While We're on the Subject of Total Depravity... [Archive]

CoffeeSwirls

13th September 2005, 10:25 PM

God rightly demands perfection. For Him to accept anything less is for Him to deny His own worthiness. When man was created, we had a righteousness worthy for communion with Him. What right do we have to expect Him to now settle for something imperfect? Those He enables will repent of their sins and turn to Jesus, who lived for us, died for us and rose for us.

Jesus commanded Lazarus to come from the tomb and Lazarus was enabled to do so. Jesus commanded the lame to walk the blind to see and the sick to be healed and they were enabled by the power of God.

Consider John 5:2-9, where Jesus healed the man during the Sabbath. I'll provide the context in the KJV for you.

2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

7The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

8Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

9And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

Was it a hateful thing that Jesus healed this man and not all of the others at the pool? No. He healed this man for the same reason He does anything. He did it for His glory. He enabled one and did not enable others. The same is true of Total Depravity. We are all unable to rise up and follow Him, and yet He shows mercy on some who do follow Him. This is done by the power of God and not of man. Again, it is by the power of God because He enables those who would follow Him.

The fact that all are commanded to repent and believe, even though many will not do so, is not an injustice to anyone. If it were, Jesus would be guilty of healing one man and not the others. Jesus would be guilty of sin if that were the case.

seekingpurity047

14th September 2005, 12:08 AM

Let me defend the gospel of Jesus Christ before the question is even brought up. The question would be about the justice of God. Is God just in choosing some?

Romans 9:14-16

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=47;#fen-ESV-28152b)] but on God, who has mercy.

:)

Randy

Received

14th September 2005, 01:21 AM

Soaring, you state a passage that works only with a non-Calvinist conception, not a Calvinist one -- the Calvinist will assert that, as stated, man cannot save himself by his own initiative, but is completely dependent on God who grants men the capacity to have faith. Demanding such individuals to repent is as pointless as commanding a bullet to contradict the laws of physics!

I think the same argument would go for you, Coffee.

seeking, who are you to rashly conclude God must be as you interpret Him from the scriptures, while simultaneously upholding a contradiction that you haven't attempted to resolve? That is, who are you to uphold a contradictory God and call this contradiction a non-contradiction because you feel your interpretation of scripture negates such a contradiction? It doesn't. Even a lunatic can interpret God's plans falsely and conclude that they are therefore "just" and "scriptural" precisely because he interpreted it as such. This is a very cunning method of begging the question.

reformedfan

14th September 2005, 08:59 AM

nevertheless, God's sovereignty in election doesn't make the command to obey the Gospel any less a command. After the fall, God didn't retract the covenant of works.

CoffeeSwirls

14th September 2005, 09:17 AM

That's right He didn't. We are still bound to follow our creator. If it were His fault that we could not measure up, your arguments would be valid. As it is, we must rely on the grace of God to provide the willingness to follow Him. He is glorified as the benefactor of our salvation from beginning to end.

reformedfan

14th September 2005, 09:53 AM

hmmmm...you have a familiar sentiment in your thing under your name, received; are you great chums with CNC? Could you wear him on yer hand, if you were so inclined?

Paleoconservatarian

14th September 2005, 10:38 AM

frumanchu

14th September 2005, 10:58 AM

I ask this:

How can man, who is born without faith and incapable of initiating faith on his own, be demanded by God, who is the only one capable of granting faith, to do something he cannot do?

Is it not like -- asking a man without legs to dance?

"You -- dance!"
"But, I can't; I need some help; help me and I can dance."
"No -- you dance, or you will be punished!"
"For not doing what I cannot do?"
"No -- for disobeying me."
"Square circles, anyone?"

No, it's not like that. It would be more like this:

"You -- dance!"
"I don't want to dance."
"If you will dance, I will give you great reward."
"OK, I'm dancing" *marches in place* "That means you owe me a reward."
"You are not dancing, you are mocking me. He who does not dance will not be rewarded, but will be kicked out of the dance hall."
"Who are you to demand I dance?"
"I'm your Creator. Now dance."
"I don't want to, and I don't believe a Creator would require His creation to dance. Therefore I'm not going to dance."
"Suit yourself. Out you go!"

Can you blame a bullet for not going different than the path it was predestined to by virtue of laws of physics?

Ban analogy. God governs the laws of physics.

Of course, you may say that not all are commanded to repent -- only the elect.

I certainly wouldn't. Neither would any other Reformed person except in error. The command to repent is indiscriminate between elect and non-elect. The response is not.

Received

14th September 2005, 11:23 AM

Well, well, well, I have been visited by a ghost this morning (and simultaneously, undoubtedly, am a ghost to this person as well) -- frumanchu, nice seeing you. Your existence in this thread (as well as the other replies) gives me a reason to look forward to answering this thread tonight.

Until then --

John

cygnusx1

14th September 2005, 06:26 PM

No, it's not like that. It would be more like this:

"You -- dance!"
"I don't want to dance."
"If you will dance, I will give you great reward."
"OK, I'm dancing" *marches in place* "That means you owe me a reward."
"You are not dancing, you are mocking me. He who does not dance will not be rewarded, but will be kicked out of the dance hall."
"Who are you to demand I dance?"
"I'm your Creator. Now dance."
"I don't want to, and I don't believe a Creator would require His creation to dance. Therefore I'm not going to dance."
"Suit yourself. Out you go!"

that is about the sum of it brother , and reading your post gave me very mixed feelings , gladness that you put it so well , and sadness that I know men do respond like that.

cygnusx1

14th September 2005, 06:28 PM

Hi Received!

SoaringEagle

14th September 2005, 07:34 PM

I know it's hard to let go of what you have believed for so long, and hard to take "the whole counsel of God" into consideration and let Scripture interpret Scripture, but when you have preconcieved thoughts and ideas about what Scripture says, you have a tendancy to read those into the text. Now God says He commands all men everywhere to repent, yet those from a reformed position see Him only commanding the elect to do so. So if this is true, that God only commands some, the elect according to a reformed position, then we must not find (ANY) instances or indications in the Word that God commanded some to repent, who ended up in hell.

What must we do to the rich young ruler? He was commanded to sell all, but refused to. Why would God command Him to do something, but decree him to resist His commanding word spoken to Him? I know this happened to Pharoah, but He resisted God's commanding will first, a few times to be exact. Man kind even in their fallen state has the ablility to resist or recieve the Lord. So for God to command someone all throughout their life, and decree them unable to every single time, and then punish them though they never had the chance sound wack. No offense to my reformed brothers and sisters.

The Holy Spirit was ministering through Steven in Acts, and says they resist the Holy Spirit. Will they be held accountable for that, or did God decree them unable to receive and pre ordained them to resist? If I said all men everywhere will be affected, how can you think I mean some? Just some questions in mind thats all. In John, we read as many as recieved Him, He gave them the right to children of God. We can recieve or resist, but this isn't a work or anything we can boast about. We should be thankful that the "grace of God unto salvation has appeared to everyone". Some receive, some don't. It's only grace through faith, not of works..

Received

14th September 2005, 10:06 PM

hmmmm...you have a familiar sentiment in your thing under your name, received; are you great chums with CNC? Could you wear him on yer hand, if you were so inclined?

CNC? The title is from a song by Elliott Smith (whose picture is my avatar), who is, in my opinion, the greatest of all indie rock and acoustic artists.

No, it's not like that. It would be more like this:

"You -- dance!"
"I don't want to dance."
"If you will dance, I will give you great reward."
"OK, I'm dancing" *marches in place* "That means you owe me a reward."
"You are not dancing, you are mocking me. He who does not dance will not be rewarded, but will be kicked out of the dance hall."
"Who are you to demand I dance?"
"I'm your Creator. Now dance."
"I don't want to, and I don't believe a Creator would require His creation to dance. Therefore I'm not going to dance."
"Suit yourself. Out you go!"

But then we go back to the beginning -- God is asking the created to do something he cannot do in his own power (keeping in mind that dancing is analogous to response by faith), and therefore artificializes the conversation by even commanding him to dance, speaking to him as if he could. It is like me commanding a man with no legs to dance knowing full well that he cannot dance, likewise, God asking a man to respond in faith who can only respond if God allows it is something of a contradiction of implication in commanding him to repent.

