SPIRITUALIZED GASLIGHTING
by Dr. Leighton Flowers
According to psychological experts “gaslighting” is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own perception of reality.
SOME Calvinists argue that we are all born believing in the basic freedom of human will, the ability to make choices. But, then they argue that perception of reality is false and that God is actually controlling all our preferences and thus our choices (under their definition of “sovereignty”).
If one attempts to disagree they are often made to feel as if they are crazy, heretical, or just too ignorant to really understand. I believe this is a form of “spiritualized gaslighting.”
It comes in the form of statements like, “You just don’t understand Calvinism,” even after reading directly from a quote of John Calvin himself.
Or a statement like, “Yes it’s actually your choice,” after they just argued that God is the decisive cause (determiner) of every desire and choice that has ever been made.
If one objects to the apparent contradiction of such claims they are painted as an ignorant and/or rebellious person who just won’t “accept the plain reading of scripture” even though Biblical scholars have disagreed over these interpretations for generations.
If one says “that doesn’t make sense” or “that doesn’t seem right” then they are told something like “God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, our ways are not his ways, we cannot hope to fully comprehend God. Who are you, oh man, to answer back to God?” to make you doubt your own God-given sense of reason or objective moral values. Requesting that Christians ought to adhere to a soteriology that refrains from making God rationally contradictory or a moral hypocrite is not the same as attempting to fully understand the divine.
Do not allow yourself to be gaslighted. We are born with the perception of free will (responsibility) because that’s how God created us.
Wonderful article Eric!
Yes – the HIDDEN inference in much of it – is posturing to stand in a position of superiority over others.
As Jesus describes it:
Seeking the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at the feasts.
Blowing their own horn when they talk about scripture.
Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
test
Such a perfect analogy.
Hell Scott and welcome!
And the “rubies” of necessary truth are right there in plain site for those Calvinists… they just don’t want to consider it! 😉
Pulling off the petals of the TULIP –
After looking at the meaning of these following clear verses as they relate to the TULIP, I would see myself as 1/2 T and 1/2 P in agreement with Calvinists. 🙂
T – 1/2 pulled off
Rom 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. [The first part of this passage agrees with one part of Calvinism’s view of Total Depravity, but not the second part]
John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
U – Pulled off
Rom 9:25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
2Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing [planning] that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
L – Pulled off
1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
2Pet 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, [and] bring on themselves swift destruction.
I – Pulled off
Mark 7:14 When He had called all the multitude to [Himself,] He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand:”
Heb 3:7-8 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness,”
P – 1/2 Pulled off
Eph 1:13-14 In Him you also [trusted,] after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. [This passage agrees with one part of Calvinism’s view of Eternal Security, but not its rejection of carnality]
Heb 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need [someone] to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes [only] of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, [that is,] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Rom 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Or in the Calvinist translation:
For God has committed them *ALL* to disobedience, that He might have mercy on *SOME*.
Love this short article. Thanks Eric…I have experienced exactly that so many times.
There is also the statements that “it takes humility to embrace God’s way” implying that their way alone is the humble way.
Short and to the point Eric!
You forgot one….After we say “That does not make sense” they often will say, “You semi-Pelagians are always basing your theology on ‘logic’ over Scripture.”
Nah. Just using our God-given reasoning!
Good one FOH!
Welcome back!
Hope you and family are well my friend!
This ‘logic’ argument is in the Calvinist script. Whenever I have tried to explain to Calvinists the absurdity of believing that God operates on a different logic than men, they don’t get it, because they never thought through the argument in the first place. If we cannot trust our God-given logic, also known as reason, to understand God, scripture, right from wrong, etc., then there is no basis for believing we can ever know anything.
TS00
If we cannot trust our God-given logic, also known as reason, to understand God, scripture, right from wrong, etc., then there is no basis for believing we can ever know anything.
br.d
That’s absolutely correct TS00!
Think about it
For example – Calvin’s doctrine of the wheat and chaff
Calvin’s god -quote “Holds it out as a savor of death and as the occasion for severer condemnation” ( Institutes, 3.24.8. )
This means that Calvin’s god gives “chaff” Calvinists a FALSE perception of salvation.
These Calvinist will go through their whole lives – having thousands of FALSE perceptions of themselves as Christians.
So this tells us that every FALSE perception we have is determined by Calvin’s god.
Now a FALSE perception – by definition – is a perception that a person cannot know is FALSE
And since humans cannot know which perceptions are FALSE – then they can’t distinguish them from the ones that are TRUE.
This tells us that in Calvinism – people are unable to tell the difference between a TRUE perception and a FALSE one.
If one cannot discern between a TRUE/FALSE perception — then how is one going to know when *ANYTHING* is TRUE or FALSE?
TS00: “If we cannot trust our God-given logic, also known as reason, to understand God, scripture, right from wrong, etc., then there is no basis for believing we can ever know anything.”
Well said! Calvinists are taught to accept illogical, contradictory “mysteries” and hidden “double-meanings” to verses as truth, that they don’t need to understand them (and shouldn’t seek to understand them because those mysteries “belong to God”), that they shouldn’t question what they’re taught because that would be like questioning God Himself and the Bible itself, etc. And they’re taught that this is the way to be a good, humble, God-honoring Christian.
How is this any different from the cults and false religions out there!?!
If people can convince you to toss out reason and logic, to “humbly” accept what they tell you without question or push-back, then they can convince you to believe and do just about anything and to think that you’re right for doing so.
I do not believe that God is a God of chaos, illogical nonsense, contradictions, hidden meanings, “don’t try to understand it, just accept it,” etc. That sounds more like a Greek mythological god than the God of the Bible.
Heather
If people can convince you to toss out reason and logic, to “humbly” accept what they tell you without question or push-back, then they can convince you to believe and do just about anything and to think that you’re right for doing so.
br.d
Reminds me of the wizard of oz
Don’t look at that little man behind the curtains. :-]
Heather writes: “Calvinists are taught to accept illogical, contradictory “mysteries” and hidden “double-meanings” to verses as truth, that they don’t need to understand them (and shouldn’t seek to understand them because those mysteries “belong to God”), that they shouldn’t question what they’re taught because that would be like questioning God Himself and the Bible itself, etc. And they’re taught that this is the way to be a good, humble, God-honoring Christian.
How is this any different from the cults and false religions out there!?!”
GA: Great Points…
GA: What’s more is our logic that we appeal to is the Biblical Logic…we are not talking about some out there logic that some athiest professors might have contrived. We are talking about the INTERNAL LOGIC of the scriptures.
For instance The Word says:: Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” PLUS + 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. PLUS + 1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. PLUS +Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies THE UNGODLY, HIS FAITH is counted as righteousness,
The “INTERNAL LOGIC of the SCRIPTURES” clearly show that TULIP is a lie. This logic we talk about is not “some human logic” like the Calvinist likes to say to us…IT is the INTERNAL LOGIC of the scriptures. It is Biblical Logic
The power of logic is to identify that which is impossible. It is impossible for something to be both true and false, at the same time in the same manner. You cannot be both awake and asleep, hungry and full, short and tall. This is not some made up strategy, it is the essence of reality in God’s created world. Thus, logic is the tool by which we judge what is true. If God declares, in word and deed, that he is love, then anything that suggests he is ‘not-love’ is false. There is not such thing as ‘human’ logic and ‘God logic’.
A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time in the same way, for God as well as for his creation. Thus, God cannot be both omnipotent and limited in power. That does not, however, prevent God from self-limiting his use of his power when engaging with his creation. That is not a logical contradiction. God cannot be both just and unjust, kind and unkind, merciful and cruel; not because he is ‘limited’ by some outside force, but because it is a logical impossibility.
– I totally agree. TS00 Well put and very clear.
Have you ever found that when you argue with them using logic they will pull out the phrase “”Now you are using human logic and not Biblical truth” To which I try to point out this is “Biblical Logic – not human logic” It is taking the logic of scripture. Not that it is really anything different than just plain logic but they don’t seem to get that.
I find they use logic until it contradicts TULIP then out comes the phrase “well that is just human logic” which is TACTIC # 247 in the Calvinist Manual.
Agreed. And how can you reason with someone when as soon as you point out the logical contradictions of their statements they retreat to, ‘God is bigger than human logic’? IOW, they can believe whatever nonsensical thing they wish, and chalk it’s absurdity up to some incomprehensible God logic.
Agreed!
We all know what it means to “wrap oneself in the flag”
I think this is called – “wrapping one’s philosophy of determinism in scripture”.
TS00 writes, “If we cannot trust our God-given logic, also known as reason, to understand God, scripture, right from wrong, etc., then there is no basis for believing we can ever know anything.”
The Jews, trusting in their God-given logic, rejected Jesus. Why? Because their logic was corrupted by sin. How can a person overcome the influence of sin on their God-given logic? By faith – “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
No one can trust his God-given logic until he receives faith which is able to overcome the corruption imposed on his God-given logic by sin. There is no basis for believing we can ever know anything without faith for Jesus said, “Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free…Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.”
rhutchin
The Jews, trusting in their God-given logic, rejected Jesus. Why? Because their logic was corrupted by sin.
br.d
Here is wisdom – never hold you’re breath waiting for a Calvinist to tell the *WHOLE* truth
In Theological Determinism In this case it follows:
Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world determined what choices the Jews would make before he created them
The immutable decree DOES NOT PERMIT the creature to BE or DO OTHERWISE – at pain of falsifying the immutable decree.
In other words – Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit the creature to be or anything.
Seems to me the ability to express logic and reason is a function of the imago dei. Otherwise, why would our Sovereign offer such an invitation if we were not able to respond?
Isaiah 1:18 (KJV)
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
And one more thing: If we were to abandon the logic employed to reject Calvin, would we not have to embrace the “reason” and “logic” of Calvin to be considered soteriologically as sound as Calvin?
It comes down to whose thinking is correct or the closest to the logical meaning of certain verses. As has been noted: two competing truth claims cannot both be true. Of necessity, one must be false.
Truly, the belittling accusation that “you just don’t understand Calvinism” deserves a “physician, heal thyself” retort.
But alas, we are the most pitiable of all men because our ability to reason is more fallen than Calvinists’. And how was I able to draw that conclusion?
Excellent points! :-]
Excellent post norm!
The rules of LOGIC represent well established standards – to which all INTELLECTUALLY HONEST people comply.
I personally do not believe in ‘free-will’. Although I do not deny that mankind in general has choices to make and can do things that people perceive as both good and bad. I’d be interested in reading the perspective of ‘Soteriology 101’ before I could agree or disagree. Obviously words such as “free” and “will” have many definitions and implications and when you put those two English words together, they appear to conflict when placed alongside the sinful nature of mankind as revealed in the Bible. However, I would not label the writers on this website as ‘Pelagians’. Calvinists are far too eager to pull out that naughty word which can become scare mongering.
Saying that, I have never met a Calvinist yet who has actually read Pelagius himself, so it seems to me they are not qualified to make such an assessment. I do not view Pelagius through the eyes of Augustine, I let the man speak for himself.
Concerning the term ‘free will’ and its definition, many historic Arminians have had different perspectives on the doctrine of ‘free-will’, including Arminius himself and Wesley. For example, in the 19th century, Arminian scholar William Burt Pope referenced the doctrine by naming it ‘free mind’. This can be found in his “Compendium of Christian Theology” (1880). Personally I think that ‘free choice’ or ‘free mind’ are better terms. But to appear to say the will of an unbeliever is free, seems to deny the absolute sinful nature of man? Surely it would seem more fitting to say a believer has ‘free will’ than an unbeliever. The reason I say this because a believer has been given a new nature, and yet the old man still remains. Thus, the conflict is present and the believer has the ability to sin or not to sin.
Anyway, enough of all that, I agree with exposing how savage and theologically spineless some preachers can be if they need to resolve to psychology to get people to believe their theological fictions.
This quote about the practices of many Calvinists rings entirely accurate with me and I never tire of hearing how people from across the world can experience the same old things and the same old bullying tactics and mindsets. Quote: “If one attempts to disagree they are often made to feel as if they are crazy, heretical, or just too ignorant to really understand. I believe this is a form of “spiritualized gaslighting.”
Agreed.
Paul may well have been referencing this type of thing in Colossians 2: 4 “Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words.”. The NIV curiously puts it this way: “I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.”. The problem is, Paul may well have been referencing the Gnostics, his use of Greek implies that the persons who deceived people with these arguments were using deliberate deceptions and trickery to get people to believe them. These are not the qualities of true believers and preachers but unbelievers. The problem is, if preachers use gaslighting means to get a targeted individual (or individuals) to doubt his or her perceptions and beliefs, the logical conclusion is that the preachers are not real Christians. They are manipulating people. True Christians do not lie and manipulate people. Christ never told a single lie. Every word He ever said was and is the Truth. Neither did He manipulate or deceive people. “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2: 21-22
Greetings from across the Big Pond, Simon. Thanks for your comments.
I am curious regarding the contemporary extent of Calvin’s influence in Lancashire and beyond.
NORM, hello.
The influence of Calvin himself in Lancashire is in the historic sense. When some of the 16th century reformers were exiled from the Church of England during the reign of Mary Tudor, some went to either Germany or Geneva. The location of their exile reflects which branch of the reformation they sided with. Those who favoured Calvins position went to Geneva. Those who favoured Luthers position went to Germany.
When they returned they brought their influence with them and continued in that tradition. England remained neutral, more Lutheran, and reformed in the sense that the C of E reflected all sides of the reformation. Scotland (John Knox) was very Calvinistic. Wales was also fairly Calvinistic, but some Welsh reformers remained in Wales during the persecution.
After the reformation was over (in the 17th century) the C of E was a mixture of standard reformed and Puritan. Puritans were extreme Calvinist. Then in the 17th & 18th centuries, the Wesleyan movement challenged Whitefields Calvinism since Wesley believed in the 39 Articles. This influence continued on both sides.
Today however, we do not assume Calvin was a Calvinist, but the majority of faithful churches in Lancashire listen to the big Calvinists from America. Yet I assure you they think Calvinism simply means they are ‘Once Saved Always Saved’ and that God is Sovereign. None of those I have spoken with believe in determinism. They logically do not even teach Calvinism. But as for Calvin the man, I hardly know anyone who ever reads him.
Thank you for posting this Simon!
Very informative!
I think in your description of how a large percent of those who take on the label “Calvinism” – hardly ever read Calvin and do not consider themselves determinists. It sounds like that stands out much more prevalently there than with U.S. Calvinists.
But even then – I’m not surprised when I observe it with Calvinists here in the U.S.
People have a tendency to adopt labels as “identity markers” to distinguish themselves.
Here in the U.S. it is very common for a Calvinist to consider the label “Arminian” as a pejorative.
The irony of this is that its not unusual to see Calvinists unwittingly drinking Arminian water out of a glass labeled “Calvinism” :-]
Good info. Thanks.
Simon
I personally do not believe in ‘free-will’.
br.d
In Christian philosophy – this position would normally and naturally come with a belief in determinism.
And in such case – it would be classified as “Hard” Determinism.
The belief that all things are determined and “free-will” is an illusion.
Calvinism embraces what is classified as “Soft” Determinism.
The belief the all things are determined – and one is free to be or do whatever a THEOS determines.
So for example – if the THEOS determines you to take one step north – then you are “free” to take one step north – but you are not free do “Do Otherwise”.
It would be highly unusual for a person to not believe “free-will” exists without embracing determinism.
So SOT101 would probably consider such a view to be an anomaly.
BR. D, thank you. I understand. It’s ok to disagree or have different views on this. But it does not nessesarily logically follow that a rejection of ‘free will’ or at least the term, implies determinism as the only possible conclusion that proceeds. There are rarely only two logical conclusions a position should go.
For example; to claim that a sinner does not have “free will” because he is a slave to sin, does not nessesarily mean that the slave cannot cry out for deliverance from his slavery. He doesn’t need to be free in order to cry out for freedom. But if the slave owner purchases the slave, then sets him free the slave is free indeed. If Christ purchased all mankind and then offered them freedom, why could some not choose to take the offer and others refuse it because they want yo remain a slave?
Jesus said “most assuredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave to sin…” John 8: 34.
Question: is a slave free?
Does man not love his slavery to sin enough to reject the offer of Liberty?
I liked your analogy Simon – and I agree.
Another view on “freedom” is that it occurs in degrees for each individual based on decisions they make.
Like the parable of the talents – different individuals made different decisions on how to handle the talent they were given.
One suffered the consequences of the decisions he made with the talent he was given.
So form that it can be extrapolated that one’s life can be likened to a talent.
A person who is suffering the consequences of crime in a prison cell has a lesser degree of freedom than one who is not limited by the confines of the cell.
And the father of the son who had a demon and threw himself into the fire said to Jesus “I believe but please help me with my unbelief”.
So in a sense – his freedom to believe was hampered by his unbelief.
But he was free enough to know his condition and ask for help in regard to it.
The Calvinist position treats faith like Calvin’s god turning off or on a light-bulb.
So it manifests black & white thinking.
The interesting thing is the Calvinist would never treat his own faith that way in practical daily maters of life.
Hello Simon,
Saying “I personally do not believe in ‘free-will’. Although I do not deny that mankind in general has choices to make and can do things that people perceive as both good and bad” is like saying, “I personally do not believe that 2+2=4, although I do not deny that in general 4-2 = 2.
To make choices is to have free will.
CARL, hello.
I don’t quite see ‘free will’ as just an ability to make choices. The will denotes the place in the human being where the choices are governed from. Since the will of man is to sin, I can’t see how the will to sin is in anyway free. It is the will that governs the choices. Or if you will, determines them. I think choices, more better, relates to the mind rather than the will. I don’t think the mind and the will are the same thing. I think the human soul governs the mind and the will is the deciding factor that informs the choice.
‘Free will’ is more than being equipped with the ability to turn left or right. It is a condition which if man has ‘free will’ would that not imply that people were both good and bad? Which if they are both good and bad which part of the human condition did Christ die for?
Christ died for sinners, which if sinners were both good and bad, did Christ die for the good as well as the bad? Or did He only die for the bad? Or is it silly to divide up the human condition like that?
Simon Peter,
You had said:
“Since the will of man is to sin…”
My response:
Where do you get the idea from that it is the will of man to sin? It is NOT the will of man to sin.
Romans 2:14-16 King James Version (KJV)
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
According to THIS reference, Gentiles obey the law BY NATURE, not even having the law in written form. BY NATURE they obey laws that they don’t even know.
But according to you, the nature of man is SINFUL from the word GO. That is not true.
Think of ABRAHAM, without THE LAW OF MOSES.
Did Abraham sleep with his sister or not? If yes, then God did NOT inform him of that grievous sin, but awarded sister/brother with an inbred PROMISED son.
KNOWLEDGE of the sin is REQUIRED before sin is IMPUTED to you. Until then, YOU ARE INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE, regardless of the sin. Leviticus, in several places states that this is a GRIEVOUS sin, yet God never informed him, nor mentioned it, not even in passing.
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Faith is NOT imputed.
There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness
Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith
We are saved by OUR OWN FAITH, not an imputed one.
In the Jewish faith, there is BAR AND BAT MITVAH.
According to Jewish law, when a Jewish boy is 13 years old, he becomes accountable for his actions and becomes a bar mitzvah. A girl becomes a bat mitzvah at the age of 12 according to Orthodox and Conservative Jews, and at the age of 13 according to Reform Jews.[1] Before the child reaches bar mitzvah age, parents hold the responsibility for their child’s actions. After this age, the boys and girls bear their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics, and are able to participate in all areas of Jewish community life. Traditionally, the father of the bar mitzvah gives thanks to God that he is no longer punished for the child’s sins.
Bar (בַּר) is a Jewish Babylonian Aramaic word meaning “son” (בֵּן), while bat (בַּת) means “daughter” in Hebrew, and mitzvah (מִצְוָה) means “commandment” or “law” (plural: mitzvot). Thus bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah literally translate to “son of commandment” and “daughter of commandment”. However, in rabbinical usage, the word bar means “under the category of” or “subject to”. Bar mitzvah therefore translates to “a [agent] who is subject to the law”. Although the term is commonly used to refer to the ritual itself, in fact, the phrase originally refers to the person.
CHILDREN DO NOT KNOW GOOD AND EVIL, AND ARE INNOCENT, REGARDLESS OF ANY SIN.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Ed Chapman
SPS writes, ” I do not view Pelagius through the eyes of Augustine, I let the man speak for himself. ”
Do we know what Palagius said outside of that which Augustine attributed to him?
Rhutchin writes; “SPS writes, ” I do not view Pelagius through the eyes of Augustine, I let the man speak for himself. ”
Do we know what Palagius said outside of that which Augustine attributed to him?”
SPS: Yes. https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Pelagius-Early-Christian-Writings/dp/0853053359
Heather wrote:
Calvinists are taught to accept illogical, contradictory “mysteries” and hidden “double-meanings” to verses as truth, that they don’t need to understand them (and shouldn’t seek to understand them because those mysteries “belong to God”), that they shouldn’t question what they’re taught because that would be like questioning God Himself and the Bible itself, etc. And they’re taught that this is the way to be a good, humble, God-honoring Christian.
How is this any different from the cults and false religions out there!?!
Aidan writes:
Your description sounds very much like the Catholicism that I grew up with here in Ireland. This is the way we were taught religion in church, and especially in school. And that same mantra was even echoed by our parents, because it was ingrained in our psyche as a people. We were made to feel that we were incapable of understanding the bible, and of course, the “mysteries” of God. You didn’t question what you were told!
Certainly, this was even more true in my parents generation, who grew up poor with little education! It was much easier then for those who came from on-high, with their superior knowledge and education, to control the lowly masses. But, my generation, us little upstarts, were growing up in a more educated society, who were less afraid to ask questions – or should I say, we were more confident in our ability to understand things. But we couldn’t do it openly in school, until we were physically big enough to stand up to the physical beat downs.
Yep! that was the schooling we grew up with, even in religion classes. Some lads got quite big by the age of 15/16. And some teachers got their comeuppance in the class, shall we say, and then that was the end of the matter, no more bullying, no more physical beat downs. That was all normal stuff in our day! But, everything has changed dramatically since then. They wouldn’t get away with that in the schools today. But I’m sure that in the poorer, less well educated regions of the world, it is still easier to bully the masses into submission, that is – at least psychologically speaking.
Why am I telling you all of this? This shows how far, if not further, men can go if we allow them to bully and dominate us in this way! Each one of us have a responsibility to, work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Each one of us will be judged, individually, for the choices we’ve made, whether good or bad. I’m not aware of any exceptions to that rule, nor of any excuses being accepted! With that said, let no man, or human philosophy, come between you and your quest for salvation.
God has not only given us “free-will” to choose the good, but also that innate ability to reason and know what is true!
“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:17)
BR.D. Thanks, I’m glad you like the analogy, I agree with your position on how inconceivable and rediculoud the determinist worldview is. It would God the one who hates His own determism.
I was surprised that Calvinists in America were really taking Calvinism to extreme heights. But these days I’m beginning to see it more and more and it is becoming less shocking. I was watching “wretched” the other day and he was definitely propagating it. But I’m not sure these people even remotely teach the same things as many 16th century reformers taught. I certainly don’t see the 39 Articles as teaching determinism. I would have thought the reformers more taught that the Gospel was predetermined, the coming of Christ and so forth, but not this notion of double predestination and everything being determined both good and bad.
I can balance the idea that God, by His foreknowledge knew everything that was going to happen, both good and bad. Even Arminius would probably agree with that. But I cannot balance this modern Calvinist idea of determinism with the Bible or with a majority of 16th century reformed writings. It would make God the determiner of heresies, schisms, every sin, murder, blasphemy…. It’s unthinkable with the character of God in the Bible. It’s actually slanderous.
I think your observations are correct.
Reformed Theologian Dr. Oliver Crisp in an interview – gave his observation that a focus on determinism and compatibilism represents what he called a “water-shed” change in Reformed thinking – and was brought about by the influence of Jon Edwards.
Prior to Edwards, Reformed thinkers concluded they saw two streams of texts within scripture – one stream which infers determinism and one that can only be logically coherent with IN-determinism. They resolved an acceptance of both. And since those two are in contradiction they chalked it up to mystery.
However, Edwards change that bringing in a pronounced philosophical influence.
Consequently, most academic Reformed thinkers today claim to embrace determinism and compatibilism.
However when you scrutinize it long enough you find they exhibit a LOVE-HATE relationship with determinism.
BR.D, I agree with that assessment. I have read some of Edwards writings, but I never took a liking to them. I gave my copy of his complete works away. Edwards is probably the source of Piper’s thinking.
I would certainly say that having read through works by John Wycliffe, John Frith, and 16th century reformers Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Bradford, Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Richard Hooker, James Pilkington, John Foxe (Book of Martyrs) and practically any work of any 16th century reformer I can find, I cannot find this modern doctrine of ‘Calvinistic Determinism’ in their writings. Even the 39 Articles (1562) do not affirm ‘Limited Atonement’ (Article XXX1)
If we fast forward to the 17th century we might be able to find hints of ‘determinist theology’ in John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence. But we do not find it even remotely in the works of John Bunyan or Richard Baxter.
As for the 18-19th centuries, I start to lose interest. But it seems that some kind of revival of Calvinism took place through Banner of Truth publications. They got hold of a lot of old 17th century Puritan works and republished them.
Interesting! So it could have been a revival of 17th century thought that made that change!
With perhaps some kind of emphasis on Edwards.
Perhaps the Puritans have had more influence on the evolution of Reformed thinking than we realize?
BR. D, please excuse the typos on my previous reply.
CHAPMANED24,
Ed Chapman, quoting a large amount of Scripture texts to affirm your positions does not prove them. It can show that you are viewing those texts through your own spectacles. It seems to me that you are neglecting original guilt, with actual sins. You are not recognising my point that in order for a human being to sin, he must needs have transgression of the law within him already prior to the actual doing of sins. In other words, a car cannot drive without certain needs, petrol, tyres, horse power etc. Can a fish swim without being a fish? Can a raven not scavenge without being a raven? Likewise, an Eagle cannot fly and kill without wings, claws and a beak. How then can humans sin (transgress the law) unless the nature of transgression were not already inherent within the creature.
What you are saying is that sin is the transgression of the law, yes, I agree, that is what Scripture says, but you do not appear to be recognising that the sin nature must already be within the human in order to sin in the first place. A bullet is fairly harmless when it lies dormant, but when it is faced with a fire, it can be dangerous. But it cannot be explosive unless it already has the materials. Thus, as a gun cannot fire without a bullet, how can a human sin unless the sin were not internally present in the first place.
Simon Peter,
And I disagree that we have a sin NATURE. When the word NATURE is listed in Romans 2:14-16 that kinda negates out your reasoning.
The ONLY way that a person has a sin nature, is WHEN HE GETS KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, meaning knowledge of the law, meaning that the SEED is planted that it is wrong, and THEN people gravitate to doing wrong. Until then, there is NO SIN NATURE.
When a CHILD is ABUSED, we say that the child has now LOST THEIR INNOCENCE. They now KNOW something that they should NOT HAVE KNOWN. And it FESTERS in their minds, causing a LIFE OF HAVOC in their own personal lives as they grow up.
That’s the way that Romans 7 explains it. You call it DORMANT, but scritpure calls it DEAD. We are DEAD to sin, dead to the law, we died with Christ, therefore, sin does NOT have dominion at all, and it never did, UNTIL we get knowledge of what sin is.
Then comes the LEARNING that we are NOT under SIN anymore. We have to UNLEARN sin, so to speak.
1 John 3:9 (KJV)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Romans 5:13 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
13 Before the law was given, sin was in the world. This is certainly true. But people are not judged for sin when there is no law.
Romans 2:12-16 from the NIVR.
12 Some people do not know God’s law when they sin. They will not be judged by the law when they die. Others do know God’s law when they sin. They will be judged by the law. 13 Hearing the law does not make a person right with God. People are considered to be right with God only when they obey the law. 14 Gentiles do not have the law. Sometimes they just naturally do what the law requires. They are a law for themselves. This is true even though they don’t have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. The way their minds judge them proves this fact. Sometimes their thoughts find them guilty. At other times their thoughts find them not guilty. 16 This will happen on the day God appoints Jesus Christ to judge people’s secret thoughts. That’s part of my good news.
I’ve seen your question about if Jesus DIDN’T DIE for everyone. My contention is that is a false misleading question.
Children do NOT NEED A SAVIOR, because the SAVIOR never left them in the first place. A person only needs a savior once the savior leaves them, and the only way that a savior leaves them is at the MOMENT that they GET KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, hence, Adam and Eve, and Romans 7. That knowledge tells them OF their sin. And children are NOT INTRODUCED to that knowledge, until a certain age, in Judaism.
Ed Chapman
Ed, I simply disagree with your thinking. If persons who did not actually sin until they came to an age of awareness were not actual sinners then those persons would not die until they sinned. If your claim were true no one would die at birth, or at a young age.
People of all ages die, death is a judgement of sin and everything but faith is sin.
Simon Peter,
I never made the claim. The bible did.
I provided verses. I don’t quote dead people as others do.
Ed Chapman
Simon, I would probably fall somewhere in between what you and what Ed believe. I tend to think that our capacity to sin lies in the fact that we are mortal flesh, with the requisite sensual desires to maintain life, yet living under the curse of mortality. It is those sensual desires to eat, drink, live and seek out fleshly pleasure that Satan uses to seduce and deceive us. If we do not grasp that this fleshly life is temporary, and have assurance of a future, glorified existence, it is almost impossible to resist seeking the fulfillment of our temporary fleshly bodies. Thus much is said about the fear of death making us a slave to sin. That’s just my 2 cents.
DETERMINISM AND LOCUS OF CONTROL
A person who believes in determinism (i.e., a psychological determinist) is expected to have a strong “External Locus of Control”, because psychological determinism is the general position that internal psychological phenomena, such as thoughts, choices, and desires, are fixed in the remote past, prior to our existence, and as such attributed to external factors beyond our control. The psychological determinist is expected to have a strong perception that what “is” is inevitable and to conclude that human beings have only an illusion of control over their own destinies. An individual who is a true psychological determinist will quite naturally enunciate deterministic explanations for human behavior.
SIPPING WHISKEY OUT OF A SODA CAN WHILE CLAIMING ITS SODA
Deterministic explanations for human behavior are logically coherent for the psychological determinist. Since psychological determinism rejects In-determinism, when such a person is logically consistent, they will attribute human behaviors to deterministic explanations. But we can’t expect everyone to be logically consistent. Individuals may manifest what can be called *AS-IF* thinking. They want to believe in determinism, and yet go about their daily lives *AS-IF* some human outcomes are not fixed in the past before we exist, are not pre-determined in every part, and are therefore not out of our control.
It would be quite natural to observe inconsistent determinists cherry picking outcomes they personally deem palatable. Attributing some outcomes with highly deterministic explanations out of our control, and other outcomes *AS-IF* they were within our control. Such individuals may attribute internal psychological factors to internal psychological factors *AS-IF* a break exists in determinism’s causal chain. But only for outcomes which they select. This can be likened to sipping whiskey out of a soda can, while claiming to be drinking soda.
Ed Chapman, so you quote verses from the Bible, verses quoted within the framework of your preconceived ideas. Well done, even Calvinists can do that.
Simon Peter,
Nothing of mine is PER-CONCEIVED there buddy. Nothing. I’ve read the bible as a novel several times, and I do not find MANY things that the so-called church fathers concluded. I’m not reform. I’m your average everyday Christian that is outside of the realms of reform, and Catholicism. Christianity does exist outside of THAT framework.
Abraham never had the law of Moses, and he slept with his sister, and God never informed him about it. So, tell me where I am wrong in that. Leviticus tells us that what he did was a sin, and it was NEVER IMPUTED to Abraham, so he had NO KNOWLEDGE of it.
Romans 5:13 buddy. Ya might want to read it in CONTEXT with Romans 4:15
NOW read Romans 7. It’s all there.
The only reason that we die a physical death is because Adam never ate of the tree of life. If he would have eaten of the tree of life, no one would die.
That is natural death.
Spiritual death is when God leaves us, and God does not leave us until we get KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Children don’t have that knowledge. Period.
Deuteronomy 1:39 King James Version (KJV)
39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman wrote; “The only reason that we die a physical death is because Adam never ate of the tree of life. If he would have eaten of the tree of life, no one would die.”
SPS: that is a reversal of the Scripture. “And the Lord God commanded the man saying, “of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2: 16-17.
All mankind dies because of the sin of Adam.
Simon Peter,
That tree that you mention is about SPIRITUAL DEATH, not physical death.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
What was the NAME of that tree that God told him not to eat of? The tree of what?
Seems that the word KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL is ignored.
Romans 7 is about spiritual death, not physical death.
The tree of life is the way to eternal life.
And, God blocked access to that tree after he are of the SPIRITUAL DEATH tree, because Adam could have stromal life in a fallen state.
God stated that in Genesis.
But REFORM never discusses the TREE OF LIFE at all. Never. They stay away from that subject at all cost. I’ve noticed that for years.
1 Cor 15:36 to the end tells us that ADAM WAS GONNA DIE A PHYSICAL DEATH ANYWAY.
THAT WHICH IS NATURAL CAME FIRST, THEN THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL.
Verse 36, you can’t live [eternally] unless you first die.
We are planted in corruption, that is, a body that dies. We are raised with a body that does not die.
It’s all in the bible.
Ed Chapman
Simon,
My phone misspelled a few words. Oops.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman. Explain to me in your theory where the ability to sin comes from?
Please stick to that one question or I will not respond!!!
Simon Peter,
My response is gonna be what I have already said.
Romans 7 explains it.
Paul said, I had NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW, and before he knew it, he was ALIVE. That is SPIRITUALLY ALIVE. Once he KNEW the law, he DIED, that is, spiritual death.
You’ve heard the saying that IGNORANCE IS BLISS? Well, there ya go.
And again, I bring up Abraham, who is THE FATHER OF US ALL, and Reform folks stay away from Abraham at all cost, too, it seems.
He had NO KNOWLEDGE of the fact that it was a SIN to sleep with his sister.
You ask me about the ABILITY to sin, but I am re-directing that to SIN NOT BEING IMPUTED due to lack of knowledge of the sin.
Romans 5 seems to be a favorite of the Reform people, that due to Adams sin that we all die. My take on that is simple, Adam’s sin PREVENTED HIM from the TREE OF LIFE, because God blocked access to it.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
That ONE VERSE shows that Adam COULD HAVE eternal life in a fallen state and NEVER DIE. BUT BECAUSE he ate of the tree of DEATH, he died a spiritual death, not a physical one, THAT DAY, and IF he would have eaten from that BLOCKED TREE, he’d have ETERNAL LIFE SEPARATED FROM GOD FOR ETERNITY.
