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

[Rockson]

Are you familiar with Covenant Theology?

I've waded through some of the material years ago.

And yes I am a convinced Classical Calvinist, not to be confused with Hyper-Calvinism.

Well seeing later you stated you agree with the WCF then as for me I can't allow you to say that....at least where I can accept what you say.

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.

Not speaking of you personally but your theology DOES NOT teach that. It comes out with great promise that it does but it takes it all away when it comes to the Westminster Confession.

It states, 3;1 "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ORDAIN, whatsoever comes to pass....." Then it goes on to say in such a way that no violence or disruption is done to man's will.....sorry but that is absolute NONSENSE.

You can't say man has or had free will and but then claim God ORDAINED all things to take place before they happened. So if Adam/Eve had free will like you claimed then stay with that and reject the WCF. Not doing so in my estimation you're no different then what you call hyper Calvinism. When one takes the wraps off the package it's still the same thing.

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.

There's actually NO NEED to bring in covenant terminology into Gen 1-3. The word covenant isn't even used in the text. OK true God said if they did this, this would happen or that....fair enough but if seems Reformed types are trying to create an air of sophistication of what they believe. Fact is ALL believe Adam and Eve were given a basic choice....do this and this will occur. I think you should admit all believe that.

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?

But here's your problem. You let the originators of that document off the hook so easily. Sorry but I won't and neither should you. You want to speak like a non Calvinist and say God merely permitted or allowed the fall, but then jump back over the fence and claim he ORDAINED everything to take place which would mean the fall. Consider Ladodgers that's double speak.

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

Of course but you're not believing God merely permitted it. IF and I say IF you believe in the WCF then you believe God ORDAINS all things. and that would be before they happened and before Adam and Eve fell.

 

[civic]

I've waded through some of the material years ago.


Well seeing later you stated you agree with the WCF then as for me I can't allow you to say that....at least where I can accept what you say.


Not speaking of you personally but your theology DOES NOT teach that. It comes out with great promise that it does but it takes it all away when it comes to the Westminster Confession.

It states, 3;1 "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ORDAIN, whatsoever comes to pass....." Then it goes on to say in such a way that no violence or disruption is done to man's will.....sorry but that is absolute NONSENSE.

You can't say man has or had free will and but then claim God ORDAINED all things to take place before they happened. So if Adam/Eve had free will like you claimed then stay with that and reject the WCF. Not doing so in my estimation you're no different then what you call hyper Calvinism. When one takes the wraps off the package it's still the same thing.




There's actually NO NEED to bring in covenant terminology into Gen 1-3. The word covenant isn't even used in the text. OK true God said if they did this, this would happen or that....fair enough but if seems Reformed types are trying to create an air of sophistication of what they believe. Fact is ALL believe Adam and Eve were given a basic choice....do this and this will occur. I think you should admit all believe that.

But here's your problem. You let the originators of that document off the hook so easily. Sorry but I won't and neither should you. You want to speak like a non Calvinist and say God merely permitted or allowed the fall, but then jump back over the fence and claim he ORDAINED everything to take place which would mean the fall. Consider Ladodgers that's double speak.

Of course but you're not believing God merely permitted it. IF and I say IF you believe in the WCF then you believe God ORDAINS all things. and that would be before they happened and before Adam and Eve fell.

Yes you are spot on with the double talk in the WCF.

 

[Ladodgers6]

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.

Is this coming from a bias and baseless opinion? I have been a Classical Calvinist for many decades Civic and I have nothing to hide. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Your comments address nothing and again shows you really didn't understand the Reformed position to which is why you could never defend it. Now you are falsely accusing my position and belief because you have nothing else to disprove Classical Calvinism.

You complain when I provide Scripture that you cannot refute, now it double talk, the list of baseless comments goes on and on. If you really want the truth then seek it. Scripture explicitly states that God is not the author of evil.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

I've waded through some of the material years ago.

Great, indulge me.