Received

14th September 2005, 10:18 PM

let Scripture interpret Scripture

Not to arbitrarily pick and choose, but this statement, as the center of your point, is something nonsensical. Scripture does not interpret, it cannot interpret itself; we are the ones who interpret, which is to say that interpretation is a capacity of subjectivity. Scripture is an objective record of God's written word; as such, it is necessary to interpret it in order to gain a meaning from it. And so long as this is the case, looking from the perspective of it being interpreted, self-asserted claims of being the correct interpretation are superfluous, precisely because they beg the question, reason in circles.

"As the scripture clearly says, God advocates capital punishment."
"As the scripture clearly says, God is for predestination."
"As the scripture clearly says, men are entirely responsible, and predestination makes room for this responsibility."
"As the scripture clearly says, Pelagius was right."

Do you see the point? Now, you may argue that some of these points are silly and wrong, and on some of these I would agree with you, but the fact that you consider it such implies that you have interpreted it to be so, which implies precisely that your perception has come into play; and who is to say that your perception, being finite, is necessarily right, because you claim it to be so?

Now, to get back to the essence of the argument, I'm not speaking of traditionally controversial theologies, such as works vs. faith, but of the simple question at the beginning, which seems to me to invoke a clear contradiction in reason:

How can man, who is born without faith and incapable of initiating faith on his own, be demanded by God, who is the only one capable of granting faith, to do something he cannot do?

Perhaps this is obscure in the syntax; perhaps we need a rewording. Very well:

How can man, who cannot initiate faith by himself, be demanded by God to initiate this faith by himself (repent), if God is the one who holds this faith? It is, again, like asking a man without legs to dance. It cannot be done; to imply a punishment with such a demand is something contradictory. It isn't simply unjust; it is nonsensical, so far as I see it.

Received

14th September 2005, 10:19 PM

And hello cygnus!

SoaringEagle

14th September 2005, 11:20 PM

Rick Otto

15th September 2005, 01:28 AM

The short answer to your question "How?" is...
By way of executing jurisdictional imperative over creation.

It is the same model He instituted with "The Law". It's commands were toward a creature who could not measure up. It was 'situationaly rhetorical' in that it's face value implied a larger fact - man's irredeemable state. It was meant to judge us, condemn us, not provide a stairway to heaven. Our failures are for our instruction. We needed teaching. So He gave us the impossible dream of fulfilling the law.

So in effect, the point of commanding a lump of clay to save itself by works, is in reality a judgement unto condemnation, or else an inspiration unto repentance... depending on your spiritual orietntation.
Romans 1:20 is at least a warrant for anyone denying God's existence & power:
Rom1:20- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

>And Isaiah establishes that God creates evil, & we know from other scriptures that He does it for good reason, out of good motives:
Is45:7- I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
>So He isn't ambivalent about the way things are & His complete control, He simply points out the essential difference between when He creates evil & when man does - motivation! He hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus yet commanded Him thru Moses to 'Let My people GO' - so to speak,-& He put a lying spirit in a prophet's mouth, in Kings.

You're right about this, tho... it IS offensive to us lumps of clay! It realy puts us in our sinful place. It defeats our concept of ourselves as having at least one redeeming a feature... willpower w/which we can use steer ourselves into mercy & grace. It waves in our face the fact that we are spiritualy dead, "zombies" in need of rebirth. It sure makes ME uncomfortable, bro.
:cool:

Received

15th September 2005, 01:54 AM

I guess I see what you are saying. Recieving. I don't see scripture saying God beforehand picked who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. I see that this is according to His foreknowledge. I hope you could see that in my posts. I'm not here to really argue and fight, but maybe to discuss and ask a few questions. That's all. By saying that, I am not implying that you or anyone else is doing that, (here to argue and fight). Be blessed, much love to you in the Lord. S.E.

You too, friend! I'm not here at all to bicker, but I am here to argue -- in the logical sense. Chesterton has a wonderful saying that goes: "people generally quarrel because they cannot argue," and I have to agree. We're here for our intellectual edification; even if our ideas are wrong, it still helps to have one's own standing tested; it helps with intellectual integrity.

Received

15th September 2005, 03:16 AM

Rick (and I must say that R'cvd looks pretty cool)

I have nothing wrong with your presention of theology being what it is; my question regards internal consistency, capacity for non-contradiction. I am addressing those who say that men are commanded to repent by God, yet who also hold that God alone holds this capacity to repent for man, thus negating the commandment by making it nonsensical, contradictory.

frumanchu

15th September 2005, 11:30 AM

I know it's hard to let go of what you have believed for so long, and hard to take "the whole counsel of God" into consideration and let Scripture interpret Scripture, but when you have preconcieved thoughts and ideas about what Scripture says, you have a tendancy to read those into the text. Now God says He commands all men everywhere to repent, yet those from a reformed position see Him only commanding the elect to do so.

I'm sorry, but that's quite simply false, SE. I challenge you to find me any Reformed creed or confession (the traditional standards of orthodoxy in Reformed churces), or even author, which states that "only the elect are commanded to repent."

What must we do to the rich young ruler? He was commanded to sell all, but refused to. Why would God command Him to do something, but decree him to resist His commanding word spoken to Him? I know this happened to Pharoah, but He resisted God's commanding will first, a few times to be exact. Man kind even in their fallen state has the ablility to resist or recieve the Lord. So for God to command someone all throughout their life, and decree them unable to every single time, and then punish them though they never had the chance sound wack. No offense to my reformed brothers and sisters.

None taken, but the fact is that you are not correctly representing the Reformed view on the matter. When you say God is "decreeing" them to be unable every single time, the implication seems to be that God is actively suppressing their will to respond positively to them, as though they would run to Him were He not keeping them from doing so. That is not the Reformed view. Fallen man is wholly disinclined to God. His heart is corrupt and does not seek Him. Even the "good" that the unsaved may do is tainted in sin and done without faith for selfish motive. God does not have to actively work evil in the hearts of men in order to get them to reject Him. The evil already in their heart is sufficient to this task.

frumanchu

15th September 2005, 11:40 AM

But then we go back to the beginning -- God is asking the created to do something he cannot do in his own power (keeping in mind that dancing is analogous to response by faith), and therefore artificializes the conversation by even commanding him to dance, speaking to him as if he could. It is like me commanding a man with no legs to dance knowing full well that he cannot dance, likewise, God asking a man to respond in faith who can only respond if God allows it is something of a contradiction of implication in commanding him to repent.

Ahh, but that is not entirely accurate! God is not asking the created to do something he cannot naturally do in his own power. He is asking Him to do something he cannot morally do in his own power.

Man has the natural ability to choose God. The natural function of choice is the ability to choose what one wants. This is the essence of "free will." There are certain logical limitations to this via the law of non-contradiction (ex-God has free will, but He cannot choose to die).

However, man never wants to choose God. He is morally corrupt, and this corruption affects every aspect of his being (hence the term "total depravity").

If I command you to do something you are naturally capable of doing, whether or not you comply ultimately depends on whether or not you desire to do so at the moment you make the choice more than the alternative. If I know ahead of time with certainty that you will not want to do so, it still does not invalidate my command when it is given, nor does it abrogate your responsibility (if such command entails responsibility).

God need not create the disinclination in man's heart in order to prevent him from obedience. The disinclination is already there as a result of the Fall. That is why we Reformed maintain that one must be born again (regenerate) before one can come to faith in Christ, because until the Holy Spirit changes the disposition of your heart you will never choose Him because you will never want to.

Received

15th September 2005, 03:34 PM

The natural function of choice is the ability to choose what one wants. This is the essence of "free will."

Not according to the reformed conception of freedom -- that is, a negation of freedom by virtue of, as your premise states, the ability to choose what one wants. You got this from Edwards, eh? Maybe not.

If one can choose only what one wants, then there is no freedom; freedom is constituted in the capacity to do otherwise, to detach oneself from one's immediate inclinations, and this includes "wants". If one is compelled to choose on the basis solely of his "wants", there is no choice, for the "wants" dictate the solution, the action taken; hence, there is no accountability, hence, God is the one (given that He has forced creatures into existence) who is responsible for this state of affairs. Accountability implies freedom, and insofar as there is unfreedom, there can be no accountability. To call freedom the capacity to answer according to one's desires is a contradiction, so far as I perceive freedom.