That tree of LIFE still had POWER to give eternal life.
I do not believe in ORIGINAL SIN, all because of THAT TREE OF LIFE, concluding that Adam was gonna die a natural death anyway, REGARDLESS OF SIN OR NO SIN.
Sin cannot be IMPUTED until you have KNOWLEDGE, just like the name of that tree is. We all go thru that same cycle that Adam did.
And Romans 7 explains it, as well as the verses I already provided. Romans 5, 1 Cor 15:36-end is about physical death, whereas Romans 7 is about spiritual death.
Abraham never had the law to INFORM him about what sin is. And God never informed him, either. Abraham is the one to look to, not MOSES.
Ed Chapman
Simon wrote:
“sin nature must already be within the human in order to sin in the first place.”
Aidan:
Not necessarily so! The sin of Adam and Eve came without a “sin nature” already being within. Hence, man did not require a “sin nature” to – “already be within the human in order to sin in the first place.” – Nor does he today!
AIDAN MCMANUS: lalala, you cannot bake bricks without clay.
Simon, Simon…tsk tsk. I might get you confused with Simon Cowell with that sarcasm. Aidan is RIGHT, and your Church of England RELIGIOSITY is way off base on this subject and MANY OTHERS.
NO ONE is born with a sin nature. You drank the kool-aid. You actually listen to CHURCH FATHERS instead of the WORD OF GOD.
It’s funny listening to reformers talk, with all them big academic words that hardly anyone can pronounce, especially when discussing what dead people concluded FOR YOU in ARTICLES, and CONFESSIONS, and whatever you guys call them meetings with crumpets and tea. It all sounds like psycho babble, and not much of your doctrines are even true. About the only thing you people have right is that Jesus is God. Other than that…not much else.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
I’m gonna throw this out there, because many in the reform world LOVE to quote Psalm 51:5, and the translations that I hear that David was a sinner from birth can EASILY be debunked.
Psalms 51:5
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
The NIVR version TWISTS that to the following:
Psalms 51:5
I know I’ve been a sinner ever since I was born.
I’ve been a sinner ever since my mother became pregnant with me.
The following link is a JEWISH link, and explains this in DETAIL. It will show that DAVID’S MOTHER was the one IN SIN, not David himself.
https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm
Ed Chapman
Simon,
I’m quite disappointed, I expected better than that from you! My question to you was genuine and you respond with sneering sarcasm? Your comment, “you cannot bake bricks without clay” would also necessarily imply that Adam and Eve needed to have a corrupt nature in order to have sinned in the first place.
Doesn’t make sense!
To answer your original question: where does the ability to sin comes from?
“But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” (James 1: 14-15)
Adam and Eve were tempted and drawn away by their own desires and enticed. And it gave birth to sin and brought forth death.
How else could it happen? Any other explanation is going beyond what is written!
Aidan,
EXCELLENT RESPONSE! You used scripture to prove your point, and THAT is what I look for. You didn’t use quotes from some church father, or such!
I am gonna expound on that, regarding Adam and Eve, for the sake of Simon Peter…
In the matter of Adam and Eve, what did they feel GUILT of. Whatever that GUILT was, that was what they LEARNED of themselves by that NEW KNOWLEDGE of themselves that they didn’t KNOW before. In their case, WHAT was their desire?
That is a two fold question, actually.
Their desire, by the enticement of the Satan, was…
Genesis 3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
That was pretty appealing to Eve. She was enticed to GET KNOWLEDGE.
But what knowledge did they receive that they felt GUILT of?
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Well, the Egyptians taught us that you can bake brick without straw. That was a joke!
And, Calvinists have taught us that you CAN build a ‘Strawman’ without straw.
Sorry Calvinists, populist joke.
Simon Peter,
If you don’t wish to respond again to me, that’s fine, but I leave you with this…
We all know that God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
But what many people do not glean from that is that in essence, God was saying:
DON’T GET KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, STAY IGNORANT, FOR AS ALONG AS YOU ARE IGNORANT OF SIN, YOU ARE INNOCENT OF SIN.
But Satan wanted them to GET KNOWLEDGE, BE AS SMART AS WE ARE, YOUR EYES WILL BE OPEN TO WHAT GOD DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW.
But, again, religiosity only concentrates on the issue that God told them not to eat of a GENERIC tree.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter, and EVERYONE…
To understand the Christianity that I come from…THIS…and to the moderators, I hope you don’t mind me posting this. Reformers don’t talk about SATAN much, and so I think that this is important. Satan FIGHTS FOR OUR SOUL, BUT GOD WANTS US BACK.
The ability to sin lies with THAT liar, and murderer who TEMPTS us with his LIES, and gets us when we are VULNERABLE, knowing our weakness.
And that is something that RELIGIOSITY just don’t get, especially Calvinism. Satan needs to be discussed, but instead, your reform is ONLY about man this and man that, and Satan has NOTHING to do with any of it, and it’s quite disturbing to me.
This video is a CHRISTIAN SKIT, it’s only a few minutes over a song, but THIS is a great representation of the battle between God, and Satan FOR OUR SOUL, and it’s NOT ABOUT MAN VS. GOD. That portrayal is SICK to even go there.
https://youtu.be/uFRYdGihOl4
Ed Chapman
AIDAN MCMANUS, let’s lay off with any hint of ‘ad hominem’ shall we.
Can a person eat without a mouth? Can a person see without eyes? Can a person kill without murder in the heart? Can a person lust without eyes?
Can a person make bricks without clay?
How then can someone sin unless the ability to sin is already part of the human condition?
When birds make a nest, they create temporary homes for their families. When the chicks hatch and fly away, they fly because they can. Yet even when they were unaware of their ability to fly they still had the natural ability to fly within their nature.
SIMON, there’s a big difference in personally attacking someone and legitimately challenging their thinking!
You ask: “How then can someone sin unless the ability to sin is already part of the human condition?”
There’s no disagreement over the fact that “the ability to sin is already part of the human condition.” The question at hand here is, ‘do we need to have a – “sin nature” in order to sin in the first place? That term “sin nature,” – unless you have a different definition – generally means a ‘nature corrupted by sin’. In our case,(according to some) an “inherited sin nature” corrupted through the sin of Adam.
God created Adam with the ability to choose to obey or disobey His will. Therein lies the ability to sin or not to sin. Satan is able to use our God given, legitimate desires, to entice us to sin. Eve may have been deceived by Satan, but Satan was able to use Eve in enticing Adam to transgress God’s command.
You say, “If you were created good and without sin, you would not have the ability to desire sin.” But, Simon, Adam and Eve were created good and without sin, and yet they sinned. “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” (Gen. 1:31) How do you explain that?
Again, you ask, “Can a person kill without murder in the heart? Can a person lust without eyes?”
But they have already sinned in the heart! In other words, they have already been drawn away by their own legitimate desires and enticed to fulfill them in an illegitimate way – in the heart. “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt. 5:28) Unless it’s his wife, he has already transgressed (gone too far) in his heart! The point is, is that there is nothing evil in our God given appetites, or sexual desires, in and of themselves. But, It’s only when we indulge those desires outside of the limits imposed by God, we sin – even in the heart.
You also said: “When God created the heaven and earth, darkness was over the deep. It existed before the light was made. It is nessesarily that good cannot exist without evil. Just as darkness cannot exist without light.”
Simon, you are comparing the physical with the spiritual here, and they don’t necessarily match! Yes, darkness was over the face of the deep and existed in the physical before light was created. But God is light and is eternal. God is good and eternal. Did evil and darkness eternally co-exist with God? I’m afraid good can certainly exist without evil.
Again, I affirm that Adam and Eve were created good and without sin, and yet they sinned. And, I believe when you look at many of the statements in scripture, the same applies to us. The only difference between us and Adam, is that we were born into a world of sin and death!
Aidan,
YES YES!!
You and I are both on the same page on what you said. I was THINKING of discussing the LIGHT/DARK thing, but decided against it, but you did.
This earth became the home of Satan (darkness), before Adam and Eve, and GOD is the LIGHT that was BEFORE THE SUN in Genesis 1:3 in our TEMPORAL atmosphere called EARTH/universe, whatever you want to call it, and was present BEFORE the sun LIGHT.
So, you hit the nail on the head again!
I’m curious as why Dr. Theologians don’t know that!
Ed Chapman
I don’t know! But Adam and Eve certainly refute anyone’s contention that: “If you were created good and without sin, you would not have the ability to desire sin.”
Adam and Eve just make a nonsense out of such arguments!
Aidan,
Here’s something to ponder deep. Imagine if you will, of all the planets that God created, God put us on the same planet that was ALREADY the home of HIS adversary! Why? Why did he not put Satan on Mars and us on Jupiter, it’s much bigger, and would fit the population of EVERYONE THAT WOULD NOT DIE if Adam had eaten of the Tree of Life.
Or, better yet, why did God put us in this TEMPORAL REALM to begin with? Why did he NOT put us where he is FROM THE VERY BEGINNING and avoid all this mess of TEMPTATION by the DEVIL.
If there was no devil, there would be no temptation. Satan is not in heaven, so there would be no evil in heaven. So, WHY ARE WE HERE in the FIRST PLACE?
Just some stuff to ponder. I’m more curious as to what a Calvinist would say, tho.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
The question raised, “Again, you ask, “Can a person kill without murder in the heart?”
Absolutely you can. It’s not a sin to kill, it is a sin to murder Look at the HEBREW. KJV got the word WRONG in their transliteration to English.
There is not a law against killing. God commanded it a lot. He commanded King Saul to kill, but King Saul didn’t kill, so Samuel did for him, because King Saul did not obey God to kill.
Murder, however, is killing, BUT, requires a small thing called, MALICE for it to be defined as MURDER.
Mattityahu 5:21-22 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
21 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, LO TIRTZACH (Do not murder, SHEMOT 20:13; DEVARIM 5:17), and every rotzeach (murderer) shall be liable before the Bet Din (Court).
22 But I say to you, that everyone who harbors kaas (anger) against his Ach [b’Moshiach], his chaver, shall be subject to mishpat (judgment); and whoever shall say to his Ach [b’Moshiach], Reyka! (Good for nothing!) will be subject to the Sanhedrin; and whoever shall say Shoteh! (Fool) shall be subject to Eish Gehinnom (Fire of Hell).
Absolutely right, that there’s a difference between killing and murder!
I think murder is defined as ‘Unlawful killing’
But, like lust in the heart for a woman, Jesus gets right to the heart of the matter in that passage you just quoted.
AIDAN MCMANUS wrote; “To answer your original question: where does the ability to sin comes from?
“But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” (James 1: 14-15)
Adam and Eve were tempted and drawn away by their own desires and enticed. And it gave birth to sin and brought forth death.
How else could it happen? Any other explanation is going beyond what is written!”
SPS: I don’t disagree with those passages. But where does the human ability to have sinful desires come from? Did man create them himself? or did God create Adam with the ability to choose to do or not to do. The answer is God created Adam with the ability to do or not to do. But he was not deceived, Eve was deceived. Adam was covering her sin, he knew full well what he was doing. He disobeyed God in favour of his wife and her being deceived by the serpent.
When God created the heaven and earth, darkness was over the deep. It existed before the light was made. It is nessesarily that good cannot exist without evil. Just as darkness cannot exist without light.
If you were created good and without sin, you would not have the ability to desire sin.
Simon Peter,
For someone who doesn’t believe in free will, but believes in free will you sure are contradictory.
But I do NOT disagree that Adam had free will to CHOOSE to sin, as you well note. But I’m afraid that you might later recant that by saying that you don’t believe in free will. You are all over the place, man. Which is it? Free will, or Free will?
They both received the SAME KNOWLEDGE about themselves that they didn’t know before, which gave them GUILT, which YOU seem to miss. Maybe on purpose, because you will respond with, WELL, GOD PUT THEM THERE NAKED, AND SAID THAT IT WAS GOOD.
And yet, they got guilt for being naked. So God put CLOTHES on them.
1. An animal was killed Sacrificed to COVER the sin (the shedding of BLOOD)
2. An animal was killed CLOTHING to COVER their nakedness (Animal Skins)
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter said, since he refuses to address me…
“If you were created good and without sin, you would not have the ability to desire sin.”
I disagree with that statement completely. He seems to forget the NAME of that TREE, and refuses to see the SIGNIFICANCE of the name of that tree, refusing to see that IGNORANCE IS BLISS NO MATTER WHAT THE SIN IS. Without knowledge of the sin, you cannot be CHARGED with the sin.
Romans 2:14-16 and a whole slew of others that I already provided, such as Romans 5:13, completely ignored. Romans 4:15, completely ignored. Abraham’s SISTER, completely ignored. But he’s the THEOLOGIAN?
Ed Chapman
Simon writes:
“If you were created good and without sin, you would not have the ability to desire sin.”
I disagree. I touched on this in another comment recently, but I believe the improper view of sin, among other things, has plagued historical, orthodox christianity.
It is in giving the creature a free will, the ability to think, reason and make choices, that the possibility of sin is created. The freedom to choose demands the ability to choose unwisely. The proper question is, ‘What would make a sinless creature choose unwisely, i.e., to sin”? In my opinion, it is when the creature has no, or loses, faith in God that he is tempted to sin.
The serpent seduced Adam and Eve into sin by suggesting to them that God was not trustworthy, that he was keeping good from them in order to suppress their optimum pleasure and existence. It is only when man believes this lie, and loses faith in God’s ultimate goodness, faithfulness and trustworthiness that he can be tempted to rebel against God and his ways.
God did not ‘create’ sin. Sin is the result of man not trusting God, and using his God-given free will to do those things which are wicked, evil and against God ‘s will.
I also reject the dualism that goodness requires the existence of evil. This would require that the original creation was not good, until evil had come into existence. Had men never attained the knowledge of good and evil, they would have remained as innocent as children, walking trustingly with God and doing as he bid them. There would have been no sin or evil, but only goodness, as in the beginning.
God did not ordain, create or bring into existence evil for his glory. Evil is the result of man not trusting God, and perverting and misusing the gifts and sensations God created him with for his good and pleasure.
TS00,
You noted that children are innocent, and gave the reason. I fully agree.
But Simon doesn’t believe in innocent children. Neither does Calvinism. Strange doctrines called original sin, invented by Augustine, I think? Ya, right, like I’m gonna listen to that dude. I’ve got the book he had, and I don’t see it .
They all concentrate on sin sin sin way to much. They’d rather be under the law of Moses, rather than the righteousness without the law, just like Romans 3 states, and under Abraham, as Romans 4 states. Without knowledge of sin.
They haven’t figured out that sin has no dominion, power anymore, cuz they keep WORKING, while at the same time preaching against works.
Sin, sin, sin. .bad sin, bad. Sin bad… The sailor. . lol.
Ed Chapman
AIDAN MCMANUS, before the statement arises that says one moment Simon believes in ‘free will’ and then he doesn’t. The claim would be limited. No one has properly asked me what I believe fully about ‘free will’.
A: I believe Adam was created with ‘free will’. But lost his freedom as a judgement from God.
I believe man lost his ‘free will’ after the fall.
Christ is the second Adam, tempted by Satan, suffered in the garden, yet obeyed His father perfectly. Crucified on the tree of life. I believe that Christ restored creation by His death, resurrection and ascension. By His virgin conception and birth, without the aid of any human father, His life, death and resurrection has accomplished life and freedom for those who believe in Him and surrender to Him.
Whoever does not believe in Jesus Christ is a slave to sin and has no ‘free will’ whatsoever. But he who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is free indeed. (John 8: 36)
This is Ed by the way, Simon, not Aidan.
But, like Tom Cruise said in the movie, A Few Good Men, it doesn’t matter what you BELIEVE, it only matters what you can PROVE.
Please provide SCRIPTURE references to your BELIEF. That would be helpful in this discussion.
Ed Chapman
Simon,
Acts 17:30
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
What mean WINK?
Pelagianism denies that ‘Original Sin’ tainted the human nature. It seems to me there are a few Pelagians here, with whom I have no common ground. Make of that what you will.
Man is the most destructive, deadly, deceitful, uncaring, force that has ever been. Man murdered the Saviour, spat in His face, hated Him, beat Him, mocked Him, scourged Him, put a crown of thorns on His head, put Him on the wood that He created and drove nails through His hands and feet and watched Him die. And you try to tell me how good man is?
Go ahead and let your ‘free will’ serve you. As for me, I depend entirely upon my Lord for my Salvation. It is He who drew Me to Himself. I did not choose Him, neither did I seek after Him, He chose me. I can truly say as did Paul; “I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells.” (Romans 7: 18)
I don’t think you get it, Simon. I don’t care what dead people think. I’ve got the same book all those dead people had. I know the doctrine from A to Z. I reject it.
I know the bible extremely well, and I know the difference between spiritual death, and physical death, and I know which tree in the garden represents which death is being discussed, therefore I’m confidant in my conclusions to reject it.
I also know the huge difference between those under the law of Moses, vs those not under the law of Moses, and about sin, when it’s imputed, and when it isn’t.
I showed you several references, not dead people doctrines, but actually bible references , and you reject them.
Sin sin sin… bad sin. Maybe I’ll name my next dog sin.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter said:
“Man is the most destructive, deadly, deceitful, uncaring, force that has ever been. Man murdered the Saviour, spat in His face, hated Him, beat Him, mocked Him, scourged Him, put a crown of thorns on His head, put Him on the wood that He created and drove nails through His hands and feet and watched Him die. And you try to tell me how good man is? ”
My response:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT JESUS CAME HERE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You sound like a JEW HATER. God is the one who blinded the Jews so that they would murder him. And last I recall, Jesus said, FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.
Well, WHY did they NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO?
Because God wanted it that way so that Jesus would die for the sins of the world on that cross.
SIMONE PETER tried to DEFEND JESUS, by cutting off an ear of a soldier, but Jesus scolded him, because his MISSION was to GET TO THAT CROSS, and NOTHING was gonna stop him from being the SAVIOR.
Ohhhhh, have I got some choice words for you, but, as Aunt Em said in the wizard of oz, because I’m a Christian, well, I just can’t say it!
THIS of what you said, really boils me to no end.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’m about to hit the snooze button, so I won’t get to see your response to this, if any, until the morning! But, I think you’ve misunderstood Simon, in saying he sounds like a Jew hater! That, I believe, is far from what he meant. He meant all of us are capable of great evil. And in that sense history would seem to prove him right. We are capable of terrible things. Perhaps, if we could truly see Christ on the cross, we might be able to grasp how truly sinful our sin is.
Respectfully,
Aidan
And yet . . . Noah, Enoch, Abraham. None of them sinless, but heinous God-haters? I don’t think so. I think scipture, in defining how the wicked are, is often distorted into stating that all men are the same. I’m guessing Pelagian had some of these same thoughts. I do not believe scripture, or reality, teaches that all men are heinous, evil, God-haters from birth. Which is not to say that any of us merit or in any way earn our salvation, but that perhaps we need to re-examine how scripture has often been interpreted.
We are indeed all lost and in need of a Savior; but are we all desperately wicked? I’m not so sure I can buy that. Me, maybe; my sister, and a few others I have known – I don’t think so. I have a sister who has been, since her earliest days, the kindest, most gracious, thoughtful, look out for the underdog, see the best in everyone, put others before self person you could imagine. When I think of being Christlike, I think of her. No, she is not perfect and yes, she looks to Jesus as her Redeemer, but I’ll tell ya what, there is not a wicked bone in her body.
TSOO, You wrote: – “And yet . . . Noah, Enoch, Abraham. None of them sinless, but heinous God-haters? I don’t think so.
And – “I do not believe scripture, or reality, teaches that all men are heinous, evil, God-haters from birth.”
AIDAN writes: Noah, Enoch, Abraham, heinous God-haters? Seriously? Where did you get that from? And, “all men are heinous, evil, God-haters from birth?” You know I teach against total depravity, so I’m at a loss here! When Simon was basically being called a Jew-hater, I was simply defending him by saying that he was being misunderstood. I thought he meant all of us are capable of great evil, in the generic sense of the great wickedness that mankind has been known to commit.
I’m glad you have a sister like that who doesn’t even speed, boy you must hate her (joking). Like you said, you’d meet the most wonderful, kind, and gentle people in the world, and you would thank God for such people. Sometimes I think we don’t appreciate how much of an impact Christianity still has on our western cultures, even among our ever increasing atheist friends. Our ungodly, atheist friends, somehow believe that they have grown up in a vacuum, and that their ethics and morals have nothing to do with the Christian culture that shaped their their world, over centuries, or even millennia. But that world is decreasing, and the ungodly are increasing in number.
Europe, is far worse than the United States is. But all you have to do is look at the horrors over the past century or so, under Godless regimes. They reckon that over the past century, something like over 100 million people were slaughtered under the thumb of these Marxist/Communist regimes. You take God out of the picture and what are we left with? Just ourselves as nothing more than mere animals! It’s grand when there’s law and order, and everybody is so polite and proper; but you take all that away, and God too, and you’ll not just see anarchy, but you just might see hell on earth, and what wickedness and selfishness can be in peoples’ hearts. When push comes to shove, the love of many can quickly run cold, and people will look after number one, and protect their own, no – even betray their own!
You and I, we don’t live in a completely Godless world, so we don’t really know what that world might look like. We may have gotten glimpses of it in the horrors of past century; but, perhaps only men like Noah can really know what men are capable of in a truly Godless world! The bible says that the wickedness of man was GREAT in the earth!
“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5). Can you imagine, every intent of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually? Don’t fool yourself, that’s what we humans are capable of becoming. I don’t think we can imagine what horrors Noah and his family might have seen. It must have been a world that was the closest thing to hell on earth! “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). I always found that statement by Jesus quite interesting. What kind of world will it be before God decides to end it all? He knows that already, we truly don’t, but don’t be surprised if it gets like the days of Noah.
Aiden, my comment was not so much directed at you as at the concept of Total Depravity, which I believe you do not hold to?
I simply do not believe that all men are born desperately wicked. I assert this is a misinterpretation of scripture’s real meaning. I know plenty of people who are not desperately wicked, and many are not within the realm of any organized religion. Personally, as imperfect as I am – and believe me, I am very imperfect – I do not think anyone would consider me wicked. I can be insensitive, demanding, selfish, etc., but wicked? I do not, nor ever would wish harm upon any living creature. I hate hitting bugs with my car at night. 😉 If a bird or a squirrel should commit hari kari with my automobile, I am heartbroken. And I consider people, who have eternal souls, far, far more precious.
I do not believe I am unique. In fact, when I do run up against a truly wicked person, it is so shocking, so hideous that it makes me almost physically ill. And yes, I have known such people, but it would be difficult to convince me that they are in the majority. And I simply do not believe that every human being is born totally depraved.
Romans tells us how individuals become totally depraved, and it is what I have personally seen to be true. A person, one choice at a time, sears their conscience and hardens the heart that once had a soft concern for others. I believe this process can be accelerated by drugs and other addictions, which short circuit a person’s humanity.
The very first ‘evil’ person I recall knowing was 5 years old. Sound harsh? All I know is that I was a gentle, trusting, loving child and was shocked and horrified from the first day of kindergarten until graduation twelve years later at the cruel, abusive ways of this individual. She deliberately set out to hurt and traumatize others as much as possible. Much of who I am was shaped by my dealings with this person, and my deliberate attempts to protect the weak and defenseless from her evil machinations. My guess is that this person suffered serious abuse as a very young child; something that all but destroyed her basic humanity. But I do not believe for a second that she was ‘born’ depraved.
I remain unconvinced that God made man with a corrupt nature, initially or after Adam sinned. God made man with the ability to choose, which means sin was always possible for mankind. But until it was initiated by Adam, there was no sin, nor any of its consequences. Once initiated, it has steamrolled from decade to decade, leaving a wake of colossal harm and unintended consequences.
This is the world, with its surrounding imperfections, from which God both desires and intends to rescue all who acknowledge, condemn and turn from wickedness for a restored relationship with their Maker. I count as aberrant and toxic misinterpretations all theories that ascribe any moral corruption, sin, evil, etc. to God’s will or design. I suspect that the physical corruption and death was provided as a demonstration of what moral corruption does to the soul, in order to warn and redeem us from such.
TSOO, thank you for your response today. I don’t think people realise how serious this teaching really is. But look at some of the churches that teach this, Calvinism and Catholicism for starters. I’m sure you already understand the psychological effects of always telling children how innately wicked they are. We had it drilled into us from early childhood, just how sinful and depraved we were. And we were viewed and treated accordingly by the whole system. In school it was like they had a duty to literally whip the devil out of you! Not exactly how Jesus saw children.
This doctrine of total depravity, and anything that resembles it, not only has a detrimental effect on our emotional, and spiritual well being, but it has helped foster a false gospel. Look at the monster it feeds in Calvinism. You can’t have much of TULIP without total depravity. Nor can you have a god who has such a twisted view of us, and we of him, without total depravity. In Catholicism we just called it ‘Original Sin’ but it meant basically the same thing. Out of that sprung all sorts of ridiculous teachings, like infant baptism, limbo, and probably making your ‘holy communion’ at seven and then confirmation at twelve. But the worst of it all was probably on those who lost their babies without ever being baptized (christened). I can’t even begin to imagine what those parents went through in their prayers, masses said, and decades of the rosary, for the poor soul of their little baby in limbo. Perhaps it was worse for some than it was for others, but seemingly, limbo has been done away with now. How gracious of them, its amazing how they were able to do that! I believe it was a very popular move altogether!
The bible says children are a blessing, but you wouldn’t think it by what half of the churches are teaching out there. Any teaching that distorts God, and our view of the most beautiful part of humanity, no less; is a pernicious doctrine that needs to be challenged and refuted at every turn.
And if you think that the theory of ‘evolution’ has done great damage, what untold destruction has the teaching of total depravity done?
I concur. I sometimes wonder if Augustine’s attack on Pelagius was nothing more than a mind game, staged to usher in this hideous teaching. It seems that most of Pelagius’ writings were destroyed, so most of what he was said to believe we learn from his ‘enemies’, who declared him a heretic. How would you like to have your biography written by your enemies?
I would not be the least bit surprised if Pelagius believed something similar to what those of us who reject the concept of Total Depravity do. Which is not that men are able to earn their salvation by being good. Rather, it is that men were created in the image of God, in innocence and with nothing missing or corrupt. We are, however, moral flesh, and susceptible to the weaknesses thereof.
And, being endowed with a free will, we are all too quickly seduced by Satan via the desires of the flesh, which we need in order to retain life. We must have the drive to eat, drink and procreate, and these are the desires that Satan corrupts. Foremost by persuading us that this life is all there is, so we might as well ‘Eat, drink and be merry’. Fearing the physical death we all face, men are often driven to seek pleasure and forget their impending demise.
It is only when we learn, and trust, the promise of God that we can have a better life, an eternal, sinless, blessed life, that we can be freed from the tyranny of sin, or the fear of death.
I do not deny the seductions of sin. I do not claim to perfectly resist them. Oh that I was perfectly patient, selfless and sensitive to the needs of others. Oh that I did not succumb to the lure of material goods and the seductive pleasures of tasty food and enjoyable activities, when I should perhaps be denying myself and ministering to the needy.
There was a time when I did not even know how self-absorbed I was. It took getting married and becoming a parent to open my eyes a little. But the fact is that when we begin, even a little, to understand such things, we are, just a little, becoming more like Christ. When we begin to desire to be less concerned about self and more serious about helping others, we are taking steps in the right direction, however slow and faltering they be.
Scripture repeatedly speaks of the slavery and deceptiveness of sin. God’s desire is to rescue us from both. It is only when we resist his voice, his urging, his deliberate enlightening of our minds and consciences that we sear those very instruments that should help us grow better. Romans teaches that the man or woman who stubbornly resists God and his ways does indeed increase in his or her depravity, until he or she no longer can even discern the voice of goodness and reason.
But nowhere does scripture state that this is the condition in which we are born. No where does scripture state that all children are thoroughly wicked and will do nothing but evil if not kept reined in. I did not know, until someone pointed it out, that my former Calvinist pastor introduced his children to strangers as ‘My totally depraved son/daughter, so and so’. Can you imagine what that did to his children’s minds and hearts? To their self image?
I certainly believe that none of us, apart from the wisdom and power of God, can escape the seductions of sin and flesh. We need the help of our Maker to become all that he intended us to be, especially in a world already badly corrupted by centuries of sin and evil. So I refuse to be intimidated by those who throw out ‘Pelagian’ or ‘Semi-Pelagian’ as if they are the worst of accusations. I do not claim that I, or anyone, can earn or attain salvation apart from God. I tend to doubt that Pelagius believed so either, although I could be mistaken.
I imagine God looking upon me, and you, in the same way I looked upon each of my newborn babies: full of love and awe and hope, and desiring only their very best. Only he has the perfect wisdom, knowledge and power to actually help us succeed! I do not for a second believe he casts a curse upon us, destroys our ability to know or desire good, or withholds from us even the chance of being rescued from sin and death.
Call me a heretic if you will, but I believe that God is good, gracious, loving and merciful towards his weak and easily deceived children. I believe that he will hold his arms out to us long after we have turned insensibly away, hoping, desiring for us to come to him. I am so done with the cruel, ugly, hopeless picture of a wrathful, deceptive god that too many religions posit.
If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. This is our blessed hope and assurance.
She doesn’t even speed. 😉
Aidan, and TS00,
Like I said the other day…Satan is NOT being discussed in ANY OF THIS, as it’s all MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN, making man a God hater by DEFAULT.
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
This battle is between God, and Satan, NOT MAN AND GOD. And we…are STUCK IN THE MIDDLE.
Satan wants our SOUL, and so does God, and so the battle is between them, and them alone. Man is not a hater of God by default.
Hitler, killing the Jews. That was between God, and Satan.
The sons of Judah, not wanting a child to carry on the lineage. The END RESULT would have been that Jesus would NOT be from the Tribe of Judah as PROPHESY had already been laid out.
That was a battle between God and Satan. So you had Tamar playing prostitute to sleep with Judah, HENCE, PROPHESY OF JESUS COMING FROM THE LINE OF JUDAH FULFILLED.
God and Satan, not man and God.
Oh, and Simon, I’ve read some of the beliefs of the Church of England, and one of them is NO DIFFERENT than that of Calvinism, BY DEFAULT he quotes:
I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells.” (Romans 7: 18)
I saw a sermon of one PAUL WASHER once, where he was like, “Oh, lowly me, I’m just a dirty sinner, Oh, wretched me, “, blah blah blah.
Ya, ya, ya.
Aparently, they don’t read…THE REST OF THE STORY to see that in the LAW OF FAITH, LAW OF LIBERTY, we are NOT SINNERS, WE ARE SAVED FROM SIN, WE ARE DEAD TO THE LAW, DEAD TO SIN, SIN HAS NO DOMINION, and that is reason to REJOICE, AND…
just one verse above Romans 7:18 is verse 17, which said:
Romans 7:17
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
He’s taking the responsibility off of himself, putting it on the sin that ALREADY LIVES IN HIM, and THAT is the context of the verse that the LOWLY Simon and Paul Washer SHOULD be seeing.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
You had said the following:
“It is He who drew Me to Himself. I did not choose Him, neither did I seek after Him, He chose me.”
I call you out on that!
Basically, you are quoting:
John 15:16
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you
But what you FAIL TO REALIZE is that THOSE PEOPLE that he chose was none other than CURRENT GOD FOLLOWERS in the first place BEFORE he chose them.
But that aside…THE ONLY WAY THAT GOD DRAWS YOU is thru the BIBLE or someone informing you what’s in the bible, for faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD, not by some MYSTERIOUS MAGICAL MEANS.
YOU are not that special, so don’t flatter yourself!
Romans 15:21
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Romans 2:14-16 shows that they have NO CLUE who God (Jesus) is, and they will be saved based on their conscience based on the law written in their hearts.
You sound EXACTLY like Calvinists by stating that God CHOSE YOU. No, YOU HEARD THE GOSPEL, AND BELIEVED.
But I’m NOT SO SURE that you even KNOW what the gospel really is, because you keep POINTING PEOPLE TO THE LAW OF MOSES DEMANDING that they stop sinning, when Romans 7 shows that THEY are not sinning, 1 John 3:9 states that they are NOT SINNING, and that they can’t sin, all because they are NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.
STOP POINTING PEOPLE TO THE LAW, unless you are FIRST BRINGING THEM TO CHRIST, BECAUSE the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and once we are IN CHRIST, we are NO LONGER UNDER THE SCHOOLMASTER.
Ed Chapman
Aidan MCMANUS, thank you. Incidentally, Jesus was a Jew but it wasn’t actually the Jewish people who killed Jesus, it was the Romans. The Jewish people accused Him of blasphemy but that accusation didn’t actually stick. It was the Roman solders who beat Him with sticks, placed the crown on thorns on His head, and put Him and the cross and drove the nails in His hands and feet.
Jesus was actually sentenced to death for proclaiming Himself King, other than Caesar. This was an offence against Rome. In those days the crime of which a crucified victim was convicted was written on a sign and placed over the head of a person on the cross. The titulus on Jesus’ cross was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin and read “This is the King of the Jews”.
These three languages represent the Gentiles (Greek), the Romans (Latin), the Jews (Hebrew). It was our sinful nature that put Him there. We are all responsible for the upset and grief that our sinful ways have caused God. Mankind is so depraved that even our Maker repented for making us.
Aidan, Simon,
So we have religiosity on the other side of the POND thinking that the story of Judah’s sons is about BIRTH CONTROL, so they prohibit any kind of BIRTH CONTROL.
Such weird conclusions that they come up with in the CARNAL realm.
Ed Chapman
ED, Come over to our side of the POND and I’ll BAPTIZE YOU in it! Now that’s what the bible calls real SPIRITUAL BIRTH CONTROL.
(smiley face)
Ha! Good one! I almost got to that part of the world. Been to Italy, tho. Saw the rock of Gibraltar at sea. But, most of my travels were Japan to Philippines, Singapore to Hong Kong, Australia to Tazmania, Dubia to Bahrain, etc. But not Europe area.
Ed Chapman
Man!! I know Ireland is green, but mine is with jealousy right now. Great life at sea.
Ya, I really loved being at sea. But, lots of us have Irish in our blood in America, so we got Ireland in America! I’m near Seattle, and it’s green here, too. We are know as the Evergreen State due to all the trees. We got beautiful Mt. RAINIER, lots of mountains other than that, including Mt. St. Helens that blew May 18, 1980. At that time I lived in Yakima, Washington, and that town got the ash dump from that explosion. Dark from about 10 am, snowing ash. Street lights came on, didn’t see sun light till next morning. It rains a lot in Seattle. Took about 6 months to get used to that, cuz Yakima doesn’t get that much rain.
