3 Tactics Calvinists Use Against Non-Calvinists

[posthuman]

in re:

• Romans 5:13 says sin existed in the world before the law
• Whispered says sin didn't exist before the law
• Galatians 3:17 says the law came 430 years after Abraham
• Whispered suggests "of the tree in the midst of the garden you may not eat" = "the law" as referenced in the NT
• post asks whether this law "of the tree in the midst of the garden you may not eat" is how Whispered believes Satan fell?
• Whispered replies:

What an unusual interpretation of the Genesis account.

so i take it @Whispered you do not believe Satan's first sin was eating from the tree after God told Adam not to eat of it?
good. me either.
but you believe sin didn't exist before the law, and even if you also believe that "the law" = "do not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden" then you still have a problem if Satan had sinned before Adam was told not to eat. you have sin existing before you say it exists. you're wrong; the Bible says so.

I would refer you to the passages that pertain to the fall of Lucifer and his fellow angels after their loss of the war in Heaven.

when was this?

 

[Whispered]

TULIP

TULIP is an acronym used to summarize the Five Points of Calvinism, which were codified in the Canons of Dort by the Synod of Dort in 1618 and 1619, which met to address the points raised by the Arminians of that day.

Just an historical note:

TULIP is not something John Calvin came up with. It was put together by supporters of Calvin's ideas after the church got together and condemned Arminianism as heresy.
Arminius and his followers put together some group of points in which they opposed the theology that Calvin had taught, which were all rejected by the Synod of Dort. TULIP is a set of counter-points to the heresies of Arminianism.
This all took place decades after Calvins death.

Also: Calvin himself said that there is nothing in his Institutes that Augustine had not first taught.

So really you guys are more accurately described as fighting Augustinianism.

Realizing Augustine of Hippo's theology was partly influenced by the Gnostics?

"By his own admission, John Calvin's theology was deeply influenced by Augustine of Hippo, the fourth-century church father. Twentieth-century Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield said, "The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers."[1] Paul Helm, a well-known Reformed theologian, used the term Augustinian Calvinism for his view in the book "The Augustinian-Calvinist View" in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views.[2] [source and more reading, Wikipedia]
John Calvin and TULIP
John Calvin wrote, "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."[3] "This is why one finds that every four pages written in the Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin quoted Augustine. Calvin, for this reason, would deem himself not a Calvinist, but an Augustinian. [...] Christian Calvinist, should they be more likely deemed an Augustinian-Calvinist?"[4] Cary concurs, writing, "As a result, Calvinism in particular is sometimes referred to as Augustinianism."[5] The theology of Calvinism has been immortalized in the acronym TULIP, which states the five essential doctrines of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. These were detailed in the Second Synod of Dort in 1618–1619 against the opposing Five Articles of Remonstrance which followed the theology of Jacobus Armenius. Modern Reformed theology continues to assert these five points of Calvinism,[6] which Calvin credited to Augustine. "

 

[Whispered]

in re:

• Romans 5:13 says sin existed in the world before the law
• Whispered says sin didn't exist before the law
• Galatians 3:17 says the law came 430 years after Abraham
• Whispered suggests "of the tree in the midst of the garden you may not eat" = "the law" as referenced in the NT
• post asks whether this law "of the tree in the midst of the garden you may not eat" is how Whispered believes Satan fell?
• Whispered replies:

I will only repeat myself this one time and then no more. If you choose to misrepresent my remarks further we will have nothing to talk about.
The Saint Apostle Paul is the writer that said, without the law there is no transgression. (sin).
Romans 4:15 15because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Romans 7:7 7What 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."

1 Corinthians 15:56 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.




And while you chose to ignore the article on the first law that would have greatly helped you with your theology, the truth remains none the less. The first law of God was spoken by God in the garden. That Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and Adam was blamed and that is why the scripture there says, through one man sin entered into the world, that one man being Adam, it tells us that without the law there would be no sin. God issued his first command, thou shalt not eat.... Adam and Eve did eat. You are not aware of the Genesis story either.

I would wonder if you actually study the scriptures. Or if you only enter into discussions in Christian appointed forums so as to argue with those who do. You are unaware of a great many of what are the basics of Christian theology.

you do not believe Satan's first sin was eating from the tree after God told Adam not to eat of it?
good. me either.
but you believe sin didn't exist before the law, and even if you also believe that "the law" = "do not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden" then you still have a problem if Satan had sinned before Adam was told not to eat. you have sin existing before you say it exists. you're wrong; the Bible says so.



when was this?

I do not ascribe to your doctrine. There is no doctrine I know of wherein it is taught that Satan ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

As for what you claim is my problem, that you don't know the scripture in Isaiah 14 concerning Lucifer, who was later named Satan, adversary, in that chapter, is why I believe you are so confused about Satan's presence in the garden.

