvinism as we see it being championed or opposed today is that it's been reduced into five points rather than the rich tradition that it is. So, I guess actually the biggest flaw in Calvinism isn't actually Calvinism itself but the ignorance of both those who see themselves as Calvinists and those who vigorously oppose it...!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2016)

Calvin =/= Calvinism. Modern Calvinism is flawed when it tries to reduce its whole system to "Five Points." When we overly identify Calvinism with the five points or whatever, we lose sight of the extra calvnisticum, archetypal/ectypal distinction, theologia unionis, and the like.


----------



## Captain Picard (Jan 13, 2016)

Personally, if we're going to speak about a flaw in "Reformed theology" generally, (one I would actually call a flaw in Reformed Christians, who are sinful men like everyone else), a flaw I see is a tendency to seek schism and disunity, to draw circles tighter and tighter around ourselves.


----------



## 2ndViolinist (Jan 13, 2016)

"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

- C.H. Spurgeon


----------



## Jake (Jan 13, 2016)

If you mean the general theological positions of John Calvin, I think he fell short in ways like the Sabbath and carrying out full consistency in the doctrine of worship.

If you mean simply the 5 points of Calvinism, then I think its a misnomer to attribute to him. It seems like its more common these days to try to use names like the "doctrines of grace," which are nice in that they do not make the doctrine about a man. To attribute to Calvin is odd, because the general doctrines seemed well articulated prior to Calvin, and the 5 points themselves came after Calvin (Dordt using 5 points outline and TULIP coming a good bit later).


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 13, 2016)

Calvin wore a funny hat.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 13, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Calvin wore a funny hat.



And had a pointy beard.


----------



## KMK (Jan 13, 2016)

Obviously, Baptists believe his view of Baptism was flawed.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 13, 2016)

I do believe some of these negative trends may be common:

Where calvinism falls short in churches:

(1) Strong pulpit presence but little one-on-one ministry in some Calvinistic churches.
(2) In the name of preaching "the whole counsel of God" they really mean the 5 points....far narrower than the "whole counsel"
(3) Heavy doctrine sometimes can take precedence over the "One-another" passages of Scripture.
(4) Whereas the Broad Evangelical mindset is to try to include everyone, downplay differences and love everyone....the reformed often like to engage in infighting and bickering and split into small, exclusive churches, retain very high membership standards (too high in some cases, some RB churches want new members to sign off on the whole 1689 just to be members), and we often emphasize differences and make too much of them.
(5). Broad evangelicals welcome new fads or books without due critical examination (prayer of Jabez, Maker's Diet, etc), while Calvinists are often very negative to these new trends (this is not always...or even usually...a negative point, given the quality of new theological fads out there..but it can be). This can turn into a hyper-critical attitude.
(6) We often look down our noses on the non-reformed. This can lead to spiritual arrogance and a theological smugness.
(7) In missions - in an effort to do it "right" some calvinistic churches set such high standards that it needlessly limits the number of missionaries that could be sent out. 
(8) Since many Calvinistic churches take ecclesiology seriously and have small churches, sometimes heavy-shepherding can take place and the elders can intrude into the lives of the members overly much.
(9) Calvinism as a system relies much on systematic theology and biblical theology must also be used to balance out the tendency to overly rely on human logic to make certain verses fit into their system as "Calvinistic verses." Example, John 3:16. Whereas Calvin himself spoke of God's general love for the whole world, many calvinistic sermons spend more time on limiting God's love in their sermons than in emphasizing the main gist of the passage which is exactly the opposite - the magnitude and quality of God's love.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 13, 2016)

The following are different questions:

-- What is "Calvinism?" (is it a man's theology, a creedal statement, a church's confession, a stereotype of habit, etc.)
-- What are it's errors?
-- What are it's imperfections?


To focus just a moment on the 5-Pts (Canons of Dordt) of *creedal commitment*, if we call this which we believe "Calvinism" or any of the other names, we are saying we believe that particular set of doctrines are therein as well and faithfully expressed (from Scripture) as human language presently allows it.