Ed Chapman
OH YEAH! had a look at Mt. Rainier on google – absolutely breathtaking scenery. I love mountains. According to this, it’s one of the most dangerous mountains in the world to climb. But, wouldn’t it be worth it? I remember learning about Mt. St. Helens in school. Didn’t it bulge all on one side before it exploded? I think a lot of people were caught, because they thought they were far enough away when they weren’t!
And wasn’t there one or two that wouldn’t move? That whole thing was absolutely incredible to watch. Shows you how small we really are.
Ya, I’ve never climbed it, but it is dangerous. There is, however, 2 different ski resorts there, tho, and I used to do a lot of skiing there. We have several different skiing places, but best is just North in Canada at Blackholm. I can’t ski anymore, bad knees. I’m old… lol.
Still nice just to go and see it tho.
Simon…
Wow. In Acts 2, we see Peter telling the JEWS that THEY killed the PRINCE OF PEACE. Pontius Pilate, the ROMAN didn’t find any fault in Jesus, and was NOT GONNA KILL HIM, but the JEWS said, CRUCIFY HIM. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of it all, and the Jews responded that the blood would be on their hands.
Where do you come up with your conclusions as a THEOLOGIAN? What do you REALLY KNOW?
Ed Chapman
Simon,
In any case, NO ONE will be held to account for the MURDER of Jesus, for he already forgave them.
Ed Chapman
What about the MURDER OF CROWS? You’d need a ‘strawman’ to forgive those. Goodman Ed, your good at building ‘strawmen’.
Just joking (smiley face)
Simon Peter,
I’m thinking you might want to see about getting a refund off of that tuition maybe!!
Ed Chapman
Would you ever lay off with the ‘Moonlighting’, ..and the “Gaslighting” too !!
Just being real! I’ve never been a fan of theologians, and I’m trying to make a point that seminary will only teach what they want you to know, based on what dead people already concluded FOR YOU, accusing others of heresy. That’s what I’m really complaining about. Simon Peter just so happens to be one of those educated theologians. Nothing personal. It’s just business. I’m a business man. Lol.
So, Simon, don’t think I’m gas lighting you. It’s your religion.
Ed Chapman
Simon, I would have thought that it was because of fear, and being weak, that Pilate gave way to the cries of the Jews. All along he could find no fault in Jesus, even after learning that He saw Himself as a King. Probably thought, this fella is a bit of a looper, but harmless. King of another world, His subjects are not here to fight – harmless. It seems like it was the cries of the crowd that spooked him. He didn’t need a riot or an uprising on that basis, and have it get back to Rome. So, I would see him as just protecting himself, and covering himself with what he did.
Simon, you said, “It was our sinful nature that put Him there.” I would agree totally that we all end up in sin. But that our corruption, or as you would call it “sinful nature,” is not innate, but rather an ‘acquired nature’. Just in the same way that something becomes “second nature” to us out of sheer habit, or practice! We all have seen this, and we use that expression and understand how true it is. That’s what I believe the scriptures are teaching. But one way or the other, we all end up in the same boat. Having said that, I do believe that this one lie, namely, that we are all born with a sinful nature, has other knock-on effects which I won’t go into here.
I would agree with the NASB version of (Ephesians 2: 1-3) which I believe teaches we are by nature children of wrath as a ‘consequence’ of our own sin, and not from anything we “inherited.” Notice the language; it’s as a result of ‘walking’ and ‘living’ and ‘indulging’ in our own sins.
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Again, this passage does not teach that we were – born children of wrath – but rather, as a result of our own trespasses and sins, which we habitually practiced.
Respectfully,
Aidan
AIDAN MCMANUS;
SPS: You mention Pontius Pilate. In my previous responses I gave no direct named reference to Pilate, but to the titulus. The Romans who actually crucified Jesus, that is, put Him on the wooden cross, drove the nails through His hands and feet were Roman solders. It is very doubtful that Pilate carried out any of those actual actions.
No Jewish person actually physically administered the act of the crucifixion. They themselves said It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. John 18: 31 puts it this way “Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”
The weight of responsibility for bringing Christ to trial and accusing Him was on the shoulders of His accusers. This is referenced in Acts 2: 36. The weight of responsibility was on Israel. But the legal administration was done by the Romans.
AIDAN MCMANUS wrote: “Simon, you said, “It was our sinful nature that put Him there.” I would agree totally that we all end up in sin. But that our corruption, or as you would call it “sinful nature,” is not innate, but rather an ‘acquired nature’. Just in the same way that something becomes “second nature” to us out of sheer habit, or practice!”
SPS: I affirm that man is guilty of ‘Original Sin’. I disagree entirely with the Pelagian position. So let me ask you how easy it is to sin outside of being in Christ and how difficult it was to do good outside of being in Christ. One is active, the other is passive. People outside of Christ can do good (humanly speaking) but such works are passive. Before God they are filthy rags.
So let me ask you this: how can a human being do something that is outside of his or her nature? Is flying with wings part of your nature? Can you develop feathers and fly away? No. Neither could be be able to sin if the nature and ability to sin were not part of your nature.
Let’s look a little further. Let us define sins, rather than sin.
John says this:
“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3.
So name me one sin on the list that is against your nature?
I would again suggest that we sin, not simply because we are made of flesh, but because we live as if that flesh is God. Adam originally existed in the flesh sinlessly.
Sin is not something that was ‘created’ by God, rather it was than the result of a lack of trust on man’s part, which led to an impaired (or sometimes nonexistent) relationship with God. John Calvin redefined sin and faith to come up with his deterministic predestination worldview. Both became objects, rather than beliefs and their resulting actions. Sin is not a thing that ‘somehow’ came into the world and so it must be presumed it was created by God. Rather, it is the outworking of a lack of faith in God, a replacement of God (and obedience to his will) with the false god of self and submission to the will of the flesh.
When we obey every desire of our flesh, as if they are commands from god, we will inevitably fall into excess and concupiscence. We will oppress and abuse others in our search for pleasure. When we rightly acknowledge the real God, we listen to him and his commands, even when it requires denying the desires (commands) of our flesh. Thus, we will deny self and respect the essential value of others.
Sin is the result of making our self (our fleshly nature) our god, due to a lack of knowledge of or a rejection of the true God. Where it is only knowledge we lack, it can and will be provided. Where it is willful rebellion, a refusal to trust God and walk rightly with him, no amount of knowledge can overcome the missing faith. Sin (fleshly desires) will reign.
By making all of this deterministic, Calvinism and much of historical Protestantism, totally misinterprets scripture and the problem of sin and evil. It is not the result of a curse, nor a decree from God. Sin exists entirely due to the choice of man. We sin not because we must, but because we can. I can think of few things more blasphemous than to blame God for ‘making’ man sin by deliberately corrupting his nature, then punishing the poor wretch for doing what he could not help but do.
TS00
By making all of this deterministic, Calvinism and much of historical Protestantism, totally misinterprets scripture and the problem of sin and evil.
br.d
Its my understanding that Reformed thinkers were undecided on totally embracing determinism up until Jonathon Edwards.
Edwards was highly philosophical and brought that influence into Calvinism.
John Piper for example is an “Edwardian” Calvinist.
Prior to Edwards – Reformed thinkers saw both determinism and IN-determinism in scripture.
They were savvy enough to know that those two mutually exclude each other.
So they chalked it up to mystery.
So in those days one could find Calvinists who had no reservations about acknowledging Libertarian freedom in different forms.
Edwards was considered to be a “water-shed” change in Reformed thinking
And that’s how they came to publicly reject Libertarian Freedom.
However, 99.9% of Calvinists today actually don’t TRULY reject Libertarian Freedom – even though they believe they do.
They need certain aspects of Librarian Freedom to escape the “Author of Evil” problem they are saddled with.
So they SMUGGLE those aspects of Libertarian Freedom back into their system – in camouflaged form
Simon Peter,
You AFFIRM something that you can’t prove, and I can prove that there is NO SUCH THING. How can YOU affirm original sin by PROVING its existence?
Next, you qoute 1 John 3:4…GOOD.
We aren’t under the law of Moses, as THAT is the reference to 1 John 3:4, and if you read THE REST OF THE STORY, especially in JOHNS EPISTLE HERE..
JUST A FEW VERSES DOWN…
1 John 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
CANNOT AND DOTH NOT.
It does not say, SHOULD NOT.
Next…
You good ole FILTHY RAGS. Dude, really? Do you NOT KNOW what the word RIGHTEOUSNESS is all about?
Under the law, RIGHTEOUSNESS is OBEYING THE LAW OF MOSES, EARNING A WAGE, AKA SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and THAT is the context of FILTHY RAGS.
WE ARE NOT UNDER THAT LAW OF MOSES, but you keep POINTING PEOPLE TO THE LAW OF MOSES. WHY?
Ed Chapman
Simon,
Do you NOT KNOW that LOVE comes naturally? We don’t have to LEARN love. We have to LEARN hate. When your children were born, DO YOU THINK THAT THEY HATE YOU? NO…they LOVE YOU, and that is NATURAL.
Sin is LEARNED, it is NOT BY NATURE that we sin, WE HAVE TO FIRST LEARN ABOUT IT, then we do it. If we do it out of IGNORANCE, we are EXCUSED, but once we know, THEN WE ARE HELD TO ACCOUNT.
Ed Chapman
Simon, I think we are both saying basically the same thing here, namely, that there was a collective responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ. It would seem that some like Judas would have the greater sin (John 19:11). But psalms 2 would indicate a collective responsibility. Note the reference to this in Acts 4:
“who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:
‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the LORD and against His Christ.
“For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together “to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. (Acts 4:25-28). In crucifying Christ they had collectively set themselves against God and against His Anointed (cf. Ps 2:1-3).
SPS: I affirm that man is guilty of ‘Original Sin’. And,..”Neither could be be able to sin if the nature and ability to sin were not part of your nature.” And,…”So name me one sin on the list that is against your nature?”
AMCM: Simon, to affirm that we are guilty of ‘Original Sin,’is to affirm that we are guilty of Adam’s sin. The problem I have with your affirmation is that you are using human reasoning rather than scripture to come to your conclusions! We need to base our conclusions on what the scriptures affirm and not on anything else, no matter how good it sounds. I know, for example, that Ezekiel 18 refutes the concept that God will hold us guilty for anyone else’s sins except our own. To affirm the guilt of ‘Original Sin’ you would have to prove that Ezekiel 18 does not apply, and produce scriptures that affirm your position.
Secondly: You affirmed that Man could not “be able to sin if the nature and ability to sin were not part of your nature. And, you said, “If you were created good and without sin, you would not have the ability to desire sin.” This is how you explain Adam and Eve’s sin? That is not scriptural! Yes, they had the ability to sin – otherwise they couldn’t have sinned – but not because they had a “sin nature.”
They were created in the “image of God” whose nature is good, not a “sin nature.” He is our Father, the Father of our spirits. He made man “Upright” but we go astray from Him (Isaiah 53:6).
“Truly, this only I have found:
That God made man upright,
But they have sought out many schemes.” (Ecc. 7:29)
And so your question: “So name me one sin on the list that is against your nature?”
You gave a couple of examples to explain this. You mentioned, for example, that birds fly because the natural ability to fly is in their nature?
Yes, a bird flies because God has made them to fly. He not only created them with the ability to fly, but to guarantee it, He also put it in their nature to want to fly. Thus, God purposed for it to happen. For you to apply that analogy to man sounds very much like Calvinism.
But, God created man “in His own image” with the ‘ability’ to choose good or evil, to trust or not to trust Him, to choose to obey or to disobey, to love or to hate. He gave man the power of choice. But he chose to sin and to deform that image He gave him! God’s only begotten Son is what He is by choice, and those who would be like Him must be so by choice. It was never God’s desire or purpose for man to sin. But it was always His desire that we would be His dear children, sons like His own Son by choice.
Romans 8 reveals this great “purpose” of God very clearly:
“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” (Romans 8:28-30)
This describes the plan, the purpose of God, which He ultimately accomplished in Christ Jesus His Son. The existence of man in this universe is just a proving ground. The question then that we need to be asking ourselves is, what do I really want? The choice you make will reflect what that really is! The bible is clear; God is calling – but how are we going to respond?
Aidan,
Sorry to do this to ya buddy, and I say that in an affectionate way, really…
I know this is going back quite a few hours…I was working…but…It was a CUSTOM to LET A PRISONER GO FREE during that time, and all the Jews did, was to trade Jesus in for a convicted murderer, and the crowd had a choice…they all wanted Jesus crucified.
Pilate’s WIFE had a vision for Pilate NOT TO KILL JESUS, and, as it turned out, Pilate washed his hands of it all, and the blood is on the Jews for it, not Pilate, therefore, the ROMANS DIDN’T MURDER JESUS, the Jews did.
And if we go back to PROPHESY, it pleased the FATHER to bruise him, so it is my belief that God didn’t want any Gentile to be responsible for the MURDER of Jesus, because this was a JEW THING, since the JEWS are the CHOSEN ONES blinded by God for THAT PURPOSE.
It’s NOT JUST BECAUSE Jesus is from a Jewish lineage…, it’s because God Chose The Jews for a purpose.
Now, regarding CHILDREN OF WRATH and SIN.
You should already know my position regarding SIN, in that sin is NOT IMPUTED for those who have NO KNOWLEDGE. And that is gonna be the POINT of the following:
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
So, point #1…the LAW works wrath, and Chapter 4 of the book of Romans is in regarding the TIME FRAME of Abraham who was NOT UNDER THE LAW, and we all know, OR SHOULD KNOW, that Abraham’s SIN was SLEEPING WITH HIS SISTER, and he had absolutely NO IDEA about that sin, because there was NO LAW to inform him (and God never informed him, either), so therefore, NO WRATH could come against Abraham FOR HIS SINS.
I really wish people would LOOK TO ABRAHAM, and STAY AWAY FROM THE LAW, because the law is GETTING US IN TROUBLE. Abraham didn’t get in trouble…NOT JUST BECAUSE HE WAS OBEDIENT, my goodness he was DISOBEDIENT BY SLEEPING WITH HIS SISTER, which seems to go over everybody’s head for some weird reason…but he had NO CLUE about it…no clue about his DISOBEDIENCE. So, NO WRATH. We are NOT CHILDREN OF WRATH BY ANY NATURE. The Law needs to be KNOWN before anyone is a child of wrath, because you KNOW the sin that you are doing, which requires WRATH.
Ed Chapman
BR.D, exactly so.
AIDAN MCMANUS:
I have read your responses and will respond to all of those verses in the fullness of time. My time is restricted at the moment, and I am only a visitor here (on this website) and neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, so I have no issues to face or axe to grind. If I sound like a Calvinist one moment or an Arminian the next, I don’t care either way. Truth is truth, regardless of which theological spectrum truth stands firm in.
I am not one (to use the phrase) “to throw the baby out with the bathwater”. I happen to think that authentic Arminians and authentic Calvinists have good points to make on both sides of the debate.
So then, think about this. Let us start at the beginning with the narrative in Genesis.
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2: 9)
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2: 16-17)
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3: 1-5
Let us think upon this for a moment about the references to the trees: They appears to have been literal trees. The “tree of life” may have been a Vine? The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” could have been a fig tree? I speculate here, it they seemed to have been near a fig tree after they ate and sewed fig leaves together (Genesis 3: 7) I speculate but speculation is sometimes interesting. But I confess I cannot prove what trees they were.
Whatever the trees were, it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the sin or disobedience was not found in the material food from the tree, but in the disobedience. In other words, it was not as though they ate poison or some fruit that had sin or disobedience as a content substance that made its way through their digestion system and into their bloodstream? Or was it? It seems to me the ability to obey or disobey was already part of the genetic make up of Adam and Eve.
It seems to me that the two trees had been given titles in the Scripture. One tree was life (I think this represents a foreshadow of the crucifixion of Messiah upon the tree) the other, I think, represents knowledge in all its fullness. One tree represents obedience to God, the other represents obedience to satan. God knew by His foreknowledge that satan would tempt them to take the fruit of knowledge. This knowledge brought Adam and Eve into awareness that they were naked. This is very important. When Eve ate the fruit she did not know she was naked until Adam also ate the fruit, then they both knew (Genesis 3: 6-7) This implies the headship or authority that was placed upon Adam for the fall. But what was the sin?
The sin was not sexual, since God had already told Adam and Eve to have intercourse: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1: 27-28)
This is very important. The reason I say that is because this text affirms a number of things.
1) Adam was the one created in the image of God, not Eve. The creation of Adam was a visual likeness only of God only, a foreshadow of Christ. God is Spirit (John 4: 24). God does not have a flesh and blood body as the Mormons teach. This incarnation is what made Christ so unique. God had never been seen at any time, certainly not in Human form because God is Spirit. Adam was therefore created in the visual likeness of the soul of God, not that God was a man that we could be like him. Eve however, was created for man, as a helpmate and to be his wife but not in the image of God, but for man. She was created from Adam’s rib, not from his brain. She came from his body and woman has a permanent connection to the man. But when man became born of woman, man in turn comes from woman.
2) When God said to the both of them “Be fruitful, multiply” it implies that Adam and Eve were commanded to procreate in the garden of Eden. Yet, Eve never got pregnant until after they were expelled from the garden (Genesis 4: 1) The reference in this verse to Adam knowing his wife is the Bibles moderate way of telling the reader the had marital intercourse. This is very important, because it informs us that it did not take long for Adam to sin. Why? If he was so perfect and without sin, why did it not take him long to disobey?
Clearly, the blame of the sin of the entire world lay upon the sin of Adam. Paul in Romans 5: 12-21 affirms this very clearly:
“Therefore, just as through one man SIN (hamartia) ENTERED THE WORLD, and death THROUGH SIN (hamartia), and thus death spread to ALL MEN, because ALL SINNED (hamartanō)…”
This sin “hamartia” is in the offending sin, not moral offending offences of “hamartanō”. The wording of Paul shows men how they came to be in the condition they are. We were enemies of God (Romans 5: 10) but now if we have received His atonement, we can have joy in knowing that we are reconciled to our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ who made the world and everything in it (John 1: 1-3) and then came as a man to die for His creation and reverse the damage that satan did in the garden.
1 Corinthians 15: 21-23 proves that death came as a judgement on sin, which is on all people, young and old who are outside of Christ. This physical and spiritual death is referenced in 22-23 and the proof that it is a physical death is in the reference to Christ’s return in verse 23. This proves that any exclusive claim to the death in Eden being exclusively spiritual, is not accurate. Thus, if death is a judgement for sin, and people are not guilty of the ancestral or original sin which existed since the fall, no one would die a physical death until after they sinned.
Paul affirms this death is physical, since in 1 Corinthians 15: 21-23 he references the general resurrection at the return of Christ when all will be made alive, and “afterwards those who are Christ’s at His coming”. You cannot deny this since he follows the text with the words “then comes the end”.
Simon Peter,
Holy smokes, I can definitely rip all of that comment to shreds from the BIBLE ALONE. ALL OF IT, not just parts of it, but all of it. Yes, even the part where you state, “you cannot deny this”.
Let’s start with Adam being the ONLY ONE who was created in the image of God, not Eve…
The word MAN is NOT gender, but mankind
The HEBREW definition for that word is in regards red, if I am not mistaken, the word RUDDY comes to mind, cant remember at the moment, to represent THE DIRT. When the word MAN is used, it’s also talking about WOMAN.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
That was the SPIRITS that were created. BODIES were formed LATER in Genesis 2.
Spirits created in Genesis 1, bodies formed in Genesis 2.
INSERT SPIRIT IN BODY, AND BOOM, A “LIVING” SOUL.
There is a difference between CREATED and FORMED.
NOTE:
In Genesis 1, ANIMALS were created BEFORE MAN
but
In Genesis 2, animals were FORMED after Adam.
Do you see that SIGNIFICANT change in the ORDER OF EVENTS between the two chapters? Most people don’t see it.
THEN AFTER THE ANIMALS, Eve was finally formed from a rib.
But, again, animals BEFORE MAN, vs. animals AFTER man.
That’s the difference between SPIRIT AND BODY.
EVE, AND YOU, were in existence already at the moment that Adam was FORMED from dirt.
Creation ENDED long ago, therefore, NO ONE was created after day number 6. Your great great great great grandchild exists NOW, just not BORN IN THE FLESH YET.
Oh, I can expound on this a ton.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
Oh, ya, by the way, the “God doesn’t have a “flesh and blood” body.
Jesus did.
You see, SOME OF US in Christendom believe that God took off his ETERNAL BODY, a bloodless body, to be BORN in a FLESH AND BLOOD body known as GOD WITH US, only to be resurrected BACK into an ETERNAL BLOODLESS body again.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter said:
“1) Adam was the one created in the image of God, not Eve. The creation of Adam was a visual likeness only of God only, a foreshadow of Christ. God is Spirit (John 4: 24). God does not have a flesh and blood body as the Mormons teach. This incarnation is what made Christ so unique. God had never been seen at any time, certainly not in Human form because God is Spirit. Adam was therefore created in the visual likeness of the soul of God, not that God was a man that we could be like him. Eve however, was created for man, as a helpmate and to be his wife but not in the image of God, but for man. She was created from Adam’s rib, not from his brain. She came from his body and woman has a permanent connection to the man. But when man became born of woman, man in turn comes from woman.”
THAT IS A MAJOR DISTORTION.
Let me ENLIGHTEN YOU Mr. Theologian:
Genesis 5:2 King James Version (KJV)
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
You see, the word, “THEIR NAME” ADAM? BOTH MALE AND FEMALE? IN THE DAY THAT THEY WERE CREATED?
Next, YOU SLAM THE MORMONS.
GOOD…SO DO I.
But let me ask you a question.
WHAT 3 ELEMENTS DOES IT TAKE FOR A FIRE TO BE ALIVE?
1. HEAT
2. FUEL
3. OXYGEN
I used to fight fires, and we were trained on this SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH, every month, every duty day, and it was ingrained in us.
If you eliminate just ONE of those elements, THE FIRE IS OUT.
I say that for a reason.
LIFE requires 3 things
1. SPIRIT
2. SOUL
3. BODY
Without the body, there is NO LIFE, but ya know what? the SPIRIT AND SOUL IS ETERNAL. But for LIFE, ya gotta have a BODY.
SO, I ASK THE MORMON SLAMMER…DO WE HAVE A LIVING GOD OR NOT?
Before you answer that, YES, I KNOW JOHN 4:24…WHO SAID THAT ANYWAY? JESUS? I THOUGHT YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS GOD? HELLO?
You see, some of us believe that Jesus is indeed God, and HE HAS A BODY.
So, you may disagree with this, but WE HAVE A LIVING GOD. God has a body. It’s called, JESUS.
While you believe in a 3 PEOPLE PLAYING THE ROLE OF ONE GOD, I believe in ONE PERSON playing the role of ONE GOD.
I do believe that Jesus is God. I do believe that the Father is God. I do believe that the HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD. If that’s what the trinity is, then yes, I believe in the trinity.
BUT, I believe that ONLY ONE PERSON plays all three roles.
1. FATHER: SPIRIT (JOHN 4:24)
2. SON: THE BODY [OF CHRIST]
3. HOLY SPIRIT: THE MIND OF CHRIST
I ask again, WHAT IS LIFE?
1. SPIRIT
2. SOUL
3. BODY
Do we, or do we not have a LIVING GOD? Or do we have a DEAD God? No body means DEAD. James 2:26.
Oh, I can play this trinity thing ALL NIGHT LONG, cuz I can ASK YOU QUESTIONS that will make you THINK.
I’ve noticed a lot of “I THINK”, AND “I BELIEVE”, BUT not really much in the PROOF part from you.
Psalm 42:2 [Full Chapter]
My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?
Deuteronomy 5:26
For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
There is just 2 verses as examples that states that we have a LIVING God, and therefore, IT MEANS THAT GOD HAS A BODY.
Slam Mormons all ya want, but God has a body. I slam Mormons for having a twenty something year old ELDER, and BAPTIZING FOR THE DEAD, and I can slam them really good.
Studying the Bible has been a HOBBY of mine for several years. I don’t get a wage from it. I do it for FUN, and because of THAT, I KNOW what to answer, before you even get done with a question.
You are SILENT to me now, but I challenge you on your EDUCATION. You study DEAD PEOPLE, not the Bible.
Ed Chapman
Simon Peter,
Some, when I say that Jesus is God, THE FATHER (Jesus did say that if you see him you see the FATHER), “Oh, so did Jesus throw his voice from Heaven when he was baptized?”
Well, my response to that is simple.
Several times Jesus said, “My Father, which is in heaven”, right?
Well, several times he also said that the Father was “in” him. So, two places at the same time.
Jesus also said, (WHILE HE WAS ON THE EARTH DURING THE GOSPEL DAYS)
NO MAN HAS ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN BUT HE THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, and he indicates that HE CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN.
This implies that HE’S BEEN HERE BEFORE, long before he was BORN OF A VIRGIN.
There is LOTS to learn about this LORD AND SAVIOR that you boast about, but don’t really know.
Ed Chapman
Uh, Ed. Fire isn’t alive. So much for that analogy!
Oh. Sorry…. SO much for THAT ANALOGY! FIRE is NOT ALIVE! You see, I’ve STUDIED FIRE for many YEARS and know what you are going to SAY about FIRE before you SAY IT!
(Note. Sometimes a comment just cannot be suppressed! I need to work on a discipline to help me with that.)
Knock it off Carl. You know the point I was making.
Fire is three elements. Without one of those elements, it’s not a fire.
Hello?
Ed Chapman
Hi Carl
I think you are correct to question the doctrine of Total Depravity.
The biggest problem I find with it – is that Calvinists use it as an “Accordion” doctrine.
In other words – they shrink it’s meaning and scope one minute – and then stretch its meaning and scope the next.
In one statement it means one is totally DEAD and has to be jump started
In the next minute one can do all sorts of good and kind things.
It would seem to me that all Christians can agree on man’s need for salvation.
Therefore “unsaved” would seem to be the most accurate term.
SIMON,
Thank you for your reply and for the use of scripture in defense of your beliefs. And, I agree with you that, truth is truth, regardless of which spectrum teaches it. But if there’s something that I can learn from another, I’ll take it, as long as it measures up under the scrutiny of scripture.
Firstly, you concluded: “It seems to me the ability to obey or disobey was already part of the genetic make up of Adam and Eve.”
With this, Simon, I can wholeheartedly agree. I think God gave man the ‘power of choice’ when He created him in His image.
Secondly, you concluded: That “Adam was the one created in the image of God, not Eve. And that – Eve however, was created for man, as a helpmate and to be his wife but not in the image of God, but for man.”
With this, Simon, I wholeheartedly disagree. (Gen. 1:26-27) states that both man and woman were created in the image of God. Note the interchange between the term (man) and the term (them) who are then revealed as both male and female in v.27: namely, the generic – mankind.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen. 1:26-27).
If you look closely at these two verses, in v.26 (man) who was to be created in God’s image is a general term for – (them) who would have dominion over earth, sky, and sea. So, in the context we have ‘man’ as a general species. Then in v27, ‘man’ a general term for the species – as being male and female He created (them): Note that the singular (His) for God in (v27) = the plural (Us, Our image) for God in (v26). Therefore why should we be surprised if the term (man, him) = the generic for mankind, the male and female (them) of (v.27)? The only difference is, is that man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7).
When Paul uses the Adam/Christ contrast in (1 Cor 15: 20-22) it was in the context of physical death, not spiritual death.
But now Christ is risen from the dead, (v.20) Then Paul explains that statement, – “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead (v21). Since Christ could not be said to have “died spiritually”, this cannot refer to spiritual death. Then, Paul continues that thought in (v.22), “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Here in this verse Paul gets into the specifics of who the ‘men’ were through whom death and resurrection came. Death came through – historical Adam. Physical death passed unto all men. In other words, by virtue of the fact that we are (man) or human, “all die” – without exception. The “life” mentioned in this verse is the opposite of “death” which in the context is physical death. Note again – v.20 “Christ is risen from the dead” – v.21 by Man also came the resurrection of the dead – v.22 “even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Therefore, just as the “death” referred to in these verses is only of the body, the “life” spoken of in this verse refers only to the resurrection of the body from the grave.
“For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.” (1 Cor. 15: 53-54)
You teach that since the fall of Adam all men are born dead in sin. But this is in direct contrast to what Paul wrote: “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.” (Romans 7:9-11) These verses are nonsensical if total depravity is true. Men are not born dead in sin, but alive, children are not born guilty of sin, but in a state of innocence. It is only after they are born that they are killed through the commandment!
AIDAN MCMANUS: “With this, Simon, I can wholeheartedly agree. I think God gave man the ‘power of choice’ when He created him in His image.”
Thank you for your response. I think I probably agree with your wording “the ‘power of choice’”. We may disagree on the meaning behind those words but I have no issues with the term ‘the ability to choose’. When I consider the nature of man as revealed throughout the Bible, that outside of God in Christ he is a slave to sin, I see the term “free will” as an oxymoron.
AIDAN, you wrote: “Secondly, you concluded: That “Adam was the one created in the image of God, not Eve. And that – Eve however, was created for man, as a helpmate and to be his wife but not in the image of God, but for man.”
With this, Simon, I wholeheartedly disagree. (Gen. 1:26-27) states that both man and woman were created in the image of God.”
SPS: If you disagree with this, that’s fine. But here are my reasons for claiming what I have.
Let us look more closely at that text:
Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Firstly, in verse 26 when God said “Let us make man in our image” the Hebrew translated man is “’âdâm”. This is a distinct reference to Adam himself, as an individual.
When the text proceeds and says “and let THEM have dominion…” there is no word “them” in the Hebrew. This is an interpolation from the translators. The Hebrew is simply “râdâh” which is about dominion. The flow of wording “and let THEM have dominion” is an English flow of wording that actually relates to the dominion of Adam himself. Adam was the one who had dominion over the animals. Adam named them (Genesis 2: 20)
AIDAN: “Note the interchange between the term (man) and the term (them) who are then revealed as both male and female in v.27: namely, the generic – mankind.”
SPS: You reference the “interchange” which you say is “then revealed as both male and female in v.27:”.
SPS: This claim is not entirely accurate.
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”. Again the Hebrew translated man is “’âdâm”. Whereas the Hebrew translated “male and female” is “zâkâr” (male) “neqêbâh” (female). The male is quite literally the man, male, or animal or man child. Whereas the female (in the Hebrew) is quite literally “from the sexual form” meaning ‘female’.
These differences are quite brilliantly communicated by the translators when they further the text as “male and female created he them.”
These are not references to the general species. These are distinct references to two individual persons “Adam” and the “Woman”.
The original writer, or writers of Genesis were communicating that Adam, was not the same as the woman. Incidentally, the woman was never actually called “Eve” in the garden of Eden. The woman was named “Eve” by Adam himself after the fall (Genesis 3: 20)
As for some of the other verses you reference from Paul, I believe I have already addressed them.
I actually believe that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11: 7 is communicating this very same thing. That woman was created for man for the glory, (as you hinted at). I would further add that woman was created entirely with Adam in mind, for his company and delight.
Woman and men are not the same. The guilt of original sin is in the male geneaology from Adam, not the female. This is (in part) why Christ was conceived of the virgin, with no human father.
If you recall, there was a schism in the garden of Eden, and a reference to ‘enmity between’ the two seeds. Genesis 3: 15 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;”. This is when the guilt of original sin was placed in the seed of man.
Interesting isn’t it how when Eve got pregnant, there were two children in the womb (Genesis 4: 1-2) Cain and Abel. That was the first murder that took place. Abel sort reconciliation and offered a blood sacrifice for sin. But Cain, the murderer, rejected the atonement and sought a fruit offering (Genesis 4: 3-4).
AIDAN, try not to build your theology on an English translation or translations, I will happily get back to you on Romans 7: 9-11. Hopefully later today.
Simon says:
Firstly, in verse 26 when God said “Let us make man in our image” the Hebrew translated man is “’âdâm”. This is a distinct reference to Adam himself, as an individual.
My response:
Genesis 5:2
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
BOTH MALE AND FEMALE ARE THE SAME HEBREW WORD, AND THE WORD IS THE SAME HEBREW WORD FOR MAN, FOR BOTH, INDICATING MANKIND, NOT A GENDERED MALE, FIRST NAME ADAM.
DEFINITION OF THE HEBREW WORD IS RED, RUDDY, INDICATING THE EARTH (OF THE EARTH, EARTHLY, NATURAL BODY FROM 1 COR 15, MEANING THAT THE NATURAL BODY DIES).
STUDY THE BIBLE ALONE, SIMON.
Ed Chapman
Hi Simon,
Its okay to disagree as long as it is respectful.
SPS: When I consider the nature of man as revealed throughout the Bible, that outside of God in Christ he is a slave to sin, I see the term “free will” as an oxymoron.
AIDAN: I understand where you are coming from, for who is truly free? In one sense we are either a slave to sin or we are a slave to righteousness. But the difference is that I believe we choose to sin. Yes, it becomes more and more addictive, but like the drug addict, or alcoholic, we are the ones who choose it to begin with. But even the alcoholic can still choose life over death, if he is “willing.” It’s interesting how your analogy with Cain and Abel suggests that they still had the “ability to choose” between life and death, good and evil. It seems that Abel chose the good. Hard to figure if they were born totally depraved? And, God’s counsel to Cain also shows that he had both the power, and the ability to choose between sin and righteousness, good and evil.
SPS: Firstly, in verse 26 when God said “Let us make man in our image” the Hebrew translated man is “’âdâm”. This is a distinct reference to Adam himself, as an individual.”
AIDAN: Not necessarily so, context has everything to do with how that word is translated. Strong’s definitions: אָדַם ʼâdam, aw-dam’; from H119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).
Outline of Biblical Usage:
man, mankind
man, human being
man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
Adam, first man
city in Jordan valley
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man H120 forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” (Gen. 6:3) The LORD said, “I will blot out man H120 whom I have created from the face of the land, from man H120 to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” (Gen. 6:7) I think its fairly obvious just from these verses alone that “man”(adam), can refer to mankind (male and female) as a species. I just wanted to get that point out of the way first.
Yes, God was creating Adam and Eve, but He was also creating “mankind.” Therefore, its application is inclusive of both. All of the translations that I could find, including the Tanach, my Hebrew/English bible, translate these verses in the same way. Therefore, the weight of evidence from biblical scholarship within the various translations, are all in agreement on this passage. Does God require that all men must become expert in Hebrew in order to know the truth? If so, most men are done for! But I think I’ll trust God in this matter and go along with the overwhelming evidence of Greek and Hebrew scholarship on this.