 

[posthuman]

Realizing Augustine of Hippo's theology was partly influenced by the Gnostics?

realizing what you just quoted?

"The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers."
[1] Paul Helm​

​

just the part common to the whole body.

did you mean to imply that gnosticism is common to all the reformers or did it just come out that way because you didn't comprehend what you cited?

 

[posthuman]

If you choose to misrepresent my remarks further

dear, i'm not the one misinterpreting things.

Sin did not exist before the law.

whispered:

sin did not exist before the law​

the Bible:

sin was in the world before the law​

 

[Whispered]

As I have stated before; Salvation is "a deliverance" and many salvation scriptures do not have reference to eternal deliverance, but to a deliverance we receive while we live here in this world. There is a deliverance (not eternal) that we receive when we come to a knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, as evidenced in Romans 10; Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (Jacob's name was changed by God to be called Israel, who is representative of God'd elect) is, that they might be saved (delivered from a lack of knowledge of the gospel), For I bear them record that they have a zeal (evidence that they are born of the Spirit) of God, but not according to knowledge, For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness (by their good works) have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. The inspired scriptures were not written to those who are not of the elect, but are written only to the elect, teaching them how God wants them to live their lives as they sojourn here on earth. Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach to the lost sheep (God's elect) of the house of Israel (Jacob). The Apostles were to teach them the gospel that explains how Jesus has already saved them eternally and imputed his righteousness unto them so that they don't have to go about to establish their own righteousness, by their works. Romans 30-31, Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea, and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints (elect). Why do you think that Paul only wanted to preach to those that already believed? Jeremiah 50:6, My people hath been lost sheep, their shepherds have caused them to go astray (probably teaching them that they have to do good works to get eternally saved - just my guess);

I would suggest that the phraseology, that Israel be saved by coming to a knowledge of the gospels, isn't speaking or implying there are different modes of salvation, but rather the Saint Apostle Paul's remarks about Israel was to impart that gaining knowledge of the Good News of Jesus Christ and of the irrevocable grace of God's eternal salvation would save them.

 

[posthuman]

TULIP is an acronym used to summarize the Five Points of Calvinism, which were codified in the Canons of Dort by the Synod of Dort in 1618 and 1619, which met to address the points raised by the Arminians of that day.
"By his own admission, John Calvin's theology was deeply influenced by Augustine of Hippo, the fourth-century church father. Twentieth-century Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield said, "The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers."[1] Paul Helm, a well-known Reformed theologian, used the term Augustinian Calvinism for his view in the book "The Augustinian-Calvinist View" in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views.[2] [source and more reading, Wikipedia]
John Calvin and TULIP
John Calvin wrote, "Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."[3] "This is why one finds that every four pages written in the Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin quoted Augustine. Calvin, for this reason, would deem himself not a Calvinist, but an Augustinian. [...] Christian Calvinist, should they be more likely deemed an Augustinian-Calvinist?"[4] Cary concurs, writing, "As a result, Calvinism in particular is sometimes referred to as Augustinianism."[5] The theology of Calvinism has been immortalized in the acronym TULIP, which states the five essential doctrines of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. These were detailed in the Second Synod of Dort in 1618–1619 against the opposing Five Articles of Remonstrance which followed the theology of Jacobus Armenius. Modern Reformed theology continues to assert these five points of Calvinism,[6] which Calvin credited to Augustine. "

thank you for substantiating everything i said

 

[Whispered]

realizing what you just quoted?

"The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers."​

[1] Paul Helm​

​

just the part common to the whole body.

did you mean to imply that gnosticism is common to all the reformers or did it just come out that way because you didn't comprehend what you cited?

It is unfortunate that you enjoy omitting a mature demeanor when you choose to post as that.
Excerpting out of context parts of my reply so as to appear as you do .

You may wish to learn about , Aurelius Augustinus. I think it would assist you a bit in what you're trying to put together here.

 

[Whispered]

thank you for substantiating everything i said

If you think so.

 

[posthuman]

I do not ascribe to your doctrine. There is no doctrine I know of wherein it is taught that Satan ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

that is not my doctrine. stop speaking confusion.
i asked you if that was your doctrine, because you contradict Romans 5:13 saying sin didn't exist before the law, and you contradict Galatians 3:17 saying "the law" = the command not to eat of the tree.

given that your doctrine is sin did not exist before the law was given, and your doctrine is that "the law being given" is Adam being told not to eat of the tree, then Satan could not have sinned before this time. that is the i your doctrine

Sin did not exist before the law. As we're informed in Genesis. God's law was created there when He told Adam and Eve to not eat of the fruit of the tree of life.

your doctrine is that the law was created when Adam was told not to eat of the tree ((there's no record of the Woman being told)).
your doctrine is that sin did not exist before this.