To put it in perspective, we may ask: "In what way does the Apostles' Creed or the Formula of Chalcedon fall short?" Perhaps we wish to say that the Apostles' Creed is so succinct, it cannot adequately express a key doctrine like Justification by Faith Alone. But that is only to fault it for being "too early" a summary of the Christian faith. What fault is that? Is it not more faulty to fault it?

We can say a similar thing in regard to "Calvinism." We believe it to be biblical, and because it is biblical. If we were aware of its shortcomings, we should then seek for for a truer expression of that vital content which Calvinism purported to teach in contradiction to error. If another creedal statement needs to be added to the church's confession which is not adequately addressed by the catalog that begins (temporally) with the Apostles' Creed and runs up through Dordt (or a similar recent statement), then the work of confessing a vital word should be resumed in order to combat the wicked work of others undermining (sapping) the Faith.

If there is a plain error in a statement of faith, let it be identified and corrected or clarified. If it cannot be corrected or clarified, it must be abandoned.


----------



## Warren (Jan 13, 2016)

DW1689 said:


> Tim is right - equating Calvinism with only Calvin is to miss the mark. Carl Trueman points out that when we call the Reformed faith Calvinism we give Calvin a place of prominence that he didn't actually have amongst those that came after him.
> 
> This I think was/is one of the biggest flaws of the YRR movement - it reduces Calvinism to TULIP, failing to recognise that it is part of a wonderfully rich and nuanced Reformed tradition that developed over many years by many brilliant minds!
> 
> I know you were probably asking about flaws in Calvinism as a 'system', but I think the biggest flaw in Calvinism as we see it being championed or opposed today is that it's been reduced into five points rather than the rich tradition that it is. So, I guess actually the biggest flaw in Calvinism isn't actually Calvinism itself but the ignorance of both those who see themselves as Calvinists and those who vigorously oppose it...!


Calvinism's own theologians reduced it to TULIP. It was the failure of Calvinism's theological elite to teach, to explain what they believed in meaningful language. I'm probably wrong, but my guess is TULIP was spun to cut down on the amount of noise pollution during all their rhetoric.

Inducting people (mostly men) who happen to be younger, unfulfilled, and new to the Reformed tradition into the "YRR". It seems there's a category prepared for everyone, but a real shortage on ecumenism. I guess when practical ministry fails, find a scapegoat? Calvin's heirs have spent so many decades Platonizing at the academy, the best your theologians can do is cycle some essays on answering the "YRR".

So some journalistic wonder child took the preconceived belief with him to his research, found what he was looking for, and this pleased his publishing company. Woo boy, something new to talk about. This is a magnitude of stupid you only get, when pastors are taught to revere theologians, theologians live insulated in their prestige, and revisionist journalism passes for evidence. In fact, so-called YRR have *always* been with you in your churches, its just communication that's changed. Instead of chasing boogeyman, celebrity pastors and theologians need to button it, so the Church isn't confused into shooting itself for the sake of some Platonic ideal of purity.

My two cents


----------



## Jake (Jan 13, 2016)

Warren said:


> Calvinism's own theologians reduced it to TULIP. It was the failure of Calvinism's theological elite to teach, to explain what they believed in meaningful language. I'm probably wrong, but my guess is TULIP was spun to cut down on the amount of noise pollution during all their rhetoric.



The earliest use of TULIP as an acronym didn't come until the twentieth century (as early as it's been found), even as there others who used 5 points of some sort, starting probably with the Canons of Dordt.


----------



## Warren (Jan 13, 2016)

Right, I didn't make the claim TULIP came from Dordt.

I just want to see the haute couture lay off the stereotyping of young men new to reformed church, and take responsibility for teaching them, and for celebrity preachers to shut up and get to it. How many of those hacks actually seek out strangers with that profile in their mega churches?


----------



## MW (Jan 13, 2016)

dog8food said:


> Since John Calvin was merely a human with a great theological mind, in your personal opinion, where would you say Calvinism falls short?



Since you are merely a man, where does your question fall short?

A categorical leap has been made from fallibility to failure. That men "can" err does not mean that they "have" erred. The fact of error requires demonstration. This is especially the case in theology, where we are taught to rely on the promise of the Spirit of truth, and to recognise that there is a spirit of truth in contrast to the spirit of error.


