CALVINISM: The height of Spiritual depravity

[Logikos]

OOPS! NOw try looking these words up in a greek dictionary.

propitiation: hilasmos:

1. an appeasing, propitiating
2. the means of appeasing, a propitiation

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
ἱλασμός hilasmós, hil-as-mos'; atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator:—propitiation.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS G2434:
ἱλασμός, -οῦ, ὁ, (ἱλάσκομαι);
1. an appeasing, propitiating, Vulg. propitiatio, (Plutarch, de sera num. vind. c. 17; plural joined with καθαρμαι, Plutarch, Sol. 12; with the genitive of the object τῶν θεῶν, the Orphica Arg. 39; Plutarch, Fab. 18; θεῶν μῆνιν ἱλασμοῦ καὶ χαριστηρίων δεομένην, vit. Camill. 7 at the end; ποιεῖσθαι ἱλασμόν, of a priest offering an expiatory sacrifice, 2 Macc. 3:33).
2. in Alex. usage the means of appeasing, a propitiation: Philo, alleg. leg. 3 § 61; προσοίσουσιν ἱλασμόν, for חַטָּאת, Ezekiel 44:27; περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, of Christ, 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10 (κριὸς τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ, Numbers 5:8; [cf. ἡμέρα τ. ἱλασμοῦ, Leviticus 25:9]; also for סְלִיחָה, forgiveness, Psalm 129:4 (Ps. 130:4); Daniel 9:9, Theodotion). [Cf. Trench § 77.]


atonement: katallage:

Transliteration
katallagē (Key)
Pronunciation
kat-al-lag-ay'

Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From καταλλάσσω (G2644)
Greek Inflections of καταλλαγή [?]
mGNT
4x in 3 unique form(s) TR
4x in 3 unique form(s) LXX
1x in 1 unique form(s)
καταλλαγὴ — 1x
καταλλαγὴν — 1x
καταλλαγῆς — 2x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 1:258,40
Trench's Synonyms: lxxvii. ἀπολύτρωσις, καταλλαγή, ἱλασμός.
KJV Translation Count — Total: 4x
The KJV translates Strong's G2643 in the following manner: reconciliation (2x), atonement (1x), reconciling (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. exchange
   1. of the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values
2. adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favour
   1. in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
καταλλαγή katallagḗ, kat-al-lag-ay'; from G2644; exchange (figuratively, adjustment), i.e. restoration to (the divine) favor:—atonement, reconciliation(-ing).
Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS G2643:
καταλλαγή, καταλλαγῆς, ἡ (καταλλάσσω, which see);
1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values ((Aristotle, others)). Hence,
2. adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor, (from Aeschylus on); in the N. T., of the restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:18f; with the genitive of the one received into favor, τοῦ κόσμου (opposed to ἀποβολή), Romans 11:15; καταλλαγήν ἐλάβομεν, we received the blessing of the recovered favor of God, Romans 5:11; with the genitive of him whose favor is recovered, 2 Macc. 5:20. (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.)

I do know what I am talking about.

one is a sacrifice and the other is a reconciling. completely different things.

Geesh when you Armeniasts get shown wrong- why is it that you always resort to juvenile practices and just start name calling?

I am not an Arminian!

OOPS! Guess you actually don't know what you're talking about!

 

[Logikos]

So an 18 year old raping murderer dies- they go to heaven. Okay then.

Didn't say that.

So until they are 20 they die and go to heaven?

Not necessarily.

It's too bad that you aren't even a little bit interested in having a real discussion but instead have to exaggerate and misrepresent what I say in order to refute what you don't like the sound of.

What does this have to do with babies being spiritually alive till they are twenty.

It's as obvious as it can possible be. You're trying or pretending to misunderstand. I will not help you.

So gods word lied here! Okay we know what you believe.

You are the liar, not God!

The passage isn't about the two boys! That's all the help I'm going to offer.

I never wrote that children go to the lake of fire due to their parents. They are by nature objects of wrath as Paul said in ephesians 2

God is just, therefore your doctrine is false - your out of context reading of your doctrine into a passage in Ephesians not withstanding.

Not to mention the fact that this is in direct contradiction to a whole chapter of the bible which specifically addresses this precise issue.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I am not an Arminian!

OOPS! Guess you actually don't know what you're talking about!

Well as pertaining to this discussion there are only two views- the five points of Jacob Armenius versus the five points of Calvinism, on each of the five points one is either a Calvinist or Armeniast. Unless you have created a third category as of yet unposted.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Didn't say that.

You posted they we spiritually pure till twenty.

Not necessarily.

It's too bad that you aren't even a little bit interested in having a real discussion but instead have to exaggerate and misrepresent what I say in order to refute what you don't like the sound of.

Go back to you rpost 1076. either you misspoke, told the truth or were intentionally lying. I took your post there at face value.

