God is Unavoidably in the Mix

[Ken Hamrick]

You're right that "Jesus didn't go into the tomb, sit at the side of dead Lazarus and persuade him to rise;" however, sinners to whom the gospel is preached are not dead bodies in a hole dug in the ground, either. This is one of the problems with Calvinism: you err by taking what is literal and treating it as a figure, analogy or metaphor. Spiritual death is a literal condition, and not an analogy to an inanimate body in a grave. Spiritual death is not about being inanimate--it's about being separated from God. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." And a spirit without God is dead. There is also the condition of being "dead in sins," in which you are not only spiritually separated from God, but also a dead man walking, as it were, regarding the coming judgment. But neither way of expressing the condition of spiritual death contains within its meaning the idea of being inanimate.

Nice try.

Carbon, what you dismiss here with "Nice try" deserves to be substantively engaged... or concede the point.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

No Ken, no one seeks God, not even one.

I can't tell here if you're agreeing or disagreeing (or why).

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Here you are starting to lead away from scripture.

When I said, "In actuality, we as sinners sit in our dark tombs in "chains of bondage" that only Christ can break. His Spirit bears witness to the truth as it is preached, and if we respond by embracing Him, He will break the chains and pull us out of that place of darkness and death and into His light and love and life. Many will hear the truth, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to that truth. But only some will come."
you replied, "Here you are starting to lead away from scripture." But you didn't say how.

 

[preacher4truth]

But the astounding defense that he made against the hypers strikes just as hard against the standard Calvinists when it comes to necessity v. certainty.

The above is a reaching attempt to discredit Calvinism and is, in the least, disingenuous. Making unfounded assertions seems to be your forté, and generally it is aimed at Calvinists and Calvinism. The statement also lends itself to assuming that whatsoever you say Fuller did, makes what he did, or what he allegedly stated and believed, unequivocally true. No bias there, pure ex cathedra.

 

[preacher4truth]

Carbon, what you dismiss here with "Nice try" deserves to be substantively engaged... or concede the point.

Pretty much his answer is saying, in my best guess, your argument was a straw man which would be spot on.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Yes, man and his idol, free will.

When I stated:

And in every case, it was God alone who decided whether to bring to bear enough gracious influences (internal and external) to bring that man to genuine, repentant faith in Christ, or to not bring to bear that level of influences that He knew would have resulted in successful conversion. It is all according to God's eternal plan, which has as its ultimate goal the glorification of Himself.

You replied, "Yes, man and his idol, free will." You're not clear on what you are addressing or what you mean by it. Calvinists often ascribe free will as an idol to those who oppose their necessarian doctrines. But this is an unwarranted (and insulting) assumption. The undying opposition to Calvinism's nullification of the will is because men know from the universal experience of existence that we do have a free will--and our conscience bears witness to the fact that in everything we do wrong, we had not only the obligation but also the opportunity and capacity to do right. Such red flags rise up even in Calvinist minds when first introduced to such doctrines, but those who ultimately accept Calvinism have suppressed such internal objections, thinking them to originate from the sin nature; and then, when encountering those who oppose such ideas, the Calvinist assumes that such proponents simply are not willing to suppress the natural man's ideas of free will and are choosing the idol of free will over the truth from God in the matter. But not all red flags that well up within a man against Calvinistic ideas are necessarily the red flags of the sin nature: some might indeed be the red flags of reason and truth, which would also well up against anything obviously unreasonable or untrue. Of course, you will disagree. But at least you will know how I understand the matter.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

As long as we declare only God is God, everything is okay, and only then can we express our god like free will unto salvation?

The only idea of man's free will that is "god like" is the Arminian claim to want to decide their own destiny on a level equal with God. Surely you can see that in my view, man's freedom of will does not approach God's purview or freedom.

 

[ReverendRV]

When Calvinists take the truth that God unconditionally elects and meticulously carries out His plan, and turn that into necessity by which men really can do nothing other than sin, reject God and perish, they have taken it to a repugnant extreme. When Arminians take the truth that all men have a will that is free enough to reject or embrace Christ, and turn that into a demand that men choose their own destinies on an equal level with God, they have taken it to a repugnant extreme. Just 2 examples.

Hmm...

What about Verses which say our good Works are nothing but Filthy Rags?

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Hmm...

What about Verses which say our good Works are nothing but Filthy Rags?

All our good works are filthy rags because of the will by which we do them. As R. C. Sproul said, there's a pound of flesh in everything we do. It's our moral inability.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Hmm...

