Why the writings of men?...part two

Yesterday I posted about a group I found myself in the midst of. I joined that group because they came recommended as holding closely to the same beliefs that I hold. I have seen a few posts there that do seem to hold the same beliefs but for the most part it is a group of people that believe very differently than I do. I shared my interactions with them mostly because I wanted to. Shrugging my shoulders here. There was no learning for me, other than the education of encountering a belief system I did not know existed. There was no intent to share it with my husband since he was right in the middle of the encounter and helping me to formulate my response. 

While I was on that group, which I have not yet removed myself from, I also commented on another post. Here is a copy of that post: 

I put this tormenting syllogism 😈 to one high Calvinist on another page, since he was appealing to Owen's Trilemma.

1) Christ died for original sin.
2) All men have the guilt of original sin.
3) Therefore, Christ died for one of the sins of all men, namely their original sin.

I then said:
You must agree with premise #1, and you seem to have done so already, albeit implicitly. I do not see how you can deny premise #2, unless you want to depart from Augustinianism, and virtually the entire Calvinistic world, since the Reformation to today. So the question then becomes, how does premise #3 not follow from #1 and #2, if both of those are true?

That one, I will admit, left me kind of scratching my head. I don't even know who Owen is and I sure don't know what a Trilemma is. Big words which mean...what? I do not know. But I realized they didn't matter. It was the three points that the poster was trying to use in an irrefutable arguement that had me responding. And in actuality, my first response wasn't really mine at all but my husbands. I wrote the words but he told me what to write. 

Our first response was: 

How does one apply the atonement made by Christ for original sin to their salvation?

To which we were given this reply:

I would say the same way it is applied for actual sins; through faith alone in Christ alone. Christ is an all-sufficient remedy for all sin, both original and actual.

A good answer but one that left my husband feeding me another response:

thank you. I’m not sure I’m understanding though. I know salvation comes through Christ only. But I’m not clear on how it is applied to man. I guess what I’m asking is, based off the three things you listed above, how does man, in his original sin, gain salvation through Christ? Or rather how does one attain the faith that leads to salvation? I hear calvinists say God has elected those that are born again and that salvation is attained through Christ but only if God chooses to save them and then it is only given to certain people of His choosing. I also hear Armenians say that salvation is gained by our choosing to believe in Christ, so man choosing to believe in Christ, choosing to be saved. And that salvation is available to anyone that chooses to believe in Christ. From the three points you gave, about Christ dying for original sin, it seems like salvation is already applied to all of mankind. Is salvation gained at Gods hand, at mans choice, or was it applied across all of humanity when Christ died for sin?

You might say, we kind of played dumb, trying to feel them out for their beliefs.To the second set of questions I received a very long, round about response, that covered everything from what the original poster believed about what happened to babies that die to the fact that there were people in the group that lurked but never posted. I am choosing not to share that reply here because to be honest, it was long, giving the posters response in their own words as well as quoting different books and sources. 

I left that post alone for a while, answering the other one and debating on whether or not I wanted to reply to the first one at all. I knew I would at least thank the person for taking the time to answer me, they did, afterall, devote a lot of their time into giving me a response. What I didn't know if I wanted to do was take it any further. My husband sort of verbally threw his hands in the air, telling me it made his head hurt and I was wasting my time. I agree. I was wasting my time. I've had these kinds of interactions before. The thing is, I enjoy the interactions. They give me a chance to sharpen my own understanding of Scripture. I also have a tendency to think of those lurkers. Whether or not I plant seeds in the person I am talking with, even debating with, only the Lord knows but there is that other side, the lurkers, those that might want or need the response I give, those that might see a grain of Truth in what I say. The Lord works in mysterious ways. He may use what I write in some way or I may be blowing hot air, if you will, doing nothing more than edifying myself. One never knows.