Obviously all of the translators believed that the “context” demanded that these verses – when viewed together – were not just specifically talking about Adam and Eve, but about “mankind” in general. You’ve got to read them together to see it.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:26-28).
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. (Gen. 5:1-2) All the translations pretty much say the same thing, including the Tanach.
SPS: “The guilt of original sin is in the male geneaology from Adam, not the female. This is (in part) why Christ was conceived of the virgin, with no human father.”
AIDAN: And there it is, right there – the reason why you need to interpret (Genesis 1: 26-28) the way you do!
All you’ve done here is posit a theory, and then went and built everything on that theory. A theory is something assumed but not proven. In this case, you first assume the existence of the “guilt of original sin” as a given. Can’t do that! And then proceed with another theory that its passed down the generations through the physical bodies of the males? Thus we have a so-called “sin nature” being passed on genetically in the same way a genetic defect would be passed on? This goes contrary to all that Jesus taught concerning the source of man’s corruption. In Mark 7, Jesus was explaining that it’s not what goes in and out of the body that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the heart, that is what defiles the man.
And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” (Mark 7:20)
Therefore, its the heart not the body that defiles the man. Consequently, it cannot be physically transmitted from one person to another – period!
Aidan,
OUTSTANDING explanation. I’m dying to interject, by correcting The Apostle Peter, but I can wait. He’s said things that are OUTLANDISH, that even a JEW would laugh at him. Let me know if and when I can interject my 2 cents please.
Ed Chapman
Thanks, Shhhhssh!!
Lol…ok, ok.
AIDEN: Also, any reference to Genesis 5: 1-2 also applies:
Gen 5:1 “This is the book of the generations of Adam (âdâm). In the day that God created man (‘âdâm), in the likeness of God made he him.” NOTE: There is no “he him” in the Hebrew.
Gen 5:2 “Male (zâkâr) and female (neqêbâh) created he them (no he them in Hebrew); and blessed them (no them in Hebrew), and called their name (Hebrew:shêm. No their in this) Adam (‘âdâm), in the day when they were created.(Hebrew: bârâ, no they were in Hebrew)”
Okay, Simon,
I will have a closer look at this today. I’m at work , so my time is limited. But I’ll get back to you in full, hopefully by the end of the day. Sorry about that, but I will work at giving you a full response as soon as I can.
Aidan
Genesis 5:2 KJV
Male H2145 and female H5347 created H1254 he them; and blessed H1288 them, and called H7121 their name H8034 Adam, H120 in the day H3117 when they were created. H1254
Male is H2145
Female is H5347
Created is H1254
Blessed is H1288
Called is H7121
Name is H8034
Adam is H120
Day is H3117
Created is H1254
Now, while Simon is right pertaining to PRONOUNS…
THE WHOLE FREAKING BIBLE IS JUST LIKE THAT, NO PRONOUNS.
So, by the Hebrew, let’s look at the sentence going to OUR ENGLISH.
This is what it states:
Male female created blessed called Adam day created.
OK, so PUT THAT TOGETHER and what does that spell?
So, we take it as the TRANSLATORS already provided FOR US, and leave it as what the English states, BUT, VERIFY with the Jews, because this is THEIR BOOK…HOW DO THE JEWS RENDER IT.
Simon CAN’T TEACH. He doesn’t even KNOW.
Ed Chapman
Bereshis 5:2 Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
2 Zakhar and nekevah He created them; and blessed them, and called the shem of them “Adam,” in the yom when they were created.
Thanks Ed, that will come in handy.
You’re very welcome!
From a JEWISH WEBSITE:
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8169/jewish/Chapter-5.htm
Male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and He named them man (Adam) on the day they were created.
The HEBREW lettering is right next to the English translation.
Ed
Thank you AIDAN, I’d appreciate it if the response could simply relate to details I have written rather than the self styled interruptions from Mr Chapman.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Oh, come on Simon…this is fun! Smile dude.
AIDAN MCMANUS:
Here is my response to the meaning of Romans 7: 9-11.
Romans 7: 9 “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”
Romans 7: 10 “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.”
Romans 7: 11 “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.”
SPS: Verse 9. As a boy, Paul would have come of age about thirteen or so. By that time he would have been considered responsible for his own actions and the keeping of the commandments. Paul considered himself alive and a servant of God well prior to his receiving of Christ as Lord and Saviour, that is until the law was applied to him spiritually rather than externally. When he came of age, he was clearly shocked by his own sin nature and evil impulse when it was ‘revived’. Before that sin lay dormant within him until his study of the law caused him to seek to overcome his human sin. This is confirmed in Romans 7: 8. But the sin became alive and was activated. This again points to sin being a condition within man, not exclusively in the doing. The sin was already alive in Paul.
When he references sin and death it probably alludes to Romans 5: 12-21. It is possible that the reference to him being “deceived” alludes to Genesis 3: 13 where Eve was deceived and thus death entered the world. I deny that the Bible teaches that this death is EXCLUSIVE to a spiritual death. Humans are body, soul and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5: 23)
Q: How did sin “deceive” Paul? If sin was in the doing, how could the doing of something deceive him if that something did not exist until it became actual?
There is nothing in the passage that denies original sin or affirms any claim to the fall of Adam bringing about an exclusively spiritual death. Absolutely nothing.
Hi Simon,
There is something I never actually asked you, namely, what actually is your definition of total hereditary depravity? Would you for example, subscribe to the Westminster Confession of faith’s definition on total depravity, or some other?
Aidan
SIMON,
Romans 7:9-11
“I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”
“The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.”
“For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.”
AIDAN: This passage clearly affirms that Paul
1. was “once alive”
2. Sin “deceived” him
3. Sin “killed” him
Therefore, everything in this passage denies the doctrine of “Total Hereditary Depravity” whereby – all men are said to be born “dead in sin” due to the fall of Adam. Men are not born dead in sin, but truly “alive,” just like Paul.
SPS: “Q: How did sin “deceive” Paul?”
AIDAN:
Answer; “For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.” (Rom. 7:11). That’s all we need to know!
Agreed. One does not have to affirm that man is born corrupt, cursed by God with an inability to know, seek or do what is right by his own causative determinations to acknowledge that all, to one degree or another, sin and fall short of the glory of God.
This is not due to a God-corrupted nature (only he has the power to determine man’s ‘nature’), but due to all men being weak, fleshly, mortal creatures under the curse of death, which provokes within them deep fear and hopelessness. We were made to dwell with God, and until we acknowledge and seek to receive forgiveness and redemption of body and soul, we will remain on a path to destruction.
All that God has done in recorded history has been to teach us these things, that we might know and believe that he is our loving, merciful father who desires to redeem and restore us to all that we were made to be. Praise his holy name!
Support appreciated.
Aidan
Simon,
Didn’t see your reply. Sorry about that. You need to take the final step away from Calvinism and dump the notion of “total depravity”. This idea that people are irrevocably completely bad and incapable of pleasing God is not Biblical. You only get there, as Calvinists do, by ignoring the whole Bible except for Romans and by isolating Romans 1 and “universalizing” what it seems to teach about the human condition. Calvin, Augustine and Luther really damaged Christiandom.
I swallowed the lie of total depravity for years, until I finally came to my senses. Being free of that has enabled me to stay in the Faith.
CARL: hello, I am talking to you now Carl. I will not read or respond to interruptive self styled responses from others who interrupt conversations with their own fallacious statements.
I am not a Calvinist or Arminian but you have said “You need to take the final step away from Calvinism and dump the notion of “total depravity”.
SPS: Comments that are full of assumptions and fallacies are not proof. I believe man is totally depraved, and I do not need Romans to prove that. I am not into Marcionism. The Bible from start to finish affirms that man is a wretch stained with original sin. However, I do not believe in total inability. Man could call upon God for forgiveness and now through Christ can, by Divine intervention receive Salvation. But if man was not totally depraved, what would he have to repent about?
The burden of proof is not on the one who believes something but on the one who doesn’t. So you do not believe that man is sinFULL. Prove it!
Simon Peter,
I HAVE BEEN PROVING IT, But, as you say…
“I will not read or respond to interruptive self styled responses from others who interrupt conversations with their own fallacious statements.”
My response to that:
Sure, buddy!
PROVE that my statements are FALLACIOUS.
Ed Chapman
SPS said: ” I am talking to you now Carl”.
Great. I’m a talking back now.
Start SPS: “The Bible from start to finish affirms that man is a wretch stained with original sin.” End SPS.
Job 1:8. Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
SPS translation: Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? He is a wretch stained by original sin.”
Simon, read the actual Bible, in context, and in whole. Total depravity is not true. All it takes is one valid counterexample and Total Depravity collapses. Job is that counterexample. Proof enough?
I would like to clarify that I don’t think I am going to be continuing further discussions on this website. When I listened to and read articles by Leighton Flowers, they appear reasonable, scholarly legitimate, and honest to both sides of this discussion. However what I am seeing here in the comment sections is equally as extreme as what’s is happening in Extreme Calvinistic circles.
On this website I am seeing that extreme Arminians and extreme Pelagians and semi-cultists are landing upon this debate like vultures and wolves.
Obviously this can happen in any response to any extreme where humans are concerned. Many of the arguments, assumptions and conclusions that are posted IN THE COMMENT SECTIONS of this website are so fallicious and false that I can hardly even comprehend where such notions are coming from let alone debate them. Although I do like to engage with open minded people, when it comes to bigotry, self styled theological positions, new doctrines, situations and reactions that are giving birth to extremes, I simply do not have the time.
If legitimate believers would like to continue discussions with me, it might be better to contact me through my website and if there are any proper Theologians out there who would like to debate me in person, you can. I have no plans to visit America, but I’m sure somethings could be arranged.
S
Simon can’t STOMACH actual bible verses to prove him wrong, that he resorts to using dead people names.
Bye Simon
Now I have a huge appreciation as to why our forefathers left the Church of England! We have freedom of thought here. I don’t think that Simon would give us that liberty.
Simon Peter uses a reference to Romans 5:12-21, yet WON’T quote verse 13.
I’ve seen on MANY Calvinists web sites, that they will reference it like this:
Romans 5:12, 14-21.
THEY DON’T LIKE VERSE 13 AT ALL.
Just like Luther didn’t like the book of James regarding the word WORKS.
So, take it back to THE DAYS OF CHURCH HISTORY when NO ONE but the HIERARCHY had, “THE BOOK”, teaching the peasants, and NOT TEACHING verse 13.
So there is TOTAL DEPRAVITY DEBUNKED in JUST THAT ONE VERSE that they don’t want ya to know.
Ed Chapman
Adam Clarke, a legitimate HISTORIC Arminian scholar on Romans 5:13
“For until the law sin was in the world – As death reigned from Adam to Moses, so also did sin. Now, as there was no written law from Adam to that given to Moses, the death that prevailed could not be the breach of that law; for sin, so as to be punished with temporal death, is not imputed where there is no law, which shows the penalty of sin to be death. Therefore, men are not subjected to death for their own personal transgressions, but for the sin of Adam; as, through his transgression, all come into the world with the seeds of death and corruption in their own nature, superadded to their moral depravity. All are sinful – all are mortal – and all must die.”
Now I have taken those words and I quote them because I agree with them. But aggressive heretics, faultfinders and schismatic cultists do not like quotes from historic persons or correct interpretations of Scripture because the cultists are in fact the enemies of the faith and want to get you to follow new doctrines. They want you to follow them and their false distortions of Scripture so they malign the dead and distort the words of the Apostles to their own destruction (2 Peter 3: 16)
I leave you with that excellent quote from Adam Clarke, to show you how false the modern faulty interpretation of Romans 5: 13 really is.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7: 15
Simon,
Nice of you to respond, but you are still quoting dead people, and not quite getting it that Abraham slept with his sister and was NOT PUNISHED FOR IT, and why? Cuz he didn’t know about it. God talking to him, but never told him about it.
But, we all DIE A natural death, due to the sin of Adam, and THAT is the ONLY THING that was inherited. NOT TOTAL DEPRAVITY.
Ed Chapman
You see, Simon, you are getting natural death confused with spiritual death. Spiritual death is separation from God.
Everyone dies a natural death, but not everyone dies a spiritual death. Hence babies innocent, not depraved, no need of a savior, because God is WITH THEM already.
Now, you may call that heretical, but THAT’S MY STORY AND I’M STICKING TO IT.
Ed Chapman
CHAPMANED24:
Why do you keep trying to reach me with your misconceptions? Do you honestly think you could persuade me to believe your misinterpretations of Scripture?
The Greek words that Paul uses are “apothnēskō” (Romans 5: 15) meaning death, to be slain. This a physical reference. The Greek word Paul uses in Romans 5: 14 is “thanatos” and means death. It is used nearly 120 times and this includes references to death by execution, including Christ’s own death on the cross. In other places it is used to refer to eternal judgement. It is used to communicate that death is a consequence of the fall. Romans 5: 12, 16: 6, 1 Corinthians 15: 21, 2 Corinthians 3: 7, 7: 10, all refer to this death in both the spiritual and literal physical.
If your application of “thanatos” were applied to other passages of Scripture, including Matthew 20: 18, 26: 66, Mark 10 33, Luke 24: 20, Acts 13: 28, John 12: 33, 18: 32, you would be denying that Jesus died a physical death.
You are free to go on with your comments, and misconceptions, but you will never convince me of them.
Simon,
THAT’S MY STORY, AND I’M STICKING TO IT.
WHAT SIN COULD ABRAHAM BE ACCUSED OF?
Where did all those sinners go after they died? Where did Abraham go? Where did Samuel go? etc.
Samuel was UNDER THE LAW. Where did he go? Abraham was not under the law. Where did he go?
Ed Chapman
Simon,
Taking Romans 5:13 into consideration, can you tell me what sin that Abraham would be accused of?
We know his sin, and that he was indeed a sinner, for all have sinned.
BUT, taking Romans 5:13, and Romans 4:15 into account, what sin could Abraham be accused of, where the charge would STICK for JUDGEMENT?
Ed Chapman
John Wesley, a legitimate HISTORIC Christian, on Romans 5: 13
“For until the law sin was in the world – All, I say, had sinned, for sin was in the world long before the written law; but, I grant, sin is not so much imputed, nor so severely punished by God, where there is no express law to convince men of it. Yet that all had sinned, even then, appears in that all died.”
I love quoting dead people, because in reality, if they truly believed in Jesus Christ, they are not dead at all. God is not the God of the dead but of the living (Mark 12: 26-27) Likewise, I love quoting Scripture because it was written down by dead people, but in reality, they are not really dead, they live and reign with Christ.
Simon Peter,
One thing that you guys keep missing is that TREE OF LIFE that Adam didn’t eat from, and that God had to block that tree so that Adam would NOT get eternal life (of the body) in a FALLEN (spiritual death) state.
There is a difference between the DEATHS and LIFE’s of those two trees.
ONE pertains to the BODY ONLY (Tree of Life), the other pertains to SPIRITUAL DEATH, the one that Adam ate from.
He STILL could have gotten eternal life of the body from that tree of life, had God not blocked it.
AND, in dissecting 1 Cor 15:36 to the end of that chapter, we learn that ADAM WAS GONNA DIE A NATURAL DEATH ANYWAY, and why? Cuz he never ate of the Tree of LIFE (WHICH PERTAINS TO THE BODY)
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman,
There you go again. What nonsense. You say Adam “never ate of the Tree of LIFE (WHICH PERTAINS TO THE BODY)” What total an utter nonsense.
In Genesis 2: 16 “the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”. You faulty interpretation of Scripture assumes that they were already dying and needed to tree of life in order to live. That is totally false. Death was a punishment for sin (Genesis 2: 17), and they hadn’t sinned yet,
I do not accept your claim that this death was exclusively spiritual. The Hebrew “mûth” in Genesis 2: 17 means a dead body, to be killed. It is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to physical death.
Sir, you are spreading false teaching and you will be held to account for it.
It’s not nonsense:
Genesis 3:22
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
1 Cor 15:42-46
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
ED CHAPMAN, I’m done with you. Titus 3: 10. Farewell.
Ed
Ed I deleted the comments about theologian ignorance
It moves over too far into getting personal
br. d,
Ok. No prob. I understand.
Ed Chapman
Well, Simon, there ya go again, not knowing what RIGHTEOUSNESS is all about. There are TWO branches to righteousness.
You are the reason that I don’t like theologians. You people can take something that is SO SIMPLE and turn it upside down into something that is a BURDEN to people, instead of FREEDOM.
Branches of Righteousness:
1. The law of Moses
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
Exodus 24:3
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.
or
2. Faith (and it doesn’t say CHRIST in that either…Abraham BELIEVED GOD).
Nothing about RIGHTEOUS ACTIONS at all, let alone proceeding faith.
Actions is deeds, deeds is “do”, do is WORKS, and WORKS is only “OF” the law of Moses. ONLY. The Law of Moses is SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and THAT is the ONLY context of FILTHY RAGS.
YOUR OWN faith is NOT a deed, it’s not works, it’s not self righteousness, it’s not filthy rags.
The choice is simple:
Believe and BOOM, saved, or,
Earn your way by obeying the law of Moses.
Both means is a road to righteousness, but ONE OF THOSE ROADS has twists and turns that will make sure that you will never get there, because you will CRASH AND BURN before you get to the finish line. That road is called THE LAW OF MOSES, which is SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, FILTHY RAGS, DO, DEEDS, WORKS (AND BY THE WAY, GOOD DO’S (GOOD DEEDS) IS A SEPARATE ISSUE, NOT RELATED, BECAUSE GOOD DEEDS IS NOT OF THE LAW OF MOSES).
But you MAKE IT DIFFICULT by your dead people doctrines.
All we are asked to do is to believe, and NONE OF THAT is IMPUTED.
GET AWAY FROM THE NOTION THAT MANKIND (ADAM) IS GOD HATERS. Your religion is weird.
I’m not a pelican (or half breed), or an artesian, or any of those STRANGE NAMES that you people come up with over there. All I do is READ and study ONE BOOK.
You didn’t even know that God named BOTH ADAM AND EVE, ADAM. It’s the SAME word used for MAN, and the HEBREW DEFINITION is RED, RUDDY, pertaining to THE EARTH, DIRT, TO INDICATE WHAT KIND OF BODY THEY ARE *(CALLED NATURAL BODY IN 1 COR 15, WHICH CAME FIRST).
You, however suggest that Adam was ALREADY IN AN ETERNAL BODY, and that he lost it by his sin. NO, I suggest by 1 Cor 15, that he never OBTAINED eternal life.
But, you call it nonsense. I scoff at thee!!
Call me BEREAN. They didn’t believe what was told to them. They had to SEEK IT OUT to VERIFY! Well, that’s me.
My sarcasm is HARMLESS, so I’d buy you an expensive dinner somewhere and we’d have FUN at this, TRUST ME!
Ed Chapman
CARL: you wrote;
“Job 1:8. Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
SPS translation: Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? He is a wretch stained by original sin.”
Simon, read the actual Bible, in context, and in whole. Total depravity is not true. All it takes is one valid counterexample and Total Depravity collapses. Job is that counterexample. Proof enough?”
SPS: Job was declared righteous by God not because Job was good, but because he believed in the Lord, his righteousness was of God. Righteous actions proceed faith, there is none righteous outside of Christ. The fruit that grows on a tree does not make the tree good or bad, it merely makes it known to men whether tree is a good tree or a bad tree.
CARL: “Simon, read the actual Bible, in context, and in whole”
SPS: Absolutely!!!! That’s why I’m not a Pelagian.
OK. Here is what the Bible says:
Job 1:8. Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.
Here is what SPS thinks it says:
Job was declared righteous by God not because Job was good, but because he believed in the Lord, his righteousness was of God. Righteous actions proceed faith, there is none righteous outside of Christ.
Let’s see the SPS additions: (in parenthesis)
Job 1:8. Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him (not really, he is just a wretch, totally depraved like everybody else); (I have declared) he is blameless and upright,(not because he is actually blameless and upright) a man who fears God and shuns evil.(Not that he actually fears me or shuns evil)
Can you see, Simon, how your theological framework utterly destroys the plain meaning of this verse?
CARL: No. I cannot see any of my conclusions are drawn from a framework. I disagree with you entirely. You are actually affirming the same line of reasoning that I affirm concerning sin, only the total opposite. You are clearly affirming that some people are good, and some bad, or that man is not totally depraved and thus because of that, he can do good or bad. Yet you deny my claims when I say the same thing about mans ability to sin being in his nature.
You are affirming a very similar thing as I claim concerning the total depravity of man. I say this because you are assuming that man is good or part good or not totally depraved because Job was declared righteous by God, and did no wrong. But you assume the fruit makes a person good in the first place. Yet why do you not believe me what I say that the depraved nature causes a person to do actual sin.
You are contradicting yourself with your own theology.
Simon,
Have you actually read Pelagius?
Most of what we think we know about what he taught is from Augustine’s criticisms.
Augustine. Not the most trustworthy source.
That Pelagian insult is one commonly used by Calvinists to condemn those they disagree with. Mostly used by folks who have absolutely no idea what Pelagius actually taught.
CARL: “Have you actually read Pelagius?
Most of what we think we know about what he taught is from Augustine’s criticisms.”
SPS: I actually agree with your premise there. I have previously stated that too many critics of Pelagius have never read him but view him through the eyes of Augustine. You can probably find my PREVIOUS statement concerning that on this website.
However, to answer your question, the answer is yes. I have the works of Pelagius and I have read them. Though not much survives, the works I have are in letters.
I also agree with you on Augustine. I don’t think he was a very strong Theologian by any means. I actually find him very inconsistent.
ADMIN:
I am getting disinterested and jaded by the self styled interruptions from Mr Ed Chapman.
If I leave a reply or comment to a certain person, or persons, I see his instant self styled responses as inappropriate distractions.
I appreciate that anyone is free to leave comments, as is their human right. But I find his comments against me accusatory, unlearned and confused and unhelpful to the discussion. A vast majority of his arguments have very little weight or accuracy to them. I have already cut him off because of he has been propagating Pelagianism and yet he refuses to respect my wishes.
In my opinion, Mr Chapman displays a textual bad attitude. He also uses gas-lighting (contrary to the article in question). He makes too many assertions such as “read the Bible” etc, as though anyone who disagrees with him does not know the Bible. This is total nonsense. Biblical scholars have disagreed with each other and debated these doctrines for centuries. Disagreement over Biblical interpretation does not imply ignorance of the text. But Mr Chapman appears to assert his reasoning as though his reasoning is Scripture itself. It is not. Interpretation is not Biblical Inerrancy. A singular position concerning a dichotomy is not proof either way. Yet Mr Chapman appears to be using bullying tactics to destroy anyone who disagrees with his beliefs.
Obviously I see this type of thing regularly and it is not a way forward.
In my defense, I do not tell lies here at all, even if I get accused of it. I go after Simon because he is a Theologian, who asserts himself as an expert, and I find that he is not teaching things from the bible, but by the dead people philosophy, and he has many beliefs that the Calvinists do, even tho his is not.
So, my interjections to his TEACHINGS is to counter the current Calvinist doctrines of total depravity, therefore, I believe that my interjections are warranted, as this blog is about soteriology.
That stated, I will BOW OUT until Simon LEAVES, like he said he was gonna!
Ed Chapman
AIDAN MCMANUS: I would like to further add that concerning your disagreeing with my understanding of the intended meaning of the author of Genesis, that is in relation to the creation of man, being Adam, I would add that regardless of how you look at the Hebrew, the reference to God creating man on the sixth day, is about one man, Adam. God did not create any man other than Adam on that day. There were only two human beings that live in Eden and that was Adam and the woman. The rest of humanity began to be born after the fall, not before. Genesis 3: 20 is very clear that Eve was the mother of all living. Genesis 4: 1 is very clear that the first humans that were born of woman came from Eve, Cain first, then Abel.
The entire human race came from two persons, namely Eve as mother, of the seed of Adam. But you cannot deny that humans conceived by natural means came after the fall. Adam was not born of woman and neither was Eve. Cain was the first human to be born of woman and it didn’t take him long to murder his brother.
Sounds like a real nice good guy doesn’t he. Or maybe his ‘free-will’ availed nothing but to sin.
SPS: “I would add that regardless of how you look at the Hebrew, the reference to God creating man on the sixth day, is about one man, Adam. God did not create any man other than Adam on that day. There were only two human beings that live in Eden and that was Adam and the woman. The rest of humanity began to be born after the fall, not before. Genesis 3: 20 is very clear that Eve was the mother of all living. Genesis 4: 1 is very clear that the first humans that were born of woman came from Eve, Cain first, then Abel.”
AIDAN: The issue is not over whether or not God only created one man Adam, and then Eve in the beginning. It’s over whether male and female refer to the same generic term for man. Which then has a bearing on whether or not women are also made in the image of God.
To support this view, we have a biblical commentary in Genesis 5 on what occurred in the day that God created Adam and Eve, confirming that both male and female is the generic term for “Man” in Genesis 1.
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.” (Gen. 5:1-2) All the translations pretty much say the same thing, including the Tanach.
Notice that He says, “He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.” And so, here we have in the day when God created Adam and Eve, that the term “Man” was being used to refer to both male and female alike. Thus, in the day when “God created man” He created man “male and female.” But lets not forget that we were told that “God created man in His own image.”
“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man. (Gen 9:6)
If only men are made in the image of God and not women, then it follows that taking a woman’s life carries no such punishment? Sounds like a free for all to me.
“With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;” (James 3:9) If this doesn’t apply to women, then it follows that its okay to curse women, since they have not been made in the likeness of God! If not, why not? So we can see the implications here. If women are not made in the image of God, what prevents people from mistreating them, cursing them, and even killing them without any serious retribution from God? Perhaps, that attitude explains a lot that has happened to women over the ages. But its certainly not the way that Jesus treated them!
It was man’s spirit, not his body, that was made in God’s image. For God is spirit (John 4:24) and has no body (Luke 24:39). Adam is only the father of our flesh. While we inherit our flesh from him, our spirits come immediately to us from God. He is the “Father of spirits” (Heb.12:9); He, “forms the spirit of man within him” (Zechariah 12:1): “And the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). If it is true, as Calvinists teach, that each is born spiritually dead, totally depraved in nature, then they came that way directly from God.
I have no time for prejudice. None of those texts have disproved anything I have written. I’ll leave it with any unbiased readers to see how unconvincing your responses are. You have made your own reasoning Scripture. You are equally prejudice against Calvinism as Calvinists are against Arminianism and this zeal is blinding you to the truth. If one iota of Scripture implies there is any truth in Calvinism you are ready to pounce upon it and formulate an argument against it.
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that God created the world, that Jesus Christ was born of the virgin, lived, healed people, raised the dead, was crucified under Pontus Pilate, died and was buried and rose again on the third day. That He will one day return to judge the quick and the dead. That by believing in Him we are forgiven of our sin. That faith alone is sufficient to save.
People are not saved by doctrine but by faith in Jesus Christ. Faith the size of a mustard seed is sufficient to move mountains.
Jesus said “the truth will set you free”. You are not free, you are inwardly hellbent on shooting at your own food. You cut down the tree because you have an axe to grind. So perhaps if I get out of the way, the tree might fall in the opposite direction.
Simon said:
“None of those texts have disproved anything I have written.”
My response:
Actually, yes, they do.
Genesis Chapter 1 is about CREATION OF SPIRITS, Genesis Chapter 2 is about formation of DIRT BODY.
There is PROOF if you would notice a difference in the ORDER OF EVENTS between the 2 chapters.
Were animals created before man? If so, why were animals NOT ON THIS PLANET until AFTER Adam was FORMED of the dirt?
Ya need to DISSECT THAT, because Aidan is RIGHT by mentioning SPIRITS CREATED, BODIES FORMED. Spirits exist before body formed. That’s common sense reasoning from the scriptures.
Ed Chapman
SPS: “I have no time for prejudice. None of those texts have disproved anything I have written. You are equally prejudice against Calvinism as Calvinists are against Arminianism and this zeal is blinding you to the truth. If one iota of Scripture implies there is any truth in Calvinism you are ready to pounce upon it and formulate an argument against it.”
AIDAN: Simon, you and I began a discussion on whether the scriptures teach “total hereditary depravity.” You claim that that’s what the bible teaches, therefore, the burden of proof falls on you to prove it. So far, you haven’t presented any scripture that teaches such, except to assume it in the first place, and then proceed to build your doctrine on that basis? I’m sorry, but you can’t do that! That’s what the bible would call “presumptuous.”
And, you are being presumptuous! First of all, you call me prejudiced, where have I been prejudiced here? Bear witness of the prejudice in our conversation! And are you not being presumptuous when you accuse me of having a zealous prejudice against Calvinism? And you also seem to think that I have some sort of affiliation with Arminianism? I have little to no knowledge of either! Much of what I’ve learnt about Calvinism comes from people on this site, over the past several months. Some of whom have come out of Calvinism, therefore, I defer to their experience and knowledge on the matter. I know even less of Arminianism, never studied it. So, contrary to your assertions, I have no axe to grind against Calvinism, nor on either side of that debate between these two groups.
In fact, people will bear witness here that I have argued, if not vehemently, against many here on both sides of that divide. Personally, I find Calvinism a depraved doctrine, and horrendous to say the least. Do I believe that they are teaching the truth about salvation, or the God of the bible? No! I believe that what are teaching, is not the gospel, but a perverted gospel. Therefore, the only axe I have to grind, is the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; so that, in regards to the gospel, people might be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
I would just insert here, as a commenter who might appear to ‘have an axe to grind’ that my issues with Calvinism are far from a concern over doctrine for the sake of intellectual pursuits. My experience included over a decade within the Reformed framework, and the great harm I saw to my faith, my family and so many I know and love, are too lengthy to set forth.
For me, it is not simply a matter of being concerned about adhering to the right theology or creeds. I have left behind the necessity of being orthodox, or aligning myself with the traditions of men. My concern is with people, not doctrines. Having grappled with the logical conclusions of ‘theories’ I once was led to believe were unquestionable, I no longer bow my knee to the authority of men and institutions. Yes, that puts me in with the many ‘heretics’ who were cruelly, tortuously murdered for not submitting to the ‘official’ teachings of the so-called Church. It is my considered opinion that it is more likely the martyrs who were faithful to Christ than their murderers.
The Institutional Church is all about the institution. Repeated political, financial and moral scandals have plagued her many incarnations, lending the sincere believer to doubt the credibility of the institution and those who would defend her at any cost.
No, I do not believe the Body Christ initiated and promised to preserve has anything to do with institutions built by and for men. Those who love God, and seek to follow his will, will remain upon this earth in many forms and places until their blessed Lord and Savior returns. They will not be judged upon how faithfully they adhered to the creeds and confessions of men. The many who died martyrs will meet their Lord in the sky, and be evidence to the guilt of their torturers, however highly revered by men.
I do not for a second presume to understand the whole of history, nor have the ‘right’ interpretation of all of scripture, any more than I believe any institution can rightly claim. But at least I do not, upon self-claimed authority, seek to force my beliefs and ideas upon others, rather than allowing them to seek and follow the leading of the Spirit of God, promised to comfort and guide them.
I would strongly encourage all to believe that God is good, loving, faithful and true. That he is, and always has been, pursuing the good and best interests of all of his creation. That evil is the resistance to his will, not a necessary condition to revealing his so-called glory.
The last thirty years I have poured myself into shepherding my own little flock, along with caring for those in my former church and community. As that period of my life draws to a close, I seek other ways to point those who are oppressed, abused, hurting and needy, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, to the one who will quench that thirst once and for all.
I will, unflinchingly, condemn any doctrine that blasphemes the character and name of God, whether it arises from an individual or a well-regarded institution. Any gospel that withholds the hope of salvation from any man rightly deserves to be condemned, and loudly so.
In my opinion, Calvinism, and any institution that teaches determinism and its requisite Total Depravity, fall well within that scope. Both wrongly make God the initiator and cause of all evil, and, in many cases, the deliberate with-holder of hope and life. He is neither, but the light and the life of the world, to whosoever will believe.
TSOO,
Well said, and so eloquently put.
You have a gift for speaking.
Aidan, you are too kind. If I have any gift, it is from God. I tend to think it is just the desire to share my heart, for the sake of helping others see the God who is so amazingly all that we could ever desire or need.
Well, I pray that God will continue to bless and guide you on your continued search for Him.
This is addressed to NO ONE, so please DON’T READ THIS, especially those who don’t want to read what I say.
Strong’s CONCORDANCE
I won’t read it,
Signed…. NO ONE!
You crack me up, Ed. Even when I disagree with you, I can always count on you for a good belly laugh, and for remaining good-natured about disagreements ! And I do agree with some things you share – just not all. But that’s okay. There are many things I once believed that I now see entirely differently, and I still tolerate myself. 😉 As long as we stay humble and teachable, we will continue to learn and grow.
TS00,
Thanks TS00. My charming sarcastic humor personality at work. It’s not exactly that I want people to believe what I believe, I just want people to rediscover the bible again, and make their own decisions. I’m not here to make a decision FOR YOU. That’s between you and God.
Earlier I read what you said regarding the word ORTHODOX. I could not agree more, and was going to lay my sarcasm on the table when Simon mentioned it, but decided to hold off, cuz I know he’s probably a bit mad at me at the moment, but you are right. People need to wake up to the fact that Orthodox was WRONG in many many many things, VITAL things.
Not only that, Orthodox was a THEOCRACY (CHURCH AND STATE), and our forefathers departed the Church of England, and had many grievances with them. Many of those who came here from the Church of England (not all were Puritins), thought that the Church of England PERVERTED the Word of God with CORRUPTIONS. So, if you weren’t in LOCK STEP with Simon’s beliefs, you were PUNISHED in one way, or another.
I had an extreme interest to interject myself against Simon, regardless of who he ONLY WANTED to direct his conversation with.
Making your own decisions is NOT EXACTLY in the manner of speaking, THE REFORM WAY. They make decisions FOR YOU, and you must adhere to what they say, or face the consequences.
And ya know what? I’m NOT down with that.
The things that I post here, ,are from my own discovery, long before I even knew that the word REFORM even existed. Some Reform non-Calvinists here probably think I’m some kind of heretic, let alone Calvinists like rhutchin.
But, if you dissect the bible, you will discover things that you have NEVER SEEN before, and be amazed, and say, “WOW, LOOK WHAT I DISCOVERED!”.
I will never get behind the marching orders of CHURCH FATHERS, or CHURCH HISTORY, or any hierarchy organized religion, and ya know what? I was NEVER ANY OF THOSE to begin with, thank God.
I’ve NEVER like ORGAN-IZED region in the first place. I like GUITAR-ized, and DRUM-ized religion, VAN HALEN style!