Cheers,

John

frumanchu

15th September 2005, 05:17 PM

Not according to the reformed conception of freedom -- that is, a negation of freedom by virtue of, as your premise states, the ability to choose what one wants. You got this from Edwards, eh? Maybe not.

No, I got it from plain reason and observation. However, Edwards does a superb job of expounding upon it in Freedom of the Will.

If one can choose only what one wants, then there is no freedom; freedom is constituted in the capacity to do otherwise, to detach oneself from one's immediate inclinations, and this includes "wants".

Unfortunately, to proceed upon that supposition is to violate the law of non-contradiction. That the will operates according to desire is the nature of the will. For the will to choose other than that which is most desired at the moment of choice is to advocate either irresistible coercion or erroneously reduce desire to the role of adjunct attribute.

If one is compelled to choose on the basis solely of his "wants", there is no choice, for the "wants" dictate the solution, the action taken; hence, there is no accountability, hence, God is the one (given that He has forced creatures into existence) who is responsible for this state of affairs.

I would prefer to continue using the term "desire" rather than "want" simply because the latter is less sufficient than the former at conveying what is being argued.

One is not compelled to choose based on desire any more than a square is compelled to have four equal sides. The will simply operates that way based upon design, which design reflects that of its Creator whose actions ultimately derive from His sovereign pleasure.

Accountability implies freedom, and insofar as there is unfreedom, there can be no accountability. To call freedom the capacity to answer according to one's desires is a contradiction, so far as I perceive freedom.

Then your perception of freedom is incorrect.

I would challenge you to provide me any example of a person choosing other than according to his strongest desire at the moment of choice.

Received

15th September 2005, 06:56 PM

One is not compelled to choose based on desire any more than a square is compelled to have four equal sides. The will simply operates that way based upon design, which design reflects that of its Creator whose actions ultimately derive from His sovereign pleasure.

Excellent, here is the heart of it: according to God's sovereign pleasure He causes individuals to necessarily act in the way He has metaphysically predestined them to do. Yes, I can take this. But, back to the beginning: How can man, who is born without faith and incapable of initiating faith on his own, be demanded by God, who is the only one capable of granting faith, to do something he cannot do? You can call whatever act you want "just" or "good" (even though, it is arbitrary and self-assertive to call something "just" or "good" because you interpret it as such), but you cannot uphold a contradiction with omnipotence. This is why I consider Calvinism a nonsensical doctrine; it is like asking you to smell the color nine; you just can't do it.

I would challenge you to provide me any example of a person choosing other than according to his strongest desire at the moment of choice.

Metaphysical evidence? That, too, is a contradiction. I can theorize how it could happen, but I cannot prove it, any more than you can prove that your deterministic conception is true. Here:

X, who is caught in the potentiality of an affair, is stuck between his reason, which considers it a wrong thing to do, and his desire, which indifferently compels his intellect to resign itself. He is the mediator between reason and desire, and from this perspective of mediation, he chooses which route to consummate, which isn't a route external to him (to cheat or not to cheat), but something internal to him: reason or desire, superego or id, whatever you want to call it. This is the only theoretical idea that makes freedom actual; otherwise, as you imply but seem to semantically deny, one's will is determined by prior causes, specifically his greatest desire, which he cannot control, which is to say that freedom does not exist.

Determinism is the doctrine that one's way of acting, thinking, feeling, etc., taken as a whole, is determined by prior causes, which is to say that man has nothing to do with the situation. Why? Because his prior causes take care of it for him. The "him" is immediately negated when prior causes supersede any potentiality of the "him" doing the work. The only way out of this jingle is to conclude that the desires are him, which is -- strange, at the very least. Nevertheless, still you have the fact that he, being desires or whatever particular you want to hold, does not control himself, which way he will go. Why? Because he is determined by prior causes. To claim that he, being desire, can control himself is actually closer to my belief in freedom, sans the man-as-desire bit. Whichever way you turn, you have the fact that man is not responsible, that is, not free, to do otherwise than what he is determined to do, specifically in the immediate context regarding his desires (he always works on his greatest desires), specifically in the context relevant to the OP regarding his inability to initiate a faith (repentance) that God demands, yet still being demanded by God to do so, thus meaning that he is demanded to do something he cannot do, which is a contradiction. Here, for simplicity, is the heart of my statement:

Man is born out of faith.
Man is demanded to have faith as sufficient unto repentance.
Only God holds the individual's capacity for faith to flourish.
Therefore, for God to demand a man to repent when He is the only one can allow it is something contradictory.

To hope to not sound gratuitously crude, but something I think is rhetorically important, it is like God saying: "man, you're screwed from birth, condemned to an eternal Hell, because you cannot do what only I can allow you to do. Your punishment (!) is just (!!)."

Nevertheless, if we must disagree by virtue of defining our concepts differently, then so be it. Given that this is pretty obviously the case, it is childish and self-assertive to consider another person's conception of freedom or what have you as "wrong" or "misguided" precisely because one disagrees with one's metaphysics on such an issue. All will happen is an appeal to authority -- "uh, uh, Kierkegaard said!" "uh, uh, Edwards said!" and nothing of a conclusion leading soundly from premises that justifies an individual in calling the opposite's metaphysics "wrong". But, fortunately, it doesn't matter if they are wrong in this instance; I am willing to work within the reformed metaphysics, in the hope of resolving a contradiction I see inherent to reformed theology.

Long-winded, little sleep,

John

frumanchu

16th September 2005, 11:36 AM

I see a few problems, but I don't have the time right now for the lengthy response required to explain.

Two quick observations though:

1. Your "metaphysical example" is incorrectly reduced to a false dilemma (reason vs desire). The "reason" of knowing it's wrong will not be acted upon without a desire to do so, and the "desire" of having the other woman points to a reason (namely the pleasure derived from the encounter). What is really being posited is two conflicting desires...the desire to act according to what's "right" (or perhaps the desire to avoid the negative consequences of doing what's "wrong") and the desire to experience the benefits derived from the affair. Whichever desire is strongest at the moment the choice is made will win out and the person will choose accordingly.

2. God's demand to repent when only He can allow man to is not, strictly speaking, a contradiction, regardless of which concept of responsibility we are operating under. I'm not saying this as a defense against your overall objection to the notion, but rather to point out a misuse of the term. If you haven't guessed already I'm kinda a stickler for the proper use of terms :)

Will respond in greater detail as time allows.

Received

16th September 2005, 12:17 PM

Fru, it is a false dilemma only in relation to your metaphysics; and given that metaphysics cannot be proven, it remains a relational difficulty. Indeed, we can only resort to question begging when it comes to disagreeing metaphysics; you can say that "she really has two desires" when I say that desire is antithetical to an ideal that one is convicted of as right, and therefore doesn't have two desires, and according to your perspective I am begging the question by stating it to be the case, and according to my perspective you are begging the question by stating it to be the case. Because these things cannot be proven, we cannot state truth values on the premises involved. Which is why I think it is more important, therefore, to run with the original statement; like I said, I accept your metaphysics in this context, because I am trying to work with consistency, non-contradiction, specifically as it relates to the question stated in the OP. So, I'm trying to say: let's not focus on terms and theories, as this is not relevant to the OP; let's try and focus on things closer to what is stated in your 2.

2. God's demand to repent when only He can allow man to is not, strictly speaking, a contradiction, regardless of which concept of responsibility we are operating under. I'm not saying this as a defense against your overall objection to the notion, but rather to point out a misuse of the term. If you haven't guessed already I'm kinda a stickler for the proper use of terms :)

What? You? Never! ;) It really isn't like that's a bad thing; quite the contrary.

Nevertheless, the essence of the problem lies with the word "demand"; I would say that "demand" implies an ought; you would seem to deny this. I would ask you to consider this in your reply, rather than essentially vainly focusing on information that I'm interested in, but, for the sake of expediency, would like to keep according to the question of the OP.

Cheers,

John

frumanchu

16th September 2005, 03:08 PM

Nevertheless, the essence of the problem lies with the word "demand"; I would say that "demand" implies an ought; you would seem to deny this. I would ask you to consider this in your reply, rather than essentially vainly focusing on information that I'm interested in, but, for the sake of expediency, would like to keep according to the question of the OP.