----------



## dog8food (Jan 13, 2016)

MW said:


> dog8food said:
> 
> 
> > Since John Calvin was merely a human with a great theological mind, in your personal opinion, where would you say Calvinism falls short?
> ...



Haha, where does your answer fall short?


----------



## Justified (Jan 13, 2016)

dog8food said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > dog8food said:
> ...


You completely missed the point of Rev. Winzer's post.


----------



## MW (Jan 13, 2016)

dog8food said:


> Haha, where does your answer fall short?



Probably in offering you any answer at all.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 13, 2016)

dog8food said:


> Since John Calvin was merely a human with a great theological mind, in your personal opinion, where would you say Calvinism falls short?



Why don't you rewrite the question with clearly defined terms? Be more specific.


----------



## dog8food (Jan 13, 2016)

Justified said:


> dog8food said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



Did I?

Responding to my own question, I do have my qualms with some of Calvin's points, for example, the doctrine of Total Inability raises a more basic question to consider: That of original perfection. I cannot find in the scriptures where man had a pure and holy nature, or "morally perfect" prior to the fall. I can see where Adam and Eve were created with original innocence, but I wouldn't agree, for example, with the London Confession (Section IV) that man was made with "perfection of nature, and free from all sin." Where's the Biblical proof?

God calling His creation good doesn't mean morally perfect. Barnabas was called "a good man" (Acts 11:24), yet he wasn't morally perfect. "Good" may just as well mean something suitable for divine purposes. Ecclesiastes 7:29 says "God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." But "upright" doesn't necessarily mean moral perfection.

Yes, man is a sinner and every person is filled with foolishness from early on (Prov 22:15), but was Adam any different? The burden of proof was on Calvin to show that he was. Scriptures never spell it out, and it's a logical impossibility to prove a negative.

So here's the problem: much of Calvin's system of soteriology is based on the essential assumption that Adam was created morally perfect, and lost the perfection through sin, thereby taking on a nature totally corrupted and alienated from God, which in turn was imparted to all mankind as a curse for all generations. But scriptural evidence is lacking at best, and for the most part, this doctrine is accepted unquestionably.

In fact, Adams fall from moral perfection comes from Augustine's arguments against Pelagianism, and it was eventually passed on, nearly unaltered, to Calvin and successive theological generations since. 

So for me, a doctrine that acts as such an essential foundation for the rest of Calvin's 5 points should have unequivocal Biblical proof. And by proof, I mean it should have a consistent tenor in Scripture telling us: 1. God made man morally perfect 2. Adam's sin immediately corrupted him and left him unable to respond to God 3. God transmitted this same inability to all Adam's decedents. There are a plethora of Biblical truths that are clearly pointed out and cross-referenced throughout the Bible, so why not this--one of Calvin's main foundational arguments?

Anyway, I have some more to write, but I'll leave it at this for now.


----------



## dog8food (Jan 13, 2016)

MW said:


> dog8food said:
> 
> 
> > Haha, where does your answer fall short?
> ...



Ouch, touche, Rev.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2016)

First, Calvin's other doctrinal convictions are exegeted from Scripture independently of this particular point.

Secondly, Whatever Adam was prior to his fall, fallen man needs salvation, and salvation is revealed in terms of election, redemption, regeneration, and perseverance.

Thirdly, "original righteousness" does not mean "moral perfection" in an eschatological sense. Adam still needed to be confirmed in his righteousness and was placed under probation for that reason. Theologians recognise the wisdom of God in placing man under probation before he was brought into eschatological rest.

Fourthly, eschatologically, the two-Adam construct in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 2 supposes "original righteousness." If Adam did not stand in relation to the law as a righteous man how does he stand as representative of others? If he were merely innocent or "good" in his natural state he would not have been fit to fulfil the office of "the first man," possessing the rights of primogeniture in relation to his tribe, and exercising dominion over the world. Then how could the natural children suffer penal forfeiture as a result of the action of one the law did not deem to be fit to stand for them?