I had NO IDEA what a protestant was when I was a kid. When I first heard that word, I was like, “WHAT’S A PROTESTANT?”
When I joined the Navy, I had to fill out a religious preference form. The word CHRISTIAN was NOT THERE. Among the religions of the world, I saw the word Catholic. I saw the word Protestant. But I didn’t see the word CHRISTIAN, and the final choice was, NO RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE. So I chose that one since CHRISTIAN was NOT A CHOICE.
I had NO IDEA that there was SEVERAL SECTS (denominations). I’m like, WHERE DO CHRISTIANS GO TO CHURCH? I see a PRESBYTERIAN church, a Nazarene Church. But I’m not a Presbyterian, or a Nazarene. I am a Christian.
So, I had some BIBLE ALONE studying to do. And my conclusions are with many in Christendom outside of reform, and i am open to learning MORE SPIRITUAL stuff, not doctrines, not rituals, etc.
Ed Chapman
STRONG’S CONCORDANCE H120 ADAM
THE FOLLOWING ALL HAVE A LINK TO THE ROOT OF H119, SO PLEASE READ H119, AND THE REST.
Result of search for “H119”:
H119 ‘adam aw-dam’ to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:–be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
H120 ‘adam aw-dawm’ from H119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):–X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
H122 ‘adom aw-dome’ from H119; rosy:–red, ruddy. 124 ‘odem o’-dem from 119; redness, i.e. the ruby, garnet, or some other red gem:–sardius.
H125 ‘adamdam ad-am-dawm’ reduplicated from H119; reddish:–(somewhat) reddish. 127 ‘adamah ad-aw-maw’ from 119; soil (from its general redness):–country, earth, ground, husband(-man) (-ry), land.
H132 ‘admoniy ad-mo-nee’ or (fully) admowniy {ad-mo-nee’}; from 119; reddish (of the hair or the complexion):–red, ruddy.
1818 dam dawm from 1826 (Compare 119); blood (as that which when shed causes death) of man or an animal; by analogy, the juice of the grape; figuratively (especially in the plural) bloodshed (i.e. drops of blood):–blood(-y, -guiltiness, (-thirsty), + innocent.
————————————-
BOTTOM LINE, BLOOD….
THE ROOT OF ADAM IS BLOOD. THE ROOT OF MAN IS BLOOD.
To give a little BRITISH humor, “it’s a bloody human!”
MAGOO! Ya done it again!!
Or is it,….”OH! MAGOO! Ya done it again.”
That’s the ticket!! I loved that show!
OH! YOU WASKITTY WABBIT!! I’m going to knock it off now, its 03:06 am here in the MOWNING!!!!
Oh wow. It’s 7 pm here, and I’m out too. Gotta leave for work at 3 am tomorrow.
AIDAN MCMANUS: in my last comment I addressed it to no one by name. It is you who assume.
I think it’s probably best to agree to disagree on all this. The Bible is very clear that because of the fall, man is not good. Jesus Himself said that no one is good but God alone. He ought to know, He made Adam and the woman and He was there when it happened.
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.” Mark 10: 18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone” Luke 18: 19
Sorry Simon, but your response came to my email as a response to me. So what would make me think that you were addressing me with those comments? I attacked no one, but responded to you with respect, and in a civil manner. If your beef is with someone else, that’s between you and him, why would you personally respond to my post with it? If those comments have nothing to do with our debate, why bring them in to our discussion? I might not have an answer for everything you say, nor you with mine, and I might have some strong words to say against your doctrine, but my goal will always be to treat you with respect no matter what.
SPS: “Jesus Himself said that no one is good but God alone. “No one is good–except God alone.” Mark 10: 18
AIDAN: You are right in quoting Jesus, “No one is good–except God alone.” Mark 10: 18. But I believe you are wrong in its application. The reason the bible gives for no one being good, is because “all have turned away from God, all have sinned.” That’s a lot different from saying that ” all are born separated from God, all are born depraved sinners.” They are two completely different statements altogether! The former being what the bible actually says, the latter being what the doctrine of inherited total depravity teaches.
This Doctrine is unscriptural because…,
1: It has infants possessing a nature that is as evil as the devil’s!
2: It does not allow men to grow any worse in the scale of moral turpitude!
3: It is based on the false doctrine that the sins of the father can be passed on to his sons!
4: It paints a picture of children that is contrary to the word of God!
5: It teaches that since the fall of Adam all men are born dead in sin!
6: It teaches that men are so depraved at birth they are unable to choose right!
7: It teaches that man is not made in the image of God!
8: It limits the power of God!
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one (Psalms 14:2-3)
Yes, “No one is good”: But its not because they come from God that way, it’s because, as the scriptures say, they – turn aside and become that way.
Ah, Simon. All becomes clear.
I see the root of our disagreement.
I very much read Bible verses in context. In conversation and writing, very few statements can be pried from their context, taken as broad universal metaphysical statements, and retain their original meaning. Take a letter you have written, isolate each sentence and apply it universally as a broad metaphysical law. This can be very amusing and eye opening.
This is something people do with Bible verses. Calvinists myopically focus on doing this with the letter to the Romans. They see every isolated sentence as a grand metaphysical statement that applies universally. This causes great difficulty with books like Job, which do not fit well into the Romans theological framework without an incredible amount of twisting and reinterpretation.
Our approach is so different that we will never have agreement.
I wish you well, Simon. May you break free from the prison of reformation theology!
“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is SIN LIVING IN ME. For I know that GOOD ITSELF DOES NOT DWELL IN ME, that is, IN MY SINFUL NATURE. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is SIN LIVING IN ME that does it.” Romans 7: 14-20.
Amen Paul.
Simon,
Please! There is a context that you ignore. Paul has KNOWLEDGE of sin IN him, and no matter what, that KNOWLEDGE can’t leave him, so he is showing that he still sins in the flesh, but thanks God for being saved in the spirit, hence, ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED (1 JOHN 3:9 as opposed to 1 John 3:4).
I wish people in the reform world would read, THE REST OF THE STORY!
MY GOODNESS!
ED
Simon,
In your Romans 7 reference, please note Paul’s words, “It is no longer I who do it”
No longer.
Your use of the word DORMANT is in error, as well, as the chapter begins by giving an example of a dead spouse, not a dormant one. That is the use of the word dead.
We are dead to sin, alive to Christ. Even when we sin in the flesh, we are still dead to sin, not dormant to sin.
You and I have a difference in opinion regarding death in Genesis. But Paul states that once he got KNOWLEDGE of the law, he died. Past tense, not future tense.
That is spiritual death, no matter how much you want to teach me, with me being your student, the definition of died.
Ed Chapman
So here we go again. Now the [other participant] is usurping the false doctrine of OSAS and believes in free will at the same time. It gets worse every minute. If you have free will then you cannot be once saved always saved, or you have no freedom to apostatise.
Adios.
Simon,
I removed the text in this post which describes another participant here in Ad hominem terms.
BRDMOD: that’s fine. I’m done with this. You can remove my comments altogether if you wish. I see no point my continuing to discuss anything further with some of the other participants here. From my perspective the opposing claims are far too confused and unorthodox and very far away from the original Scriptural authors intended meaning for my to deal with at the present time.
Talk again sometime.
Thanks Simon,
I won’t bother to do that
I know that dialogs can get frustrating – its part of the environment. :-]
TO WHOM IT CONCERNS:
This came to me from a friend . It’s called, “Road Signs to Help You Reach Your Destination Safely!”
One road sign you’ll often see while driving is ‘SLOW’.
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. (James 1:19-20)
PROCEED SLOWLY
The often quoted saying, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread,” is from AN ESSAY ON CRITICISM by Alexander Pope in 1709. And there are several verses in the Book of Proverbs that point out the foolishness of being in a hurry without due regard for inevitable consequences.
He who is slow to anger has great understanding, But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly. (Proverbs 14:29)
A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, But the slow to anger calms a dispute. (Proverbs 15:18)
He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city. (Proverbs 16:32)
A man’s discretion makes him slow to anger, And it is his glory to overlook a transgression. (Proverbs 19:11)
BE LIKE HIM
The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness. (Psalm 103:8)
Nice post Aidan! :-]
My pleasure Br.d.
Thanks for that helpful reminder. I still have a long way to go in learning to be slow to speak.
TS00, and Aidan,
Yes, I need that reminder, too. BUT…
On the other hand…
Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled;
Acts 9:29
And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Acts 19:8
And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
People may not realize it, but the Apostle Paul used some serious sarcasm in 2 Corinthians chapters 11. Read it from the NIVR version to get a better understanding.
In that, you will see the discussion of Eve being the one tricked by Satan, and so Paul is taking to both MALE AND FEMALE here in LIKEWISE manner, NOT JUST TO THE FEMALE. But you will see the Apostle Paul’s continued sarcasm regarding BOASTING (from the KJV), bragging from the NIVR version.
As soon as Simon began speaking about Adam and Eve, making Eve to be practically LESS THAN NOTHING but a TOY to Adam, I had to interject BOLDLY, without remorse, and put things in order, and Aidan did a GREAT GREAT JOB at continuing that segment.
Reformers are abusive in the regard to women, and I see it on the spiritual abuse blogs, and it gets CRIMINALLY out of hand.
So, sometimes, slow to speak is not always the appropriate way, but BOLDNESS is needed with the SWORD (of the Spirit).
Ed Chapman
Ed, I do agree with your comments on boldness as well. I once did battle with my own self, desiring to be other than I fundamentally am. My ‘gifts’ of wit, quick thinking, did tend to express themselves in such manners as sarcasm. For a good many years, particularly when my children were young, I suppressed that. My desire was to be slow to wrath, gentle in speech and an example of treating people with kindness and respect.
I have aged a bit, and am learning once again to be comfortable in my own skin, while ever more deeply desiring to be conformed to the image of Jesus, my savior and Lord. My parents, background, social status, etc., which contributed much to my personality, were not of my choosing. There are many learned behaviors I have chosen to eliminate. Yet, overall, I am who I am, and as long as I am governed by love and self control, I believe I have a wide range of freedom to be the individual that I alone am in this world.
In my family I was the bold one, the stand up to the bully one – even when the bully was my own father. I used my ‘gift’ of quick wit to entertain and distract my younger siblings when things got out of hand at home. I suspect that the gifts with which I have been endowed, while requiring judicious use, are nonetheless the ones through which I will best be able to serve God and others. I seek to use them wisely and, yes, boldly, for the good of others, rather than in pleasing my self. A tall order I do not always manage, but certainly my goal.
Yep, we are both growing in wisdom on how to deal with things. I think (think), slow to anger, slow to speak, is in regards to those you mentor, rather than those you oppose in doctrines. There is a time and place for our anger. Be ye angry and sin not. Don’t go to bed in your anger. It’s ok to be angry. It’s what ya do in the interim of being angry, and cool off before ya go to bed, so you get a good nights rest, not having a sleepless night.
Ed Chapman
Getting back to the word ADAM/MAN, and it’s root being related to BLOOD, you will see that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God *(1 Cor 15), and that NATURAL DYING BODIES came first, not a spiritual body that does not die, which is FURTHER evidence against Original Sin, in that the body of Adam was gonna die a NATURAL death whether he ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE or not, and the ONLY WAY that he would have OBTAINED eternal life, was from the tree that REFORMERS do not talk about, THE TREE OF LIFE.
Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil is SPIRITUAL DEATH, not physical death.
Romans 7 lays it all out. 1 John 3:4, and Romans 7, and Romans 3:20 shows us that the…
LAW OF MOSES is THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL for EACH individual, and…NOT EVERYONE HAS THAT KNOWLEDGE, so, even tho FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, not all have died a spiritual death, but we did INHERIT natural death.
Conclusion:
Everyone dies a natural death, as THAT is THE inheritance that we all received from Adam
but…
NOT ALL HAVE DIED A SPIRITUAL DEATH! But…
Those who HAVE, must be BORN AGAIN, and those BORN OF GOD…1 JOHN 3:9
This stuff is SO SIMPLE, but reformers make it so hard. They may talk about how Christ sets us free, but they sure don’t preach FREEDOM at all. It’s still about DO DO DO DO DO…the law of Moses.
Ed Chapman
My belief in OSAS has NOTHING TO DO with Calvinist doctrines, or anyone else’s doctrines for that matter. DEAD TO SIN, ALIVE TO CHRIST, once you learn that, and keep that as a starting point, and realizing Hebrews 11:1, BROKEN DOWN TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, you will see what FAITH really is.
It’s:
KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GONNA GET WHAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR.
If you doubt, then you have NO FAITH.
It’s NOT about, PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
The book of Revelation discusses the word OVERCOME. Well, in John’s OTHER epistles, we see that we have ALREADY overcome, so it’s not some FUTURE thing. It’s already a DONE DEAL.
The SEAL of the Holy Spirit is THE DONE DEAL.
Simon, coming from the CHURCH OF ENGLAND should KNOW what the word, SEAL is all about. A Kings SEAL cannot be broken. We learn about this in the book of Esther.
We have the Kings SEAL. It’s called, the Holy Spirit. It’s a DONE DEAL.
Ed Chapman
TO WHOM IT CONCERNS, (From a friend to friends and enemies alike)
DRIVE FRIENDLY
Highway signs along the roads in Texas read: “Drive Friendly.” (Friendly defined: favorably disposed; not antagonistic; amicable.) One may obey the rules of the road out of obligation. (The law requires consideration of other drivers.) However, this sign encourages consideration
based on relationship, not obligation. There is a lesson here in our dealing with other people, not only on the roads, but in everyday life. One may consider others out of obligation (compelled: “have to”). However, the Scriptures teach that our consideration of others should be based on relationship. In living with others, and before God, it takes more than right actions. It takes the right attitude: “love” combined with “law.”
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
(1 Corinthians 13:3)
James sums it up well: If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. (James 2:8)
Live friendly!
That’s me above “incognito again”!! Shsssh! Tell no one.
FROM A FRIEND, TO FRIENDS AND ENEMIES ALIKE:
DRIVE FRIENDLY
Highway signs along the roads in Texas read: “Drive Friendly.” (Friendly defined: favorably disposed; not antagonistic; amicable.) One may obey the rules of the road out of obligation. (The law requires consideration of other drivers.) However, this sign encourages consideration based on relationship, not obligation. There is a lesson here in our dealing with other people, not only on the roads, but in everyday life.
One may consider others out of obligation (compelled: “have to”). However, the Scriptures teach that our consideration of others should be based on relationship. In living with others, and before God, it takes more than right actions. It takes the right attitude: “love” combined with “law.”
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
(1 Corinthians 13:3)
James sums it up well: If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. (James 2:8)
Live friendly!
Aidan,
We have road rage here in America! For us to be friendly would mean that the STATE needs to widen the roads a bit! LOL. Otherwise, we see a lot of middle fingers on the road…and it’s not for the purpose of pushing up your glasses on your nose.
Just kidding. I get it!
Ed
Yeah! I remember an old cartoon years ago, where the this little skinny, mild tempered guy is coming out of his house down the pathway to his car. And you have a voice commentating on how gentle and mild tempered he is, who wouldn’t hurt a fly – as the guy walks around a little bug to avoid stepping on it. And then he gets into his car and transforms into the devil, a complete raving lunatic, yelling at people and beeping the horn! Then, when he gets back home and gets out of the car, he transforms back into Mr. ‘mild and gentle’ again.
Very funny! But so true with many of us as soon as we get into a car. We don’t see people behaving that way when they are walking through the mall. But as soon they get into their cars, its like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!
And a happy New Year!
Aidan,
By the way, I’m a FLAGGER. I carry a paddle with the word SLOW on one side, and STOP on the other. DRIVERS are CRAZY! They are confused at the CONES we set out, claim that they can’t see us, claim that we don’t have signs that warn them, etc. Some get very mad when we hold them for a few minutes when a backhoe, or dump truck or excavator is in the road.
Ed
GraceAdict writes, “The “INTERNAL LOGIC of the SCRIPTURES” clearly show that TULIP is a lie. This logic we talk about is not “some human logic” like the Calvinist likes to say to us…IT is the INTERNAL LOGIC of the scriptures. It is Biblical Logic”
Here is the internal ;logic of Christ revealed in John 6:
– “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
– “I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”
– “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
– “I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
rhutchin
Here is the “INTERNAL LOGIC OF Christ” revealed in John 6:
br.
I happened to find a Calvinist web-site this week – presenting the “INTERNAL LOGIC OF scriptures” proving the earth is flat.
What we *ACTUALLY* have here is the “INTERNAL LOGIC” of Calvinism. :-]
Simple, really. God has chosen to give to Christ all who choose to believe and persevere.
No need for TULIP. Nothing irresistible here. No compelling. No dragging. “Choose this day who you will serve”.
Carl writes, “Simple, really. God has chosen to give to Christ all who choose to believe and persevere.”
Carl Takes John 6:37 and introduces additional information making Jesus mean, ““All those who choose to believe and persevere, the Father then gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” Then, v39 would be, ““This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all those who choose to believe and persevere, He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
So, what does “come to Jesus” mean in terms of salvation? Also, what purpose is served by God giving to Christ those who already believe in Jesus?
Carl writes, “Simple, really. God has chosen to give to Christ all who choose to believe and persevere.”
rhutchin
Carl Takes John 6:37 and introduces additional information making Jesus mean, ““All those who choose to believe and persevere,…etc
br.d
Well that is a common practice with Calvinists here who consistently insert assumed information into verses they quote.
So in Calvinism the person doesn’t choose?
What is unique to Calvinism is that all creaturely choices are made *FOR* each creature before they exist.
A Reformed world – is a world full of bio-bots :-]
On Life’s Road,
FORKS IN THE ROAD
Which way to go? The decision one makes is based, not on which way is easier or well traveled, but where it will take you. Likewise, we often come to forks on Life’s Road where we must make a decision. Some choices may only have a minimal or temporary impact on our journey. Other choices may have major and long-lasting consequences.
Major ‘Forks’ on Life’s Road
Choices with Eternal Consequences
God: Fear or ignore.
Jesus: Believe or disbelieve.
Disciple: Follow or go your own way.
Wisdom: Rely on heavenly or worldly.
Friends: Godly or worldly.
Lifestyle: Popular or righteous.
We make our own decisions. And we must live with where they take us.
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13)
A Sobering Thought!
For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and
if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who
do not obey the gospel of God?
(1 Peter 4:17)
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-17)
Perish the Thought
Whenever one of the these thoughts enters our mind,
it needs to be disposed of promptly.
~~~~~~~
“How could God . . .?”
Perish the thought that we can think on a level with God.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9
“It sounds reasonable to me that . . .”
Perish the thought that reason can be the basis for determining what is acceptable to God. Reason is subjective, interpretive, and limited by personal knowledge and bias.
Then God said to Jonah, “Do you have good reason to be angry about the
plant?” And he said, “I have good reason to be angry, even to death.” Jonah 4:9
“I know what it says, but . . .”
Perish the thought that what is written can be rebutted. If we know what the Bible says, that’s all that matters; attempting to rebut truth is vain.
“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24
“Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.” John 17:17
“If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31-32
Dr. Flowers writes, “SOME Calvinists argue that we are all born believing in the basic freedom of human will, the ability to make choices. But, then they argue that perception of reality is false and that God is actually controlling all our preferences and thus our choices…”
Those Calvinists should say that God is in control of our preferences and thus our choices through His ability to give us understanding, wisdom, faith, good health, strong bodies, etc thereby affecting our ability to choose this or that. Thus, the proverb, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” The heart is deceitful but God “opened Lydia’s heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”
Then, “…(under their definition of “sovereignty”).”
A sovereignty defined by God’s infinite understanding of all things and His omnipotence. Thereby, all things are subordinate to God’s control.
rhutchin
Those Calvinists should say that God is in control of our preferences and thus our choices through His ability to give us understanding, wisdom, faith, good health, strong bodies, etc thereby affecting our ability to choose this or that.
br.d
The Calvinist who says that is simply being two-faced.
Trying to SMUGGLE “mere” permission back into his system – in a camouflaged form.
Calvinist Martyn Lloyd-Jones
-quote
God’s decrees are NOT determined in the light of what He knows people are going to do.
They are absolutely unconditional!
They do not depend upon anything except God’s own will.
(The Eternal Decrees of god)
Westminster Confession
-quote
Although god knows whatsoever can or may come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he NOT decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
John Calvin
-quote
By a SECRET counsel he decrees what he OPENLY prohibits.
(Institutes)
br.d quotes, “Calvinist Martyn Lloyd-Jones -quote
“God’s decrees are NOT determined in the light of what He knows people are going to do.”
We know from Ephesians 1 that, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” The counsel of God’s will incorporates His infinite understanding of His creation. By that counsel, God decrees (or works) all things.” In decreeing all things, God thereby knows all things. God’s counsel (and understanding) precedes His decrees which precedes His knowing. No camouflage here.
rhutchin
No camouflage here
br.d
No one would expect the Calvinist to admit it! :-]
rhutchin
In decreeing all things, God thereby knows all things
br.d
BING!
Dr. Flowers writes, “Do not allow yourself to be gaslighted. We are born with the perception of free will (responsibility) because that’s how God created us.”
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can agree to that.
I’d say your emphasis is on “the perception of free will.” Yet no one in Calvinism has free will!
Aidan writes, ‘Yet no one in Calvinism has free will!”
Why not?
RH:
Aidan writes, ‘Yet no one in Calvinism has free will!”
Why not?
AMCM: You know why not!
Dr. Flowers writes
Do not allow yourself to be gaslighted. We are born with the *PERCEPTION* of free will (responsibility) because that’s how God created us.”
rhutchin
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can agree to that.
br.d
Yes – but in Calvinism’s case – due to the LOGICAL consequences of Theological Determinism:
1) A *PERCEPTION* of alternative possibilities from what Calvin’s god has already decreed
2) A *PERCEPTION* of the ability to do-otherwise than what Calvin’s god has already decreed
3) A *PERCEPTION* that things are UP TO YOU when in fact EVERYTHING was solely UP TO Calvin’s god before you existed
Equates to DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
As Peter Van Inwagen would put it:
-quote
In a universe that is Deterministic, despite the fact that it sometimes *APPEARS* to us human-beings that there is more than one possible future…..all of those APPARENT forks (i.e. alternative possibilities) are merely APPARENT ILLUSIONS due to the human PERCEPTION of a universe that is IN-deterministic.
(Metaphysics)
*PERCEPTIONS* which result in the DENIAL of the very universe one ASSERTS = DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS.
BR.D: In what context or perspective are YOU referring to “Free Will”?
Are “you” referring to:
1) General Liberty
2) Israel’s Moral Liberty
2: Christian Liberty
3) Free Will
I ask this be because the term “Free Will” can be taken from many Biblical concepts. These include morally, psychologically and theologically.
Absolutely true Simon!
The term “Free Will” means many things to many people.
In the context of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – we have a form of creaturely freedom which is compatible with a world in which all things without exception are determined *FOR* the creature by a THEOS.
According to Christian Philosophy the LOGICAL consequences of determinism/compatibilism follow:
1) Nothing is UP TO YOU – since all things are determined before you exist
2) No alternative Possibilities from what the THEOS determines are available – at pain of falsifying the divine decree
3) You cannot DO OTHERWISE than what the THEOS determines – at pain of falsifying the divine decree
Conversely – where one rejects Theological Determinism – we have Libertarian Freedom
And I define that as the following
1) The ability to choose from a range of options
2) Those options being LOGICALLY possible – and therefore available to choose
3) That choice not being made *FOR* you by an external mind
4) That choice being consistent with one’s nature and with the current limitations in one’s circumstances.
BR.D, thank you for your response.
So ‘assuming’ we understand our definitions of words to be the same, would you agree with this:
If the topic of ‘Free-Will’ is to be viewed theologically, rather than morally and psychologically, it would denote a natural ability (of unregenerate man) to perform acts that are good without qualification in the sight of God and respond to the free offer of gospel. John 6: 44, Romans 8: 5-8, Ephesians 2: 1-10, all seem to indicate that no man is free to obey the gospel until he has been freed from the dominion of sin. That until man has been freed from the dominion of sin, all of his choices and actions will be serving sin in one way or another. Romans 6: 17-22.
Hi Simon,
Well I think what we find with the Calvinist versions of human choice concerning salvation is a little duplicitous.
Firstly, lets go back to what is officially understood to be the LOGICAL consequences of Theological Determinism
1) Nothing is UP TO YOU – since the THEOS determines everything about you before you exist
2) No Alternative Possibilities are available from what is decreed – at pain of falsifying the decree
3) You cannot BE OTHERWISE or DO OTHERWISE than what is decreed – at pain of falsifying the decree
Now given those facts – it should be obvious that any condition of the creature – such as a “dominion of sin” really becomes superficial.
In Calvinism the condition of the creature (whatever it is) is nothing more than clothing Calvin’s god chooses to put on the creature.
Calvin’s god is not obligated to cloth the creature in sin – or anything else – in order to accomplish his goals.
He can create creatures and declare them pure and clean – and then immediately throw them into the lake of fire if he wants to.
So in Calvinism the whole business of man being a slave to sin is really nothing more than window dressing.
Now on the other hand – if we reject Theological Determinism – then it follows
1) Our choices are UP TO US – not having been decreed *FOR* us before we were born
2) We have multiple options set before us by God – with his requirement of us – that we make a choice
That being the case – then we still have the consequences of all our historic choices.
So lets say a person chooses to embrace the occult and gets completely ensnared by demonic spirits.
Or lets say a person chooses to embrace drugs and gets completely ensnared by mind deteriorating drugs.
That person’s capacity to make choices is going to be severely limited by their circumstances
That person may require some kind of divine intervention in order to have the capacity to make a salvation choice.
On the other hand we might have a person who has lead a wholesome life.
Does that person still require some form of divine intervention in order to make a salvation choice?
The Calvinist will of course say “no”
But again the whole business of Total Depravity in Calvinism is nothing more than window dressing anyway.
So the Calvinist position is simply to duplicitous to be trustworthy.
I’m personally happy to leave that question as a divine mystery.
I don’t have any hard and fast position on that question one way or the other.
BR.D, I suppose I have to accept that you are coming at this topic, at least here, with the view to refuting or challenging the ‘Calvinist’ perspective or position on ‘Soteriology’ rather than a general exploration of the topic from a burden free theological perspective.
Being neither Calvinist nor Arminian myself, other circumstances I suppose would have presented a better climate to talk.
Actually I’m presenting it from a perspective of Determinism vs. IN-Determinism.
The Arminian perspective is predicated on IN-Determinism – and that is the majority view.
So that is something I have in common with the Arminian perspective.
Perhaps what you’re seeing with me is that I don’t find dialoging over differences of opinion on doctrinal issues rewarding.
Basically what happens is – people tend to approach those issues with their minds already made up.
And then things are prone to become confrontational and argumentative.
So I like to keep my focus on discerning where conceptions become self-contradicting, irrational, or double-minded.
Making that my focus has been much more fruitful.
BR.D, I understand that. But the Determinist view is not the view of a majority view of historic 16th century reformers. I understand that your position is that ‘Calvinism’ logically leads to Determinism, or even attempts to escape it, but not all 16th century reformers were Calvinists.
It is an assumption or just a claim that ‘reformed’ teaching is ‘Calvinism’ and even leads to Determinism. Calvin definitely (at some point) believed that Jesus died for all men, even though he recognised that all do not receive Him. As for ‘Determinism’ I recognise that he probably wrestled with some form of it. But Calvin was not as influential to the 16th century reformation as many give him credit for. Calvin was only about 8 years old when Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the church door in 1517. Likewise, when Luther stood at the Diet of Worms, Calvin was studying law.
Many modern Calvinists overstate him and inconsistently claim that the reformation was all about Calvinism. They even sometimes claim that Luther was a Calvinist. The opposite is probably the truth. Calvin’s denial of theological ‘Free-Will’ was probably more Lutheran and anything else and was in response to Erasmus. So to understand the ‘Free-Will’ that Luther was refuting, Erasmus’ must be read.
Coming back to my claim that reformed Theology does not necessarily lead to ‘Determinism’, let us remember that John Wesley himself believed in the 39 Articles. So clearly he was more reformed than many give him credit for, but he didn’t understand reformed doctrine to lead to ‘Determinism’.
Yes – I think you’re correct about Calvinist’s prior to Jonathan Edwards.
From what I understand Edwards was highly influenced by the English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes who was a determinist.
Prior to Edwards – many Calvinists did not appeal to a strict form of determinism and they also did not reject Libertarian Freedom.
Calvinist theologian Dr. Oliver Crisp calls the philosophical influence of Edwards a “water-shed” moment in Calvinist thinking.
And what he is referring to there is a shift towards a strict embrace of determinism and compatibilism.
Also I agree that Calvinists have tried to wrap themselves in a “Reformed” flag.
And often go about boasting that “Reformed” strictly means Calvinism alone – which I recognize as somewhat dishonest.
You’ll probably notice – in my comments concerning determinism – I don’t associate it with “Reformed” believers.
But specifically with Calvinism.
BR.D, “You’ll probably notice – in my comments concerning determinism – I don’t associate it with “Reformed” believers.
But specifically with Calvinism.”
SPS: I have noticed, which is the learned position.
You are correct that Calvinism made a “shift” in the 18th century. The title ‘Calvinism’ does not appear to have circulated until around the 19th century. Spurgeon (a Calvinist) referenced the term/nickname in his autobiography as a doctrine that “now-a-days is called Calvinism.”. Note the words “now-a-days”.
John Wesley, who was a Church of England minister and fully reformed, subscribed to the 39 Articles, said “Anglicanism was “with all her blemishes…nearer the Scriptural plans than any other in Europe”.
Biographer A. Skevington Wood has this to say about him: “He was a gospel preacher in the line of Peter and Paul, of Augustine and Chrysostom, of Bernard and Francis, of Luther and Calvin, of Baxter and Bunyan, of Wishart and Welsh.” (The Burning Heart, P. 151)
John Wesley was ordained a Deacon in the Church of England in Christ’s Church, Oxford, 1725. In 1735 he journeyed to America and his conflict began in the Church of England concerning ‘parish boundaries and authority to preach’. His dispute with the Church of England was not about her doctrine or 39 articles, but that the clergy was not witnessing to the lost and had become morally corrupt. His doctrine agreed with the 39 articles and affirmed ‘prevenient grace’, unlike Calvinists of his day, George Whitefield included. Wesley believed in predestination, (as affirmed in the 39 articles), but he knew that this predestination was not the predestination of Calvinism. Likewise, he did not affirm the doctrine of ‘limited atonement’ or ‘Calvinistic reprobation’ or ‘Calvinistic election’ yet he believed in the reformed position upheld in the 39 articles.
Biographer A. Skevington Wood records this: “The Wesleyan doctrine of saving faith…is a complete renewal of the Luther-Calvin thesis that in the thought of salvation God is everything, man is nothing.” (The Burning Heart, P. 223)
Interesting isn’t it that one of his disputers was George Whitefield, a Calvinist and slave owner. Yet John Wesley was an abolitionist.
Whitefield, also Church of England minister, had met Jonathan Edwards on his visit to America in 1740, and is the likely source of Whitefield’s shift in theology. Whitefield had long admired Jonathan Edwards.
John Wesley’s story is wonderful!
I have a fondness for his movement training up ministers and his revival.
BR.D, and let’s hear the man in his own words:
“I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I love her liturgy, I approve her plan of discipling, and only wish it could be carried out.” John Wesley
Well, there’s another false doctrine… church discipline.
Ed Chapman
Ed, he is not talking about “disciplining,” he’s talking about “discipling” – making disciples. Stop picking on him! He sounds kind of like John Lennon.
Well, even that makes no sense in a deterministic world.
Imagine there’s no free-will! It’s easy if you try…..You may say I’m a Cavinist, but you’re not the only one! Sorry, (bad joke)!
Loved it! I gotta remember that one
I think it would be cool to sound like John Lennon in America.
He had the right idea. All we need is love. Reformers say, all we need is Romans 9.
We have John Macarthur’s ministry slogan: “Good-Evil to you”.
Or
We have John Piper’s ministry slogan: “Desiring Good-Evil”
Or
We could have the traditional Calvinist slogan: “Doctrines of Good-Evil”
:-]
br.d,
Those are all good! I’d love to go to a Calvinist stand-up comic night.
Reformers want Tina Turner. What’s LOVE got to do with it?
Y’..IKES!
After a Calvinist falls down a flight of stairs, he states, “I’m glad that’s over with!”
Enough said, before you get me into trouble!
A Calvinist flat-earther was asked how he knows the earth is flat and not round.
He answered:
“Because I’ve traveled the circumference of the glob and I can tell you the earth is not round!” :-]
Aidan
Imagine there’s no free-will! It’s easy if you try…..You may say I’m a Cavinist, but you’re not the only one!
br.d
What a hoot!
I got a good kick out of this! :-]
Second verse:
Imagine you speak DOUBLE-SPEAK – its easy if you try – you may say I’m a Calvinist – but you’re not the only one!
SPS:
“I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I love her liturgy, I approve her plan of discipling, and only wish it could be carried out.” John Wesley
AMCM:
Unfortunately Simon, that’s where men make the mistake in following after man-made doctrines under man-made names! Is it not better to be able to say, “I hold all the doctrines of the Church of Christ. I love her liturgy, I approve His plan of discipling, and only wish it could be carried out?”
Is this one of them SOLA SCRIPTORA things? Last I read the bible, Jews are blind, Gentiles are not, Jews are the ones to be “regenerated”, Gentiles have no need. So I find that the REFORM theology, ANY REFORM THEOLOGY, is UTTERLY DERELICT in it’s STUDY, and needs to go back to the drawing board. It’s the WEIRDEST theology that I have ever come across in CHRISTENDOM.
Imagine, relying on DEAD PEOPLE to make YOUR decisions FOR you. And then you AFFIRM what they believed, and why? Cuz your government would PUNISH you if you didn’t. MANIPULATION AT IT’S FINEST. TWISTED MIND CONTROL.
Most people that I know that go to church, they have NO CLUE what a Pelican or an Artesian. They barely know who Luther is, and I only know of 2 people that know who Calvin was. Other than that, WE AIN’T 16TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS dictating to people what to believe. We just simple foke, PEASANTS, THE LITTLE PEOPLE, who them RELIGIOUS people would KILL US on the charge of HERESY, if we go against THEIR orthodox, which I disagree with. Or, at the minimum, TAKE AWAY OUR LAND. Such nice fella’s they were! Giving us MERCY that way!
Ed Chapman
BR.D: “Actually I’m presenting it from a perspective of Determinism vs. IN-Determinism.”