A few months back, I was asked by a relative to respond to a comment made on her social media post. That led into a long discussion with someone that claimed to be a 'Christian', accused me of 'worshiping the Bible' because I would not look to outside sources for my understanding of 'Jesus' and being informed that "Jesus' visited this person often, telling them things not contained in the Bible. I knew I was throwing pearls before swine in talking with this person. I did so though for my relatives sake, knowing they were reading the replies this person gave. What I didn't know until later was that my relatives post was gaining a lot of attention on her social media page, mostly from friends she had met at 'church', due to the large number of comments, most of them from the conversation I was having with the lady. My relative later told me she had received phone calls, friend requests, and been the subject of many conversations at 'church' due to my conversation with the woman on her social media page. So we never know how far reaching our responses might be, even when we don't intend them to. 

And so I set down to give a short response to the post in that group. I should have known better. I think I am incapable of giving short replies. Long or short, here is the answer I gave:

Thank you for taking the time to give me such a detailed reply. I know that took a great deal of time, I am well acquainted with how long it takes to give such answers, even if one is fast at typing. I posted those questions on my first day in this group, understanding little of how the group works or many of the beliefs held by the members. Having now been in this group a couple of days, and having looked at some of the older posts, I realize I am in a group that I do not belong in. You see, I am what you refer to as a high Calvinist. Before this group I had never even heard the term. Oddly enough, I found you through a group for what you call 'high Calvinists' and you came highly recommended as being Sola Scriptura. I have not found that to be the case. However, I do not wish to make waves, at least not too many, as I am essentially visiting you. To share more than my basic views would be the equivalent of me coming to your home and telling you I don't like your furniture or the color you painted your living room. I'm playing in your world so to speak. I will remove myself from the group soon unless I get banned for posting this reply.You said: I put this tormenting syllogism 😈 to one high Calvinist on another page, since he was appealing to Owen's Trilemma.

1) Christ died for original sin.

2) All men have the guilt of original sin.

3) Therefore, Christ died for one of the sins of all men, namely their original sin.

I then said:

You must agree with premise #1, and you seem to have done so already, albeit implicitly. I do not see how you can deny premise #2, unless you want to depart from Augustinianism, and virtually the entire Calvinistic world, since the Reformation to today. So the question then becomes, how does premise #3 not follow from #1 and #2, if both of those are true? I will admit that I have no idea what Owen's Trilemma is. I am not inclined to look it up to find out. You see, I am Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone. I do not know who the men you refer to in this group are and I do not care to know. In your first comment you said, "The funny thing about the above argument is that the high Calvinist can't go to some modern shallow TULIP book, or something on the internet, to copy and paste that as an answer. It forces them to critically think for themselves for a change, which is not common among them. They usually go to some popular TULIP book, or a past theologian, to learn what to say, and then parrot that. Well, in this case, they can't do that " I have never read a TULIP book although I am acquainted with the TULIP itself. I will NEVER give a response based on something out of a book and I will not copy and paste anything online, unless it is Scripture and then I do so for the sole purpose of not having to write it out myself. In another of your comments you said, "Here is the cogent, well thought out response to the argument I got from the high Calvinist guy a moment ago, who is a pastor. He said, "foolishness."

