The Lie
Paul – in my time in the reformed church, I was taught and agreed that through our faith we are saved (justification and salvation done – complete) and we then begin our lifelong journey of sanctification as we learn and grow in our knowledge and faith. When I view the chart I have always interpreted it in the same way that I interpreted my college education – the more you learn the more you realize what you don’t know. In that same way, the more I know of our father, the more ugly and selfish my sins look to me. I have never been taught any more than that and I believe the chart makes a good point in that regard. If there is a deeper meaning than what I have presented I have not heard it.
Anon,
Your perfectly reasonable sounding statement is the bait that hooks people into the lie. The chart is indicative of the founding principle of Reformed theology: knowledge of good and evil. Read the first sentence of book one in the Calvin Institutes. Hence, deeper knowledge of those two things define both (reality) and continually glorify God. But the Scriptures make it clear that God is most glorified by us becoming more like Him and displaying that to the world, not a deeper self-realization of our own potential evil. Moreover, if we aren’t guilty of certain depths of evil, to ascribe ourselves to it is not the truth. Therefore, this is just another primary pillar of biblical metaphysics that Calvinism turns completely upside down. And the implications are chilling: without evil, wisdom cannot be obtained. That is a precedent that has given birth to horrific episodes of evil throughout human history. Obviously, if a deeper knowledge of evil is efficacious to gaining wisdom, evil will not be perceived in a healthy way. I am utterly convinced that this is at the root of indifference to injustice that is so prevalent in Calvinistic circles.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“Who said there needed to be special knowledge for walking in the light beyond the revelation God has given us of himself and his purposes for us. What Calvinist seeks knowledge beyond the Scriptures?”
John Piper and others are proponents of Lectio Divina and actively on his site promotes authors that encourage mysticism.
“Do you think it is unimportant that we understand the basic nature of those sinners we seek to evangelize. The apostle Paul must have though it was important since he wrote so much about it.”
You are right- that is why Scripture gives us all we need to know about the basic nature of sinners that Paul emphasized.
“Do you not think it is important we understand the nature of God’s choice of certain sinners before the world was?”
No, there is no reason to know Gods choice of certain sinners- this shows that you do not believe in free will that you once said you did. All men are sinners and all are given equal choice to know Him or not. God does not favor one man over the other.
“Do you not think it is important that God’s people understand that Jesus sealed our pardon on the cross, so that our salvation depends on his work alone and not on the level of our faith at any given time?”
That is why we have Scripture that is pretty clear about this- we know that our salvation depends on His death on the Cross. The faith is who or what we will believe in. All men have faith, it all depends on what or who they will put their trust in. If you put your faith in yourself you will find death; if you will put your faith in works, your works will be judged at judgment day and will result in death; if you put your trust in a god, that god will fail you. If you put your faith and trust in Christ, you will receive life. Simple.
By the way read Romans 11- I think you will definitely find that God will one day turn His eyes back to Israel. There is a warning for Gentiles by the way. Also throughout Scripture, the OT is quite clear of prophecy concerning Israel in the future..
Circular reasoning is the reason that I will quit this discussion- “Calvinism is true because it is true” reasoning. There is no reason for Calvinism other then to exist for man, otherwise it is useless. There is no need when already the Word states that we have all we need through His Word and through the Holy Spirit. Your attempts to convince will not work. You have stated that I need to come up with valid arguments about why I do not approve of Calvinism- no I do not. I do not have the time to waddle through the myriads of Calvinist doctrine, that is confusing to say the least, and debate. PPT has already put enough info. about the connections of gnosticism and Calvinism, so if you want to refuse it be my guest.
So on and so on it goes…..Goodbye Sam,
LikeLike
Oh, and by the way, let me congratulate you on having grappled with all the difficult texts relating to the future of Israel and arrived at the point that you can now be dogmatic about that subject. I have known people who were proficient in Greek and Hebrew and had studied these texts in the original languages who had not arrived at that level of dogmatism.
LikeLike
“Perhaps you can demonstrate what about my reasoning is circular.”
Sam, Here is one:The “I” in TULIP doen not mean God forces people to do anything, but that he is always successful in executing his decree and applying the redemptive work of Christ.
LikeLike
Sam, Another attempt at circular reasoning is that if we are not Calvinists we, by default, must be Arminians. It is the circular reasoning of the Reformed bubble.
LikeLike
“Additionally, I have not defended Calvinism here. What I have done is tried to correct misstatements about Calvinism.”
Sam, another one used by Calvinists which becomes circular reasoning. They are not “defending” but are “correcting”. The outcome is the same.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Paul wrote:
“Barba,
Listen, my patience has run out with you even with glancing at your pathetic comments when I post them. I will answer your first question, and then I am shutting you down all together.”
This was Barba’s backing away from the discussion.
If you can tell me what issues were being avoided, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you.
Sam
LikeLike
Other circular reasoning concepts in Calvinisn are:
The Total Depravity/inabiliy or sinless perfection false dichotomy.
God is Sovereign so there can be no free will or you are giving man the credit
LikeLike
Sorry Sam, I have had my fill of arrogant Calvinists for the last few days. Nothing I say or write will change your mind. You tipped yourself off in your last comment. You make God out to be cruel taskmaster. You do not even understand what we are to take away from the giving of the Law. This last part proves it:
” Commands do not imply ability on the part of the one commanded.” So you see, your thinking here is the root cmeaning of “progressive justification”. God commands of us what we are unable to do so He must do it for us. Calvinists think this sounds pious. It blasphemes the Holy Spirit.
IT
LikeLike
Lydia,
It is clear both Calvinists and Arminians believe in prevenient grace. Such grace is not needed if many of the Church Fathers were correct about “free will.” [Definition needed]. Many of their statement made it sound as if they were merely stating that sinners do not act under compulsion or external constraint. Others sound as if they did not believe sinners are sinners apart from their actions. This is why I have always liked the grandfathers much better than the fathers. The issue really isn’t what the so-called church fathers [whatever that means–I don’t believe I have seen that mentioned in Scripture]. The real issue is what the Bible teaches about the sinner’s nature.
The difference between the Calvinist’s and Arminian doctrines of “prevenient grace” is basically two-fold.
1. Calvinists believe it is given to the elect. Arminians believe it is given to every sinner [Scripture lacking].
2. Calvinists believe it is effectual. Arminians believe it basically restores the power of “free will” lost in Adam’s fall.
Perhaps it would help if you would define your views more specifically. For example, do you believe people are born in a state of neutrality as far as sin is concerned, in the same condition in which Adam was created? It would also be very helpful if you would define “free will.”
One final thing before I go to bed. Do you think it would be a valid argument that because a person believes in Jesus’ virgin birth, he must be a Roman Catholic since Roman Cathollics believe in the virgin birth?
LikeLike
Lydia,
I believe I stated clearly that I don’t think believers are totally depraved. Do you not read what I post. Are you so blinded by your hatred of Calvinists that you can even read what we are saying in answer to you?
LikeLike
Sam,
Haven’t had time to read all of these comments, but I trust everybody is behaving; ie, not partaking in Reformed cognitive dissonance. I just want to slip in here that the Synod of Dort total depravity point did include the saints. That isn’t to say that you believe that. But Calvin most certainly did.
LikeLike