AIDAN: I know little or nothing about this subject, so this is just a curious question, or two. If ‘Absolute’ Determinism destroys free will, would ‘Absolute’ IN-Determinism do the same? Would you see it leading to a form of anarchy, chaos, or entropy so to speak? If so, there must have to be a balance struck between the two? Just curious, more than anything else.
Aidan
Aidan
If ‘Absolute’ Determinism destroys free will, would ‘Absolute’ IN-Determinism do the same?
br.d
Well there are variations of beliefs in determinism.
Hard determinism is the belief that free will in any form is an illusion.
There are a few Calvinists who are hard determinants – but only a few.
Soft determinism – embraces a form of creature freedom.
Imagine a circle with 360 degrees and you are a THEOS
you put an object in the center of the circle
you decree the object will move at degree 0
Since you decree it move to degree 0 – then the object is free to move to degree 0
But the object is not free to move anywhere else.
That form of freedom is what Calvinists have – and its called “compatibilism”
Which means that the creature has a form of freedom compatible with all things being determined by a THEOS.
With determinism it follows:
1) Nothing is UP TO YOU – since the THEOS determines all things at the foundation of the world
2) No Alternative Possibilities from what the THEOS determines exist
3) You are not permitted to be or do otherwise than what the THEOS determines.
However, the vast majority of humans – (including Calvinists) have the perception that (1-3) above are false.
This is why Calvinists have a theology that is counter to their psychology.
John Calvin teaches to “go about your office *AS-IF* god doesn’t determine anything”
So that is why Calvinists are DOUBLE-MINDED.
Everyone,
All this determinism does, is beg the question, “What, on Earth, pun definitely intended, are we doing here? What’s our main purpose?
Just for God’s COSMIC AMUSEMENT?
Or, is it so that we can choose life (God), or death (Satan).
I see the bible as free will choosing, not God’s play, which we are his actors.
Reformers convoluted interpretation of Romans 9 is twisted, as is others.
Ed Chapman
Ed
Reformers convoluted interpretation of Romans 9 is twisted, as is others.
br.d
Agreed – its all so much DOUBLE-SPEAK
BR.D:
“Imagine a circle with 360 degrees and you are a THEOS
you put an object in the center of the circle
you decree the object will move at degree 0
Since you decree it move to degree 0 – then the object is free to move to degree 0
But the object is not free to move anywhere else.”
AMCM:
Interesting, because this analogy reminds me of a particular scripture, in which the writer argues from the “silence” of scripture.
“For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” (Heb. 7:13-14)
Note why Jesus could never be a priest on earth under the Law of Moses; because He was from Judah, “a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” This goes back to the old argument; Is silence ‘Permissive’ or ‘Prohibitive’? Well according to this verse it “Prohibits.” So, when God designated the tribe of Levi for the priesthood, only they were “permitted/free” to serve as priests under the Law of Moses. No one else was permitted to move or serve in that capacity. This principle is army 101. And this is the true extent of freedom when every detail is subject to a decree.
On the other hand, their DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS is the result of trying to serve two masters, God and Calvin. They are living proof that – “No one can serve two masters!”
Aidan
their DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS is the result of trying to serve two masters, God and Calvin. They are living proof that – “No one can serve two masters!”
br.d
Yes I agree!
Its just a matter of knowing what to look for.
br.d writes, “That person’s capacity to make choices is going to be severely limited by their circumstances”
As is true of the person who has been corrupted by sin and lacks faith. He is described by Paul in Romans 8, “those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh…For to be carnally minded is death…Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
br.d
That person’s capacity to make choices is going to be severely limited by their circumstances”
rhutchin
As is true of the person who has been corrupted by sin and lacks faith.
br.d
More precisely – Calvin’s god DESIGNS the vast majority of his creatures – as John Calvin says:
-quote “Doomed from the womb”
and for the FEW he takes out the “TD” program and replaces it with the “faith” program.
br.d writes, “On the other hand we might have a person who has lead a wholesome life.
Does that person still require some form of divine intervention in order to make a salvation choice?
The Calvinist will of course say ‘no’”
The Calvinist would say, Yes.
br.d
On the other hand we might have a person who has lead a wholesome life.
Does that person still require some form of divine intervention in order to make a salvation choice?
The Calvinist will of course say ‘no’”
rhutchin
The Calvinist would say, Yes.
br.d
Correct! Thanks for correcting that!
br.d writes, “Conversely – where one rejects Theological Determinism – we have Libertarian Freedom
And I define that as the following
,,,
3) That choice not being made *FOR* you by an external mind
4) That choice being consistent with one’s nature and with the current limitations in one’s circumstances.”
That is Calvinist free will also. Under Calvinism, God determines the choices people make by making them certain (the consequence of omniscience) but not necessary (the consequence of one’s nature and with the current limitations in one’s circumstances). LFW must allow for choices inconsistent with one’s nature and with the current limitations in one’s circumstances if it is to be distinguished from Calvinist free will.
br.d writes, “Conversely – where one rejects Theological Determinism – we have Libertarian Freedom
And I define that as the following
,,,
3) That choice not being made *FOR* you by an external mind
rhutchin
That is Calvinist free will also.
br.d
FALSE
Everyone knows that Calvin’s god (as an external mind) determines every creaturely choice at the foundation of the world
Making it the case that no choice is UP TO YOU – since they are solely UP TO Calvin’s god.
As Peter Van Inwagen states in the “Consequence argument”
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those thoughts, choices, desires, and actions, are framed within the boundaries of nature, which exist at the time in which they are actualized in our lives.
3) But then it is not UP TO US what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we were born.
4) And neither is it UP TO US what attributes of nature – including our own – exist at any time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US.
br.d writes, “Everyone knows that Calvin’s god (as an external mind) determines every creaturely choice at the foundation of the world”
This the consequence of God being omniscient. That God determines all that happens, as the final arbiter of all that happens, makes all things certain.
br.d
Everyone knows that Calvin’s god (as an external mind) determines every creaturely choice at the foundation of the world”
rhutchin
This the consequence of God being omniscient.
br,d
This follows the fallacy of false dichotomy.
Middle Knowledge provides a LOGICALLY viable alternative.
rhutchin
That God determines all that happens, as the FINAL ARBITER of all that happens, makes all things certain.
br.d
Here is wisdom
Always pay close attention to the Calvinist’s language and – keep your eye out for DOUBLE-SPEAK language tricks.
Calvin’s god is the *ONLY* ARBITER of all that happens
Therefore Calvin’s god (as an external mind) makes every part of every choice *FOR* every creature at the foundation of the world..
br.d writes, “This follows the fallacy of false dichotomy. Middle Knowledge provides a LOGICALLY viable alternative.”
Unless you can explain what you are talking about, this comment is worthless.
Then, ‘Calvin’s god is the *ONLY* ARBITER of all that happens
Therefore Calvin’s god (as an external mind) makes every part of every choice *FOR* every creature at the foundation of the world..”
OK. Only and final. That is the consequence of God having perfect understanding of His creation and being omnipotent. God does not make choices for people; God arbitrates choices that people want to make. As James explains, “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.” As we know, God determines that people are born without faith and with a corrupted nature. This plus limited knowledge, understanding, and wisdom mean that people are as described in Genesis, “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” A person is limited by a deceitful heart and a carnal mind that he has inherited from Adam. God decreed not to change this inheritance prior to birth but does so in the course of time for His elect.
br.d
This follows the fallacy of false dichotomy.
Middle Knowledge provides a LOGICALLY viable alternative.”
rhutchin
Unless you can explain what you are talking about, this comment is worthless.
br.d
Worthless only to those who refuse to knowledge what the literature already fully explains.
‘Calvin’s god is the *ONLY* ARBITER of all that happens
Therefore Calvin’s god (as an external mind) makes every part of every choice *FOR* every creature at the foundation of the world..”
rhutchin
OK. Only and final.
br.d
rhutchin – everyone here knows Calvinist’s need to SMUGGLE “mere” permission back into their system – in camouflaged form.
Hence the appeal to the term “final” (which is strategically designed to infer NOT-ONLY) in this context.
Understanding Calvinism is straight forward
A Calvinist is a Determinist – wearing a mask of IN-determinism – reciting double-speak talking points.
He wants to be consistent with the sacred proposition.
But at the same time he needs to go about his office *AS-IF* some things are not determined in every part.
Otherwise he ends up with the author of evil – which he finds emotionally unpalatable.
rhutchin
God does not make choices for people; God arbitrates choices that people want to make.
br.d
FALSE
We are talking about Calvin’s god.
And Calvin’s god makes *ALL* choices *FOR* all people at the foundation of the world before he creates them.
This argument is simply an attempt to SMUGGLE “mere” permission back – in camouflaged form.
The attempt represents Calvinist psychology – which is at odds with Calvinist theology.
rhutchin
James explains, “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.”
br.d
Another scripture verse that affirms IN-determinism.
To bad that is LOGICALLY excluded by Theological Determinism – wherein Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – SOLELY determines what every creaturely attributes (e.g. desires) will be.
Take the sum total of creaturely attributes (e.g. creaturely desires)
Now subtract *ALL* – (the number which Calvin’s god SOLELY determines)
You get ZERO attributes (e.g. desires) left over for the creature to determine
Its elementary my dear Watson! :-]
But its also understandable why that is a hard pill for the Calvinist to swallow.
And we can have empathy for his conundrum.
Simon says “Being neither Calvinist nor Arminian myself, other circumstances I suppose would have presented a better climate to talk.”
Carl says,
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck…… it’s a duck.
Just own your Calvinism, Simon.
If you are not a Calvinist, which parts of TULIP do you deny? You made the claim…….
Again, Simon says “Coming back to my claim that reformed Theology does not necessarily lead to ‘Determinism’, let us remember that John Wesley himself believed in the 39 Articles. So clearly he was more reformed than many give him credit for, but he didn’t understand reformed doctrine to lead to ‘Determinism’.”
Simon, even a cursory look at Wesley’s sermons against Whitefield’s Calvinism refutes your statement.
The Calvinist equates being a “slave” to sin with being a robot. However, anyone hearing the analogy in a slavery society would understand that slaves have free will and make many choices that are not dictated by their master. Being freed from sin slavery is not being saved from being a sin robot who has no choices. Talk about not understanding an analogy…… Hence the total depravity misunderstanding, which leads logically to the rest of Tulip. I don’t see the Arminian solution of prevenient grace as a decent explanation to the depravity delusion, either.
Carl writes, “The Calvinist equates being a “slave” to sin with being a robot.”
The Calvinist equates a slave to sin to that which Jesus said, “Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.” Paul builds on this, “Therefore we were buried with Christ through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.” and “when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.”
rhitchin,
1 John 3:9.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “1 John 3:9. ”
“Whoever has been born of God does not sin,…” So? One who is a slave to sin is not born of God, is he? What’s your point?
rhutchin,
You didn’t finish the whole verse. And, Who is not a slave to sin?
chapmaned24: “1 John 3:9. ”
rhutchin: “Whoever has been born of God does not sin,…”
chapmaned24: You didn’t finish the whole verse. And, Who is not a slave to sin?
rhutchib: “…he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.”
So? What’s your point?
Does not, and cannot. Key words. Who is born of God? Who do you know personally that is born of God that does not and cannot sin?
rhutchin
Whoever has been born of God does not sin
br.d
To be balanced with:
He who says he is without sin deceives himself and the truth is not in him
“Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” (1 Jn 3:9)
Surely you don’t believe that the expression, “and he cannot sin,” means it is impossible for him to sin?
Adian,
No, I don’t believe ANYTHING that’s in the bible….DAH, HELLO?
You bet I do…
First of all, it’s in the bible. Why would I not believe it? It’s NOT A CONFUSING verse is it?
It’s ONE OF MANY verses I use, to refute your non-existence of “OSAS”.
That verse is ALSO coupled with Romans 5:13 and 4:15, but, just like 1 John 3:9, , and Abraham sleeping with his sister, and the TREE OF LIFE, NOBODY WANTS TO GO THERE.
But Romans 9…ya! They will talk about that all day long, into the middle of next year.
1 John 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Seed=Jesus
Galatians 3:16
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
BORN OF GOD:
1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1 John 5:4
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
So, are you BORN OF GOD?
Ed Chapman
ED: “and the TREE OF LIFE, NOBODY WANTS TO GO THERE.”
AMCM: Of course no one wants to go there. First of all, even if you could find it, there’s a fella with a flashy sword who’d take your head off. I saw a program where the guy was looking for the location of the garden of Eden. I knew it was ridiculous, but still watched it to the end.
That last post was for Rhutchin, not for you. I responded to his post, but forgot to put his name on it, ya big eejit! Anyways, here’s my two cents worth:
CHRISTIANS CAN SIN:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ( 1 Jn. 1:8-9)
How can anyone read such verses in first John and conclude that John was telling them that it was impossible for them to sin? Plainly John states: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” But not only that:- “If we confess our sins.” A person could not “confess our sins,” if they did not sin; nor could He, “forgive us our sins” if they did not sin! Chapter two:
“My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” (1 Jn. 2:1-2)
Again, if it is impossible for a Christian to sin, why would John say to them; – “And if anyone sins?” And, if its truly impossible for a Child of God to sin, why would they need to be assured that, “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father?” Therefore, when these Christians read such verses and then came to 1 Jn 3:9, do you think that they would have suddenly concluded the complete opposite, namely, that it was impossible for them to sin? No, I don’t think so! There has to be another explanation. “Cannot” doesn’t necessarily mean “impossible.”
Aidan,
Just like I told rhutchin a moment ago…
You are DEAD TO SIN, dead dead dead, so HOW can you sin if you are DEAD TO SIN?
It’s the DIFFERENCE between The Law of Moses, and the Law of Christ. You can’t sin if you are DEAD.
But yes, you can sin, because your BODY IS INDEED ALIVE, but you are to CONSIDER YOURSELF AS DEAD TO SIN, DEAD TO THE LAW, THAT YOU DIED WITH CHRIST, and if you are dead, then your body is NOT ALIVE, you have NOW put on the BODY OF CHRIST.
Life requires a body, and you are ALIVE IN CHRIST.
There are TONS of phrases that you MUST get used to, and learn. Dead in Christ, Alive to Christ, Dead in sin, Dead to sin, etc.
In Romans 7, before Paul KNEW the law, “HE” was alive [to God]. Once he found out about what’s in the law, he died, and instantly became “dead in sins”. Then Jesus comes along, and he DIED with Christ, and sin is DEAD, has NO POWER, SIN HAS NO DOMINION.
NO DOMINION, NO POWER, IT’S DEAD.
So why do you guys want sin to be ALIVE and have POWER?
Resurrect the Law of Moses, and it has power, and THEN you are sinning. Under the law of Christ, you are NOT SINNING, even tho you sin. Hence, the last half of Romans 7, which both rhutchin and Simon wish to POUND into your psyche.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
In Romans chapters 6, Paul raises the question as to whether Christians should continue in sin because they are under grace. The two questions Paul raises are: (1) “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1) and then (2) “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?” (Rom. 6:15) Paul’s answer to both questions is exactly the same, “May it never be” (Rom. 6: 2,15 – NASB)
By raising these questions, Paul shows how possible it is for Christians to “continue in sin.” And he spends a lot of time in chapter 6 explaining to them why that should never be the case! To his first question as to why saints should not – “continue in sin that grace may abound,” Paul answers; “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”(v.2). Then in the next verse, he begins to explain how one dies to sin through baptism, and what that means, and continues right up to (v.11). Then in verses, 12-13, he concludes with this exhortation:
“Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” (Rom 6: 12-13) Then he says, in answer to question two in v.15:
“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” (Rom. 6: 16) Then in (v.23) “For the wages of sin is death.”
So, Paul shows that it was indeed possible for them to “continue in sin.” But that they should not, because they had died to sin, therefore they should no longer live in it. And that they should no longer allow sin to reign in their mortal body, to obey it in its lusts. But rather present themselves to God as alive from the dead. And instead of presenting their members as instruments of sin, they should now present them as instruments of righteousness to God. They could either choose to obey sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness (v.16).
Paul, then finishes the chapter with this one final statement : “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23).
Is it therefore possible for a Christian to choose to “continue in sin?” Absolutely! If unrepented of, will his continuing in sin lead to death? Absolutely! The wages of sin is death!
Well, Aidan, when you read, THE REST OF THE STORY, you will see that Paul’s question is rhetorical, because he answers it, beyond what you have written.
I will note that my bible does NOT say “May it never be”.
My bible states, GOD FORBID”, meaning, a big fat NO.
But what you are missing is the follow-up, which states, “HOW SHALL WE that are DEAD TO SIN live any longer therein?
I first noticed this with the 7th Day Adventists, which quotes Romans 6:1, then only HALF of verse 2. The story continues, showing that it’s EITHER grace, or the law, NOT BOTH.
VERSE 7, FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS FREED FROM SIN.
Then verse 11, LIKEWISE RECKON YE ALSO YOURSELVES TOO BE DEAD INDEED UNTO SIN, BUT ALIVE INTO GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.
VERSE 14 FOR SIN SHALL NOT HAVE DOMINION OVER YOU: FOR YE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE.
IF YOU serve the law, then you are a servant to sin.
VERSE 18 “BEING” MADE FREE FROM SIN, YE BECOME SERVANTS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I’m really getting frustrated that people don’t read the bible as a novel, but instead isolate verses to make doctrine.
Ed Chapman
ED: “you will see that Paul’s question is rhetorical”
AMCM: This is actually a real question that’s come on foot of what Paul stated at the end of Romans 5. Paul had written in (Rom.5:20) that “where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.” Lest there be any misconception that he is condoning sin so that grace may abound, he wrote the entire sixth chapter to show that Christians do not have a license to sin without suffering the consequences. So the first thing he asks to offset that notion, is, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom 6:1)
ED: “I will note that my bible does NOT say “May it never be”.
AMCM: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”
NKJV: – Certainly not!
KJV: – God forbid.
ESV: – By no means!
NASB: – May it never be!
YLT: – let it not be!
DBY: – Far be the thought.
HNV: – May it never be!
GWT: – That’s unthinkable!
The literal Greek reads “May it not become”. Paul dismisses the thought of more sins bringing more grace as unthinkable.
ED: “But what you are missing is the follow-up, which states, “HOW SHALL WE that are DEAD TO SIN live any longer therein?”
AMCM: No I didn’t! Here’s what I said – “To his first question as to why saints should not – “continue in sin that grace may abound,” (May it never be! God forbid! That’s unthinkable! “May it not become.”) Paul answers; “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”(v.2). Paul is certainly showing how possible it is for the saints to do the unthinkable – “continue in sin”
The REAL question is, ‘Would there be any consequences to such’? Here’s what Paul says in this very chapter.
“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” (Rom. 6:15-16)
There you have it, right there;- Paul tells them that if they continue in sin it would result in death (v.16)! Don’t overlook this, and I could multiply such verses. Paul plainly tells them that if they obey sin it would result in death. Again, I say, The question was posed, “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (Rom. 6:15) Paul immediately tells them that it would result in death(v.16) for them! And again in (v.23);
“For the wages of sin is death.”
“For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom 8:13)
These verses are written to warn Christians against the idea of continuing to live in sin, that the consequence of such is death! They are written in black and white. They are clear, they are simple, and they are not difficult to understand. Either you believe the ‘Word,’ or you don’t; – I’ll leave that up to you!
Aidan,
I reiterate, in the strongest terms, that Paul’s question is rhetorical.
We CAN’T live in sin, since we died to sin.
That’s what makes his question rhetorical.
It’s impossible to live in sin of you are dead to sin.
Seems that you are missing my point.
And yet the whole of chapter six is written to exhort Christians not to live any longer in sin! And Paul tells them that if they do they will die! Seems your missing Paul’s point! There’s something wrong with your theory.
As for ‘dead to sin,’ how does Paul define it in Romans 6?
Oh! and Abraham certainly had sinned, otherwise he wouldn’t have needed to be – Justified! (Rom 4:1-9)
And it’s “All have sinned and FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD”
That’s pure condemnation for ALL.
Again, there is something wrong with your interpretation here, it just contradicts too many scriptures!
Aidan,
No, Aidan, you are interpreting it all wrong. Paul is NOT exhorting anyone to NOT live in sin, he is UPLIFTING people telling them that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Christians to live in sin, and that sin is imputed to those who live UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.
Romans 2 even tells you that.
So, IGNORE 1 John 3:9, cuz that’s what you are doing, and then you will interpret THAT VERSE as either:
a. A mistake of John, or
b. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AS SOMETHING ELSE, because Paul said blah blah (your interpretation of what Paul said.
I COMPLETELY disagree with YOUR conclusions.
You STILL have yet to address Abraham, a subject that NO ONE wants to touch with a ten foot pole.
Ed Chapman
Okay! I’m interpreting it all wrong! “Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” Do you not know that… you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?” So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom 6:16; 8:12-13)
How does 1 Jn. 3:9 teach that it’s impossible to sin? You’ll need to explain that one.
And, I have addressed Abraham. – “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – That includes Abraham who needed to be saved by faith.
Aidan,
I have been explaining it, but you aren’t listening, cuz you got your mind made up already, and nothing is gonna change your mind.
There is ONLY ONE WAY to “stop sinning”, and that is to DIE. No matter how hard you TRY, you CAN’T stop sinning ANY OTHER WAY.
There is NO HUMAN EFFORT that is gonna stop ANYONE from sinning ever, even as a Christian, but those sins are NOT imputed, as a Christian.
Why? Because you ALREADY DIED WITH CHRIST.
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You ask:
“How does 1 Jn. 3:9 teach that it’s impossible to sin? You’ll need to explain that one.”
Obviously, you haven’t READ IT, because the answer is IN THE VERSE ITSELF.
The words, CANNOT AND DOTH NOT (KJV) is the answer.
You CANNOT sin. It does NOT say “should not”, which is what YOU want it to say.
Ed Chapman
ED:
Aidan,
You ask:
“How does 1 Jn. 3:9 teach that it’s impossible to sin? You’ll need to explain that one.”
“You CANNOT sin. It does NOT say “should not”, which is what YOU want it to say.”
But ED, you also said: “Under the law of Christ, you are NOT SINNING, even tho you sin.”
AIDAN:
I think you need to make up your mind, either we can sin, or we can’t!
Aidan,
SO…how many times have you been saved? Everytime you sin, that REQUIRES a NEW Baptism in water, right? Sin equals LOST, Baptize equals saved.
So, everytime that you sin, you are lost, right? Is that how it works under The Law of Christ? The need for WATER Baptism everytime you sin?
Dude, It is so simple. The answer is BOTH, and the answer lies in Romans 5:13 and Romans 4:15 and 1 John 3:9, for where NO LAW IS, THERE IS NO SIN, and we are in a position where THERE IS NO LAW.
When I say that you CAN’T SIN, it’s MEANING is that the sin is NOT HELD AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW…so to speak.
You will NOT BE CONVICTED of ANY sin under Christ, all because you are NOT under the law, but under grace.
You can ONLY SIN when there is LAW, and there is NO LAW. SIN IS DEAD, you are dead.
And since you are dead, YOU CANNOT SIN.
Now, if you consider yourself to be ALIVE, then you are sinning. YOU ARE DEAD.
Are you ALIVE, or DEAD?
Dead people CANNOT SIN, can they? Is ABRAHAM sinning in heaven? How about David? NO, they are DEAD. SO ARE YOU. So you CANNOT sin, even THO YOU DO SIN.
Again, the answer is BOTH. You are alive, but you are dead.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Don’t be ridiculous about baptism, and don’t be ridiculous about sin!
So you are saying the Christian doesn’t sin, and therefore he doesn’t need to repent of sin, or be forgiven of sin? Right?
Aidan,
you say to to be so rediculous about sin? And about baptism? Really? YOU are the one who makes the claim that a person can LOSE his SALVATION, and that would indicate that one can be SAVED AGAIN, am I right?
Well, if one needs to be BAPTISED to be saved, that would imply MULTIPLE water baptisms, DOESN’T IT?
Then you say:
“So you are saying the Christian doesn’t sin, and therefore he doesn’t need to repent of sin, or be forgiven of sin? Right?”
So, my response, for the thousandth time, is HOW DOES ONE KNOW WHAT SIN IS, IF HE WAS NEVER INTRODUCED TO…THE LAW?
For the law is the SCHOOLMASTER that brings us to Christ.
So, you have NEW PEOPLE coming into your church, and you are DICTATING to them to REPENT, REPENT, and you want to ASSUME that they know already what to REPENT from, when Paul CLEARLY states,
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin but by the law
and Romans 3:20 states
For by the law is the knowledge of sin.
And for the LAST TIME, I never said that a CHRISTIAN doesn’t SIN. 1 John 3:9 states it. So, KNOWING that a Christian can sin, it is telling us that a CHRISTIAN cannot lose their salvation ALL BECAUSE, and this is the point that you miss, WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT GRACE.
You can only SIN in the law, not outside of the law.
YOU CAN’T BREAK A LAW THAT DOES NOT EXIST, and the law of Moses does NOT EXIST to Christians, so, CHRISTIANS CANNOT SIN.
The problem is, YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT SIN IS, and you CAN’T ESCAPE IT, so you do sin, BY THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE LAW OF MOSES, but since the law of Moses DOES NOT EXIST TO YOU, you are EXCUSED from that sin, and WHY?
Because you are NOT SINNING ON PURPOSE, you are sinning because it’s ALREADY STILL IN YOUR BODY, and ROMANS 7 explains that, and PAUL did not consider himself LOST AGAIN, when he does what he does NOT WANT TO DO, sin. But, you would consider him LOST AGAIN! Needing RE-SAVED ALL OVER AGAIN!
Well, that is NOT how Paul describes it, so when he states, SHALL WE CONTINUE IN SIN SO THAT GRACE MAY ABOUND, he answers that by saying that DEAD PEOPLE CAN’T SIN, so since you DIED with Christ, you are DEAD, and dead people can’t sin.
Look, dude, I’ve been studyng THIS TOPIC for many years, all because of people like you who go around PROCLAIMING that you can lose your salvation. I’ve studied ALL, and I do mean ALL of the talking points that you will bring up.
I am satisfied in MY study, so nothing you can say will deter me. Sorry!
Ed Chapman
Okay! But you are wrong!
Here’s what Paul said to the saints in Rome: (Rom. 8:12-13)
“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”
Aidan,
Abraham wasn’t SAVED by faith, he was JUSTIFIED by faith. Abraham wasn’t LOST to begin with, therefore, NO NEED TO BE “SAVED”.
Everyone dies a NATURAL death, but NOT EVERYONE dies a spiritual death. Abraham didn’t have KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, therefore, he was NOT LOST, therefore, NO NEED TO BE SAVED.
Abraham was Justified by faith, not saved by faith, cuz he was NOT LOST.
And neither are BABIES who die a natural death lost either. NO NEED FOR A SAVIOR IF THE SAVIOR NEVER LEFT YA by spiritual death.
Ed Chapman
ED: “Abraham wasn’t SAVED by faith, he was JUSTIFIED by faith. Abraham wasn’t LOST to begin with, therefore, NO NEED TO BE “SAVED”.
AMCM:
ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH: Romans 4:5-10
That meant he had the kind of faith that saves – Because he believed in God who justifies the ungodly, he had a faith that was credited to him as righteousness, which in turn meant that his sins were forgiven, covered, and not taken into account by the LORD. Note how Paul defines this below, and then says in v.9 that “this blessing” is the one Abraham had received – by faith.
v.5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
v.6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
v.7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,
AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
v.8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
v.9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
v.10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.”
Hold on, in v.9 Paul just said that “this blessing” was on Abraham as well? What blessing? The blessing is spoken of in terms of forgiveness in (vv.7-8). He tells us that this blessing is not just on the circumcised, but on the uncircumcised as well, and uses Abraham as the prime example. That’s the “blessing on the man of faith to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:” (v.6)
Its hard to see how this contrast between the Law and justification by faith, in Romans, according to you, has nothing to do with salvation? But Abraham had the kind of faith that saves, because it was not based on law, or perfect obedience, but on faith! When we are talking about “righteousness” in the book of Romans, we are talking about the righteousness of faith – the kind of faith that saves a man.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Abraham)
Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, (Rom. 4: 22-24)
Therefore, in Romans we are dealing with the kind of faith that justifies and saves. That’s the subject! And Abraham is the great example!
Well, we know where Abraham is right now as a result of the kind of faith that saved him.
Aidan,
You had said:
“That meant he had the kind of faith that saves”
That is a Calvinist (reform) statement.
I don’t see that in regards to Abraham, for he was NOT LOST, all because of ROMANS 5:13
and because of ROMANS 5:13 AND ROMANS 4:15 ALONE, WHAT SIN WOULD ABRAHAM BE CHARGED WITH, AND/OR CONVICTED OF, regardless of whether he had faith or not?
The answer to that question will be NONE, ZERO, NO CHARGES, NO SIN, so faith didn’t save him, faith justified him.
The word SAVED implies LOST, and babies are not lost.
Do you think that babies are lost?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I just think you are quoting these scriptures out of context, that’s all.
You can’t be quoting scripture right if you’re saying that Abraham had no sin, and that he was not lost. And don’t you know the meaning of justification by faith? To say that that’s nothing to do with salvation means that you don’t understand what Paul was talking in Romans about in being justified by faith. Romans 4:3-10 tells us what that means in reference to not just Abraham, but all men. Why do you ignore them?
Aidan,
You state:
“Romans 4:3-10 tells us what that means in reference to not just Abraham, but all men. Why do you ignore them?”
My response:
I have not been ignoring them at all, I AM PREACHING THAT SAME CHAPTER TO YOU, and it is YOU who are ignoring it.
THIS chapter is telling you about Abraham WHO DID NOT HAVE THE LAW OF MOSES, and it is explaining the DIFFERENECE between those WHO KNOW WHAT SIN IS, vs. THOSE WHO DON’T.
There is NO LAW TO GET IN THE WAY OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH. The law is NOT OF FAITH. The bible DOES SAY THAT, THAT THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH, and so he is SHOWING that GET THE LAW OUT OF THE WAY, and it won’t be a hinderence to FAITH.
So tell me WHAT DID ABRAHAM KNOW ABOUT HIS SINS, AND WHAT SINS DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT ABRAHAM REPENTED FROM?
So, we have a DISPENSATION.
1. BEFORE THAT LAW OF MOSES, WHERE NO SIN CAN BE IMPUTED,
2. THE LAW, WHERE SIN CAN BE IMPUTED
3. AFTER THE LAW, WHERE SIN CANNOT BE IMPUTED.
BUT, you and Simon see, SIN SIN SIN SIN SIN, BAD SIN, SIN BAD BAD SIN SIN SIN SIN POINT FINGER, SINNER, SINNER! You look at a newborn baby, yelling, SINNER! Right from the BIRTH CANAL.
Sure, buddy!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’m beginning to think that you don’t know how to read and apply anything from the bible in context! And you certainly have a habit of misreading and misquoting people all the time. I have consistently taught against total depravity on this site, so you’re way off base, buddy!
And if the scriptures say that Abraham had sin that was forgiven and covered, and not put on his account on the basis of his faith (Rom 4:6-9) that’s good enough for me! Remember, Christ still had to suffer and die for that sin!
Aidan,
You had said:
“And if the scriptures say that Abraham had sin that was forgiven and covered, and not put on his account on the basis of his faith (Rom 4:6-9) that’s good enough for me! Remember, Christ still had to suffer and die for that sin!”
I’m gonna ask AGAIN:
How can you repent from something you have NO CLUE ABOUT? How can you be FORGIVEN for a law that does not exist for you?
I have never read that Abrahams sins were FORGIVEN. I’ve read that Abraham’s sins were NEVER IMPUTED TO HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE, NOT BECAUSE of on account of his FAITH, but because he is WITHOUT LAW OF MOSES. ROMANS 4:8
Romans 4 is DISTINGUISHING those who are WORKING (THE LAW OF MOSES) for RIGHTEOUSNESS, vs. those NOT WORKING for Righteousness (Faith), and all Abraham did was BELIEVE GOD, and boom, righteous.
Did Abraham sin? YES. What was the PENALTY for his sins? Abraham’s BOSOM until Jesus died. Because Abraham was WITHOUT LAW, there is NO LAW that can convict him of his sins, because THE LAW did NOT EXIST.
It is YOU who do not read scritpure right.
Me, I’ve got this!
How can you repent from something that you have NO CLUE ABOUT.
But you probablly go around preaching to people, REPENT REPENT, and they are lookin at you like you are CRAZY…REPENT FROM WHAT?
And you would be like, YOU KNOW, YOUR SINS! For which they would reply back, WHAT IS THIS SIN WORD YOU SPEAK OF?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “How can you repent from something you have NO CLUE ABOUT? How can you be FORGIVEN for a law that does not exist for you?”
Romans 1, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.”
Romans 2, “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”
There is plenty of room for a person to sin without knowing the aw of Moses.
Yes, you are right… But where no law is…Romans 4:15, 8, and 5:13.
Sin sin sin all day long. Not gonna get convicted.
Are you under the law?
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Romans 4:1-9 has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with SIN at all. It has to do with FAITH.
There was NO LAW, PERIOD, ROMANS 5:13, AND YOU SKIPPED VERSE 15 OF ROMANS 4, STOPPING AT VERSE 9!
Abraham was NOT IMPUTED SIN (verse 8).
You tell me that Abraham sinned, YES. HE DID. YOU ARE RIGHT. But what sin was IMPUTED TO HIM?
There was NO LAW (Romans 5:13 and Romans 4:15).
Why do you ignore those two verses regarding Abraham?
For all have sinned, and fall short, but WHERE NO LAW IS, SIN IS NOT IMPUTED. So how many sins did Abraham “REPENT OF”?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
There was law and sin in the world long before the Law of Moses came! How else could God condemn and destroy the world if they were not lost in sin? And are Christians not under law, the law of Christ? And what does the two greatest commandments encapsulate? Are Christians not subject to these as the greatest principles? I wonder how many times we violate the royale law?
“God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.” (Acts 17:30) Why? Because they are lost! Don’t you get it?
You are simply missing the point! You keep mentioning the Law, the Law! Paul is dealing with a specific problem in Romans, namely, the Jews, and their reliance on the Law of Moses for salvation. It was their reliance on a “system of laws” that condemned them, because it could never justify them once they sinned. We are Justified by faith, saved by faith, – which is the way it has always been, and always will be. If Abraham, and everybody else, need to be justified/saved by faith – then we are lost in sin, including Abraham. You don’t seem to get that. Abraham sinned and he needed to be saved by faith, just like anyone else.- All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God! If Abraham is the prime example of salvation by faith outside of the Law, or any system of laws; you’ve got to ask the question “Salvation from what?”
And the answer to that is…..??
