Who are the dead and what does it mean to be dead in Calvinism ?

[civic]

Why did Jesus speak in parables if calvinism is correct ?

We hear this all of the time comparing mans unregenerate state to that of Lazarus in the tomb in reformed/calvinist teachings.

The fact is calvinism's view on dead is wrong otherwise there would be no need to hide it from them. Why does Jesus need to hide truth from a dead corpse ?

See the contradiction ?

See the oxymoron ?

See the calvinists dilemma ?

In the real world we call this though process cognitive dissonance, an inconsistent and contradictory belief. So much for total inability and Jesus need for parables. This is just another example of the inconsistent calvinist/reformed position. Why would God have to harden a dead corpse, a dead man having no ability to hear, see or perceive ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

Here are some quotes from Calvinists showing how they understand and explain the “dead in sin” imagery in Scripture.

A dead man cannot exercise faith in Jesus Christ (Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man, 102)
A dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 141).
A dead man cannot cooperate with an offer of healing (John H. Gerstner, A Predestination Primer, 18).

The corpse does not restore life to itself, after life is restored it becomes a living agent (Robert Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism, 35).

The Calvinist holds to the plain teaching of Scripture and says: “No; he is dead. He cannot even open his mouth. Nor does he have any desire to call a doctor to help him. He is dead” … The Calvinist … would compare man to one who jumps off the top of the Empire State Building and is spattered over the sidewalk. Even if there were anything left of him when he landed, he could not know that he needed help, let alone cry out for it. That man is dead—lifeless—and cannot even desire to be made whole … And that is the picture of the sinner. He is dead in his sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5). He does not want to be made whole, let alone even know that he should be made whole. He is dead. When Christ called to Lazarus to come out of the grave, Lazarus had no life in him so that he could hear, sit up, and emerge. There was not a flicker of life in him. If he was to be able to hear Jesus calling him and to go to Him, then Jesus would have to make him alive. Jesus did resurrect him and then Lazarus could respond (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 17-18).

Could the Word of God show more plainly than it does that the depravity is total? And that our inability to desire or procure salvation is also total? The picture is one of death—spiritual death. We are like Lazarus in his tomb; we are bound hand and foot; corruption has taken hold upon us. Just as there was no glimmer of life in the dead body of Lazarus, so there is no “inner receptive spark” in our hearts. But the Lord performs the miracle—both with the physically dead, and the spiritually dead; for “you hath he quickened—made alive—who were dead in trespasses and sins.” Salvation, by its very nature, must be “of the Lord” (WJ Seaton, Five Points of Calvinism).

[A sinner] has all the passive properties belonging to a corpse… (Boice & Ryken, Doctrines of Grace, 74).
The natural man is enslaved to sin; he is a child of Satan, rebellious toward God, blind to truth, corrupt, unable to save himself or to prepare himself for salvation. In short, the unregenerate man is dead in sin, and his will is enslaved to his evil nature (Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 19).https://redeeminggod.com/dead-in-sin-calvinistic-analogy/

 

[civic]

Let’s look at the uses of the term “DEAD” in the scripture for you to decide:

1) Jesus referred to the church in Sardis as “DEAD” and called them to “wake up” (Rev 3). Given Christ’s use of the idiomatic term “DEAD” in reference to this church, should we presume that his hearers cannot respond positively to Christ’s appeal in this passage as well?

2) The Prodigal was “DEAD/lost” then “alive/found” demonstrating that the term “DEAD” is idiomatic for “separated by rebellion” not “innate moral inability” (Luke 15:24).

3) “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”‭‭ – James‬ ‭1:13-15‬ ‭

Are we born “DEAD” according to James? Or is DEATH birthed in those who sin after its “full grown?”

4) “What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.”‭‭ – Romans‬ ‭7:7-11‬ ‭

Are we born “DEAD” according to Paul? Or was it through the commandment, after “sin sprang to life” that DEATH came?

5) “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 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. 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…And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,” -‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:1-3, 6‬

This passage says nothing about how or when they died, nor does it relate their condition to any type of innate moral inability.

It does say God raised them up with Christ. Is this meant to represent the special inner work of regeneration which effectually causes them to believe after they are raised up? Let’s observe what else Paul says about being raised up in Christ.

“In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which *you were also raised up with Him through faith* in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions” (Col. 2:11-13).

They were raised up THROUGH FAITH, not unto faith according to Paul.

Calvinists have the burden to produce just one clear biblical example of the term “DEAD” meaning “the moral incapacity to respond willingly to God from birth.”soteriology101

hope this helps !!!

 

[Ladodgers6]

Why did Jesus speak in parables if calvinism is correct ?

Civic what does this even mean?

We hear this all of the time comparing mans unregenerate state to that of Lazarus in the tomb in reformed/calvinist teachings.

Yes, because Lazarus could not resurrect himself, correct? Only Christ could call us out of the darkness to come forth, correct?