It's as obvious as it can possible be. You're trying or pretending to misunderstand. I will not help you.

NO I am seeking your thoughts on this . Many people have many differing opinions. I do not wish to be accused of misinterpreting you.

You are the liar, not God!

The passage isn't about the two boys! That's all the help I'm going to offer.

IOW ytou have no clue and just throw out this silliness to try to hide behind. why do you post if you are not interested in proving you rpoints do you just wish to throw out your opinion and that is it?

God is just, therefore your doctrine is false - your out of context reading of your doctrine into a passage in Ephesians not withstanding.

Not to mention the fact that this is in direct contradiction to a whole chapter of the bible which specifically addresses this precise issue.

So show what that justice means in saying that people up to the age of twenty (your words inpost 1076) if they die go to heaven because of whatever words you wish to call them.

 

[Logikos]

Well as pertaining to this discussion there are only two views- the five points of Jacob Armenius versus the five points of Calvinism,

Nonsense! Arminianism is more Calvinist than not! There's hardly a dimes worth of difference between the two in regards to their theology propper.

on each of the five points one is either a Calvinist or Armeniast.

Not a chance that's true! You seriously need to read a book! I mean, you're just flatly wrong.

Unless you have created a third category as of yet unposted.

As for Calvinism, all five of the TULIP doctrines are entirely false from beginning to end.

As for Arminianism, the five points of the Remonstrance asserted that:

(1) election (and condemnation on the Day of Judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith (or nonfaith) of each person;​

(2) the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all humans, was efficacious only for the person of faith;​

(3) unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;​

(4) grace is not irresistible; and​

(5) believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.​

I disagree with at least points 3 & 5 and depending on just what is meant by points 1 and 2 I MAY disagree with those as well (There is significant disagreement even within Arminians on those points).
Arminianism do rightly teach that man has the ability to choose to do or to do otherwise but even there, the Arminians hold that view in a very rationally (not to mention biblically) inconsistent manner because they still agree with the Calvinists that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, which forecloses anyone's ability to do otherwise and therefore defeats the notion of a will.

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

1. To reward or condemn someone prior to their having done any good or evil is unjust. [Definition of "justice"]
2. To reward or condemn someone arbitrarily is unjust. [Definition of "justice"]
3. To reward or condemn someone for any action when they COULD NOT have done otherwise, is unjust. [Definition of "justice"]
4. Calvinism teaches that God does BOTH; that He rewards and condemns people before they ever exist, never mind before they have done any good or evil, and that He does so arbitrarily.*
5. Arminianism teaches that God has infallible foreknowledge.
6. If God has infallible foreknowledge then no one (including God Himself, by the way) can do otherwise. [see "Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism" above]
7. Therefore, both Calvinism and Arminianism teach that God is unjust.
8. God is just! [Uncontested presupposition of both scripture and Christianity]
9. Therefore, both Calvinism and Arminianism are false.

*

• “God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
• “… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
• “Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
• “We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

 

[Logikos]

You posted they we spiritually pure till twenty.

No I didn't.

Go back to you rpost 1076. either you misspoke, told the truth or were intentionally lying. I took your post there at face value

NO I am seeking your thoughts on this . Many people have many differing opinions. I do not wish to be accused of misinterpreting you.

IOW ytou have no clue and just throw out this silliness to try to hide behind. why do you post if you are not interested in proving you rpoints do you just wish to throw out your opinion and that is it?

So show what that justice means in saying that people up to the age of twenty (your words inpost 1076) if they die go to heaven because of whatever words you wish to call them.

If you were being honest I'd respond. As it is, I prefer to let wallow in your own self-important ignorance.

 

[JBO]

Well as pertaining to this discussion there are only two views- the five points of Jacob Armenius versus the five points of Calvinism, on each of the five points one is either a Calvinist or Armeniast. Unless you have created a third category as of yet unposted.

The discussion of the Post was originally centered on Calvinism. While I would tend towards Arminianism rather than Calvinism, I think in light of the OP, the discussion should be Calvinism versus non-Calvinism. Why introduce Arminianism into the discussion? I think it would be best if the discussion were Biblical truth versus Calvinism.

 

[brightfame52]

@Logikos

Babies are not saved because they were never lost!

So they never needed a Saviour ? They were never the objects of Christs seeking and Saving ? Im asking Lk 19:10

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

[JBO]

@Logikos



So they never needed a Saviour ? They were never the objects of Christs seeking and Saving ? Im asking Lk 19:10

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

As Logikos said, as babies they were not lost.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Nonsense! Arminianism is more Calvinist than not! There's hardly a dimes worth of difference between the two in regards to their theology propper.

Well this ends the conversation. If you do not even know that Calvinism and Armeniasm are radically opposed to each other then it is fruitless to try tootalk to you about the five points. Bye Bye.