 

[civic]

Is this coming from a bias and baseless opinion? I have been a Classical Calvinist for many decades Civic and I have nothing to hide. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Your comments address nothing and again shows you really didn't understand the Reformed position to which is why you could never defend it. Now you are falsely accusing my position and belief because you have nothing else to disprove Classical Calvinism.

You complain when I provide Scripture that you cannot refute, now it double talk, the list of baseless comments goes on and on. If you really want the truth then seek it. Scripture explicitly states that God is not the author of evil.​

see here the proof is in the pudding straight out of the horses mouth

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-5-points-of-calvinism.68/page-8#post-1144

 

[Diserner]

Here's a real classic I posted to civic back when he was a Calvinist:

 

[civic]

Here's a real classic I posted to civic back when he was a Calvinist:

It’s funny to listen to people say I don’t understand Calvinism when all the non Calvinists I debated on CARM the past 20 years know for sure I was a Calvinist , yourself included . @sethproton , @Rockson @TibiasDad and @PeanutGallery know I was lol. And Travelah too. TomL knows he just hasn’t come to the new forum yet. I emailed him yesterday. I miss that guy

 

[Rockson]

Great, indulge me.

What are you talking about INDULGE YOU and that's all you say?

I gave you a full post engaging in a variety of things you said and claimed and no response. Suggest to me you probably didn't even read a word of what was said so tells me your not interested in any real discourse. OK I won't waste my time .

So readers I think it's clear Calvinists WON'T explain their double talk. They sweep it under the rug. I trust and hope you won't.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Well seeing later you stated you agree with the WCF then as for me I can't allow you to say that....at least where I can accept what you say.

I believe in the 3 forms of unity among others. Forgive me but I don't need your approval, right? Is there going to be any substance to this debate or just baseless comments like these?

Not speaking of you personally but your theology DOES NOT teach that. It comes out with great promise that it does but it takes it all away when it comes to the Westminster Confession.

I beg to differ. I have read and studying the Doctrines of Grace way far longer than you. Getting your information on Calvinism from 3rd party sites is not the right way of getting to the truth.

It states, 3;1 "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ORDAIN, whatsoever comes to pass....." Then it goes on to say in such a way that no violence or disruption is done to man's will.....sorry but that is absolute NONSENSE.

Maybe to you not to me. If God did not allow or permit the Fall, then Adam would not have TOTAL Free-Will, right? For God to make, force, or even coerce Adam to sin would make God the author of evil. But as i warn you before not to confuse Hyper-Calvinism and Classical Calvinism. Which is what you are doing.

But something just hit me, just now. So, you are suggesting in your position that things in this universe happens randomly without intellect or design? That things spin out of control into chaos and darkness, nothing to stop it?​

You can't say man has or had free will and but then claim God ORDAINED all things to take place before they happened. So if Adam/Eve had free will like you claimed then stay with that and reject the WCF. Not doing so in my estimation you're no different then what you call hyper Calvinism. When one takes the wraps off the package it's still the same thing.

Asked and answered. The problem doesn't lie with Classical Calvinism, but with your position, that can't rectify how Adam fell? Or that the fall didn't affect anything and people are basically good and will go to heaven based on their good merits. You have a lofty view of fallen man that the Devil buffs up to deceive the egotistical be like gods mankind? A water down version of sin if even that exist in your view has plague the church for centuries ever since the beginning.​

There's actually NO NEED to bring in covenant terminology into Gen 1-3. The word covenant isn't even used in the text. OK true God said if they did this, this would happen or that....fair enough but if seems Reformed types are trying to create an air of sophistication of what they believe. Fact is ALL believe Adam and Eve were given a basic choice....do this and this will occur. I think you should admit all believe that.