Satan fell to earth before Adam and Eve were created. This is how he in serpent form entered into Eden knowing of God's forbidden tree and the first law that was uttered from their creator's mouth.

your doctrine is that Satan had no sin when he was thrown to earth because your doctrine is that Satan fell to earth before sin existed.

that's a problem. don't be to proud to acknowledge it; and please don't throw shade like it's my problem, because it's not; it's yours.

 

[posthuman]

It is unfortunate that you enjoy omitting a mature demeanor when you choose to post as that.
Excerpting out of context parts of my reply so as to appear as you do .

that was the only part of your reply that was your own words??
the rest was an article you quoted which verified everything i had posted earlier.
why would i quote the article again if i've already said all that and now i am talking to you?

 

[posthuman]

These excerpts encapsulate the unbiblical state of John's doctrine.



Quotes from John Calvin: “For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8)

Concupiscence is the Greek word “Epithumia” which means: “desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust.” (KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon online at Crosswalk Bible Study Tools) Concupiscence means to desire or long for something that is forbidden, that which is not of God. John Calvin is stating that man is completely in the state of concupiscence in which man can do no good at all unless it is God who first changes the will of man to do good. John Calvin and the teachings of Calvinism teach that man is dead in sin and there is nothing that man can do which is good, therefore man has no ability or free will to choose God because he is in a state of concupiscence. [end excerpt]


Quote from John Calvin: “What can a dead man do to obtain life? But when he enlightens us with the knowledge of himself, he is said to raise us from the dead, and make us new creatures.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 14, Section 5) John Calvin taught that man was dead in their sins, and according to Calvinism this means that a person who is dead in their sins has no more ability to choose God than a dead man in a tomb can do anything.



Quote from Canons of Dordt on Total Inability: “Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.” (Canons of Dordt, III & IV, Article 3) Canons of Dordt are official statements on what Calvinism teaches, this quote is concerning “Total Inability.” This statement indicates that a person cannot be willing to choose God unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them. The Canons of Dordt explains what Calvinism is, and is in agreement with what John Calvin taught on “Total Inability.”

what is unbiblical about any of what you cited?
here is a link to a list of about 130 different verses that support total depravity:
http://traviscarden.com/total-depravity-verse-list

what verses refute it?

& what does any of that have to do with teaching repentance or not?

 

[posthuman]

​

for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

(Romans 5:13)​

​

άμαρτία ​

hamartia​

from hamartanó​

Definition​

a sin, failure​

NASB Translation​

sin (96), sinful (2), sins (75).​

​

​

for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. ​

(Romans 4:15)​

​

παράβασις​

parabasis​

from parabainó​

Definition​

a going aside, a transgression​

NASB Translation​

breaking (1), offense (1), transgression (2), transgressions (2), violation (1).​

 

[posthuman]

& what does any of that have to do with teaching repentance or not?

if the thoughts of the hearts of all people are only evil continually don'e we all have something we ought to repent of always until that heart is fully changed?

if we say we have no sin we make Him a liar -- i am failing to see the supposed incompatibility.. ??

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Perhaps you can find your answer here:

https://bibletruthpublishers.com/all-library-authors/lua [listed (scroll to far right) under "Wilson, P" ]

[Paul Wilson, 1899-1966]

He was a member of some kind of schizmatic Brethren church. He tended to criticize both Arminians and Reformed people.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

^ From your paragraph here, I would direct you to the posts I've made in the past, regarding:

--Romans 1 thru Romans 5:11 = "sinS"

--Romans 5:12 thru Romans chpt 8 [end] = "Sin"



____________

later in that article (I provided at link) [I think], he points out the actual wording of 1Jn2:2, as here:

https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/2-2.htm

Not to be insulting, but I find your posts to be hard to follow so I don't really read them. Sorry. You may have good points in them (or not) but I find your writing style to be distracting. Plus I know you're dispensational and not Reformed so that doesn't help

But at least you understand union with Christ if I remember right.

When it comes down to it, whether limited atonement is correct or not, it is in terms of effect. The atonement's effect is limited to those who believe, and those who believe are the elect. If unbelievers technically have Christ's sacrifice applied to them, and are going to eternal punishment anyways, that seems pretty odd.

And, like I said, the only folks who had their sins atoned for, ceremonially at least, were the Israelites on the Day of Atonement. The nations around them did not have their sins atoned for on this day. So, the atonement for them was specific and not general.

I don't really care how Paul Wilson, someone I never heard of, reasons about general atonement. If he was someone I recognized as a generally sound thinker, like Charles Spurgeon, I might consider his opinion. But, someone I never heard of, nor know his reputation? Nope.