Arminianism is a theological system that emphasizes conditional election based on God's foreknowledge, man's free will through prevenient grace to cooperate with God in salvation, Christ’s universal atonement, resistible grace, and salvation that can potentially be lost1.

1. Conditional Election: Election (and condemnation on the Day of Judgment) is conditioned by the rational faith (or nonfaith) of each person.
2. Qualitative Atonement: The Atonement, while adequate for all humans, is efficacious only for the person of faith.
3. Free Will and Holy Spirit: Unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will.
4. Non-Irresistible Grace: Grace is not irresistible; individuals can choose to accept or reject it.
5. Perseverance and Falling from Grace: Believers are able to resist sin, but they are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

While Calvinism.

1. Total Depravity (T):
   • This belief asserts that sinfulness permeates every aspect of human existence. As a result of the Fall, humanity is stained by sin in their heart, emotions, will, mind, and body.
   • People cannot independently choose God or save themselves. God must intervene to save individuals.
   • Calvinists cite Scripture verses such as Mark 7:21-23, Romans 6:20, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 to support this view1.

1. Unconditional Election (U):
   • According to Calvinism, God chooses who will be saved. People, being dead in their sins, cannot initiate a response to God.
   • In eternity past, God elected certain individuals for salvation, known as the Elect. This choice is not based on personal merit but on God’s kindness and sovereign will.
   • Election is not based on God’s foreknowledge of future faith. Those not chosen are destined for hell1.

1. Limited Atonement (L):
   • Limited atonement holds that Jesus Christ died only for the sins of the Elect.
   • Verses like Matthew 20:28 and Hebrews 9:28 are cited to support this belief.
   • However, this point is controversial, and some “Four Point Calvinists” believe Christ died for the entire world, citing verses like John 3:16 and Acts 2:211.

1. Irresistible Grace (I):
   • Irresistible grace teaches that God brings the Elect to salvation through an internal call, which they are powerless to resist.
   • When God calls, individuals respond without resistance.
   • This concept emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation1.

1. Perseverance of the Saints (P):
   • Also known as “eternal security,” this point asserts that true believers cannot lose their salvation.
   • Once saved, individuals are secure in God’s grace and will persevere until the end.
   • Calvinists find support in passages like John 10:27-29 and Romans 8:38-

No I didn't.

You did- post 1076 . I will give you one post to acknowledge your lie or you go on ignore for being dishonest.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

When God calls, individuals respond without resistance.

So in your view.... it's God fault so many go to hell because after all it was God that
failed to call them..., which is the opposite of what God says in His Word homie half time!

It's said that calvinist think God is as failure and it's His fault that so many people go to hell

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The discussion of the Post was originally centered on Calvinism. While I would tend towards Arminianism rather than Calvinism, I think in light of the OP, the discussion should be Calvinism versus non-Calvinism. Why introduce Arminianism into the discussion? I think it would be best if the discussion were Biblical truth versus Calvinism.

Well that is your strong anti Calvinistic bias showing well. However I would still have an open debate with you, even an intense and sometimes heated debate, though I already know ytou hold to the five points as being hereticasl.

But in this debate there are only two sides on these five points.

One holds to the Armenian view as being biblical or one holds to the Calvinist view as being biblical.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So in your view.... it's God fault so many go to hell because after all it was God that
failed to call them..., which is the opposite of what God says in His Word homie half time!

It's said that calvinist think God is as failure and it's His fault that so many people go to hell

 

[brightfame52]

As Logikos said, as babies they were not lost.

So they never needed a Saviour ? They were never the objects of Christs seeking and Saving ? Im asking Lk 19:10

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

So they never needed a Saviour ?

Not until they know right from wrong... age of accountibility

 

[brightfame52]

Not until they know right from wrong... age of accountibility

If they die before they know right from wrong they go to heaven without a Savior or being saved. Correct?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

If they die before they know right from wrong they go to heaven without a Savior or being saved. Correct?

No, the Lord automatically applies what Jesus did on the Cross to them because.... they are not at the age of accountability yet.

The calvinists claim God sends babies to hell because calvinists are of their father the devil...

 

[JBO]

So they never needed a Saviour ? They were never the objects of Christs seeking and Saving ? Im asking Lk 19:10

10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Obviously, the do not need a savior until they have sinned. Until they have sinned, they are not lost. Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die...."

 

[JBO]

But in this debate there are only two sides on these five points.

IThose five points do present a view of Calvinist soteriology, but there is more that is wrong with Calvinism than just those five points.

One holds to the Armenian view as being biblical or one holds to the Calvinist view as being biblical.

That is simply not true. There are aspects of both that are true and there are aspects of both that are false. I believe that there is more truth in Arminianism than in Calvinism, but that is not necessarily an acceptance of Arminianism as biblical.