Aidan states:
“There was law and sin in the world long before the Law of Moses came!”
WHAT?
Romans 5:13 states otherwise.
Romans 5:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
NOT IMPUTED.
Romans 4:8
Romans 4:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 4:15
Romans 4:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Then Aidan states:
How else could God condemn and destroy the world if they were not lost in sin?
My resposne:
Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
NO SIN CAN BE IMPUTED TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, REGARDLESS OF SIN COMMITTED.
All those who died in the flood…JESUS PREACHED TO THEM AFTER HE DIED ON THE CROSS:
1 Peter 3:19
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
That “prison” was NOT the BAD part of “hell”, but the GOOD PART of Hell where Abraham and Samuel were.
NO LAW, NO SIN IMPUTED, even tho, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
We, as Christians are under THE LAW OF CHRIST, which is KNOWN as THE LAW OF FAITH (MEANING THAT FAITH IS THE OBEDIENCE), and there is ONLY TWO commandments under that, LOVE GOD, LOVE PEOPLE.
So WHY do you need a law that states, DON’T STEAL?
DOTH NOT NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU that if you tell your child not to play with matches, that they are GOING to play with matches ANYWAY? And why? Because YOU planted that law in their head. They NEVER WOULD HAVE ever thought about playing with matches if YOU never told them not to.
That’s why Romans 5:20 states that the law was given to INCREASE sin, not DECREASE sin.
You need to take a FRESH LOOK at the scriptures pertaining to THE LAW OF MOSES.
Abraham HAD NOT CLUE about any of the law of Moses, as Moses was 4 generations away. God did not sit Abraham down to teach him ANYTHING about sin, FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.
Then Aidan states:
““God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.” (Acts 17:30) Why? Because they are lost! Don’t you get it?”
MY RESPONSE:
NO, I DO NOT GET IT, because they were LOST once they got KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL THROUGH THE LAW. No one is LOST without knowledge of good and evil.
You can’t repent of sin if you have NO KNOWLEDGE of sin to begin with. What sin can you repent of, if you have no knowledge of what you did wrong? I hear this in church’s all the time, REPENT, REPENT. The NEW person in the church is EXPECTED to already know what sin it is that he must confess, WITHOUT BEING INTRODUCED TO THE LAW? is that how it works?
You are dog gone right I keep pointing out the topic of THE LAW THE LAW.
Romans 7:7
For without the law sin was dead.
You state something about the SYSTEM of Laws. WHAT? No, VIOLATE THE COMMANDMENTS OF LAWS WHICH GOD GAVE, THAT IS CONDEMNATION. God told them to OBEY, knowing full and well that NOBODY CAN.
And again, NO, ABRAHAM WAS NOT “SAVED”, he was JUSTIFIED. You keep telling me that Abraham was LOST. HOW? There was NO LAW to tell him what sin was, and that is the ONLY WAY that one can be LOST, regardless of any sin. KNOWLEDGE of SIN is FIRST needed, in order to be classified as LOST.
ALSO, BABIES ARE NOT LOST BEFORE THEY DIE A NATURAL DEATH. I will NOT subscribe to your belief system.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You mustn’t be at work, but I am, so my time is very limited! But there is so much off the wall stuff being said by you, I confess that I don’t know where to start.
Aidan,
Ya, I’m not working today. Lack of work due to the Holiday season, people are winding down work, and..we have a rain storm here that’s gonna last thru Sunday, at least.
And, I understand our time difference. so our time is limited. But all of what I say is in the bible. It’s not outside of the bible.
Our debate is THE major problem in REFORM, and Catholicism. Many of us in the United States are NOT reform, meaning that we do not subscribe to Catholicism, Luther, or Calvin.
I didn’t even KNOW who those people were before I began studying the bible. I don’t want them to INFLUENCE anything, for they got it all wrong.
Reformers would still be Catholic if…And that is a shame, because it’s still dead people deciding FOR YOU what to believe.
I have a saying…
Denominations search the commentaries daily to see if the bible is right.
Non-denominations search the scriptures daily to see if those in the pulpit are right.
THE PREACHER REPORTS, WE DECIDE, NOT THE DEAD PEOPLE WHO CAME BEFORE US.
Ed Chapman
Well, I’m neither Catholic nor Protestant, nor do I know much about any of those fellas you mentioned! But I do consider myself non-denominational!
Aidan
Aidan,
Perfect! You have a head start already then.
Talk at ya later, buddy.
Ed Chapman
No Problemo
ED:
“NO LAW, NO SIN IMPUTED, even tho, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.”
AMCM:
Nobody is without law!
All men are born with a sense of ‘ought’. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. You cannot sin if there’s no law, for sin is lawlessness.
“for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)” (Rom. 2:14-15)
The Gentiles who have sinned without the Law will perish without of the Law. The wages of sin is death!
“but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;” (Rom. 2:10-12)
Even the Gentiles will be without excuse, for God has not left Himself without witness since the creation, and Romans 1 tells us of the wrath of God revealed from heaven against the ungodly. (Rom 1: 18-32)
The Ungodly World Will Perish!
“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked
(for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—
then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,” (2 Pet. 2: 4-9)
So, no Ed! They won’t be saved! Which means your interpretation of scripture is off, and out of context.
Aidan,
You amuse me!
You completely wish to DISMISS Romans 5:13, and Romans 4:15 and 1 John 3:9, all for the sake of KEEPING YOUR MAN MADE doctrine that there is no such thing as OSAS.
Now you tell me that NO ONE IS WITHOUT LAW.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ROMANS 3
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
WITHOUT THE LAW
WITHOUT THE LAW
WITHOUT THE LAW
Before the law, sin was in the world, but sin is NOT IMPUTED where there is no law, for where no law is, there is NO TRANSGRESSION…
And NOW you are trying to tell me that Abram was UNDER THE LAW.
OKEE DOKEE THEN.
I can’t compete with that, I’d rather KEEP THE WAY THAT I READ THE BIBLE, instead of how YOU interpret the bible.
Go ahead and ignore those verses, because it goes against your narrative. You search the commentaries daily to see if the bible is right.
Believe what you believe.
Ed Chapman
ED: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ROMANS 3
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
AMCM: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Rom 3:21-23)
That’s all it means. Its the “righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ.” The righteousness that is based on faith, because no one was ever able to be justified by law, or works (perfect obedience) – seeing that all had sinned.
ED: And NOW you are trying to tell me that Abram was UNDER THE LAW.
AMCM: No! I didn’t say that Abram was UNDER THE LAW. But that he, like everybody else was under law. Romans 2 is very clear about that. All have sinned implies law. Those verses in Peter that I gave you, show that God is going to hold them accountable on the day of judgment. Read Romans one, there’s going to be no excuse for rejecting God on the day of judgment!
Again, I just think you are isolating those verses, and quoting them out of context.
Aidan,
I am going to let you read MY BLOG, just click my name, and scroll down my blog posts to SAVING FAITH vs. FAITH, and read it. It’s LONG, so hopefully you will get an understanding of WHERE I am coming from, instead of going back and forth here, because everyting that I say goes over your head.
If you wish to do as like LUTHER wanted to do, and DELETE parts of the bible that you disaee with, be my guest. But KNOWING 1 John 3:9 is THERE, as it also is in a few more places in 1 John, then you have to MARRY THEM with the rest of the story, and I already have, and have been explaining that you CANNOT LOSE YOUR SALVATION ALL BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.
For by the law is the knowledge of sin, NOT ANYWHERE ELSE, and you MUST have that knowledge to be found guilty of sin. Without that LAW, you are INNOCENT of any charges, and sin is NOT IMPUTED to you.
When you are BORN OF THE FLESH, God is WITH YOU, so there is no need to be saved, not need for MERCY, for God never left you, until…
YOU EAT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL (AKA GET KNOWLEDGE OF SIN BY THE LAW OF MOSES).
THEN you are SAVED, and NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH, AKA, THE LAW OF MOSES.
Saved, once and for all time.
Ed Chapman
Thanks Ed, and maybe when I get more of a chance I will give more of an explanation on 1 Jn 3:9
Aidan,
You had said:
“maybe when I get more of a chance I will give more of an explanation on 1 Jn 3:9”
I’m NOT looking for an explanation of 1 John 3:9. It’s SELF EXPLANITORY, needing no explanation.
It’s one of those PLAIN TEXT that people talk about.
You have to COUPLE that with Romans 4:15, and 5:13, otherwise, you are REACHING for something that it DOES NOT SAY. Don’t put words where they are not, because it’s self explanitory, not a parable, not a mystery, not a “BUT….”. Just plain text.
Ed Chapman
Aidan
You qutoe TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN,
“The Gentiles who have sinned without the Law will perish without of the Law. The wages of sin is death!”
Don’t you even KNOW what that means?
I’ve responded to this everytime that WAGES is something that you earn by WORKING, and the LAW OF MOSES is WORKS, therefore, the gentiles will NOT BE JUDGED BY THE LAW OF MOSES, when they die.
That’s what that means.
There was NO SIN that could be charged against Abraham, all because he didn’t have THE LAW. Yes, he sinnned, by sleeping with his sister, but that sin was NOT IMPUTED to him. WHY? Because he REPENTED? NO.
Then I pointed to the epistle of Peter showing that Jesus preached to the SPIRITS in “PRISON” (ABRAHAM’S BOSOM) of those who died in the FLOOD.
For you to even contemplate that babies are burning in hell, that goes beyond any comprehension in my study, going all the way back to DEUTERONOMY.
Ed Chapman
ED: “The Gentiles who have sinned without the Law will perish without of the Law. The wages of sin is death!”
Don’t you even KNOW what that means?
AMCM: Yes! That ungodly sinners outside the Law will perish without the Law. A scripture you deny!
ED: There was NO SIN that could be charged against Abraham, all because he didn’t have THE LAW. Yes, he sinnned, by sleeping with his sister, but that sin was NOT IMPUTED to him. WHY? Because he REPENTED? NO.
AMCM: First of all, I’m not sure I agree that he sinned because of his half sister. But you have your own opinion on that, and that’s fine. But at least you are acknowledging that Abraham wasn’t a perfect man and had sin in his life. That’s the reason he needed to be justified by faith and not by works!
ED: Then I pointed to the epistle of Peter showing that Jesus preached to the SPIRITS in “PRISON” (ABRAHAM’S BOSOM) of those who died in the FLOOD.
AMCM: I’m not sure I agree with your view of that passage, that the very wicked world of Noah was basically absolved from all their guilt and sin! Don’t make sense! And if it don’t make sense with the rest of scripture, it ain’t true!
ED: “For you to even contemplate that babies are burning in hell, that goes beyond any comprehension in my study, going all the way back to DEUTERONOMY.”
AMCM: How could you even say such a thing? I know that anyone who has read my view on total depravity/original sin, know what I believe concerning children – that of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Aidan,
You state:
“AMCM: Yes! That ungodly sinners outside the Law will perish without the Law. A scripture you deny!”
My resposne:
THAT IS NOT WHAT THAT STATES AT ALL..
Do you NOT KNOW WHAT THE LAW OF MOSES IS? It’s the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH.
When it states that “ungodly sinners” outside fo the law will perish,
It is saying that when IGNORANT PEOPLE DIE, THEY ARE NOT JUDGED BY THE LAW OF MOSES.
I have NO IDEA how you get that these so called SINNERS, what you call them, ARE BURNING IN HELL when they die, because THAT’S NOW HOW I READ IT at all.
Ed Chapman
Rom. 4:12: – “For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;”
Whether they had the Law or not, this verse simply teaches that men are condemned for no other reason, than the fact that they have sinned!
What you said about it makes no sense at all.
Aidan,
You had said:
“Rom. 4:12: – “For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;”
Whether they had the Law or not, this verse simply teaches that men are condemned for no other reason, than the fact that they have sinned!
What you said about it makes no sense at all.”
My response:
That does NOT say what you say it states.
It states that those NOT UNDER THE LAW will NOT BE JUDGED BY THE LAW when they die (parrish).
I don’t know HOW you can get any other interpretation out of that other than what I just said.
Abraham is NOT JUDGED BY THE LAW, for he PARRISHED (died) WITHOUT THE LAW.
Your interpretations are WEIRD. But, you came from Catholicism, so that answers why, and REFORM carried forward WEIRD interpretations, bringing BAGGAGE with them into THEIR theology.
Hence BABY BAPTISM. In MY theology, THERE IS NO SUCH THING, FOR THERE IS NO NEED. One only needs baptized once they GET KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, because it is THAT KNOWLEDGE that separates them FROM God, because that is the point when they KNOW their sin.
In Judaism, that is at age 13 for males, and 12 for females, when they ARE FINALLY INTRODUCED TO THE LAW OF MOSES, getting to KNOW THEIR SINS.
Until then…NO NEED for BABY BAPTISM.
Catholics and Reform have STRANGE doctrines.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You state:
“AMCM: How could you even say such a thing? I know that anyone who has read my view on total depravity/original sin, know what I believe concerning children – that of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
My response:
THEN BACK IT UP WITH SCRITPURE, BECAUSE I CAN, AND HAVE BEEN.
I’ve heard REFORM preachers say that the answer is NOT IN THE BIBLE, THAT IT IS SILENT, so they will preach that God gave them MERCY, and I will RETORT by saying that is WRONG, for there is NO MERCY NEEDED, because GOD NEVER LEFT THEM, so therefore, NO NEED FOR A SAVIOR TO BEGIN WITH.
So, you are gonna have to BACK IT UP WITH SCRIPTURE and NOT OPINION, because I can even get deeper that it is IN SCRITPURE, BUT SINCE reformers are EXPOSITORY, they reject it anyway. But I can GO THERE WITH SCRITPURE AND PROVE IT.
Ed Chapman
What are you talking about? You’re not listening! I believe that we are born as white as the driven snow, with absolutely no sin, inherited or otherwise (Ezekiel 18). So what are you talking about?
Aidan,
You had said:
“What are you talking about? You’re not listening! I believe that we are born as white as the driven snow, with absolutely no sin, inherited or otherwise (Ezekiel 18). So what are you talking about?”
My response:
I have NO PROBLEM with THAT, but what I do have a problem with, is that you think that sin is IMPUTED to them AS SOON AS THEY SIN, and it is for THAT, that I object.
They can SIN SIN SIN SIN SIN all day long, and NOT ONE SIN is imputed to them…
UNTIL
THEY GET KNOWLEDGE OF IT BEING A SIN.
THAT’S what I’m talking about!
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
You had said:
“First of all, I’m not sure I agree that he sinned because of his half sister. But you have your own opinion on that, and that’s fine. But at least you are acknowledging that Abraham wasn’t a perfect man and had sin in his life. That’s the reason he needed to be justified by faith and not by works! ”
My response:
OBVIOUSLY, you have not read my comments from last night, that shows ACTUAL REFERENCES that it is a sin to SLEEP WITH YOUR “HALF SISTER”, BECAUSE the Leviticus EXPOUNDS on EITHER THE DAUGHTER OF YOUR FATHER OR THE DAUGHTER OF YOUR MOTHER.
So again, it’s NOT MY OPINION, it’s SCRIPTURE.
You haven’t even noticed that I don’t give MY OPINION on anything. I quote scripture, and based on YOUR conclusions, you ignore them.
Abraham was a SINLESS man, even tho he sinned. Why? Romans 4:15, and VERSE 8, and Romans 5:13.
But, you will ignore those, of course.
Ed Chapman
Yes, I agree that it was condemned under the Law of Moses! That’s it.
Anyone can quote scripture! But that don’t mean how their reading it is right! (Mat. 4:6)
Aidan,
I’m taking a pause from this. No offense, but I keep stressing that people read the bible as a novel before ever delving into studying it. Then the verses I bring up will make sense.
Bottom line, you are not under the condemnation of the law of Moses.
STOP condemning those not under the law of Moses, as if any sin is gonna send them to hell. It’s not.
The reason babies don’t go to hell is not based on mercy, it’s because they don’t have knowledge of good and evil, and because of that, GOD lives inside their bodies.
Abraham was righteous without knowing anything about sin.
But because he sinned, he could not go to heaven when he died, hence, Abraham’s bosom.
When Jesus died, Jesus led CAPTIVE CAPTIVE, and took all those righteous people to heaven with him.
Abraham’s bosom was a place the righteous went, because of for all have sinned. So they were NOT JUDGED to hell because of their sins, because many had NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, such as children, and Abraham.
For by the law is the knowledge of sin (ROMANS 3:20). ROMANS 7:7, and others as well.
You can’t break a law that does not exist, and the law did not exist for Abraham, and it does not exist for you.
So stop looking to the law, for the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and once we are in Christ, we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and therefore, we can’t sin.
But you interpret things as you will. I’m comfortable in my understanding.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Then you state:
“Romans 1 tells us of the wrath of God revealed from heaven against the ungodly. (Rom 1: 18-32)”
But you NEGLECT Romans 4:15 which is ALL ABOUT WRATH, which states:
Romans 4:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
SO, THE PEOPLE GOD WAS TALKING ABOUT IN ROMANS 1, ARE THE ONES UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, THE JEWS.
you are way too carnally minded for me, thinking that if a person sins, without knowing what sin is, that they are burning in hell.
And yet, this is BASIC STUFF, that Adam and EVE WERE BOTH sinning in the Garden LONG BEFORE THEY ATE OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
But I know you will disagree with that, but for the rest of us who believe that, we have a saying that IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
But you will say, “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”.
But I say, in the case of God, IGNORANCE IS THE EXCUSE.
Ed Chapman
ED:
SO, THE PEOPLE GOD WAS TALKING ABOUT IN ROMANS 1, ARE THE ONES UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, THE JEWS.
AMCM:
I think that Romans 1 certainly applies to the Gentiles.
ED: But I say, in the case of God, IGNORANCE IS THE EXCUSE.
AMCM:
Romance 1 makes clear that ignorance will be no excuse, because it was WILLFUL IGNORANCE!
Aidan states:
“AMCM:
I think that Romans 1 certainly applies to the Gentiles.”
My response:
Uh, no, it applies to Jews under the law of Moses ONLY.
NEXT YOU STATE:
Romance 1 makes clear that ignorance will be no excuse, because it was WILLFUL IGNORANCE!
My response:
That’s an OXY MORON.
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Paul, talking about him getting mercy, and the REASON:
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
IGNORANCE IS THE EXCUSE.
ADAM AND EVE IN THE GARDEN, IGNORANT OF SIN, INNOCENCE DUE TO IGNORANCE.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
What does the following mean to you?
Acts 17:30 King James Version (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
What does he mean by WINKED, coupled with the word IGNORANCE?
What ignorance? WHAT MEAN WINK?
But they are all burning in hell, huh?
How does one repent, when one does NOT KNOW WHAT SIN IS?
Romans 3:20
FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Ed Chapman
ED: Aidan,
What does the following mean to you?
Acts 17:30 King James Version (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
What does he mean by WINKED, coupled with the word IGNORANCE?
AMCM: Why would they need to “repent” if they are not going to be held accountable on the day of judgment?
God is certainly longsuffering, therefore note what the next verse says: He says, “REPENT” – because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)
No! willful ignorance will not be bliss!
Aidan,
That’s my point, they will not be held to account on the day off judgment. Therefore, no need to repent.
So my question back is, how can one repent without KNOWLEDGE of what to repent from?
Without KNOWLEDGE, you are not held to account, hence innocence.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Ya know, I find it strange that when I show you verses that include the word IGNORANT, and WINK, that you just seem to BYPASS and redirect with YOUR talking point, without regards to mine.
The same with 1 John 3:9.
You don’t agree with them, due to your PREVIOUS held belief, STILL CURRENT, and so you will do everything to DISMISS THEM by REDIRECTING.
Why is that?
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
So, Aidan…
How many times have you been saved since you were FIRST saved?
Everytime you sin, you are NOT SAVED, right?
How many times have you been LOST since you were first saved?
When was the last time you sinned? You are a SINNER, right? So, when was the last time that you got BAPTIZED?
If you sinned, BUT NEVER GOT BAPTISED, then you are STILL LOST, right?
My conclusion, based on your theology, is that YOU ARE GONNA BURN IN HELL, because you didn’t follow YOUR OWN procedures to ENDURE that you were saved, all because YOU keep on sinning, as well as NOT BEING BAPTIZED to be saved after you were LOST for the millionth time.
If you only got baptized ONCE, and not after EACH TIME you were lost, YOU HAVE SOME GETTING WET TO DO quickly!
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
And, based on my last comment, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN? By your own theology, it’s just a guess, cuz YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW. Saved today, but that last sin before you die, YOU MIGHT FORGET TO ASK FORGIVENESS, and BOOM, burn in hell for eternity, all because you FORGOT to ask forgiveness for your LAST SIN. All other sins forgiven, but NOT THAT LAST ONE, and that’s gonna get you to hell!
Your theology! NOT MINE.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
This is the sin of Abraham:
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
And yet, God gave BROTHER AND SISTER a PROMISED CHILD. God never informed Abraham if Deuteronomy or Leviticus. Now, if you wish to say that God determined that to be a sin LATER, I would argue with that it was always a sin, but God NEVER informed them.
It is a CURSE, and a WICKED THING. But that sin was NOT imputed to Abraham, for there was NO LAW, so, NO WRATH (Romans 4:15), and God never informed him about this sin, and gave WICKED CURSED (sarcasm) brother/sister ISAAC.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
In essence, what you are telling Christians o “do” (deed/work) is to STOP SINNING.
So is Paul, but the answer to both you and Paul is a huge contrast of difference.
YOU are telling people to WORK by obeying the law of Moses COMMANDMENTS.
Paul, on the other hand, is telling us to KILL THE BODY BY DYING WITH CHRIST, and to STAY AWAY from the law of Moses at all cost.
Galatians 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Aidan,
I already spoke about the “For the wages of sin is death” mantra, but you are not hearing me, apparently.
WAGE is something that is EARNED through WORK.
WORK is the LAW OF MOSES.
The GIFT of eternal life is OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW OF MOSES.
Next,
If you DIED to sin, then you are NOT living in the flesh. But if you are ALIVE to sin, you are living in the flesh.
The Law of Moses is LIVING IN THE FLESH.
You are not living in the flesh OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW OF MOSES.
Listen, LIFE REQUIRES A BODY, and your body is DEAD, all because you DIED WITH CHRIST.
Next
TELL ME IF YOU CAN…
What sin could Abraham EVER BE ACCUSED OF? NONE. WHY?
Romans 5:13 and Romans 4:15
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law…Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
For all have sinned, YES, but there is NO SIN that Abraham could EVER be accused of at all.
Romans 4:8
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Abraham was SINLESS all because there was NO LAW telling him anything about sin, yet, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.
WHY can’t you see THAT at the minimum?
Ed Chapman
When people use the, FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH mantra, a wage is something earned, by WORKING, hence, THE LAW OF MOSES IS WORK.
We have freedom, and yet, Christians are telling people to obey the law of Moses, instead of the law of Christ…
One is work, by the law, the other is a gift, WITHOUT WORKING.
Ed Chapman
The law of sin and death is the law of Moses. The law of Christ is freedom from the law of Moses.
You can’t sin under the law of Christ.
Sounds to me that you reject 1 John 3:9. If so, that’s your choice.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
One last thing, Aidan,
1 Corinthians 15:56
THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW
TAKE THE LAW OUT OF THE WAY, SIN HAS NO POWER. But you wish it to have power, telling Christians that they can sin under Christ.
NO, CHRISTIANS CANNOT SIN UNDER CHRIST. They can only sin under the law.
The strength of sin is the law. NO Law, no strength.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
And, as always, NO ONE WANTS TO GO TO ABRAHAM.
Was Abraham sinning, YES OR NO, when he slept with his sister? If so, WHY DIDN’T GOT TELL HIM SO?
Does that really go over people’s heads for some reason?
Ed Chapman
Ed, just a thought for you to ponder. You have a strong opinion about Abraham sleeping with his sister. If you think about how life began, with one man and one woman, you will realize that, initially, sleeping with one’s sister (half sister, cousin, etc.) was the only way for early men to reproduce – unless they slept with their mother. It only became a sin when God declared it so, when it was no longer the only way to reproduce.
TS00,
Oh, please don’t misunderstand me. I do not have a strong opinion on it at all. Yes, I do agree with you on the need to reproduce, etc.
So, let me lay it on the line as to why I keep bringing it up.
The law of Moses.
That’s the sole reason.
The law of Moses dictates very plainly, that it’s a sin.
But Abraham, Lot’s daughters, etc., was not under the law of Moses.
And so, the point is, because they were not under the law of Moses, the sin cannot be imputed to them at all.
They had no knowledge of it being a sin.
This is where Romans 5:13, and Romans 4:15 comes into play.
Now, moving on…
We are not under the law of Moses, just like Abraham, and our future sins that we commit, are NOT counted against us, because, as Paul states in the latter part of Romans 7, it is not he that does sin, but sin that is in his body.
So, to conclude, I’m not raising the issue of incest.. I’m raising the issue of sin, and why it’s not imputed, no matter what sin you commit, while NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.
That’s my point. Not incest.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
What you are implying is that God made it a sin later, all because of a need to populate the earth.
But when you read ROMANS 5:13, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not imputed due to no law. Then Romans 4:15, where no law is, there is no transgression.
God does not invent sin on a whim. Incest has always been a sin, always. But people didn’t know it. Therefore, what ya don’t KNOW, you are not accountable to.
So populate the earth with your sister.. just don’t eat of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, and you won’t get a guilty conscience about it.
That’s my point expounded.
Ed Chapman
So God’s command to populate the earth involved necessary sin? Now you’re startin’ to sound like them Calvinists. Hmmm . . . I agree with much of your perspective on sin and the law, but I don’t buy this theory. 😉 I can only postulate, but I am guessing that once incest was no longer necessary, and becoming dangerous genetically, God decided to close the door on it.
Ha! A Calvinist? Now that’s a good one. Still down. This morning o quoted verses to show Abraham’s sin.
Look, this goes back to Adam and Eve. There was a tree, called… what was the NAME of that tree again?
Why can’t people remember the name of that tree? Something about knowledge? Knowledge of what?
Where so people today get that knowledge from?
The law of who?
Then ya gotta research answers, after, of course, you first ask questions.
Such as… what information did Adam get from eating of that tree?
Why didn’t Abraham have the law of Moses?
Why didn’t God command Abraham to go to church on Saturday?
Who, what, where, why, when, how.
It’s all there.
And no, it has nothing to do with Calvinism. Lol
Ed Chapman
If people COULD stop sinning, then there would be no need for Jesus, because no one would sin… If it were possible. The difference is, if no knowledge, then the sinner is innocent of the charges. That’s the point.
TS00,
SO…The question… why did Adam and EVE cover their nakedness? That’s the guilt they felt. What was wrong at being naked? After all, GOD put them there naked. But they were ashamed to be naked. So, what is it about being naked that causes guilt?
TS00,
So the Jews have the law of Moses, telling them, in essence, STOP SINNING. How did that work out?
Can people stop sinning? Can Christians stop sinning? No.
Did Paul consider himself lost again when he states in Romans 7 that he does what he does not want to do, sin? How many times is one baptised? If you can lose your salvation, then that would mean that a person can be saved more than once, meaning that you’d have to be baptised every time that you repent. Then, to find out you gotta make an appointment, due to a waiting list, due to church schedules, you may be lost an additional 3 weeks after you repent, but die before that day comes. Hell bound due to a scheduling conflict? Ha! I think of crazy things like this. Mostly for humor.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
THIS VERSE:
Romans 5:20 (NIRV)
20 The law was given so that sin would increase. But where sin increased, God’s grace increased even more.
So, here’s the goof of all time right here.
The law was given SO THAT
let me say that again,
SO THAT
sin would INCREASE…
Let me say that again…
INCREASE. Not DECREASE.
Are you getting it yet? God put the law in place SO THAT sin would INCREASE, not DECREASE.
And why? So that GRACE WOULD HAVE A MEANING.
No matter what YOUR answer will be, God wanted sin to INCREASE, not decrease. Romans 5:20 states so, SO THAT, key words…INCREASE, another key word.
You figure it out!
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
So, since you believe in WATER baptism to be saved, HOW MANY BAPTISMS does it take to ENSURE that a person is SAVED?
Saved on Sunday, lost on Tuesday, RESAVED on Wednesday, just in time for WEDNESDAY NIGHT SERVICE, lost on Saturday, and FOUND AGAIN ON SUNDAY.
How many Baptisms for the week? Do showers count as a Baptism? Or Baths? Bubble Bath? And knowing that the Catholics love lighting candles, a bubble bath with scented candles? Or would your wife get mad that you are using HER BUBBLE BATH for your ALONE TIME? LOL.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
DEAD TO SIN. What does THAT mean to you? DEAD. DEAD DEAD DEAD TO SIN.
NOT DEAD IN SIN, BUT DEAD TO SIN
Romans 6:2
How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
VS.
Ephesians 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
DEAD TO SIN MEANS THAT DEAD PEOPLE CAN’T SIN. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A DEAD PERSON TO SIN…THEY ARE DEAD.
CORPS CAN’T SIN. AND IF YOU ARE DEAD TO SIN, YOU ARE ALIVE TO CHRIST, AND DEM FOKE AINT SINNIN, PREOD.
chapmaned24 writes, “CORPS CAN’T SIN.”
Is this the Marine Corps, the Army Corps of Engineers, or what? I blame the spell checker for these things.
Think of a morgue.
chapmaned24 writes, “Romans 6:2: “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
Romans 6 is followed by Romans 7, where Paul says, “I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” So, we are dead to sin by the law of God working in us but we must bring our nature into conformity with the law of God. Thus, Paul instructs, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
rhutchin states:
“Romans 6 is followed by Romans 7, where Paul says, “I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, ”
Ya, ya, ya…This is the DIFFERENCE between The Law of MOSES, vs. THE LAW OF CHRIST.
Paul already KNOWS the law of Moses, and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle once KNOWLEDGE is received.
But you MISS one very important thing regarding chapter 7, which is verses 1-4
Romans 7 (KJV)
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
It’s always best to begin at the beginning.
YOU ARE DEAD, DEAD TO THE LAW, DEAD TO SIN, YOU DIED WITH CHRIST.
What part of dead do you not understand?
Ed Chapman
Carl
“The Calvinist equates being a “slave” to sin with being a robot.”
rhutchin
The Calvinist equates a slave to sin to that which Jesus said…etc
br.d
Carl was referring to what LOGICALLY equates in Calvinism
To be distinguished from things Calvinists try to appeal to.
br.d
Carl was referring to what LOGICALLY equates in Calvinism
To be distinguished from things Calvinists try to appeal to.
Yes. Exactly. Where their notions actually lead, as opposed to the text stew of misleading, redefined words that they say.
For example, it is logically impossible for God to exhaustively control all things and us, at the same time, to have any choice.
Yet they will spin a word fog around the subject to make it appear as if their odd notion could be possible. A = not A.
Wonderful post Carl!
Absolutely hit the bulls-eye!
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely in his book “Taking a closer look at Calvinism” calls this the Calvinist “rocking-horse” language pattern.
And I’ve posted close to a dozen quotes from book authors – all agreeing that Calvinist language is full of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Carl, “For example, it is logically impossible for God to exhaustively control all things and us, at the same time, to have any choice.”
Why is that? In Acts 4, we read, ““For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.” We see here the culmination of numerous prophecies of the OT all coming together through the exhaustive control of God over all things. Yet, in bringing all this to pass, God did not have to coerce or force any person to act against his will. Even as the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 were used of God for His purpose yet they intended only to pursue their selfish desires all the time being under the exhaustive control.of God, they did as God willed.
Carl
For example, it is logically impossible for God to exhaustively control all things and us, at the same time, to have any choice.
rhutchin
Why is that? In Acts 4, we read, ……
br.d
This is of course – a LOGICAL consequence the Calvinist does not want to accept for psychological/emotions reasons.
In Theological Determinism – *ALL* things are determined *FOR* the creature at the foundation of the world.
Making it the case that nothing is UP TO YOU – since everything is SOLELY UP TO a THEOS.
As Peter Van Inwagen shows in the “Consequence Argument”
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those thoughts, choices, and actions, are framed within the boundaries of nature, which exist at the time in which they are actualized in our lives.
3) But then it is not UP TO US what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we were born.
4) And neither is it UP TO US what attributes of nature – including our own – exist at any time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US.
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism – *ALL* things are determined *FOR* the creature at the foundation of the world.’
Yet, in God’s infinite understanding, no creature must be coerced or forced by God to do His bidding but they do it willfully and voluntarily thinking all the time that they are achieving their prideful and selfish desires.
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism – *ALL* things are determined *FOR* the creature at the foundation of the world.
Making it the case that nothing is UP TO the creature – since everything is SOLELY UP TO – a THEOS
rhutchin
Yet, in God’s infinite understanding, no creature must be coerced or forced by God to do His bidding
br.d
1)
This is the “no force” argument
And this argument is a red-herring – since not one attribute (e.g. choice, desire) is UP TO the creature anyway.
And force is not a NECESSARY CONDITION to bring that about.
Additionally, the Calvinist has to argue that Calvin’s god’s decrees are force-less.
Resulting in a force that forces without forcing! :-]
rhutchin
they do it willfully and voluntarily thinking all the time that they are achieving their prideful and selfish desires.
br.d
FALSE
It is a LOGICAL impossibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing about [X] is UP TO YOU.
And that includes your nature – (e.g. choices, desires etc)
Read the second half of the consequence argument which responds to you’re appeal to “selfish desires”
Its obvious why the Calvinist resists biting the bullet and accepting the LOGICAL consequences of his belief system.
And that is why Calvinist language is so characterized by DOUBLE-SPEAK.
br.d writes, “Additionally, the Calvinist has to argue that Calvin’s god’s decrees are force-less.
Resulting in a force that forces without forcing!”
God’s decrees are not coercive. God takes advantage of the person’s sinful passions (as when David desired Bathsheba).
Then, “It is a LOGICAL impossibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing about [X] is NOT UP TO YOU.
And that includes one’s nature – (e.g. desires etc)”
If a person is not forced to act nor acts voluntarily, how does anything happen? Did not Pilate and the Jews act voluntarily as it was not necessary that God coerce them to act as they did?
br.d
Additionally, the Calvinist has to argue that Calvin’s god’s decrees are force-less.
Resulting in a force that forces without forcing!”
rhutchin
God’s decrees are not coercive. God takes advantage of the person’s sinful passions…
br.d
Force / coercive is a red-herring.
What we have is a simple equation which a RATIONAL mind can understand:
No decree for sinful passions = no sinful passions to take advantage of.
Additionally
It is a LOGICAL impossibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing about [X] is UP TO YOU.
