Does God receive any glory at all in the Calvinist system?

[Guest]

Yes, and thank God he does so! Or nobody would be saved. To describe the operation of the grace of regeneration as "force" is a pejorative.

Maybe you like "dictate" better ?

No, that's not a biblical term either. I prefer the biblical term: grace.

• But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (Eph 2:4-5, KJV)

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

No, that's not a biblical term either. I prefer the biblical term: grace.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (Eph 2:4-5, KJV)

But "grace" is not useful to describe the nature of how "grace" operates or is effected, is it?

(isn't that what we were discussing?)

[Guest]

No, that's not a biblical term either. I prefer the biblical term: grace.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (Eph 2:4-5, KJV)

But "grace" is not useful to describe the nature of how "grace" operates or is effected, is it?

Sure it is. As are "mercy" and "love", also in the passage. They are the antithesis of the canards "force", "compel", "against their will", etc. Praise God He overcame my rebellion and my resistance!

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

No comments on the rest of my post Bob? I've not really heard good answers to these points, I hoping you could give your understanding and or explain why they would be invalid .

[Guest]

No comments on the rest of my post Bob? I've not really heard good answers to these points, I hoping you could give your understanding and or explain why they would be invalid .

Hi Sean,

One privilege that everyone on this forum exercises is the ability to respond to only those points that are interesting. I responded to what I felt was the salient part of your post.

I've frankly grown weary of correcting canards such as:

So does that mean that since dead men don't do anything I never sin

So I'm happy to let your "points" stand unrefuted.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Bob,

One privilege that everyone on this forum exercises is the ability to respond to only those points that are interesting.

I've noticed this. Been waiting for some time for the Calvinist explanation regarding how the principle spoken by the prophet in Ezekial 18 applies to their doctrine of original sin. Now I know. Ezekial 18 is not interesting! It seems the obvious implications of Calvinism are not interesting either.

[Guest]

Bob,

One privilege that everyone on this forum exercises is the ability to respond to only those points that are interesting.

I've noticed this. Been waiting for some time for the Calvinist explanation regarding how the principle spoken by the prophet in Ezekial 18 applies to their doctrine of original sin. Now I know. Ezekial 18 is not interesting! It seems the obvious implications of Calvinism are not interesting either.

Homer,

I was just glancing through the forum, and saw your post. Since I was recently reading a blog entry about Ezekiel 18, I wanted to point you to it.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04 ... ekiel.html

[Guest]

Homer, in rereading Ezekiel 18, I found it VERY interesting! Especially verse 31:

Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?

According to Cavinism, God works sovereignly in giving people new hearts (regeneration), but in this passage Yahweh tells Israel, "Get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!'

[Guest]

I've frankly grown weary of correcting canards such as:

So does that mean that since dead men don't do anything I never sin

So I'm happy to let your "points" stand unrefuted.

Cheers,
Bob

The problem is, the Calvinist wants these terms to be absolute one way (the Calvinist way) even though it's obvious these terms need not be understood in an absolute sense. That's my point. Paul used these terms for both the regenerate and unregenerate. So you can understand why I am unconvinced of total depravity. Hopefully that one line of mine wasn't so offensive that it kept you from reading the rest of the post.

I do find it a bit odd for you to stop at this point though, since you have many times stated that we are reading "free will" (our presuppositions) into the text. Should we then become offended at this repeated comment (or frankly have grown weary of as well) and abandon all dialogue? I mearly was showing a logical conclusion one could reach if one were to be consistent in their application of the terms: dead, slave, bondage, control and what actually pleases God.

[Guest]

The problem is, the Calvinist wants these terms to be absolute one way (the Calvinist way) even though it's obvious these terms need not be understood in an absolute sense. That's my point. Paul used these terms for both the regenerate and unregenerate.

Hi Sean,

No, I do not use "dead" in an absolute sense that I expect to transfer in the same sense to every application of that word. The phrase "dead in sin" has a specific meaning within its context. The use of the term "dead" conveys something: it conveys inability. To be dead in sin is to be spiritually dead; it is an inability to be active in the things of the Spirit. This is testified in many places in the scripture.

All the exercise in carrying some presumed magic meaning of "dead" over into all other contexts of dead is not relevant. I interpret dead within the context in which it appears.

So you can understand why I am unconvinced of total depravity.

If it's based on this line of argumentation, then no, I don't understand.

Cheers,
Bob