Fair enough. Gives me an excuse to dust off the Augustinian writings as what you described was at the core of the Augustine-Pelagius controversy. Augustine prayed "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou will." Pelagius objected to the first part, claiming as you do that the command to obey necessarily implies the ability to obey.

I'm going on a date with my wife tonight and will be working on our new house most of the day tomorrow, so it may well be a couple days before I am able to carry on further.

Until then... :wave:

cygnusx1

16th September 2005, 03:10 PM

Received

16th September 2005, 03:16 PM

Take your time, Fru; debating with a person such as you often makes it necessary to have time to recharge his batteries.

Received

16th September 2005, 03:25 PM

Hi Received , you have said

''Nevertheless, the essence of the problem lies with the word "demand"; I would say that "demand" implies an ought''

I would agree that "demand implies an ought" ............ but where Calvinist's part company is when an ''Ought implies a can'' ......... man ought to repent , the fact that repentance is a gift should tell us something .

We ought to be Perfect as Our heavenly Father is perfect , now saying we can be that perfect is simply impossible in this world.

I agree with all of this. A demand implies an ought, and an ought implies a can. But where we divide is regarding repentance as it relates to Calvinistic theology: to repent one must have faith, and the Calvinist declares that faith is given by God. With this in mind, we return to a revision of the question in the OP: if God demands that men be saved, and He also holds the faith necessary for men to respond, He would be speaking a contradiction: you cannot demand something of someone that he cannot do. Such it is with the Calvinistic conception, so far as I see it.

We ought to repent; this the non-Calvinist will emphatically declare.
But this repentance is solely at the power of God, who grants faith.
Thus, to declare that you must do something you cannot do is nonsensical. The statement must either must be revised where men are capable of responding to grace (which is not Pelagian theology; not works) to the demand that God makes, or the demand to repent is not at all to be in the direction of the sinner. An ought implies a can, and with this in mind, the demand to repent implies a capacity to repent on one's own power, according to grace, which is not the case if God is completely responsible for any freedom in response by men regarding such repentance.

cygnusx1

16th September 2005, 03:49 PM

[QUOTE]I agree with all of this. A demand implies an ought, and an ought implies a can. But where we divide is regarding repentance as it relates to Calvinistic theology: to repent one must have faith, and the Calvinist declares that faith is given by God. With this in mind, we return to a revision of the question in the OP: if God demands that men be saved, and He also holds the faith necessary for men to respond, He would be speaking a contradiction: you cannot demand something of someone that he cannot do. Such it is with the Calvinistic conception, so far as I see it.
Hi Received , it seems you missed my point .
Let me enquire , does God demand ( a command is a demand) that you are perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect?
Yes or no ?

We ought to repent; this the non-Calvinist will emphatically declare.
But this repentance is solely at the power of God, who grants faith.
Thus, to declare that you must do something you cannot do is nonsensical. The statement must either must be revised where men are capable of responding to grace (which is not Pelagian theology; not works) to the demand that God makes, or the demand to repent is not at all to be in the direction of the sinner. An ought implies a can, and with this in mind, the demand to repent implies a capacity to repent on one's own power, according to grace, which is not the case if God is completely responsible for any freedom in response by men regarding such repentance.

Suppose you commit a crime and you are heavily fined , say 100000 Dollars , are you saying that because you cannot pay it , then the whole fine is nonsensical and shouldn't be allowed?
Then are crimes to be judged by ability to pay ?
Consider the implications , someone steals your house , and is fined and pays you a dollar!
Is that Just?

Received

16th September 2005, 04:27 PM

cygnusx1

16th September 2005, 04:47 PM

cyg,

All I'm saying is that when God makes a demand, this implies a capacity to respond to this demand (a demand implies an ought, an ought implies a can) or else he wouldn't use the word "demand"; and because it is something demanded -- something that can be responded to by man in his own power --, man's inability to save himself by faith does not line up with this demand -- the statement would be logically fulfilled if man was capable (an ought implies a can) of responding to God freely.

as I said earlier Received ,
"I would agree that "demand implies an ought" ............ but where Calvinist's part company is when an ''Ought implies a can'' ......... man ought to repent , the fact that repentance is a gift should tell us something .

We ought to be Perfect as Our heavenly Father is perfect , now saying we can be that perfect is simply impossible in this world.

Calvinists are very strong on OUGHT , but also as strong on ought does not imply a can!

Should Pharoah have submitted to God's authority on day one ?
Yes !
could he submit to God on day one ................ Romans 9 fills in the gaps ;)

Men ought to seek God , howbeit God's word says no-one seeks after God.
And the saved Gentiles are described by the Lord as those who He said "I was found (by) those who were not seeking me; I revealed myself to those who were not asking for me." Rom 10:20

Received

16th September 2005, 05:59 PM

CaDan

16th September 2005, 08:05 PM

/me checks in to watch a really good debate.

Imblessed

16th September 2005, 09:06 PM

* CaDan checks in to watch a really good debate.

It IS pretty good, isn't it?

I'm truly amazed that no one is resorting to name calling and such as is seen so often in other parts of the forum.....(must be the area we are in....;))

'tis nice, very nice......

JJB

17th September 2005, 11:36 AM

ought1 http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dought) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (ôt)
aux.v.

Used to indicate obligation or duty: You ought to work harder than that.
Used to indicate advisability or prudence: You ought to wear a raincoat.
Used to indicate desirability: You ought to have been there; it was great fun.
Used to indicate probability or likelihood: She ought to finish by next week.

[Middle English oughten, to be obliged to, from oughte, owned, from Old English http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhte, past tense of http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifgan, to possess. See aik- in Indo-European Roots.]

Usage Note: Unlike other auxiliary verbs, ought usually takes to with its accompanying verb: We ought to go. Sometimes the accompanying verb is dropped if the meaning is clear: Should we begin soon? Yes, we ought to. In questions and negative sentences, especially those with contractions, to is also sometimes omitted: Oughtn't we be going soon? This omission of to, however, is not common in written English. Like must and auxiliary need, ought to does not change to show past tense: He said we ought to get moving along. ·Usages such as He hadn't ought to come and She shouldn't ought to say that are common in many varieties of American English. They should be avoided in written English, however, in favor of the more standard variant ought not to.

cygnusx1

17th September 2005, 11:40 AM

Ok, so I misunderstood you.

An ought does not always imply a can. Well, then, how is this sensical? Think of this:

"You, do this!"
"But sir, this is impossible for me."
"Oh, stop being silly -- by "do this" I didn't really mean doing it, I was only saying it. Just do the best you can."

In such passages as "be ye perfect," we should understand them as they are -- be perfect; actually, the greek gives the idea of being "mature"; "be ye mature, as your heavenly father is mature" -- this is a much more realistic command.

cygnus, I cannot accept the concept of an all-wise deity meaning by "ought" anything other than an implicit "can". This understanding is nonsensical. "You ought to do this, even though you can't do it." Or:

"Son, you ought to clean your room, even though I know you can't."

If one cannot do something, it is not their responsibility to do so.

Because you are a Calvinist doesn't mean you have the call on what words or phrases mean. You either change your meaning, and the words and phrases involved, or -- what? That is all you can do.

John

Two things Received ,
1. What if the reason man cannot is because he will not ?
2. What if the reason for man cannot is because he made himself unable (Adam) ?

As far as Calvinist's are concerned most would affirm man does whatever he wants ........ God forces no man against his will.... in that sense man is free.

Yet man is not morally free.
He is a fallen creature with different desires from that which he was first endowed with. No longer is seeking God and Holiness in man's desires but instead pleasing his flesh , and his fleshly mind.
Man's inability to repent and seek God is not owing to man being robbed of the faculties to do both , fallen man has still a mind and a will.
However , his will and his mind are no longer what they were.
You may be convinced that humans are different from examples such as Sodom and Gommorah , but human nature has not changed .
Society wears a thin veneer of civilised behaviour , but given the right conditions and man shows his true colours.
Total Depravity is not the same as men are as wicked as they possibly can be , it is Total in the sense of every part of man's constitution is effected by sin. Man is corrupt , hence the need for both a Saviour and a New heart. (literally a NEW creation , not just a rehabilative program)

Man's inability to do anything truly good (only God is good) stems not from a mechanism loss , but a strong desire for sin.
This means man is unable because he is unwilling .