Fifthly, if Adam was not made in righteousness, and was merely innocent, then his fall was merely a fall from innocence. This would mean that salvation by Christ would only be a restoration to that state of innocence; and as the title to eternal life rests on the status of righteousness it would mean that saved sinners would be obliged to work for their own title to eternal life. But the gospel proclaims that whosoever believeth in Christ not only shall not perish but shall also have everlasting life.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 14, 2016)

Juan,
Why would you equate relative "goodness" of a redeemed sinner like Barnabas, with the "very good" of God's unblemished moral creature? That is an astonishingly naive hermeneutical method, which pays no mind to the fall and its disturbing effects.

Picking out an adjective and applying it the same way in any context is irresponsible. You might as well say that "good land" (Dt.3:25) has the same exact quality as a "good fruit" (Jdg.9:11), and a "good report" (1Sam.2:24), regardless of the intent of the passage, or the place and time. You might as well say that God is good (Mar.10:18) in no different a way than a creation of God is good (1Tim.4:4).

Man was made in the image of God, who is morally uncorrupted and incorruptible, the very standard of righteousness. Man was made an ideal reflection of God in knowledge (Col.3:10), righteousness and holiness. With this: that he was mutable, able to change, to fall or be elevated. It be an arbitrary definition of perfection that preregisters it as "immutable," not able to change for either the better or worse. Divine perfection is immutable, but a creature's perfection is according to a true measure. The mutability of man was an aspect of his perfect uprightness in his first estate.

Eph.4:24 speaks to the matter of the restoration of the original quality of man-as-image-bearer, man being made "new" or renewed, re-created, "And that ye put on the new man, which *after God is created in righteousness and true holiness*. "After" or according to God. The new creation is precisely parallel to the old, with this addition: the image has in Christ a new-mint original and indefectible, to which he is compared as a work-in-progress.

So, to doubt Adam's original, created moral perfection is tantamount to questioning Christ's moral perfection, who is called the "second man" and the "last Adam." 
Heb.7:26, He is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." Therefore, it is correct to conclude that Adam before he fell was likewise holy, harmless and undefiled, since he too was not a sinner until he sinned.

Moral imperfection is a derived characteristic. It comes from law-breaking.
Rom.5:12, "By one man sin entered into the world."
Rom.5:13, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law," i.e. broken law.
Rom.2:15, "The... law _is_ written in their hearts."

Man in his original created estate had ideal communion with God, which is only possible for morally perfect, sinless creatures.
Hab.1:13, "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity."
Our first parents lost paradise on account of having lost their perfect, sinless communion with God. First they hid; then convicted, they were cast out.
Hos.6:7, "But like Adam they transgressed the covenant."
Rom.3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Like bringeth forth like, according to its nature.
Mt.7:17, "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
Jn.8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil."

Sin is a problem even before we are born.
Ps.51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Ps.58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."
Is.48:8, "called a transgressor from the womb."

No pair of sinful parents can generate a child with an unfallen nature.
Job.15:14, "What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

Sin is defiling. Impurity and holiness are contraries, 1Ths.4:7. Heaven will not receive anything that remains unclean, Rev.21:27.
Tit.1:15, "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."


*******************

Juan,
I'm going to put it very simply, very plainly. If this is not your doctrine, then you are not Reformed; and that on a cardinal point of Christian truth. You need to be recognizably Reformed to be a member of this forum. Indeed, I'm almost convinced from your stated beliefs that you are quite nearly Pelalgian, which is about as outside the whole western theological tradition as one can be.

If you don't believe in Original Sin, 
if you don't believe Rev.Winzer has corrected your assertions theologically, 
if you don't believe I have supplied you with copious "cross-referencing" evidence to Scripture's teaching, 

then the PuritanBoard is not your home.


----------



## rickclayfan (Jan 14, 2016)

Juan,

A denial of original righteousness is in accord with Catholic doctrine. According to them, Adam was not created with an original righteousness, but obtained it as a supernatural gift from God at another moment after his creation. They teach that a free will was a constituent part of the original nature. Therefore, the fall merely consisted of Adam losing that superadded righteousness, while retaining a free will. Their view of superadded righteousness is plainly contradicted by what is said in Ephesians 4:24 (righteousness being a component of the original nature).