And that includes one’s nature – (e.g. desires etc)”
rhutchin
If a person is not forced to act nor acts voluntarily, how does anything happen?
br.d
The same way the actions of a functional robot happen.
It is not forced – and since nothing is UP TO the robot – it has nothing to volunteer.
You do to the math
How do you “volunteer” [X] – when [X] is NOT UP TO you to volunteer.
Force in this context is simply a red-herring
rhutchin
Did not Pilate and the Jews act voluntarily as it was not necessary that God coerce them to act as they did?
br,d
Yet another example from scripture of something which is LOGICALLY excluded by Theological Determinism. :-]
br.d writes, “No decree for sinful passions = no sinful passions to take advantage of.”
No decree for sinful passions = no sinful passions to take advantage of and no infinite understanding by God.
Given God’s infinite understanding of His creation, His understanding will include the sinful passions of people providing God the means to decree those sinful passions.
Then, “It is a LOGICAL impossibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing about [X] is UP TO YOU.
And that includes one’s nature – (e.g. desires etc)”
It is LOGICAL possibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing you are not coerced to do {X}.
Then, “It is not forced – and since nothing is UP TO the robot – it has nothing to volunteer.”
A robot is not human and is not made in the image of God having independence and self-determination. Not being human, a robot cannot volunteer as it has no feelings or passions to generate voluntary actions.
Then, “rhutchin: “Did not Pilate and the Jews act voluntarily as it was not necessary that God coerce them to act as they did?”
br,d: “Yet another example from scripture of something which is LOGICALLY excluded by Theological Determinism. ”
Theological Determinism, says br.d, excludes the Scriptures when one might assume that the purpose of “Theological” is to incorportate the Scriptures into Determinism to show how God involves Himself in His creation. So, shouldn’t you say “Determinism,” and not “Theological Determinism”?
br.d
No decree for sinful passions = no sinful passions to take advantage of.
rhutchin
No decree for sinful passions = no sinful passions to take advantage of and no infinite understanding by God.
br.d
FALSE
Oh the Calvinist’s world of 1001 LOGICAL fallacies!
If Calvin’s god is omniscient – then he knows why he does not decree [X].
In order to know why he does not decree [X] would LOGICALLY entail he has understanding of [X]
rhutchin
Given God’s infinite understanding of His creation, His understanding will include the sinful passions of people providing God the means to decree those sinful passions.
br,d
Here again is another attempt to SMUGGLE “mere” permission – in camouflaged form.
Again the equation is simple for a RATIONAL mind
No decree of sinful passions = no sinful passions
Additionally:
It is a LOGICAL impossibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing about [X] is UP TO YOU.
And that includes one’s nature – (e.g. desires etc)”
rhutchin
It is LOGICAL possibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when nothing you are not coerced to do {X}.
br.d
This is obviously a typo and doesn’t makes sense – why don’t you try again
On robot functionality
It is not forced – and since nothing is UP TO the robot – it has nothing to volunteer.”
rhutchin
A robot is not human
br.d
You’ve committed this straw-man argument 1000 times now
Why embarrass yourself?
There is no argument that man is a robot ONTOLOGICALLY
We are talking about FUNCTIONALITY only.
rhutchin
Made in the image of God
br.d
This is how we know the Calvinist has a love-hate relationship with Theological Determinism.
He’s always trying to escape its LOGICAL entailments
When all neurological impulses are determined (i.e. programmed) in advance before the creature is made – we have robotic FUNCTIONALITY
rhutchin
having independence and self-determination.
br.d
Here is another Calvinist attempt to deny the UNIVERSALITY of “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”
You do the math:
Take the sum total of things determined to come to pass
Subtract *ALL* from it (that number which Calvin’s god SOLELY determines)
You get ZERO left over for the creature to determine.
Its elementary dear Watson! :-]
rhutchin
Not being human, a robot cannot volunteer as it has no feelings or passions to generate voluntary actions.
br.d
How is this not elementary school thinking?
A robot exists in a fully deterministic world – and that is why nothing is UP TO the robot to volunteer.
rhutchin
Theological Determinism, says br.d, excludes the Scriptures when one might assume that the purpose of “Theological” is to incorportate the Scriptures into Determinism to show how God involves Himself in His creation. So, shouldn’t you say “Determinism,” and not “Theological Determinism”?
br.d
Theological Determinism rules out:
(A) Alternate Possibilities
(B) The ability to Do Otherwise
(C) Anything being UP TO YOU
The Calvinist struggle – is that he sees – the very things his theology rules out – LOGICALLY consistent within scripture.
So in order to have them – he has have to SMUGGLE them back in – in camouflaged form.
Now who is going to call that intellectual honesty?
br.d writes, “If Calvin’s god is omnipotent – then he knows why he does not decree [X].”
Some confusion here. Omnipotence has nothing to do with that which God decrees or does not decree. It is by understanding that God does not decree {X} choosing to decree {Y} instead.
You then correct yourself saying, “In order to know why he does not decree [X] – would LOGICALLY entail he has infinite understanding of [X]. So, I think you meant, “If Calvin’s god is omniscient,…” and this is true by virtue of His understanding as you then state.
However, you began with “FALSE Oh the Calvinist’s world of 1001 LOGICAL fallacies!” You then agreed with the Calvinist (assuming you meant omniscience and not omnipotence). So, what is your problem??
Then, “Again the equation is simple for a RATIONAL mind No decree of sinful passions = no sinful passions.”
Yes, with all decrees derived from God’s understanding as you first noted. So, what is the argument??
Then, “This is obviously a typo and doesn’t makes sense – why don’t you try again”
Try this, “It is LOGICAL possibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when you are not coerced to do {X}.”
Then, “There is no argument that man is a robot ONTOLOGICALLY We are talking about FUNCTIONALITY only.”
Man is not a robot functionally. Man is independent and self-determining and a robot is not. Man functions differently than a robot.
Then, “When all neurological impulses are determined (i.e. programmed) in advance before the creature is made – we have robotic FUNCTIONALITY”
All neurological impulses are determined by God (i.e., made certain by God’s creation of Adam/Eve.) Those impulses are not initiated by God in the mind of a person. In some cases, they occur as a consequence of the way God made man )e.g., the heart beats, and the blood carries oxygen) or as a consequence of a person being affected to action by external factors (e.g., touching a hot stove, doing math homework).
Then, “Take the sum total of things determined to come to pass
Subtract *ALL* from it (that number which Calvin’s god SOLELY determines)
You get ZERO left over for the creature to determine.”
All things are certain and there is nothing that is not certain. That God determines all things does not explain the means by which God determines all things.
Then, “How is this not elementary school thinking? A robot exists in a fully deterministic world – and that is why nothing is UP TO the robot to volunteer.”
So, now we know you understand elementary things. Understanding what a person is seems to be the difficulty for you.
Then, “Theological Determinism rules out:
(A) Alternate Possibilities
(B) The ability to Do Otherwise
(C) Anything being UP TO YOU”
That is determinism. Theological Determinism incorporates God, as the source of certainty, and looks at the means God uses to rule out: (A) and (B) and involve (C).
Then, ‘The Calvinist struggle – is that he sees – the very things his theology rules out – LOGICALLY consistent within scripture.”
The Calvinist sees the very thing his theology does not rule out (i.e., the Scripture) providing the logical coherence for his theology. The Calvinist, if he smuggles anything into his theology, must smuggle in the Scriptures, but this is the whole point of adding “Theological” to “Determinism.” Everyone, except you, calls that intellectually honest.
br.d
If Calvin’s god is omnipotent – then he knows why he does not decree [X].”
rhutchin
Some confusion here. Omnipotence has nothing to do with that which God decrees or does not decree. It is by understanding that God does not decree {X} choosing to decree {Y} instead.
br.d
A typo on my part – I meant omniscient.
And again the equation is simple for a RATIONAL mind
No decree of sinful passions = no sinful passions.
rhutchin
Yes, with all decrees derived from God’s understanding as you first noted. So, what is the argument??
br.d
Sure – Calvin’s god would have to understand [X] in order to decree [X] come to pass.
And also understand [X] in order to choose not to decree [X]
rhutchin
Try this, “It is LOGICAL possibility for you to “volunteer” [X] when you are not coerced to do {X}.”
br.d
This simply affirms my statement that force/coercion is a red-herring in this case
However it is still a LOGICAL impossibility to volunteer [X] when [X] is not UP TO YOU to volunteer.
And you’re simply not going to get around that – no matter how hard you try.
rhutchin
Man is not a robot functionally.
br.d
There is a difference between being a robot functionally – and functioning robotically.
The former is a straw-man – the later is a LOGICAL entailment of a world in which all functionality is fully determined in advance by an external mind.
rhutchin
Man is independent and self-determining
br.d
FALSE unless you can get around simple math
Take the sum total of things determined to come to pass
Subtract *ALL* from it (that number which Calvin’s god SOLELY determines)
You get ZERO left over for the creature to determine.”
rhutchin
Man functions differently than a robot.
br.d
robotic functionality is simply a referent to functionality that fully determined by an external mind.
And that is what you have in Theological Determinism.
So the parallels are what they are.
rhutchin
All neurological impulses are determined by God
br.d
BING!
rhutchin
(i.e., made certain by God’s creation of Adam/Eve.)
br.d
This could simply be yet another attempt to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission in camouflaged form
rhutchin
Those impulses are not initiated by God in the mind of a person. In some cases, they occur as a consequence of the way God made man )
br.d
See answer above
Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit anything
He specifically determines every part of every neurological impulse that will come to pass in mans brain.
And that is why Calvin says “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.
rhutchin
e.g., the heart beats, and the blood carries oxygen) or as a consequence of a person being affected to action by external factors (e.g., touching a hot stove, doing math homework).
br.d
Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit any of these things.
Every one of them is SPECIFICALLY decreed – in every part.
rhutchin
All things are certain and there is nothing that is not certain. That God determines all things does not explain the means by which God determines all things.
br.d
Another red-herring.
Only the consequence of the decree is relevant.
rhutchin
So, now we know you understand elementary things. Understanding what a person is seems to be the difficulty for you.
br.d
Again with the reverse attribution! :-]
So we have Theological Determinism which rules out:
(A) Alternate Possibilities
(B) The ability to Do Otherwise
(C) Anything being UP TO YOU”
rhutchin
That is determinism.
br.d
This shows poor study of the subject mater
Theological Determinism carries all of the LOGICAL consequences of Determinism simpliciter
As Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument” shows:
If Universal Divine Causal Determinism is true:
1) Our every thought, choice, desire, and action, are the consequences of divine decrees which occurred at the foundation of the world – having been determined at a point in which we do not yet exist.
2) Additionally those thoughts, choices, desires and actions, are framed within the boundaries of nature, which exist at the time in which they are actualized in our lives.
3) But then it is not UP TO US what immutable decrees were established at the foundation of the world before we were born.
4) And neither is it UP TO US what attributes of nature – including our own – exist at any time.
5) Therefore, the consequences of these things are not UP TO US.
rhutchin
Theological Determinism incorporates God as the source of certainty, and looks at the means God uses to rule out: (A) and (B) and involve (C).
br.d
As the Consequence Argument above shows – Theological Determinism rules out (A), (B) and (C)
Whether you have a THEOS as the determiner or not does not change that.
No matter how much MAGIC you want to appeal to.
The Calvinist struggle – is that he sees – (A), (B) and (C) LOGICALLY consistent within scripture.
The very things his theology rules out.
So he has to find a way to SMUGGLE them back in – in camouflaged form.
rhutchin
The Calvinist sees the very thing his theology does not rule out (i.e., the Scripture)
providing the logical coherence for his theology.
br.d
This falls into the fallacy of conflating scripture with an INTERPRETATION of scripture
As William Lane Craig says about Calvinist Interpretation
-quote
When one’s INTERPRETATION leads one into this sort of Cul-de-sac (i.e. A LOGICAL DEAD END), it is a good idea to reassess whether one has indeed rightly interpreted scripture.
rhutchin
The Calvinist, if he smuggles anything into his theology, must smuggle in the Scriptures,
br.d
Oh but we have way to many posts here at SOT101 which show constant attempts to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission, various degrees of creaturely autonomy, and all sorts of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
The good news is – SOT101 readers can see these for themselves. :-]
rhutchin
but this is the whole point of adding “Theological” to “Determinism.” Everyone, except you, calls that intellectually honest.
br.d
How is this not supposed to be taken as sophomoric?
The term “Theological” within Theological Determinism is not a reference to scripture anywhere in any literature on the subject.
The STOICS were Theological Determinists before Calvinists ever were.
The term “Theological” is a reference to a THEOS.
br.d writes, “However it is still a LOGICAL impossibility to volunteer [X] when [X] is not UP TO YOU to volunteer.
And you’re simply not going to get around that – no matter how hard you try.”
Yet, God does not coerce the person to [X]. So, a person is not coerced to [X] and does not volunteer to [X]. How does [X] occur?
Then, “the later is a LOGICAL entailment of a world in which all functionality is fully determined in advance by an external mind.”
It is determined (i.e., made certain) by the external mind but not coerced by the external mind to do that which it has determined.
Then, rhutchin: Man is independent and self-determining
br.d: FALSE unless you can get around simple math
Take the sum total of things determined to come to pass
Subtract *ALL* from it (that number which Calvin’s god SOLELY determines)
You get ZERO left over for the creature to determine.”
Again, we have the same situation. An event is determined but not coerced to happen. God determines the death of Jesus, but does not coerce anyone to crucify Jesus. How does it happen?
Then, “robotic functionality is simply a referent to functionality that fully determined by an external mind.
And that is what you have in Theological Determinism.”
Robot action depends on it’s programming to specific action. Human action is determined by the human mind that is not programmed to any specific action. A human is not comparable to a robot.
Then, “Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit anything He specifically determines every part of every neurological impulse that will come to pass in mans brain.”
God determines (i.e., makes certain) all that happens and events happen through means that God understands. Thus, God can determine that Adam will eat the fruit and not have to coerce Adam to eat the fruit. God decides to eat the fruit as a consequence of God making him an independent and self0determining human.
Then, “rhutchin: “The Calvinist sees the very thing his theology does not rule out (i.e., the Scripture) providing the logical coherence for his theology.”
br.d” “This falls into the fallacy of conflating scripture with an INTERPRETATION of scripture”
What good is Scripture if it is not interpreted. (or understood)? Calvinism prevails against those who oppose its interpretation (understanding) of Scripture when alternative interpretations are not offered. A God who has infinite understanding of all things necessarily determines all things. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to deny that God has infinite understanding. So, we have the Theology that God has infinite understanding being able thereby to decree all things providing God omniscience of all things. Contrarily, there is the personal philosophy that God does not have infinite understanding of all things, thereby being unable to decree all things meaning that God cannot be omniscient.
Then, “we have way to many posts here at SOT101 which show constant attempts to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission, various degrees of creaturely autonomy, and all sorts of DOUBLE-SPEAK.”
I have not seen it. Creaturely autonomy is never possible. The creature can be independent but not autonomous. The creature can be self-determining but still is subordinate to God.
Then, “The term “Theological” within Theological Determinism is not a reference to scripture anywhere in any literature on the subject…The term “Theological” is a reference to a THEOS.”
LOL!!! What good is an empty reference to a THEOS. If the THEOS does not bring anything to the table, why call it. “Theological Determinism”?
br.d
However it is still a LOGICAL impossibility to volunteer [X] when [X] is not UP TO YOU to volunteer.
And you’re simply not going to get around that – no matter how hard you try.”
rhutchin
Yet, God does not coerce the person to [X]. So, a person is not coerced to [X] and does not volunteer to [X]. How does [X] occur?
br.d
You asked this question before – and the answer is right there for anyone to see.
Take the model of functionality which exists within the fully determined world of a robot.
It has compatibilist freedom
It is free to be and do what it is determined to be and do.
And according to compatiblistic freedom – it is said to NOT be coerced.
And at the same time – it is and does whatever is determined
And Peter Van Inwagen’s consequence argument shows – nothing is UP TO the robot
This is the LOGICAL entailment of a world in which all functionality is fully determined in advance by an external mind.
rhutchin
It is determined (i.e., made certain) by the external mind but not coerced by the external mind to do that which it has determined.
br.d
Sure – if that is what you want to assert.
LOGIC shows that force/coercion is a red-herring in this case.
rhutchin
Man is independent and self-determining
br.d:
FALSE
unless you can get around simple math
Take the sum total of things determined to come to pass
Subtract *ALL* from it (that number which Calvin’s god SOLELY determines)
You get ZERO left over for the creature to determine.”
rhutchin
Again, we have the same situation. An event is determined but not coerced to happen. God determines the death of Jesus, but does not coerce anyone to crucify Jesus. How does it happen?
br.d
And that is supposed to be a way of getting around simple math?
Good luck with that one! :-]
robotic functionality is simply a referent to functionality that fully determined by an external mind.
And that is what you have in Theological Determinism.”
rhutchin
Robot action depends on it’s programming to specific action.
br.d
Correct!
rhutchin
Human action is determined by the human mind that is not programmed to any specific action.
br.d
rhutchin- if there were a LOGICAL argument here – you would have laid it out.
Instead we have a talking-point repeated over and over like a medication montra
With the hopes that repeating it will somehow make it come true.
If [X] is not UP TO YOU – how are you going to determine anything about [X]?
rhutchin
A human is not comparable to a robot.
br.d
Another talking-point with no LOGICAL evidence.
Again – we are talking about FUNCTIONALITY fully determined by an external mind.
Also
Calvin’s god does not “merely” permit anything He specifically determines every part of every neurological impulse that will come to pass in mans brain.
rhutchin
God determines (i.e., makes certain) all that happens and events happen through means that God understands. Thus, God can determine that Adam will eat the fruit and not have to coerce Adam to eat the fruit. God decides to eat the fruit as a consequence of God making him an independent and self0determining human.
br.d
Another talking-point without any LOGICAL evidence.
If [X] is not UP TO Adam – how is Adam going to determine anything about [X]?
rhutchin
What good is Scripture if it is not interpreted. (or understood)?
br.d
Think about the parable of the talents.
Scripture is a talent
What you do with scripture is another thing altogether.
It is IRRATIONAL to conflate the two.
rhutchin
Calvinism prevails against those who oppose its interpretation (understanding) of Scripture when alternative interpretations are not offered.
br.d
Its all to easy to MAKE-BELIEVE alternatives are not offered! :-]
rhutchin
A God who has infinite understanding of all things necessarily determines all things. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to deny that God has infinite understanding.
br.d
No need to do that.
But when “infinite understanding” is used as a subtle strategy to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission in camouflaged form – myself and others have already taken note of that strategy.
We take note that the term “understanding” is used rather than “knowledge”
In language, the term “understanding” is used as a common inference to “knowledge via observation”.
So the fact that that term is used rather than “knowledge” serves as another indicator.
Also – Middle Knowledge is classified as part of divine knowledge (understanding in your terminology)
And all academia knows that Middle knowledge facilitates Libertarian freedom.
So far – you’ve simply chosen to ignore that
And MAKE-BELIEVE you are correct and all of academia is wrong.
And additionally
we have way to many posts here at SOT101 which show constant attempts to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission, various degrees of creaturely autonomy, and all sorts of DOUBLE-SPEAK.”
rhutchin
I have not seen it.
br.d
Yes – understood – others here and myself have noted that as familiar routine
rhutchin
Creaturely autonomy is never possible. The creature can be independent but not autonomous. The creature can be self-determining but still is subordinate to God.
br.d
You probably don’t know it but within academic literature there are arguments for Libertarian Freedom which refer to it as :self-determining” They would get a kick out of a determinist appealing to the very term they argue as part of Libertarian Freedom.
But you are still faced with the LOGICAL conundrum:
If nothing is UP TO YOU – how are you going to determine anything about nothing?
Also on the academic definition of Theological Determinism
The term “Theological” within Theological Determinism is not a reference to scripture anywhere in any literature on the subject.
The term “Theological” is a reference to a THEOS.”
The STOICS were Theological Determinists way before Calvinists
rhutchin
LOL!!! What good is an empty reference to a THEOS. If the THEOS does not bring anything to the table, why call it. “Theological Determinism”?
br.d
So referents to a THEOS within academic literature is for you an empty referent.
I think that is telling.
rhutchin{ “Yet, God does not coerce the person to [X]. So, a person is not coerced to [X] and does not volunteer to [X]. How does [X] occur?”
br.d: “Take the model of functionality which exists within the fully determined world of a robot.
It has compatibilist freedom
It is free to be and do what it is determined to be and do.”
A robot does not have compatibilist freedom because a robot is not human and does not have desires. Let’s use an automobile as an example. You turn the key (or push the button) and it starts as the onboard computers are turned on. A car has no desires. It does what the driver directs it to do. No one but br.d would mistake a car for a human.
Then, “And according to compatiblistic freedom – it is said to NOT be coerced.
And at the same time – it is and does whatever is determined”
Yes. God dis not coerce David to bed Bathsheba. Yet, God certainly understood that David would do it. Even br.d could have figured that out had he been there. God (and even br.d had he been there) could have stopped David from making a big mistake. God did not do do, thereby determining the obvious outcome.
Then, “And Peter Van Inwagen’s consequence argument shows – nothing is UP TO the robot
This is the LOGICAL entailment of a world in which all functionality is fully determined in advance by an external mind.”
A car is built by a human and works according to programs the human designed. A human is built by God. Instead of programing, a human is given a brain that can act independent of its creator and self determine its actions. No one but br.d would mistake a robot for a human.
Then, ‘rhutchin: It is determined (i.e., made certain) by the external mind but not coerced by the external mind to do that which it has determined.
br.d: “Sure – if that is what you want to assert. LOGIC shows that force/coercion is a red-herring in this case.”
That’s how br.d’s capitulates on a point.
br.d
Take the model of functionality which exists within the fully determined world of a robot.
It has compatibilist freedom
It is free to be and do what it is determined to be and do.
rhutchin
A robot does not have compatibilist freedom because a robot is not human and does not have desires.
br.d
Again with the straw-man arguments!
This again is nothing more than an ONTOLOGICAL distinction
No one is arguing that humans are machines or robots ONTOLOGICALLY
Compatibilism is defined as a form of freedom that is *COMPATIBLE* with a world in which all things are determined.
That is why its called “Compatibilism” :-]
So when a car is DETERMINED to turn to the left – that car is FREE to turn as was DETERMINED.
That freedom is COMPATIBLE with being determined
Now humans are biological entities having INCLINATIONS.
For example, you may be INCLINED to say yes – or you may be INCLINED to say no.
In street language human INCLINATIONS are called “desires”
However a cars steering also has inclination.
Now according to compatiblistic freedom – it is said to NOT be coerced.
And at the same time – it is and does whatever is determined
rhutchin
Yes. God dis not coerce David to bed Bathsheba.
br.d
My statement above recognizes SEMANTICS which you seem to have missed.
it is “SAID” to not be forced or coerced.
But you actually have no concrete evidence for proving there is no force involved in Theological Determinism
The Calvinist’s “no force” argument is simply borrowed from the philosophical claims of Natural Determinism.
rhutchin
Yet, God certainly understood that David would do it.
br.d
DUH!
If Calvin’s god doesn’t have enough understanding to know that [X] cannot possibly come to pass without him CAUSING it – then Calvin’s god is not omniscient.
Now what mechanics Calvin’s god uses to ENFORCE humans will do his will – is a Calvinist mystery.
As Paul Kjoss Helseth states
-quote
Scripture presumes that determinism and genuine human freedom are compatible…..even though it does not explain the *MECHANICS* of how this is possible… (Four Views on Divine Providence)
rhutchin
Instead of programing, a human is given a brain that can act independent of its creator and self determine its actions.
No one but br.d would mistake a robot for a human.
br.d
I should be counting how many times I’ve seen this straw-man fallacy?
Why would you continue to embarrass yourself with it?
On your claim of “self-determination”.
In order for this claim to be true – you have to show how you can determine [X] when [X] is not UP TO you to determine.
You can’t find a RATIONAL way to escape the consequence argument because no one has.
So the only way of dealing with it is to simply ignore it and rely on MAGICAL thinking.
Your other comment about br.d capitulating on a point – simply follows from the previous fallacious thinking.
rhutchin
Again, we have the same situation. An event is determined but not coerced to happen. God determines the death of Jesus, but does not coerce anyone to crucify Jesus. How does it happen?
br.d
There have been for years – multiple answers to that question.
Calvinist answer:
Those who hold to a fully determined world
In which *ALL* things are determined in the remote past *FOR* the creature
And in such case nothing is UP TO the creature to determine.
In this case the creature simply follows a divine program set forth by immutable decree as part of the creatures design.
Non-Calvinist answer:
Those who hold to a semi-determined world
Where SOME things are already determined *FOR* the creature
And those things are not UP TO the creature to determine.
And SOME things are not already determined *FOR* the creature
And the creature is “merely” permitted to self-determine those things.
br.d writes, “Calvinist answer…In this case the creature simply follows a divine program set forth by immutable decree as part of the creatures design.”
That’s fine. Since God does not coerce the creature to follow the program, the creature does it voluntarily.
Then, “Non-Calvinist answer:…Where SOME things are already determined *FOR* the creature And those things are not UP TO the creature to determine.”
This says nothing. In each case, for those determined and those not determined, God does not coerce the outcome, so the creature does it voluntarily. Thus, you have the Calvinist and non-Calvinist saying the same thing.
Then, “And SOME things are not already determined *FOR* the creature And the creature is “merely” permitted to self-determine those things.”
In other words, to do those things voluntarily.
br.d writes, “Calvinist answer…In this case the creature simply follows a divine program set forth by immutable decree as part of the creatures design.”
rhutchin
That’s fine. Since God does not coerce the creature to follow the program, the creature does it voluntarily.
br.d
That’s fine IF you can figure out a way for the creature to volunteer something that is not UP TO the creature to volunteer :-]
The Non-Calvinist answer which would be semi-determinism
Where SOME things are already determined *FOR* the creature And those things are not UP TO the creature to determine.”
rhutchin
This says nothing. In each case, for those determined and those not determined, God does not coerce the outcome, so the creature does it voluntarily. Thus, you have the Calvinist and non-Calvinist saying the same thing.
br.d
And you say other people have -quote “personal philosophies”
What a hoot!
But also in the Non-Calvinist system
SOME things are not already determined *FOR* the creature And the creature is “merely” permitted to self-determine those things.”
rhutchin
In other words, to do those things voluntarily.
br.d
That depends on if one can connect the LOGICAL dots and discern the difference between the two cases.
If [X] is not determined in advance *FOR* the creature
And [X] is instead required to be UP TO the creature
Then yes – the creature in such case does have an [X] which is UP TO HIM
And in such case he has an [X] that is UP TO HIM to volunteer! :-]
br.d writes, “That depends on if one can connect the LOGICAL dots and discern the difference between the two cases.
If [X] is not determined in advance *FOR* the creature
And [X] is instead required to be UP TO the creature
Then yes – the creature in such case does have an [X] which is UP TO HIM
And in such case he has an [X] that is UP TO HIM to volunteer!”
By “UP TO HIM,” you mean that the person does it voluntarily and not under coercion. This is what Calvinism says. God does not coerce David to bed Bathsheba, so David does it voluntarily in line with his desires. As God knows beforehand that David will do this, we can conclude that God determined it (meaning that God could have decreed a different outcome and did not).
br.d writes, “That depends on if one can connect the LOGICAL dots and discern the difference between the two cases.
If [X] is not determined in advance *FOR* the creature
And [X] is instead required to be UP TO the creature
Then yes – the creature in such case does have an [X] which is UP TO HIM
And in such case he has an [X] that is UP TO HIM to volunteer!”
rhutchin
By “UP TO HIM,” you mean that the person does it voluntarily and not under coercion.
br.d
rhutchin – I would like to spend a week in the international space station.
Is there anything about the space station that is UP TO YOU?
Is the international space station UP TO YOU to “volunteer” to me?
Good luck trying to show how that could be true.
Now nobody forced or coerced you or the space station to not be UP TO YOU.
Its just simply the case that there is nothing about the space station that is UP TO YOU.
It never was UP TO YOU to volunteer
And it will never be UP TO YOU to volunteer.
Therefore – force and coercion is a total red-herring.
Unless one wants to embrace MAGICAL-THINKING – in order to have square-circles, married-bachelors. :-]
br.d writes, “If [X] is not determined in advance *FOR* the creature” Then, “Therefore – force and coercion is a total red-herring.”
If God is not omniscient, you are correct, “If [X] is not determined in advance *FOR* the creature” and, “Therefore – force and coercion is a total red-herring.”
However, God is omniscient, so your statements are irrelevant as they do not apply.
br.d
If [X] is not determined in advance *FOR* the creature
And [X] is instead required to be UP TO the creature
Then yes – the creature in such case does have an [X] which is UP TO HIM
And in such case he has an [X] that is UP TO HIM to volunteer
rhutchin
If God is not omniscient, you are correct, ….etc
br.d
Sorry this is the fallacy of false dichotomy
Your own personal and skewed conception of what is facilitated by Middle-knowledge.
rhutchin,
And THIS is where you are
rhutchin,
Ooops on my last. Hit the enter key by accident…but…this is where you get the word SIN mixed up with the word PROPHESY.
You misuse the word DESIRE here as equating it to sin, rather than PROPHESY.
So, you, and most all reformers, TAKE WHAT WAS INTENDED FOR THE JEWS ONLY, with relation to it’s neighbors, aka BABYLON, etc., and apply it to yourselves as if God is DIRECTING what you do in life.
NO.
The JEWS ONLY are USED by God to tell a STORY of the PROPHESY of JESUS, and so God is gonna INTERVENE to make PROPHESY come true, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, or any reformer at all.
It’s so MIND BLOWING that you reformers think that God is IN CONTROL, when it’s ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPHESY OF JESUS and NO OTHER reason, therefore, NO ONE ELSE is USED by God in such a manner, UNLESS, God has a PROPHESY to fulfill about himself, i.e., THE PHARAOH, your famous Romans 9, that you think is for ALL CREATURES FOR ALL TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Ed Chapman
Ah RHutchin! Your words are the perfect example of Calvinist doublespeak. Wonderful! In essence, “God ensures that everything happens according to His meticulous plan, but in such a way that individuals retain complete freedom of choice”. Marvelous! A=not A!
2+2=4, but in such a way that 4-2=0!
I salute you, Sir! Textbook!
Carl
Marvelous!
A=not A!
2+2=4, but in such a way that 4-2=0!
I salute you, Sir! Textbook!
br.d
Right-on Carl!
So totally insightful! :-]
Carl writes, “Your words are the perfect example of Calvinist doublespeak. Wonderful! In essence, “God ensures that everything happens according to His meticulous plan, but in such a way that individuals retain complete freedom of choice”.”
We have Isaiah 10: ““Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations.”
And
Acts 4: “The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.’ For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.”
How about you explaining what is happening in these verse.
rhutchin
How about you explaining what is happening in these verse.
br.d
The Calvinist’s need for scripture to affirm his theologies square-circles, married-bachelors, and false-truths. :-]
br.d writes, “The Calvinist’s need for scripture to affirm his theologies…”
That is the need for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Without Scripture to affirm a theology, one is left with a personal philosophy.
br.d
The Calvinist’s need for scripture to affirm his theology’s square-circles, married-bachelors, and false-truths
rhutchin
That is the need for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Without Scripture to affirm a theology, one is left with a personal philosophy.
br.d
Well affirming Calvinism’s square-circles, married-bachelors and false-truths would be more precisely called a “shared” philosophy :-]
Annndd out come the proof texts! OutSTANDING!
Simple really. Even if I give you that these texts are talking about God determining a certain outcome by moving people around like puppets….
It does not follow logically that these texts prove that God exhaustively determines ALL things.
Now your turn, rhutchin,
How about explaining what is happening here:
Job 1:8. Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
Doesn’t sound like “filthy rags” or a “totally depraved” person there.
Carl writes, “It does not follow logically that these texts prove that God exhaustively determines ALL things.”
That is Ephesians 1, “…God works all things according to the counsel of His will…”
The verses I cited were in response to your statement, ““Your words are the perfect example of Calvinist doublespeak….In essence, God ensures that everything happens according to His meticulous plan, but in such a way that individuals retain complete freedom of choice”.”
I was certain that you could explain the verses without “doublespeak.” (Whatever you meant by that.)
Then, “How about explaining what is happening here:
Job 1:8. Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
Doesn’t sound like “filthy rags” or a “totally depraved” person there.”
Even Satan argued, ““Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.” Psalm 32 says, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit.”
Of Job, we would conclude that God had forgiven Job’s sin with this accomplished through the future death of Christ on the cross. This forgiveness was the foundation for God’s blessing.
rh writes:
“Of Job, we would conclude that God had forgiven Job’s sin with this accomplished through the future death of Christ on the cross. This forgiveness was the foundation for God’s blessing.”
Illogical. Why would God uphold his alleged unsought forgiveness of Job’s sin for Satan to admire? The entire narrative points to the worthiness of Job, both before, during and after Satan’s interventions. How silly if Job was just the lucky ‘elect’ one forgiven, while the rest of the schmucks were not, for God to hold him up as an example of righteousness. Calvinism demands one to make nonsense of so much of scripture.
TS00 writes, “The entire narrative points to the worthiness of Job, both before, during and after Satan’s interventions.”
The narrative does not explain how Job came to be worthy. As Romans 3 tells us, “All have sinned…” That would include Job as one of the “all.” (Regardless how one defines “all.”)
Certainly, if God has forgiven Job, Job is one of the fortunate ones as are all others whom God has forgiven including, presumably, TS00, but not including those who never even hear of God or Christ – of which there are many millions across the world, many purportedly in China and India..
rhutchin,
What gives you any clue that God had to forgive Job for ANYTHING. So Romans 3 states that FOR ALL HAVE SINNED. But until Job KNOWS what he did, HOW CAN JOB REPENT? Repent of what? He’d FIRST have to know what to repent from, RIGHT?
What sin did Job ask God to forgive him of?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 asks, “What sin did Job ask God to forgive him of? ”
Perhaps a youthful indiscretion – a lie, a selfish act, a prideful attitude… In Genesis 3, “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”
rhutchin,
That’s in Genesis 3, not Romans 3. Based on Romans 3:20, FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. Genesis 3 was a SUPERNATURAL event that gave 2 people that knowledge, and, probably passed down from generation to generation with DISTORTIONS as it moved along (if you have ever tried THAT EXPERIMENT in a school classroom of about 25 students).
But, you are ASSUMING that Job KNEW Good and Evil. IF that be the case, then WHY the following:
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
It’s OBVIOUS that these CHILDREN did NOT have that knowledge.
Ed Chapman