So it is perfectly sound and reasonable for God to make moral demands on Rebels who were it not for their sheer love of self and sin would surely obey the Gospel.

Cygnus

SoaringEagle

17th September 2005, 02:56 PM

CCWoody

17th September 2005, 06:21 PM

Is it not like -- asking a man without legs to dance?

Or, as the Bible puts it, like asking a man crippled for 38 years to take up his bed and walk:

Joh 5:8 GB
(8) Iesus said vnto him, Rise: take vp thy bed, and walke.

Now, are we to presume that man has the mystical powers to heal himself? Or are we to believe that the Lord commanded the man to do something which was beyond his power and then to provide at his good pleasure to heal to grant the man the power for which he had not hope on his own.

Do you worship a Lord who does for man what he cannot do for himself or do you trust in the power of men to perform?

CCWoody

17th September 2005, 06:26 PM

I certainly wouldn't. Neither would any other Reformed person except in error. The command to repent is indiscriminate between elect and non-elect. The response is not.

It is my belief that almost no non-Calvinist, be they what has been denounced as the Moninist error or other, knows what Calvinism really teaches. They almost invariably accuse us of being either hyper-Calvinists or neo-gnostic Calvinist or some other perversion of the truth.

I think it an escape mechanism for actually dealing with the truth of Calvinism.

edb19

17th September 2005, 07:50 PM

It is my belief that almost no non-Calvinist, be they what has been denounced as the Moninist error or other, knows what Calvinism really teaches. They almost invariably accuse us of being either hyper-Calvinists or neo-gnostic Calvinist or some other perversion of the truth.

I'd say hyper-Calvinists - hear it fairly frequently. That is, if they know who Calvin was.;) The other option - that we're a bunch of robots with no minds of our own.

Godzchild

17th September 2005, 08:08 PM

All men have the ability to hear and faith comes by hearing!

Received

17th September 2005, 09:20 PM

Two things Received ,
1. What if the reason man cannot is because he will not ?
2. What if the reason for man cannot is because he made himself unable (Adam) ?

1. Then it is not a cannot, but a will not. He is still capable of responding, and God has made a realistic demand; the fact that he refuses indicates that by virtue of his free will he rebels against it.

2. I consider it heresy that man has a pre-existing soul that somehow conspired with Adam to sin, and therefore all men, working with Adam, are responsible for Adam's sin. I also consider it unjust to claim that Adam was the "spokesperson" for all mankind, considering how people did not choose him, in not being alive; and you still have the point that these theories are nowhere in scripture.

As far as Calvinist's are concerned most would affirm man does whatever he wants ........ God forces no man against his will.... in that sense man is free.

Yet man is not morally free.

This is a contradiction: "he is free, but he is not free." If the will is determined to follow its greatest desire, this will isn't free, and therefore man isn't free, therefore man has done nothing to add to the equation, for all his "choices" are determined by desires subsequent to him. Thus, to say that God doesn't force anyone against his will is incorrect, for it isn't man's will that he controls in this case -- it is, rather, whatever exists before him and controls his will to choose, which would ultimately go back to God, who created all situations prior to men.

Received

17th September 2005, 09:22 PM

CCWoody, my responding to you is contingent on your agreement that you will treat me as a human being, refuse to resort to attacks or rage, including not sticking sides with those who hold your own theology and anathemizing those who don't.

I ask this because I know the past, and I want nothing of the past, but only good debate.

Received

17th September 2005, 09:25 PM

Received

17th September 2005, 09:29 PM

All men have the ability to hear and faith comes by hearing!

Then, if faith is determined by one's hearing it correctly, those who have not yet heard cannot be demanded to do something they cannot do, namely: hearing a gospel they have not heard, or cannot hear.

Godzchild

17th September 2005, 11:43 PM

Then, if faith is determined by one's hearing it correctly, those who have not yet heard cannot be demanded to do something they cannot do, namely: hearing a gospel they have not heard, or cannot hear.

All will hear eventually, that's why we are commanded to preach the gospel so that all may hear. "He that has an ear, let him hear".

Received

17th September 2005, 11:55 PM

Ok, so, to get back on subject: if everyone hears, this either means that all, because they have heard, will have faith, or, in hearing, they will reject it, by their freedom, which is sin. So -- you must not be a Calvinist, given that Calvinism upholds that 1) not all men will be saved (held by non-Calvinists as well), and 2) God does not grant all men the capacity to respond in faith, even if they have "heard". If men can respond to this "hearing" through faith -- if this faith is an inevitable outgrowing of hearing -- or reject it through sin, there is freedom here, which does not line up with the Calvinist conception of total depravity.

What I'm saying is: if faith comes inevitably from hearing, and all will hear, why is it that not all will have faith? This ability to hear and then reject indicates to me freedom, specifically the freedom to work outside of faith, which is precisely sin (cf. Romans 14:23).

Godzchild

18th September 2005, 12:06 AM

Ok, so, to get back on subject: if everyone hears, this either means that all, because they have heard, will have faith, or, in hearing, they will reject it, by their freedom, which is sin. So -- you must not be a Calvinist, given that Calvinism upholds that 1) not all men will be saved (held by non-Calvinists as well), and 2) God does not grant all men the capacity to respond in faith, even if they have "heard". If men can respond to this "hearing" through faith -- if this faith is an inevitable outgrowing of hearing -- or reject it through sin, there is freedom here, which does not line up with the Calvinist conception of total depravity.

I believe that all men have the capacity to respond through faith to accept God's gift of salvation.

What I'm saying is: if faith comes inevitably from hearing, and all will hear, why is it that not all will have faith? This ability to hear and then reject indicates to me freedom, specifically the freedom to work outside of faith, which is precisely sin (cf. Romans 14:23).

I believe that working outside of faith comes into 'willful' sin. One 'willfully' wishes to continue in their sin DESPITE being enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the gospel. This then starts to creep into blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

And no, I'm not a calvinist (yet) ;)

Received

18th September 2005, 01:12 AM

Ah! You little devil! Trying to swerve me, eh!

;)

Well, then it seems I agree with you, so no need to debate.

Cajun Huguenot

18th September 2005, 01:20 AM

Then, if faith is determined by one's hearing it correctly, those who have not yet heard cannot be demanded to do something they cannot do, namely: hearing a gospel they have not heard, or cannot hear.

I think the Apostle Paul would disagree with you at this point. Rememeber what he wrote to the Romans, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Man has God's image imprinted in his being. Even fallen man Knows there is a God but does not worship the true God except when the Holy Spirit makes them to hear the Gospel. All men are without excuse.

In Christ,
Kenith

Received

18th September 2005, 02:07 AM

Pehraps you can understand my frustration when I say that I would not be able to accept Paul's saying if he meant what you said he did, because then Paul would be contradicting the rest of the gospel in the interpretation of Calvinism.

Nevertheless, the traditional understanding of Romans 1 has been something unconditional: all men know God, all men rebel against him. But I find it possible to interpret it conditionally: all those who rebel against God in such a fashion are without excuse.

Also, does the text indicate an eternal hell as punishment for this behavior, whether universal or conditional? No. From what I understand, eternal hell is admitted once someone rebels against Christ -- who is the deepest reveleation of God.

Furthermore, if all men naturally rebel against God, doesn't this make God look pretty...well...unattractive? I don't like this idea. God is beautiful; we only need an explanation or reveleation of his beauty before we are to a large degree (the Calvinist would say to a full degree) involuntarily dragged to Him.

But -- gah -- this debate is beside the point of the thread. You can respond, but I'll try and control myself to let you have the last word.

Cheers,

John

Cajun Huguenot

18th September 2005, 03:03 AM

Hello Recieved,

Thanks for the comments. I believe my understanding of what Paul is saying in no way contradicts "the rest of the gospel in the interpretation of Calvinism." In fact think it is the consistent Calvinistic slant.

I think men reject god because they are fallen and by nature are in rebelion against the God of the Bible. It is not because, as you say "if all men naturally rebel against God, doesn't this make God look pretty...well...unattractive?." It is because men are fallen and corrupted in their natures and therefore reject God and replace him by false God's that are figments of their fallen imaginations.

I think the traditional interpretation of Romans one is the correct one.

