The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Roman Catholicism

1. Calvinism is not simply the recitation of what John Calvin wrote. Calvinism is Confessional, which is based upon biblical teaching and NOT the man, John Calvin. We acknowledge that Calvin contributed much, but like all men, he was fallible. What he taught must be put under the light of Holy Scripture and evaluated as to its faithfulness and veracity.

2. It is not surprising that you: "have yet to hear a Calvinist agree with Calvin that Mary was an ever-virgin." There is simply no biblical support to defend the view (see #1). And, Calvin didn't much expound on this particular view either. The most noted place where this is to be found is in the Second Helvetic Confession.

I would prefer not to get into this subject here because it is unquestionably

However, I will simply reply and say that Scripture is marvelously clear in that Christ had biological brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:55 (ASV) "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 6:3-4 (ASV) "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

John 2:12 (ASV) "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and [his] brethren, and his disciples; and there they abode not many days."

John 7:2-5 (ASV) "Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. For even his brethren did not believe on him."

I really can't conceive of any possible reason not to accept what the divinely inspired Word of God says above and not conclude that Jesus of Nazareth had siblings born of Mary.

1. Calvinism is most assuredly not threatened by the heresy promoted by all non-Calvinists. The fact that the non-Calvinist view of "free-will" is indefensible shows it is non-threatening.

2. All of man's choices are made due to some kind of "influence"; internal or external or both. There is no such thing as "unhindered volition", i.e., a choice made in a vacuum. ALL of man's choices are made most "freely" and are never forced, even by God Himself. God's eternal foreordination and decree does not in any way impact upon the choices men make. (cf. Prov 16:9; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:26-28)

3. The real issue is and always has been: What are the noetic effects of the Fall? Did man actually die as God had promised/threatened as a penalty for disobedience? Or, was Satan telling the truth when he told Eve that she wouldn't die if she ate of the fruit but in fact, she would ascend to a place equal with God knowing for herself good and evil? (Gen 3:4,5) The antagonism which men launch against the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity is simply the natural hatred and resistance expressed against God as God. Put another way, fallen men just can't take the insult which this biblical doctrine teaches. Their insatiable desire for autonomy overrides the ability to think logically and even rationally at times. Paul addresses this issue quite nicely in Romans 9.

We Calvinists cannot ascribe to a "god" who is akin to the little Dutch boy who is forever trying to stop the leaks in the dike, i.e., a reactionary rather than the Supreme Creator and sustainer of all things who has decreed ALL things according to His eternal council and providentially brings them to pass for His own glory. Men are born by nature under the just wrath and condemnation of God. The LORD God is under no obligation whatsoever to offer some "chance" for a dead sinner to save himself by the exercise of some alien free-will choice.

1. Yes, Total Depravity excludes any possibility of a fallen man in his natural state to choose "life". And pray tell how could anyone who hates the very thought of submitting to God and His indictment against him choose to do so? Again, fallen man's nature, pre-disposition, inclination is contrary to God and all that is good. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Eph 4:17-19; et al) Man cannot because he will not. And he will not because he cannot (cf. Jh 5:40; 6:44,65). Postlapsarian mankind is under the curse of God rendered by God for his disobedience in Adam, aka: Original Sin = Imputed Guilt and Inherited Corruption of Nature.

2. That "initial act of grace" is defined quite differently depending upon who you ask. Calvinism teaches that it is "regeneration"; the total and radical change of nature effected by the Holy Spirit in the elect. We find all other definitions as defective and unsupported by Scripture.

3. The parable of the sower is hardly a proof-text for "free-will". Hermeneutics 101 should be adhered to:

1. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament
2. The Epistles interpret the Gospels
3. The didactic interprets the symbolic
4. The universal interprets the local

Secondly, parables are extended similes and are not to be read as propositional but rather illustrations to make a particular point.

Thirdly, even if we take the Parable of the Sower as a paradigmatic illustration concerning the will of man, it actually proves the opposite of which you are trying to prove. Notice the phrase in Matt 13:21 "hath he not root in himself". Compare that to Jesus' teaching, given before the parable, in Matt 7:16-20 and 12:23,35 and after the parable, Matt 15:18,19. All who have not a new heart (good ground) to whom the Gospel comes either reject it outright or assimilate some parts of it to serve their self-serving desires. It is interesting to compare this also with Joshua's disdainful remarks to those who were likewise unregenerate in his day: Josh 24:15. The "choice" was to be made between "other gods" and not God and the other gods. The people had already and most naturally rejected the true Living God and thus all that was left was to choose between the idols of men. The same has always been true (cf. Rom 3:10-18).

1. No, we didn't agree that God has a "free-will" as defined by Arminians/semi-Pelagians, etc. I stated specifically that even God does not have this type of "free-will" because it is impossible even for God to desire never mind do that which is contrary to His nature, which is inexorably holy.

2. It was God's desire and thus His will to save a remnant of Adam's fallen race by showing mercy to them. But this mercy wasn't in any way contrary to His nature either. God couldn't simply forgive men for their sins which would be a violation of His equally holy justice. Thus, it was antecedently, absolutely necessary that the Son take upon human flesh, live a perfectly holy life and provide a vicarious substitutionary atonement by dying on the cross in behalf of all those whom the Father predestined to salvation in Him.

1. No sinner chooses Christ, to use your phrase, because of God's "predestinational selection". God's decree, in and of itself, doesn't save anyone. The Scriptures teach that God decrees both the end AND the means (to that end). The only reason a sinner repents of sin and believes on Christ is because he wills to do so. And the reason a sinner wills to do so is because God has chosen to save him and has sent Christ to die for Him and has sent the Holy Spirit to create a new nature within him which irresistibly desires God and will do whatever is necessary to obtain salvation; repent of sins and believe upon Christ. There is no magic involved here.

2. All men are born under the wrath and just judgment of God. You have already agreed that if God hadn't chosen to save some, then all would be consigned to hell. This the Scriptures also teach, e.g., Jh 3:18,19,36; Eph 2:3; Rom 3:9,22,23; 9:22 Heb 10:29.

3. Re: "voting on a ballot with only one candidate" I have already addressed this issue. Men by nature "vote" for everything but God and righteousness. They freely choose all that is evil according to their corrupt natures and hatred of God. Given the choice, fallen man in his natural state will always desire and will to do that which is against God and all that is good. This natural enmity is something man has merited on his own which is part of the consequence for his sin in Adam (Rom 5:12-19).

1. What kind of absurdity is this? "Mary was not compelled to be the portal of salvation and yet Mary, on behalf of all mankind, received Christ into the world.? Are you really saying that Mary had a "choice" to bear the incarnate Son of God or not?... that she could have simply refused the conception of the Holy Spirit, of which she was not even aware of until such time as her pregnancy was perceivable? Really now... you cannot be serious.

2. The Gospel is to be preached promiscuously. But the Gospel isn't some "invitation" to accept Jesus into your heart or some similar dribble. What we read in Scripture is that men are commanded to repent and believe. Salvation isn't secured by man's free-will decision but rather by the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through the true Gospel preached/read (Rom 1:16; Ps 110:3; Jer 23:29; Rom 8:7,8; 1Cor 1:18-24; 2Cor 2:14-16; Col 1:5,6; 1Thess 1:5; Heb 4:12).