----------



## Justified (Jan 14, 2016)

dog8food said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > dog8food said:
> ...


 For starters, as many people have already pointed out, Calvin did not make or create the five points.


----------



## timfost (Jan 14, 2016)

Juan,

Please consider:



> *6. Did God create man thus, wicked and perverse?*
> 
> No, 1 but God created man good and after His own image, 2 that is, in righteousness and true holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him. 3
> 
> [1] Gen. 1: 31. [2] Gen. 1: 26– 27. [3] 2 Cor. 3: 18; Col. 3: 10; Eph. 4: 24. (Heidelberg)



God certainly created man perfect, after His own image. This does not mean that He created them equal to God. For example, man was created mutable, God is immutable. However, man having the _ability_ to sin does not equate to him being created as morally deficient, or else we would also need to conclude that the very image in which man was created was morally deficient-- not holy and righteous.

I would gently encourage you to prayerfully study what Revs. Winzer and Buchanan wrote. I find it confusing and a little disturbing that you argue such a position against scripture, and I interpret your tone as flippant and lacking sobriety. I would urge you to ask questions if you are unclear rather than pursue as you have.

Please consider.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2016)

Juan,

Let me be even more broad in my admonition.

If you deny a Fall from innocence and Original Sin then you're denying Christianity. Full stop.

We are a catholic, evangelical, reformed board (in that order). You have no need of Christ if you deny the Fall.


----------



## dog8food (Jan 14, 2016)

Continuing on...

This idea of total inability points to another problem, namely, an unreasonable demand to comply with the command to believe in Christ. How can our perfectly just God "command all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), when the command is impossible to obey?

I know as reformists, we might assert that a command doesn't necessarily imply the ability to keep it. But this statement is certainly not self-evident. Basically, if God gives a command and threatens to punish those (as responsible agents) who don't comply, then it certainly does imply the ability to obey... does it not?

So the conundrum here is that man is so corrupt that he will not and cannot obey even the smallest spiritual command - nor can he understand nor appreciate it... yet God orders him to believe, punishing him for not believing. As the universal judge, does he not condemn the sinner for not doing what he from birth cannot do? This seems to contrast with God's revealed character.

Then there are Bible verses such as in the old Testament from Jushua, where Joshua urged the Israelites, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15). I don't see anything that suggests the Israelites were all unable to choose the Lord unless they first experienced an inward miracle.

Joshua did say that the people were "not able to serve the Lord" in their present sinful state (v.19). Repentance was in order. They were called upon to make a choice of the heart and turn from their evil ways. Joshua said, "throw away your foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel" (v.23). Nowhere are we left with the impression that these people were all in a state of Total Inability from birth, innately incapable of yielding as Joshua commanded. It is an idea that must be read into the text.

In the New Testament, Peter preached before a crowd in Jerusalem "With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation'" (Acts 2:40). Was Peter "pleading" with these people to do something they were incapable of doing? I don't see it. 

As for Jesus, in Mark 4:11,12 he spoke in parables as a judgment against the Jews. Wasn't the purpose of parables was to keep his message from entering their ears, "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven" (v.12)? Had those stubborn people been allowed to hear the truth straight out, they might have turned to receive it. But how? Calvin tells us that no one can turn and receive the forgiveness of sins because of Total Inability passed from Adam. There must first be an inward miracle of the heart, an "effectual call."

And then Jesus sometimes "marvelled" at the unbelief of his hearers (Mark 6:6). But if he subscribed to and taught Total Inability, it would have been no marvel at all that men would disbelieve God. Right?


----------



## dog8food (Jan 14, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Juan,
> 
> Let me be even more broad in my admonition.
> 
> ...



Please read my post again. No where did I claim denial of the fall, it is only Adam's absolute moral perfection in question.


----------



## rickclayfan (Jan 14, 2016)

dog8food said:


> How can our perfectly just God "command all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), when the command is impossible to obey?