Huh? What on earth are talking about? This comment is so convoluted, I don't know what you are saying? I'll stick to Scripture, Hosea 6:7 states explicitly that Adam was in a Covenant with God, period! To deny it is to deny God's Word itself. Just because you are not familiar with these topics doesn't negate the truth of Scripture. I believe the reason why you have to try to convolute them is because it presents a huge problem for your position against Calvinism.​

But here's your problem. You let the originators of that document off the hook so easily. Sorry but I won't and neither should you. You want to speak like a non Calvinist and say God merely permitted or allowed the fall, but then jump back over the fence and claim he ORDAINED everything to take place which would mean the fall. Consider Ladodgers that's double speak.

More baseless comments without any substance or evidence to support your empty words. Are you going to provide any substance to this debate or are you just going to keep saying fake news?​

Of course but you're not believing God merely permitted it. IF and I say IF you believe in the WCF then you believe God ORDAINS all things. and that would be before they happened and before Adam and Eve fell.

And round and round you go. Do you want to speak for me, because obviously this is the only tactic you have left in your bag of tricks. I have explicitly stated my position. Again you are confusing Hyper-Calvinism and Classical Calvinism. I hope this debate will get more substance rather than just convoluted and baseless comments. Same old tactics, nothing new, like always.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

see here the proof is in the pudding straight out of the horses mouth

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-5-points-of-calvinism.68/page-8#post-1144

You are quoting a poster?

 

[Ladodgers6]

What are you talking about INDULGE YOU and that's all you say?

I gave you a full post engaging in a variety of things you said and claimed and no response. Suggest to me you probably didn't even read a word of what was said so tells me your not interested in any real discourse. OK I won't waste my time .

So readers I think it's clear Calvinists WON'T explain their double talk. They sweep it under the rug. I trust and hope you won't.

WoW! Okay here's goes, you said that you are familiar with Covenant Theology, I replied by saying, great indulge me. Meaning explain it. If you can. And please if you want a honest debate, let's do it. If you are goin to make baseless comments and convoluted jargon then I bid you a farewell. Or should I apologize and then undermine it with lies?​

 

[Diserner]

It’s funny to listen to people say I don’t understand Calvinism when all the non Calvinists I debated on CARM the past 20 years know for sure I was a Calvinist , yourself included . @sethproton , @Rockson @TibiasDad and @PeanutGallery know I was lol. And Travelah too. TomL knows he just hasn’t come to the new forum yet. I emailed him yesterday. I miss that guy

Tom is a real one, definitely studies hard, and sticks to his guns.

 

[civic]

Tom is a real one, definitely studies hard, and sticks to his guns.

Indeed he is tenacious gotta love him lol

 

[Arial]

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 !!!

What does the Bible say we are dead in?
Our tresspasses and sins.
What is the penalty for tresspasses and sins?
Death and the eternal separation from God.

What does it mean then to say we are dead in our tresspasses and sins?
We are doomed, destined for death.

To come out of that death which is a bondage in which we are held by our nature---we love our sins---we must be quickened to life. And what does Eph 2 say about how that happens? "But God----made us alive in Christ. So there is that. If someone wants to compare that deadness to the deadness and inability of Lazarus that is perfectly appropriate for this Eph passage says we are dead and must be made alive by God, just as was the case with Lazarus.

So what about Jesus speaking in parables so as to "hide" the truth from them if they were able to understand what was spoken clearly? God often works that way in scripture (see Dan 2:28-30,47) where we see a parabolic prophetic vision, as a hardening mechanism. But how do you explain Jesus' words to the disciples when they asked Him why He spoke in parables. "Because it has been given unto to you know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." And then He explained that parable to them because they didn't understand it either?

But you know Civic, I am about to walk away from this forum. You own it and all you do is promote anti Calvinism and all it does is build a wall of separation in the body of Christ and encourage people to duke it out.

 

[civic]

What does the Bible say we are dead in?
Our tresspasses and sins.
What is the penalty for tresspasses and sins?
Death and the eternal separation from God.

What does it mean then to say we are dead in our tresspasses and sins?
We are doomed, destined for death.