Some of my friends brought up Kenneth Wilson to me...he's some guy who has controversial views on Augustine and Calvinism. My response was, so what? He's a former hand surgeon who got his doctorate from schools I don't consider to be notable. Why would I bother reading him? I'm very picky about who I read, because it's an investment of time. Plus, I listened to his interview with Leighton Flowers and noted about three errors in the first 15 minutes. Additionally his theology annoyed me. so I am not predisposed to listening to him. Plus, my friends are charismatics and if they tell me someone is worth listening to, I am not predisposed to considering their endorsements. Why? One of them pointed me toward Bob Larson as a good example of a guy who possesses the ability to cast out demons. Bob Larson charges $295 for a Skype session to cast out demons, plus he submits the potential demoniacs to a written questionairre to assess whether he has a demon. And, these guys expect me to consider their endorsement to be worthwhile?

By the way, I almost always try to figure out the person's perspective before I invest time in listening to their teachings. I guess it's a remnant from my cultic years. I am very suspicious about any authority figure when it comes to Christianity.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

^ From your paragraph here, I would direct you to the posts I've made in the past, regarding:

--Romans 1 thru Romans 5:11 = "sinS"

--Romans 5:12 thru Romans chpt 8 [end] = "Sin"



____________

later in that article (I provided at link) [I think], he points out the actual wording of 1Jn2:2, as here:

https://biblehub.com/text/1_john/2-2.htm

By the way, if you understand union with Christ, I think you should be able to figure out that only those united with Jesus experience his crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. This fact alone implies limited atonement.

The person united with Christ dies to sin and is resurrected to righteousness due to his identification with Jesus and his redemptive work. Does any non-believer become united with Christ? No.

If you can reason that way, you can see why I would not believe in a general atonement.

 

[Whispered]

that is not my doctrine. stop speaking confusion.
i asked you if that was your doctrine, because you contradict Romans 5:13 saying sin didn't exist before the law, and you contradict Galatians 3:17 saying "the law" = the command not to eat of the tree.

given that your doctrine is sin did not exist before the law was given, and your doctrine is that "the law being given" is Adam being told not to eat of the tree, then Satan could not have sinned before this time. that is the i your doctrine




your doctrine is that the law was created when Adam was told not to eat of the tree ((there's no record of the Woman being told)).
your doctrine is that sin did not exist before this.



your doctrine is that Satan had no sin when he was thrown to earth because your doctrine is that Satan fell to earth before sin existed.

that's a problem. don't be to proud to acknowledge it; and please don't throw shade like it's my problem, because it's not; it's yours.

Thank you.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Perhaps you can find your answer here:

https://bibletruthpublishers.com/all-library-authors/lua [listed (scroll to far right) under "Wilson, P" ]

[Paul Wilson, 1899-1966]

Speaking of Paul Wilson...
(though [caveat] I disagree with his comment/thought/identification of "the 10 Virgins" as being "the Church [which is His body]"--I disagree with him on that particular point)

… I DO agree with his quote below (and have made posts in recent past on this very point, esp re "Eph1:10 NOT referring to 'this present age [singular]'/the 'NOW'," as is commonly believed):

[quoting]

"The word dispensation as used in the Word of God signifies a certain ordered administration for a certain time. It may be called an economy, or the management of an organized system. God, in the beginning, placed the earth under the rule of Adam, and made him lord over it; but, alas, he sinned and pulled the whole creation down with him. God thereafter tried mankind in many and various ways to see if he were recoverable, only to see him fail in every test. Finally He sent His Son, and they cast Him out; then He sent a message of grace through that One whom they rejected. But it is the purpose of God that this world will be ruled by a man, and He will be the Man of His counsels and choice — "the second man," "the last Adam." At that time all His plans for man to rule will be made good; not only will that Man rule on earth, but in heaven. We read, "That in the dispensation [should be translated, administration] of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." Eph. 1:10. He will then administer all for the glory of God in the culmination of the times.

"The above verse has been confused by some opponents of the truth with a verse in Gal. 4 "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." v. 4. The most careless reader should observe that the "fullness of the time" and the "fullness of times" are not the same terms at all. The former refers to that time when man had been fully tried by every conceivable means and found to be totally wanting. When there was no hope for man in the flesh, God sent forth His Son to redeem men. To mix these two verses and confuse the Lord's coming in flesh the first time to put away sin, and His coming the second time to administer all for the glory of God, is to confound things that differ, which is just what the rejection of dispensational truth does."

--Paul Wilson [source: Bible Truth Publishers (found at link); bracket original]

[end of quoting]

 

[Whispered]

what is unbiblical about any of what you cited?
here is a link to a list of about 130 different verses that support total depravity:
http://traviscarden.com/total-depravity-verse-list

what verses refute it?

& what does any of that have to do with teaching repentance or not?

Thank you.