The fact is calvinism's view on dead is wrong otherwise there would be no need to hide it from them. Why does Jesus need to hide truth from a dead corpse ?

This is conjecture Civic, thanks again for bringing up a topic that doesn't help your case. Christ came to save those whom the Father gave to Christ to save. So why then speak in parables? Why not speak to everyone the same message? Why conceal it from the others?

See the contradiction ?

No, quite the opposite.

See the oxymoron ?

No

See the calvinists dilemma ?

In the real world we call this though process cognitive dissonance, an inconsistent and contradictory belief. So much for total inability and Jesus need for parables. This is just another example of the inconsistent calvinist/reformed position. Why would God have to harden a dead corpse, a dead man having no ability to hear, see or perceive ?

hope this helps !!!

Just because one doesn't understand or can defend the doctrines of Grace doesn't make him or her right? I'll prove it.

Civic define what happen in the garden when Adam breached the Covenant of Works with God. Explain the fall and sanctions behind it.

Now explain and define how a sinner is justified before a Holy God!

 

[civic]

Civic what does this even mean?

Yes, because Lazarus could not resurrect himself, correct? Only Christ could call us out of the darkness to come forth, correct?

This is conjecture Civic, thanks again for bringing up a topic that doesn't help your case. Christ came to save those whom the Father gave to Christ to save. So why then speak in parables? Why not speak to everyone the same message? Why conceal it from the others?


No, quite the opposite.

No

Just because one doesn't understand or can defend the doctrines of Grace doesn't make him or her right? I'll prove it.

Civic define what happen in the garden when Adam breached the Covenant of Works with God. Explain the fall and sanctions behind it.

Now explain and define how a sinner is justified before a Holy God!

A false presupposition, there was No Covenant of works in the garden that’s your theology talking .

 

[civic]

And I’m at work then heading to a home group study . So it might be a while before I’m back posting tonight .

 

[Fool4Christ]

Civic what does this even mean?

Yes, because Lazarus could not resurrect himself, correct? Only Christ could call us out of the darkness to come forth, correct?

This is conjecture Civic, thanks again for bringing up a topic that doesn't help your case. Christ came to save those whom the Father gave to Christ to save. So why then speak in parables? Why not speak to everyone the same message? Why conceal it from the others?


No, quite the opposite.

No

Just because one doesn't understand or can defend the doctrines of Grace doesn't make him or her right? I'll prove it.

Civic define what happen in the garden when Adam breached the Covenant of Works with God. Explain the fall and sanctions behind it.

Now explain and define how a sinner is justified before a Holy God!

Looks like we have some good dialogue going in this thread. To me it sounds like both of you know where you're talking about. Looking forward to more replies in this thread.

 

[Diserner]

Just for the record, Classical Arminianism has an easy answer that Calvinism doesn't.

Since preceding grace is working even on the lost, the hardening of spiritually dead people is the removal of said grace.

 

[Ladodgers6]

A false presupposition, there was No Covenant of works in the garden that’s your theology talking .

I beg to differ Civic, I thought I shared this with you a long while back? Did you forget or just ignored it? Well its okay, I'll share with you again. I'll provide the passage and you can try to explain okay? Here's goes.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

 

[Diserner]

I beg to differ Civic, I thought I shared this with you a long while back? Did you forget or just ignored it? Well its okay, I'll share with you again. I'll provide the passage and you can try to explain okay? Here's goes.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

There was definitely a covenant, but to call not eating fruit a work seems misleading.

There was no real work involved in a simple refusal, and there was nothing to be earned or gained.

I really hate this theology some people start sneaking in that Adam was eventually supposed to eat the knowledge tree...

 

[civic]

I beg to differ Civic, I thought I shared this with you a long while back? Did you forget or just ignored it? Well its okay, I'll share with you again. I'll provide the passage and you can try to explain okay? Here's goes.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

So you are taking 1 solitary verse that mentions a covenant God made with adam( the one and only reference in the bible) and calling it a covenant of works ?

 

[civic]

There was definitely a covenant, but to call not eating fruit a work seems misleading.

There was no real work involved in a simple refusal, and there was nothing to be earned or gained.

I really hate this theology some people start sneaking in that Adam was eventually supposed to eat the knowledge tree...

Exactly if anything its a covenant of obedience or faithfulness to God. Especially since adam was already in a saved state prior to the fall made in Gods perfect image and likeness.

 

[Ladodgers6]

So you are taking 1 solitary verse that mentions a covenant God made with adam( the one and only reference in the bible) and calling it a covenant of works ?

No reply to the passage? Do you still deny that Adam was in a Covenant with God? And for clarity in Genesis 1-3, the Covenantal language is present. The concept and teaching is also present. Do you deny the Trinity because the word is "TRINITY" is not mentioned? But the language, concept and teaching, of the Trinity is present. God deals in Covenants with his creation.​

 

[civic]

No reply to the passage? Do you still deny that Adam was in a Covenant with God? And for clarity in Genesis 1-3, the Covenantal language is present. The concept and teaching is also present. Do you deny the Trinity because the word is "TRINITY" is not mentioned? But the language, concept and teaching, of the Trinity is present. God deals in Covenants with his creation.​

You called it a covenant of works- your words not mine. Say what you mean and mean what you say right ?