To come out of that death which is a bondage in which we are held by our nature---we love our sins---we must be quickened to life. And what does Eph 2 say about how that happens? "But God----made us alive in Christ. So there is that. If someone wants to compare that deadness to the deadness and inability of Lazarus that is perfectly appropriate for this Eph passage says we are dead and must be made alive by God, just as was the case with Lazarus.

So what about Jesus speaking in parables so as to "hide" the truth from them if they were able to understand what was spoken clearly? God often works that way in scripture (see Dan 2:28-30,47) where we see a parabolic prophetic vision, as a hardening mechanism. But how do you explain Jesus' words to the disciples when they asked Him why He spoke in parables. "Because it has been given unto to you know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." And then He explained that parable to them because they didn't understand it either?

But you know Civic, I am about to walk away from this forum. You own it and all you do is promote anti Calvinism and all it does is build a wall of separation in the body of Christ and encourage people to duke it out.

Any Calvinist / Arminian forum on any Christian website looks no different . Both sides are in opposition to one another with tulip . Some forums have more Calvinists and others more non Calvinists . You just happen to be in the minority here ir all . The other forums you are on Calvinists are probably in the majority.

If you want to discuss the essentials then you will find unity . But since tulip is not essential there is no unity between Arminians and Calvinists with tulip . That will never change on this side of glory.

When I was on CARM as a Calvinist we were in the majority since it leans Calvinist and the owner is a Calvinist . The same with the other forum you recently joined it’s owned and operated by Calvinists . I’m not a Calvinist anymore and that is a well known fact . And as long as people are here and want to debate and challenge non Calvinist I will oblige and answer their objections and post how and why tulip is wrong.

We don’t delete people’s posts, edit them or ban them just because they disagree with me. That’s not how it works here I like other forums . Everyone has a voice to be heard .

And I never attack anyone personally but I will challenge Calvinist distinctions and beliefs like tulip.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

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 ?

The conditions of a covenant of works exist. Adam was in a covenant with God. God created the Garden and all that was in it, gave him a helpmate, provided everything for him, gave him duties to name the animals and tend the garden. Gave the tree of life. And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In this covenant one thing was forbidden and that was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The consequences for doing so were given. Adam broke the covenant.

 

[civic]

The conditions of a covenant of works exist. Adam was in a covenant with God. God created the Garden and all that was in it, gave him a helpmate, provided everything for him, gave him duties to name the animals and tend the garden. Gave the tree of life. And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In this covenant one thing was forbidden and that was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The consequences for doing so were given. Adam broke the covenant.

No there was No Covenant of works with Adam that’s assumed by reformed doctrine .

Since Adam was already made perfect and good there was no works to earn Gods favor. He was created in saved state. That’s a fallacy.

 

[Arial]

Any Calvinist / Arminian forum on any Christian forum looks no different . Both sides are in opposition to one another with tulip . Some forums have more Calvinists and others more non Calvinists . You just happen to be in the minority here ir all . The other forums you are on Calvinists are probably in the majority.

If you want to discuss the essentials then you will find unity . But since tulip is not essential there is no unity between Arminians and Calvinists with tulip . That will never change on this side of glory

So you feel fully exonerated in your approach? All I did was state me feelings about it.

 

[Arial]

No there was No Covenant of works with Adam that’s assumed by reformed doctrine .

Civic! I just showed you where there is and you did not show me where there isn't. All you did was contradict me and say it is something assumed by reformed doctrine. It is not assumed. It is right there in black and white. How is that not a covenant? It even has a covenant sign. The two trees. How is it that you determine it is not a covenant and why would you even do so?

 

[civic]

So you feel fully exonerated in your approach? All I did was state me feelings about it.

Not an exoneration its a debate to defend our beliefs. I like and love Calviinsts - my Son in law is a calvinist pastor as is my daughter and 2 men I'm discipling. We challenge each other all the time on these issues and we are ok with that in our life. But on the essentials we are in agreement.