1. How can God command people to obey the law knowing it was impossible for them to do so? Rom. 3:20. A command does not necessarily imply ability. This is sufficiently clear in the case of the law.

2. Man willingly (though his will is in bondage to sin) refuses to obey God and chooses sin. He is not forced to sin, he sins willingly.

3. How _else _can man be responsible for not obeying God seeing that his nature is sinful? "He, that is, man, or the human race, as represented in Adam, _had _ability to will and to do what is good, and lost it by sin; and that, _therefore_, he is responsible for the want of it" (Cunningham, HT, v. 2, 611)

4. "Man was able to obey the law, to discharge this whole duty, in the condition in which he was created. If he is not in a different condition,—one in which he is no longer able to discharge this duty,—this does not remove or invalidate his obligation to perform it" (Cunningham, 592).


Does your denial of original righteousness spring from a lack of comprehension how God can command something seeing that it is impossible for man to do? You are adopting the Catholic scheme of explaining this.


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2016)

dog8food said:


> No where did I claim denial of the fall, it is only Adam's absolute moral perfection in question.



People have been removed from the board for less than you have done in both matter and manner, so I don't expect this discussion to continue long. Suffice to say, for your benefit, a "fall" from original righteousness and a "fall" from mere innocence are two different things. You are denying the fall in the biblical sense of the term if you deny original righteousness.

You are attempting to provide a philosophical basis for the way God addresses sinners and you are imposing this on the interpretation of Scripture. The matter of salvation is not grounded in reason but is dependent on special revelation because salvation is of the goodwill of God alone. Let Scripture speak for itself, and what does it teach? There is none good, no, not one. Your ethical philosophy sets limits and qualifications to that teaching. It does not allow the Scripture to speak in its own right.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2016)

Goodbye Juan.

Do you know what else is clear in the Scriptures?

Rev 21:8. Liars inherit the lake of fire. 

We don't believe men need to subscribe to Reformed confessions in order to be saved but lying that you do in order to participate on the board under false pretenses is not something that Christians do.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2016)

dog8food said:


> Continuing on...
> 
> This idea of total inability points to another problem, namely, an unreasonable demand to comply with the command to believe in Christ. How can our perfectly just God "command all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), when the command is impossible to obey?
> 
> ...



Incidentally, my 11 year old daughter knows the answer to the question as to why God would command something we cannot do in our flesh. The answer to your question is Romans 8:1-17. Your question is of the flesh.


----------



## timfost (Jan 14, 2016)

Juan,

It is not unreasonable to have questions. I've wrestled with the same questions to one extent or another. But the scriptures answer them:



> You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom. 9:19-21)



Also, God's response to Job is pertinent (Job 38-41).

If my salvation was dependant on my _mostly_ depraved will, I would have no hope. My comfort is that I have no ability to come to Christ in myself, and in spite of this, God had brought me to Himself. What person has God ever prevented from coming to Him?

Juan, faith believes God at His Word regardless if it all makes sense to our tiny intellects. Trust Him!



> Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb. 7:25)


----------



## ZackF (Jan 15, 2016)

Dude, you asked for prayers a while back for other things. Those issues pale in comparison with getting these matters correct. Take what Rich, Bruce, Matthew and others have explained to you seriously. Eternity depends on it!


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 15, 2016)

_sniff sniff..._

I smell an Arminian. 

Juan, whether you can comment or not at this point, I wish for you to read this from Spurgeon.

You said:



> Joshua did say that the people were "not able to serve the Lord" in their present sinful state (v.19). Repentance was in order. They were called upon to make a choice of the heart and turn from their evil ways. Joshua said, "throw away your foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel" (v.23). Nowhere are we left with the impression that these people were all in a state of Total Inability from birth, innately incapable of yielding as Joshua commanded. It is an idea that must be read into the text.