Thanks again,
In Christ
Kenith

Received

18th September 2005, 03:27 AM

Cajun Huguenot

18th September 2005, 03:32 AM

But, if it is their nature, and given that this nature is congenital (from birth), and it is obviously God who forces them into existence, and given that they cannot attain faith and repent of this depravity on their own -- if all these things are so, how is it that it is their fault?

Recieved,

That is a very good question. I hope you will allow to suggest a link. It is to an article I posted a while back that I think addressess what you ask. It is here: Romans 9:14-20 (http://www.christianforums.com/t1172416-romans-914-20.html)

In Christ,
Kenith

cygnusx1

18th September 2005, 03:38 AM

But, if it is their nature, and given that this nature is congenital (from birth), and it is obviously God who forces them into existence, and given that they cannot attain faith and repent of this depravity on their own -- if all these things are so, how is it that it is their fault?

Hi received , let me just for a minute turn the question on it's head ........

Those who are saved are not saved by their own personal works , instead they are saved By Grace Through Faith unto good works .

The believer is saved by the Righteousness of Christ .... Imputed to him/her.

Now how is it that men can be saved by anothers righteousness ........ inheriting eternal life and having God as their God without one single human work , how is THAT not UNFAIR?

Received

18th September 2005, 03:47 AM

Received

18th September 2005, 03:53 AM

Recieved,

That is a very good question. I hope you will allow to suggest a link. It is to an article I posted a while back that I think addressess what you ask. It is here: Romans 9:14-20 (http://www.christianforums.com/t1172416-romans-914-20.html)

In Christ,
Kenith

The passages quoted specify value judgments -- i.e. "is this good, bad, just?" as it relates to God's action, particularly God's election from the Calvinistic viewpoint. I'm not interested in value judgements, but contradictions. It simply makes no sense for God to ask a man to do something he cannot do. Anything contradictory is something non-existent -- there are no square-circles, for instance; with this in mind, God cannot do a contradiction, cannot punish men for doing something they could not but help to do. It would not be called a punishment in this case -- punishment occurs upon the not-doing of something obligated, or the doing of something forbidden. Man is not doing these things; his sinful nature is; the man is simply the bullet being shot from the gun; it is the nature that is continually pulling the trigger. To claim otherwise makes you a non-calvinist from the aspect of total depravity.

Cajun Huguenot

18th September 2005, 05:07 AM

There is no contradiction here. God did not create man as a purely individualistic being. Man was created to exist in Covenant with God. The head of our race (our Federal or Covenant head) when He sinned I to sinned in him (covenantally speaking).

God's standard does not change because man broke God's covenant and (through no compulsion) became rebels against the creator. Remember "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (Ex. 20:5)

"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."(Ex 34:7)

"The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."(Num 14:18)

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"(Deut. 5:9)

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

God created man who was able to keep His commandments. Man fell, corrupting his nature and the nature of his posterity. God has no obligation to change the rules because of mans fall into sin.

God did not create the head of our race unable to keep his commandments. He did not force Adam to rebel against Him. In that rebellion our natures became twisted. God is not now forced to Change the rules of the came because our covenant head has destroyed our ability to keep God's Word.

God would be justified to send the whole race to damnation, but He has elected to save some men and bring them to salvation.

There is NO contradiction in God's demand on man. The rules were set in the beginning, and the progenitor of the race condemned many to hell, because of his rebellion. The fact that we are obliged to keep the rules God set up at the beginning, even while we have become unable to do so, does not make God's decree to be contradictory at all.

The Amazing thing is that God has determined to save so many of that fallen race to salvation. And it is God who makes us able to cling to His provided means of salvation.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

cygnusx1

18th September 2005, 05:15 AM

cyg,

I'm not interested in fair/unfair, I'm interested in contradition/non-contradiction.

If men are demanded by God to be saved, to not be depraved, and God upholds the power to allow an individual to be saved, how is this sensical? To me, it isn't; it is a contradiction. God is holding back one's oxygen and saying: "breathe!"

I don't accept that it is any contradiction ............ God commands men to comply with His will , men say no!

You are saying , because men need Grace to obey God then , if He witholds Grace they cannot comply .......... have you never heared of common Grace ?

Man's problem is in himself , God commands what man ought to do , and fallen man is always unwilling which is necessarily unable. For he who wills not cannot at the same time will also.

man's inability is as a result of his love of darkness over and against light.

If you say to a sick person , stop being sick , he cannot will it , he can pray for it , he may use medicines , but he cannot will it ..... all help is outside himself.

So it is with the sinner , all help is outside himself , he is sick , he cannot heal himself , and his sickness is something he wants to keep .

God's command is much more than a simple command it is exposure!

btw , how does the Law handle cases of crime with drug use as an excuse ?

''Please your honour I couldn't help mudering that guy , I was all drugged up , and I am not responsible for my behaviour"

"but you shouldn't have been all drugged up , I am not interested in any excuses , in fact your excuses make you MORE blameworthy , not less"

Cajun Huguenot

18th September 2005, 05:20 AM

The passages quoted specify value judgments -- i.e. "is this good, bad, just?" as it relates to God's action, particularly God's election from the Calvinistic viewpoint. I'm not interested in value judgements, but contradictions. It simply makes no sense for God to ask a man to do something he cannot do. Anything contradictory is something non-existent -- there are no square-circles, for instance; with this in mind, God cannot do a contradiction, cannot punish men for doing something they could not but help to do. It would not be called a punishment in this case -- punishment occurs upon the not-doing of something obligated, or the doing of something forbidden. Man is not doing these things; his sinful nature is; the man is simply the bullet being shot from the gun; it is the nature that is continually pulling the trigger. To claim otherwise makes you a non-calvinist from the aspect of total depravity.

Hello again Received,

I think you are mistaken. I think Paul expected the Romans, like you, to consider what he was saying to be a contradiction. This is why he asks for them "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" THey saw contradiction in the fact that God finds fault with those who do evil or are not redeemed because it is not in His will to do so for them.

There is no contradiction in the fact that man is still a morally responsible agent even though, the actions of his Covenant head has made him unable to perform what he is morally responsible to do.

Man fell into sin on his own and God is using all things to accomplish what He had determined to accomplish before the creation of the world.

Every moment of every day there tens of billions of possible contingencies. God directs all of them to do His will and accomplish His predetermined ends.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Received

18th September 2005, 06:08 AM

The rules were set in the beginning, and the progenitor of the race condemned many to hell, because of his rebellion.

So: one man rebels, the eternity of individuals who come into existence in a depravity they did not ask for nor can free themselves from are responsible for this one man's act?

Does one's acceptance of Calvinistic doctrine depend on one's level of tolerance in accepting this statement? Perhaps. Can you at least see my concern?

I think you are mistaken. I think Paul expected the Romans, like you, to consider what he was saying to be a contradiction.

By no means. Paul was speaking of predestination; there is no contradiction in this, because this is a single premise.

There is no contradiction in the fact that man is still a morally responsible agent even though, the actions of his Covenant head has made him unable to perform what he is morally responsible to do.

Gah, but I consider that a contradiction. Would you like to use the same logic involved and take a poll?

"There is no contradiction in the fact that Billy is still morally responsible even though Rob, who existed before him, has made him unable to perform what he is morally responsible to do."

The contradiction is actualized according to two specific concepts here: responsible, and unable. The philosophical, psychological, and overall universal understanding of responsibility entails an able -- the very word itself implies it: response/able -- able to respond. One cannot be unable to respond and be responsible; and if one is unable to respond ("responseunable"), then one cannot be responsible, it is not his fault, it is due to situations or things beyond his control. This is just terminology.

Man fell into sin on his own and God is using all things to accomplish what He had determined to accomplish before the creation of the world.

Now we are getting to the heart of the disagreement. Man did not lose his perfection, because he was born in imperfection; to declare that one is not congenitally depraved is heresy, according to the traditional opinion. Now, when the bible claims that "all fell in Adam" it means precisely that all man's inherent depravity is a result of Adam's act, for all men being born after Adam must necessarily be born in imperfection -- at least according to the non-Calvinist stance. Why? Because to claim that all men were present is a claim that necessarily entails the fact that men existed before they existed, which is a contradiction, or that their "souls" existed with Adam, which is paganistic heresy. Please note that I'm not attempting to condemn, I am only analyzing.