What about Verses which say our good Works are nothing but Filthy Rags?

But the quote you're addressing is about more than works. It's about sinners being victims of a unfortunate circumstance, and their punishment being not a punishment but a calamity. What else can you call it when they are created (their soul, out of nothing) with a sin nature that is impossible to go against, having done nothing to deserve such a curse, and then live a life with no real choices regarding belief in God, etc? They can do nothing except sin, die and go to hell.

 

[ReverendRV]

But the quote you're addressing is about more than works. It's about sinners being victims of a unfortunate circumstance, and their punishment being not a punishment but a calamity. What else can you call it when they are created (their soul, out of nothing) with a sin nature that is impossible to go against, having done nothing to deserve such a curse, and then live a life with no real choices regarding belief in God, etc? They can do nothing except sin, die and go to hell.

I posted something about this earlier; I think it's the Crux of our differences. We both agree that we're born in Adam; but why and how? We're in Adam Essentially, or we're in Adam Federally. Sure, there is enough Biblical Evidence for us to say we're in Adam's Loins Essentially; but obviously there is enough Biblical Evidence for us to say we're in Adam Federally. We're in Adam both ways, but according to the New Covenant we're in Adam because Adam is our Representative; until we're in Christ our Representative. We're never in Christ's Loins though, but are in him Covenantally...

In my thinking, the discussion should be about why we deserve or do not deserve such a Curse...

 

[Ken Hamrick]

I posted something about this earlier; I think it's the Crux of our differences. We both agree that we're born in Adam; but why and how? We're in Adam Essentially, or we're in Adam Federally. Sure, there is enough Biblical Evidence for us to say we're in Adam's Loins Essentially; but obviously there is enough Biblical Evidence for us to say we're in Adam Federally. We're in Adam both ways, but according to the New Covenant we're in Adam because Adam is our Representative; until we're in Christ our Representative. We're never in Christ's Loins though, but are in him Covenantally...

In my thinking, the discussion should be about why we deserve or do not deserve such a Curse...

To be "in the loins of" Adam is to be in spiritual union with him by way of origin--we are propagated from him both in body and spirit, so that spirit we are born with did not come out of nothing but out of the spirit of Adam, carrying with it the deserved consequences and conditions that it had while still in Adam. We are not in Christ's loins, but we are not born OUT of Christ--rather, we are reborn INTO Christ, and are joined to Him in spiritual union by the Holy Spirit's indwelling. The covenant is more than stipulations... it is the head in spiritual union with his people.

 

[ReverendRV]

To be "in the loins of" Adam is to be in spiritual union with him by way of origin--we are propagated from him both in body and spirit, so that spirit we are born with did not come out of nothing but out of the spirit of Adam, carrying with it the deserved consequences and conditions that it had while still in Adam. We are not in Christ's loins, but we are not born OUT of Christ--rather, we are reborn INTO Christ, and are joined to Him in spiritual union by the Holy Spirit's indwelling. The covenant is more than stipulations... it is the head in spiritual union with his people.

Since I'm familiar with your argument, when I used the term 'In Adam Essentially', I meant both Body and Soul with a Dead spirit; like the Fallen Adam. If you differ from this, for now I mean we're Essentially a Fallen Adam as you understand the Consequences of Original Sin...

Since we're in a Spiritual Union with Christ, would you say that Romans 5 goes out of the way to show how similar the Unions we have with Adam and Christ are? Was Adam the Mediator of the Edenic Covenant?

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Since I'm familiar with your argument, when I used the term 'In Adam Essentially', I meant both Body and Soul with a Dead spirit; like Adam. If you differ from this, for now I mean we're Essentially a Fallen Adam as you understand it...

Since we're in a Spiritual Union with Christ, would you say that Romans 5 goes out of the way to show how similar the Unions we have with Adam and Christ are so much alike? Was Adam the Mediator of the Edenic Covenant?

Adam was definitely the covenant head. But the covenant was written into Adam's nature in such a way that the covenant was emblematic of the reality. Was disobeying God wrong only because it broke the covenant, or would it have been just as wrong even without a covenant? It would have been just as wrong even without a covenant. Would Adam's descendants have been just as culpable and suffered the same penalties even without the covenant? Yes, if the realistic view is true. In fact, if the realistic view is not true, then the covenant alone is insufficient to ground the justice of passing the penalties of Adam's sin onto his descendants. If we did not participate in the sin, we did not participate in the culpability. But we badly digress...