Now please consider this:



> _"Men do not seek God first; God seeks them first; and if any of you are seeking him to-day it is because he has first sought you. If you are desiring him he desired you first, and your good desires and earnest seeking will not be the cause of your salvation, but the effects of previous grace given to you. "Well," says another, "I should have thought that although the Saviour might not require an earnest seeking and sighing and groaning, and a continuous searching, after him, yet certainly he would have desired and demanded that every man, before he had grace, should ask for it." That, indeed, beloved, seems natural, and God will give grace to them that ask for it; but mark, the text says that he was manifested "to them that asked not for him." That is to say, before we ask, God gives us grace. The only reason why any man ever begins to pray is because God has put previous grace in his heart which leads him to pray. I remember, when I was converted to God, I was an Arminian thoroughly. I thought I had begun the good work myself, and I used sometimes to sit down and think, "Well, I sought the Lord four years before I found him," and I think I began to compliment myself upon the fact that I had perseveringly entreated of him in the midst of much discouragement. But one day the thought struck me, "How was it you came to seek God?" and in an instant the answer came from my soul, "Why, because he led me to do it; he must first have shown me my need of him, or else I should never have sought him; he must have shown me his preciousness, or I never should have thought him worth seeking;" and at once I saw the doctrines of grace as clear as possible. God must begin. Nature can never rise above itself. You put water into a reservoir, and it will rise as high as that, but no higher if let alone. Now, it is not in human nature to seek the Lord. Human nature is depraved, and therefore, there must be the extraordinary pressure of the Holy Spirit put upon the heart to lead us first to ask for mercy. But mark, we do not know an thing about that, while the Spirit is operating; we find that out afterwards. We ask as much as if we were asking all of ourselves. Our business is to seek the Lord as if there were no Holy Spirit at all. But although we do not know it, there must always be a previous motion of the Spirit in our heart, before there will be a motion of our heart towards him."_



Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 15, 2016)

Juan, you also said that you can't comprehend why God would give a command that can't be obeyed. For what reason but to show you your utter inability to save yourself and your total dependence on Jesus Christ for your salvation? Behold, the Word of God:



> _Romans 8
> There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[x] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For *what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh*, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit._


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2016)

Juan's statements are not Arminian. They are Pelagian. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Juan's statements are not Arminian. They are Pelagian.



Thanks for the correction. Arminianism is with respect to whether man has the freedom to will to believe 'unlocked' for him by God's common(?) grace, but tends to agree with Calvinists that man in his natural state does not and cannot "will" to be saved, and effect his own repentance. Is that right? So the reason Juan's statements are Pelagian is that he rejects that a prior working of God is needed _at all_ to lead a man to salvation = man is able both to will and to work of his own inherent nature?

Is that a correct distinction/categorization of the views?

edit: or is it that Arminians believe the will is free to believe, but man cannot repent or be saved until he uses his will to seek forgiveness from God? And that Pelagians believe the flesh is wholly free?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2016)

Vox Oculi said:


> Thanks for the correction. Arminianism is with respect to whether man has the freedom to will to believe 'unlocked' for him by God's common(?) grace, but tends to agree with Calvinists that man in his natural state does not and cannot "will" to be saved, and effect his own repentance. Is that right? So the reason Juan's statements are Pelagian is that he rejects that a prior working of God is needed at all to lead a man to salvation = man is able both to will and to work of his own inherent nature?
> 
> Is that a correct distinction/categorization of the views?


Yes, that is correct. Arminianism is a form of semi-Pelagianism that recognizes the nature of the Fall and that man is incapable of obeying apart from grace. Where semi-Pelagian views err is not the denial of the necessity of grace but the sufficiency of grace.

It is increasingly common for men to be like Juan who, for the sake of "free will", are more Pelagian than semi-Pelagian. It was Pelagius who was incensed at the idea that God's grace was necessary for the things He commands. It is always remarkable (and sad) to see how mainstream Pelagian thinking has become. Many Evangelicals today who have a problem with Calvinism would actually think that Arminius was too "Calvinistic". Dave Hunt pretty much wrote the same thing (God would never command something we cannot do) in a book he wrote in debate with James White. The Biblical fact of the matter is that Romans 7-8 makes exactly the point that the law is powerless to produce in the flesh what it commands - hence, the necessity that Christ would come to defeat the enslaving power of sin.

André Gide is credited with the quote: "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again."


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 15, 2016)

I will be coping that quote


----------