Every moment of every day there tens of billions of possible contingencies. God directs all of them to do His will and accomplish His predetermined ends.

My friend, this too is an inherent contradiction by virtue of definitions. Contingencies are things that could not be otherwise, or things that are neither necessary nor impossible: possible. But if something is directed and predetermined, it cannot be a contingency, and therefore cannot not be otherwise, cannot be possible and therefore free, for freedom is precisely possibility to the subject.

Received

18th September 2005, 06:21 AM

I don't accept that it is any contradiction ............ God commands men to comply with His will , men say no!
But why do they say no? The external is not sufficient, we must delve deeper. Do they say no because:

They are depraved and can only be depraved without God's help? Then, of course, their "no" is not of their choosing, for they are determined to be in a state of depravity where "no" is a natural reaction. In order for them to say "yes" they must already have faith, according to the Calvinist, and this faith comes only from God. Thus, to demand the person who by his own nature cannot but help saying "no" to say yes is to demand something impossible, and therefore is something contradictory.

btw , how does the Law handle cases of crime with drug use as an excuse ?

''Please your honour I couldn't help mudering that guy , I was all drugged up , and I am not responsible for my behaviour"

"but you shouldn't have been all drugged up , I am not interested in any excuses , in fact your excuses make you MORE blameworthy , not less"

This depends on how the drug-use came about. To make an example that can be considered analogous:

Consider that the man was born with an addiction to drugs, and this addiction was so strong that he could not free himself of it in his own power; the only thing that could save him was outside help that forced itself into the man's life in order to bring about his salvation. Would you therefore blame this man for being "high" or "tweaked" all the time? Certainly not. Why? Because he did not ask for this addiction. Similarly, would you blame a man who has said "no" to God from a depravity that is congenital, since his birth, that he could not be saved from by his own power? I would just as emphatically say no.

cygnusx1

18th September 2005, 08:43 AM

But why do they say no? The external is not sufficient, we must delve deeper. Do they say no because:

They are depraved and can only be depraved without God's help? Then, of course, their "no" is not of their choosing, for they are determined to be in a state of depravity where "no" is a natural reaction. In order for them to say "yes" they must already have faith, according to the Calvinist, and this faith comes only from God. Thus, to demand the person who by his own nature cannot but help saying "no" to say yes is to demand something impossible, and therefore is something contradictory.

This depends on how the drug-use came about. To make an example that can be considered analogous:

Consider that the man was born with an addiction to drugs, and this addiction was so strong that he could not free himself of it in his own power; the only thing that could save him was outside help that forced itself into the man's life in order to bring about his salvation. Would you therefore blame this man for being "high" or "tweaked" all the time? Certainly not. Why? Because he did not ask for this addiction. Similarly, would you blame a man who has said "no" to God from a depravity that is congenital, since his birth, that he could not be saved from by his own power? I would just as emphatically say no.

but suppose that man is viewed as one whole entity under the name of one man. Adam
Suppose that all men are placed at the scene of the first crime , I know you deny it , but scripture affirms it (Romans 5)
then all men acted as one , they in their head , acted in disobedience that would be disastrous for their specie .

And this is not an isolated case .......... suppose that analogous to that case there is another man who is the head of his offspring , His actions are classed by God as one and the same ....... those in the second Adam are at the scene of Redemption , the cross , and also at the scene of the Resurrection and Ascension ....... they are NOW all seated in the heavenlies , their life is hidden , you cannot see it .

those who deny Federalism . deny the cause of any infant dying.
For it is plain that infants do die , and that it is not related to their sin , they haven't sinned ........ except as viewed as one man :Adam.

as regarding blame , the case is complex.

Mankind are already condemned , they are awaiting trial , but truly the case is certain , mankind is already condemned.
This condemnation is due to the sin of One man , Adam.
What then can man do ?
He can do nothing to save himself , ''Salvation is of The Lord'' , "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy"
He can add to his condemnation , by sinning daily.
He can love sin , and prefer it to Holiness.
He can love human reason and despise God's wisdom.
He can commit murder in his heart.
He can resist the Holy Spirit .
He can outrage the Spirit of Grace.
He can grieve The Holy Spirit.

what he cannot do is act spiritually , he may repent , but even his repentance will either be Spiritual and lasting = a gift from God. Or his repentance will not last , Esau/Judas

Received

18th September 2005, 10:52 AM

but suppose that man is viewed as one whole entity under the name of one man. Adam
Suppose that all men are placed at the scene of the first crime , I know you deny it , but scripture affirms it (Romans 5)
then all men acted as one , they in their head , acted in disobedience that would be disastrous for their specie .

I'm sorry, cygnus, but psychically presuming that a person is denying something, and that this something is "clearly taught in scripture" is not very nice.

Do you understand what this makes scripture mean? It means that all men existed before they existed -- a contradiction; or that we all really exist at all times through our souls or what have you, and we existed with Adam, were with Adam, and voluntarily consented to doing what he did. Really, do you think that everyone would agree on that specific act? The absurdities keep mounting, and the heresies also aren't too far off.

So, we all exist in our souls before we are "born" -- fuse with physical bodies -- and thus all men, who somehow all agreed on something -- all infinity billion of them, who never agree on anything -- involving a rebellion against God. I reject this.

those who deny Federalism . deny the cause of any infant dying.
For it is plain that infants do die , and that it is not related to their sin , they haven't sinned ........ except as viewed as one man :Adam.

My friend -- and I mean the term very truly --, this is toeing the line of the perverse. A baby is born and dies, and the reason it dies is the fault of a man previous -- or, that it has somehow psychically existed without its body and was there with Adam, and so on with the heterodox absurdity.

Mankind are already condemned , they are awaiting trial , but truly the case is certain , mankind is already condemned.
This condemnation is due to the sin of One man , Adam.

Sort of like Andy Dufresne? He is condemned for something he didn't do.

Brother, you can't call an injustice -- a contradiction also at that -- an act of justice and blindly put the stamp: and-whatever-God-does-is-just. This is from Satan. There are better views you can hold.

Take it easy.

John

cygnusx1

18th September 2005, 11:24 AM

I'm sorry, cygnus, but psychically presuming that a person is denying something, and that this something is "clearly taught in scripture" is not very nice.

hey received I don't have psychic powers .....

[QUOTE]2. I consider it heresy that man has a pre-existing soul that somehow conspired with Adam to sin, and therefore all men, working with Adam, are responsible for Adam's sin. I also consider it unjust to claim that Adam was the "spokesperson" for all mankind, considering how people did not choose him, in not being alive; and you still have the point that these theories are nowhere in scripture. received

1 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot1) Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace 2 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot2) with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, 4 and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us. 6 For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. 3 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot3) 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. 9 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. 10 Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12 4 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot4) Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned 5 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot5) -- 13 for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. 15 But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person's transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. 16 And the gift is not like the result of the one person's sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. 17 For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. 19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. 20 The law entered in 6 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot6) so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, 21 7 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#foot7) so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans6.htm)

4 [12-21] Paul reflects on the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-13 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm#v1)) in the light of the redemptive mystery of Christ. Sin, as used in the singular by Paul, refers to the dreadful power that has gripped humanity, which is now in revolt against the Creator and engaged in the exaltation of its own desires and interests. But no one has a right to say, "Adam made me do it," for all are culpable (Romans 5:12 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#v12)): Gentiles under the demands of the law written in their hearts (Romans 2:14-15 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans2.htm#v14)), and Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Through the Old Testament law, the sinfulness of humanity that was operative from the beginning (Romans 5:13 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#v13)) found further stimulation, with the result that sins were generated in even greater abundance. According to Romans 5:15-21 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#v15), God's act in Christ is in total contrast to the disastrous effects of the virus of sin that invaded humanity through Adam's crime.

5 [12] Inasmuch as all sinned: others translate "because all sinned," and understand v 13 as a parenthetical remark. Unlike Wisdom 2:24 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom2.htm#v24), Paul does not ascribe the entry of death to the devil.

6 [12-20] The law entered in: sin had made its entrance (12); now the law comes in alongside sin. See the notes on Romans 1:18-32 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm#v18); 5:12 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm#v12)- 21. Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more: Paul declares that grace outmatches the productivity of sin.

7 [21] Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more: Paul declares that grace outmatches the productivity of sin.