 

[ReverendRV]

Adam was definitely the covenant head. But the covenant was written into Adam's nature in such a way that the covenant was emblematic of the reality. Was disobeying God wrong only because it broke the covenant, or would it have been just as wrong even without a covenant? It would have been just as wrong even without a covenant. Would Adam's descendants have been just as culpable and suffered the same penalties even without the covenant? Yes, if the realistic view is true. In fact, if the realistic view is not true, then the covenant alone is insufficient to ground the justice of passing the penalties of Adam's sin onto his descendants. If we did not participate in the sin, we did not participate in the culpability. But we badly digress...

Compare that to Moses, the Mediator of the Mosaic Covenant; were the Jews 'IN' Moses in any kind of way?

If you're correct, I agree with the highlighted; but there was a Covenant. Does Participation with Adam or Abraham. always result in Merit for participating? Did Levi Merit anything for participating with Abraham?

Also, I'm about to get busy...

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Since I'm familiar with your argument, when I used the term 'In Adam Essentially', I meant both Body and Soul with a Dead spirit; like the Fallen Adam. If you differ from this, for now I mean we're Essentially a Fallen Adam as you understand the Consequences of Original Sin...

Since we're in a Spiritual Union with Christ, would you say that Romans 5 goes out of the way to show how similar the Unions we have with Adam and Christ are? Was Adam the Mediator of the Edenic Covenant?

Rom 5:12-19 does point to the two unions--in Adam and in Christ. Most of the Western Church took our sin in Adam in this passage to be a literal, substantial, although mysterious union, by which our ownership of the first sin was prior to it being imputed to us--until around the 18th century, when nominalism eradicated realistic thinking. While the early Reformed Church saw Adam's sin imputed to us because it was ours, the later Church saw Adam's sin as ours because it was imputed to us.

 

[Ken Hamrick]

Compare that to Moses, the Mediator of the Mosaic Covenant; were the Jews 'IN' Moses in any kind of way?

If you're correct, I agree with the highlighted; but there was a Covenant. Does Participating with Adam or Abraham. always result in Merit for participating? Did Levi Merit anything for participating with Abraham?

Also, I'm about to get busy...

Adam ruined us. Christ saves us. Those in between pale by comparison. Every covenant after the one with Adam was a covenant between God and sinners who had no moral standing and no rights whatsoever. After Adam, no one can merit anything except we gain a participation in Christ by gaining union with Christ Himself. Levi paying tithes while in Abraham just spoke of the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood to the Levitical. Yes, Levi did these things while in Abraham, but no, he didn't merit anything.

 

[Carbon]

Then why did the rich man want to save his brothers from hell?

Do you even care about the truth of Scripture or do you Calvinists just love to hurl baseless judgmental accusations about my motivations?

27 "Then he said,`I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house,
28 `for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' (Luk 16:27-28 NKJ)

You obviously don’t understand the teaching about the rich man.

but of course it comes right back to Calvinism because you cannot stand the fact that Calvinism teaches biblical truth, and you want it your way.

sorry Diz, you can’t have it your way.!

 

[ReverendRV]

Adam ruined us. Christ saves us. Those in between pale by comparison. Every covenant after the one with Adam was a covenant between God and sinners who had no moral standing and no rights whatsoever. After Adam, no one can merit anything except we gain a participation in Christ by gaining union with Christ Himself. Levi paying tithes while in Abraham just spoke of the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood to the Levitical. Yes, Levi did these things while in Abraham, but no, he didn't merit anything.

I like this, but I wonder what you mean by the highlighted? We definitely gain participation with Christ for his keeping the Mosaic and Edenic Covenants; is this what you meant? (You don't have to be a Calvinist to agree with this)...

Since Levi didn't Merit Righteousness when Abraham paid Tithes, why would you Mandate that we Reap Condemnation for Participating with Adam?

I don't have any Calls to do at the moment...

 

[Theo1689]

When Calvinists take the truth that God unconditionally elects and meticulously carries out His plan, and turn that into necessity by which men really can do nothing other than sin, reject God and perish, they have taken it to a repugnant extreme. When Arminians take the truth that all men have a will that is free enough to reject or embrace Christ, and turn that into a demand that men choose their own destinies on an equal level with God, they have taken it to a repugnant extreme. Just 2 examples.

So you have nothing to offer but name-calling.
Got it.

And why is it "repugnant"?
Merely because YOU think it so, and you are your own "ultimate standard", instead of the Bible.