 

[Ladodgers6]

There was definitely a covenant, but to call not eating fruit a work seems misleading.

There was no real work involved in a simple refusal, and there was nothing to be earned or gained.

I really hate this theology some people start sneaking in that Adam was eventually supposed to eat the knowledge tree...

I beg to differ. God's commanded Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit of this one tree. This command come with stipulations and sanctions for fulfilling it and breaching it; came with blessings and curses. This is Covenantal language in Covenant making; either in unilateral or bilateral sense. If Adam had kept and fulfilled this Covenant he would have merited eternal Sabbath rest with God and have access to the Tree of Life. But since he breached this Covenant he was sanctioned with curses, suffering, exile from God's Garden Temple and the door sealed shut, and put to death for sin. As Hosea speaks with clarity that Adam was in a Covenant with God this cannot be denied! One can try to muddy the waters, but Scripture is clear on this point!​

 

[Diserner]

I don't think Adam had to merit something—no indication that Adam would be rewarded with more or achieve something by obedience.

Adam had it all already, he was completely blessed—to claim God withheld something from him was the very lie of Satan.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I don't think Adam had to merit something—no indication that Adam would be rewarded with more or achieve something by obedience.

Adam had it all already, he was completely blessed—to claim God withheld something from him was the very lie of Satan.

Agreed, but nobody is saying that God withheld anything. God created Adam upright and good. But God did create Adam with a Total Free-Will to obey him fully or disobey him fully. He possessed the power of contrary choice. Adam fell by his own free choice, not by God withholding anything. Adam possessed everything to fulfill this Covenant. The Second Adam fulfilled what the First Adam failed to do. God commanded to fulfill the Covenant and to multiply. But it is the Last Adam who opened the ancient doors to the Garden Temple Paradise by his fulfilling of the Law! He merited a people and a Kingdom. This is also Covenantal Language in the Covenant of Grace!


Jeremiah 34:14 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’

17“For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”

​

The New Covenant​

Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

How many times does God say I WILL? This is Covenantal language in making an Oath, a Promise, a Covenant.​

 

[Rockson]

Agreed, but nobody is saying that God withheld anything. God created Adam upright and good. But God did create Adam with a Total Free-Will to obey him fully or disobey him fully. He possessed the power of contrary choice. Adam fell by his own free choice, not by God withholding anything. Adam possessed everything to fulfill this Covenant. The Second Adam fulfilled what the First Adam failed to do. God commanded to fulfill the Covenant and to multiply. But it is the Last Adam who opened the ancient doors to the Garden Temple Paradise by his fulfilling of the Law! He merited a people and a Kingdom. This is also Covenantal Language in the Covenant of Grace!
​

So what's really your point in trying to assert what took place in Gen 1-3 was a covenant? I assume you're a Calvinist but what does trying to prove there was a covenant help your position? A covenant basically says, if you do this I'll do that if you do that I'll do this. And you claim above Adam had free will and choice to obey but he didn't. that actually goes against your Westminster Confession. So are you saying you're backing away from Calvinism?

 

[Ladodgers6]

So what's really your point in trying to assert what took place in Gen 1-3 was a covenant? I assume you're a Calvinist but what does trying to prove there was a covenant help your position? A covenant basically says, if you do this I'll do that if you do that I'll do this. And you claim above Adam had free will and choice to obey but he didn't. that actually goes against your Westminster Confession. So are you saying you're backing away from Calvinism?

Are you familiar with Covenant Theology? And yes I am a convinced Classical Calvinist, not to be confused with Hyper-Calvinism. Well, first of all, Classical Calvinism does teach that Adam had a Total Free-Will. This is how he fell, God did not coerce Adam to sin. He was given a Covenant to fulfill with obedience that came with stipulations and sanctions; blessings and curses; threats and promises. Furthermore, one cannot decide the meaning of redemption apart from a sound doctrine of creation and the Fall. Hence comes the Covenantal language of the tale of the two Adams.

As far as WCF, I agree with what it states. That God permitted or allowed the fall. Without this Adam would not have a Total Free-Will, correct?

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.

3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Permitting something is not coercion, even Classical Arminians agree with us on this point and Total Depravity.







"The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." - WCF 7.2

 

[civic]

So what's really your point in trying to assert what took place in Gen 1-3 was a covenant? I assume you're a Calvinist but what does trying to prove there was a covenant help your position? A covenant basically says, if you do this I'll do that if you do that I'll do this. And you claim above Adam had free will and choice to obey but he didn't. that actually goes against your Westminster Confession. So are you saying you're backing away from Calvinism?

Yes the WCF is double talk in many places. The One who plans, determines or ordains everything is culpable, yet they attempt to get God of the hook saying not with evil or sin.