I mean, what else can he say? It's either that type of a response, or silence. Typically they choose silence when it comes to this argument, and I suspect that is what we will see here as well. But if they want, I suppose they can say "foolishness" as well." There is a much better answer than both of those options, although in truth from a Sola Scriptura standpoint, both are valid replies. Your 3 step application above is based entirely on logic, some of your comments even speak of logic and it being logical. The problem here is logic. You're approaching Christ's atonement for sin from a logical, man centered, thought process. Christ is not logic. His ways are not our ways. You justify these thoughts by referring to some man, Owen, and his ideas rather than giving Scripture verses to back your beliefs. Salvation is all of God and nothing of man. John 15:16 says: You did not choose me, but I chose you ... Ephesians 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us[b] for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1:11 says, In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will. These verses paint a picture, tell a story, of God's choosing, of His plan, His salvation. All of life on earth can be summed up in a few short words, 'because it pleased God to do so." You are trying to take something that isn't logical and apply logic to it. It was never logical to believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, Being to begin with. It's not logical to consider heaven or hell. It's not logical to believe that one can be 'saved' from any punishment because a Man claiming to be God, in the form of God's son (think of that one logically) died for sins we committed as well as the unlogical application of some long dead man's sins that we never came close to being responsible. Logic and Scripture run counterintuitive to each other. Everything about God and Christ go against man's logic. We can not take our fallible man's logic and apply it to God. We must take God's infallible ways and apply them to man. Just as I write this response as I choose to do so, God rules His creation as He chooses to do so. You attempting to use men's logic, yours and Owens, to apply it to sin and the atonement. We must instead believe as little children, no reasoning, no logic. Hebrews 11:1 says, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We must accept in faith. Believe in faith. A small child accepts that a chicken is a chicken because their parents say so. They believe a spider will bite them because their parent tells them it will. We must be as little children, coming to Christ with an open mind and heart, accepting what is unacceptable out of faith because the Lord's word tells us it is so. Logic is not applicable to Scripture. We may look to His creation to see the hand of God, For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20. We may look to creation to see the hand of God but we cannot apply our man-centered logic to His illogical ways. Big words and fancy definitions only make us feel like we know it all. The simplicity of Scripture can be processed through men's logical brains but logic only goes so far then our hearts must leap in faith. You are attempting to take the miracle that is Christ and His atonement and apply it to mankind through logic. 1) Christ died for original sin.

2) All men have the guilt of original sin.

3) Therefore, Christ died for one of the sins of all men, namely their original sin. The long answer, no silence, no "foolishness", is that Christ died for the sins of His chosen people. Someone above said a high Calvinist will try to say He died for the elect. That is correct. God chose His people before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4, 11), predestining them to belong to Him. Christ said, I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. John 17:9. It doesn't get any plainer than that. He came not for the world, not for all of mankind, but for His people. "I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me". In John 6:37 He says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." Christ speaks, time and again of a specific people. Yes, Christ died for original sin but He did not die only for original sin, nor did He die for the sin or sins (in any form) of all people. He died for the sins, imputed or actual, of His chosen people. Your second logical, and Scriptural, point is: all men have the guilt of original sin. That is correct. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, Psalm 51:5. Also Romans 5:12, Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. We are all guilty of original sin, something that defies logic. How can people be guilty of something because someone long gone disobeyed God? Only by faith does it make sense. Although one could apply the logic that becasue Adam sinned, sin entered the world, and thereby was there when we came along but that does create the logical following that I, you, or anyone else, would necessarily sin ourselves. Sin was spread across all mankind, like some kind of hideous disease, when Adam committed the first sin and we are held held guilty before our holy, illogical, God for the guilt of one man, being conceived with that sin. There's no logic there. It does not make sense. Only through faith can we accept the unacceptable. Your third point, Therefore, Christ died for one of the sins of all men, namely their original sin. No, Christ, as He plainly stated in His own words in John 17:9, said "I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me." He came to die for His chosen people. In dying for them, He died for their original sins and their actual sins, He died to wash them clean of iniquities and evilness before an all Holy God that requires payment for sin. But it wasn't for the original sin of all mankind that Christ died. It was for the original sin of the people He chose before the foundation of the world to belong to Him, the one's He picked, or elected, to give, or predestine, salvation. It's a limited atonement, applying only to those that God chooses to apply it to. Which is the long way around your friends answer of 'foolishness' 　.

While I was writing out that reply, which I accidentally posted the first little bit, about me criticizing someone else's living room before I had finished writing the rest of it, I got a reply saying high Calvinists were welcome in the group but hyper Calvinists were not and that I was welcome to criticize the paint and the furniture. I had to smile at that one. At least they were good sports. I thanked them for that too and told them I would refrain from commenting on the carpet but the furniture was worn and the walls could use a fresh coat of paint.

And then I came here to write this because...well, because I thought I would follow up on yesterdays post.