Do you understand what this makes scripture mean? It means that all men existed before they existed -- a contradiction; or that we all really exist at all times through our souls or what have you, and we existed with Adam, were with Adam, and voluntarily consented to doing what he did. Really, do you think that everyone would agree on that specific act? The absurdities keep mounting, and the heresies also aren't too far off.

we did have a subsistance prior to our existence in these bodies.
man was created as a unity , women came from man , one man , and all their offspring . So yes , there is an existence , a subsistance prior to our being physically born , we were in Adam . Romans 5
Have you never read that Levi paid Tythes to Melchizadek being in the loins of Abraham.
Also is it not written that the Elect were Blessed with Grace in Christ before this world was formed.

So, we all exist in our souls before we are "born" -- fuse with physical bodies -- and thus all men, who somehow all agreed on something -- all infinity billion of them, who never agree on anything -- involving a rebellion against God. I reject this.
Of course you do.

My friend -- and I mean the term very truly --, this is toeing the line of the perverse. A baby is born and dies, and the reason it dies is the fault of a man previous -- or, that it has somehow psychically existed without its body and was there with Adam, and so on with the heterodox absurdity.
and so infants die because ............... ?

Sort of like Andy Dufresne? He is condemned for something he didn't do.
very different , instead of seeing things limited to time and space , maybe , step outside of time and space , try that ....... see all things from God's perspective.

Cygnus

Received

18th September 2005, 12:42 PM

cygnus,

There is no reason to necesssarily conclude that the passage from Romans 5:12 speaks of the sin that all men committed in Adam. That is why the word "one" is used qualifying so often the work of the man Adam in the remaining passages, implying that it is Adam's fault that sin, and death, was brought into the world. Read a few verses down and you read the sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam. Well, there you have the full idea. Men are sinners from birth by virtue of their sinful nature, but don't have the capacity to sin until innocence is lost. Why else do you think that Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God belonging to children -- because they were miserable, depraved sinners? Why else do you think Paul spoke of, in the latter half of Romans 7, the sin that worked contrary to his intentions and desires, that ultimately made him conclude that it is the sin within him that is doing the evil and not always him? Well, it sure seems there is a sinful power that exists, and it sure seems logical to conclude that it is possible that this sinful power can be spread to all men, by virtue of the sin of Adam.

"But, you just don't get it; you have to believe in heresy in order to accept orthodoxy."

Do you remember the passage in Jeremiah that spoke of God knowing him since he was in the womb? Well, why didn't he say "since you were illin' with Adam and doing naughty things" or something of that nature? It sure would have made sense with your view.

Regarding Levi and tithes -- yes?

Regarding the elect and grace; I believe the passage speaks of being predestined to grace before the forming of the world, or something or other approximate to it. There is a difference. What about loving a person before the forming of the world? Why, that can work too, if you have an omniscience capacity that allows you to see the future.

Infants die because their biological capacities cessate. Jesus revealed rather clearly in Luke 13:1-5 that concluding that bad fortune happens because of sinfulness is not a conclusion to make; and Job -- remember Job.

BBAS 64

18th September 2005, 04:49 PM

Jesus said Repent and believe in the Gospel.
As many as RECEIVED Him He gave them the right to become children of God.
Jesus said Oh Jerusalem, how I have wanted to gather you.... but you were not willing.

And we have examples of this, some recieved some rejected. Romans says they have a conscience. So though man is enslaved to sin, they have a choice to whether or not they yeild to sin or resist. Some listen to their conscience, some don't. This is why in the end, they will be judged according to THEIR works.

Jesus said, unless you repent, you'll will perish. This is a command. God commands everyone to repent. For God to command someone to do something that they are unable to do, or something that's totally up to Him doesn't make sense. That's just my thoughts, I hope it's ok to speak whats on my heart.

Good Day, SoaringEagle

You have misquoted scripture and thus mis applied it.

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Jerusalem was not the subject of the "gathering" it was her children.

You seem to equate a conscience with a choice, if conscience is "defiled" then the choices based upon that are.... good :scratch: .

*** 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

Slaves make choices.. interesting concept. If you are inslaved to sin then sin is what you will always do.

Joh 8:36 If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Only "if" the son sets you free you are free indeed, not may be, not could, not hope fully... But you shall be FREE.

"Unless you repent" is a command, how is that?

I see it if you do not do "X" then "Y" is the result.

Peace to u,

Bill

Godzchild

18th September 2005, 09:29 PM

Slaves make choices.. interesting concept. If you are inslaved to sin then sin is what you will always do.

One has the ability to want to be saved from sin though. One has the ability to hear the gospel...Jesus has the ability to 'dumb down' the gospel via parables so that those who find it hard to understand and perceive spiritual things can hear the things that Jesus preach. One then has the ability to recognise that they are dying in their sinful state and are enslaved and need help - they also have the ability to call out the name of the Lord to save them from this sinful state IF THEY WANT TO. The Lord then takes them out of that sinful state and imputes righeousness. He also heals them and enlightens them to spiritual matters (no more parables). Because up until that point, they were unable to descern spiritual matters or the mystery of the kingdom of God...hence why God spoke in parables!

BBAS 64

21st September 2005, 06:49 PM

One has the ability to want to be saved from sin though. One has the ability to hear the gospel...Jesus has the ability to 'dumb down' the gospel via parables so that those who find it hard to understand and perceive spiritual things can hear the things that Jesus preach. One then has the ability to recognise that they are dying in their sinful state and are enslaved and need help - they also have the ability to call out the name of the Lord to save them from this sinful state IF THEY WANT TO. The Lord then takes them out of that sinful state and imputes righeousness. He also heals them and enlightens them to spiritual matters (no more parables). Because up until that point, they were unable to descern spiritual matters or the mystery of the kingdom of God...hence why God spoke in parables!

Good Day, Godzchild

Jesus has the abilty in your view to dumb down the parables, let me accept that for sake of my question. His he obligated to do so in all cases?

Those who hear verses those who are unable "can not hear":

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Joh 8:45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.

Joh 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Those who hear are "of God", those who are not "of God" hear not. This is plain teaching of Scripture. There are clearly 2 types of people some able some other not able.

The sheep hear the voice of the shepard, those who are not his sheep hear him not.

Peace to u,

Bill

frumanchu

21st September 2005, 08:38 PM

OK, I'm back...

Nevertheless, the essence of the problem lies with the word "demand"; I would say that "demand" implies an ought; you would seem to deny this. I would ask you to consider this in your reply, rather than essentially vainly focusing on information that I'm interested in, but, for the sake of expediency, would like to keep according to the question of the OP.

Actually I readily affirm that a command (I'm using the term interchangeably with "demand" at this point) implies an ought. What I am rejecting is the next step of "ought implies can." As I said before it is not an question of natural ability but of moral ability. It's not that he cannot but that he will not. Naturally speaking, unregenerate man has the capacity to make the choice he ought. A choice is the decision to select one thing over another, and unregenerate men do this a thousand times a day.

Received

22nd September 2005, 03:31 PM

Ok, so perhaps it would be better to say: an ought does not imply a will, though it does imply a can. Because, in order for rebellion to come about, there must be something freely rebelled against, a capacity for freedom. If there is no potentiality for freedom, there is predestination, a determinism from a beginning, and this negates a can -- for a can implies freedom. With this in mind, if you were to claim otherwise (that a can does not imply freedom) it doesn't matter if you claim that "man" is in the equation; he doesn't choose what he does, for it is determined from the beginning, by virtue of the greatest desire dictating his choice. This I still consider a major difficulty in the metaphysics of Edwards -- if man's greatest desire dictates his choice, this leads to an infinite regress: the desire prior to the "choice" is dictated by a preceding desire, and another, until -- you eventually reach the prime mover, who established such a situation. God.

But this is really irrelevant.

You say that unregenerate man has the capacity to -- in this context repent, obviously. And this potentiality for repentance implies willed faith. Which seems contradictory to the reformed standing that man cannot will himself out of faith. So, are you claiming that man can will himself out of faith?

Godzchild

22nd September 2005, 09:19 PM

Good Day, Godzchild

Jesus has the abilty in your view to dumb down the parables, let me accept that for sake of my question. His he obligated to do so in all cases?

Those who hear verses those who are unable "can not hear":

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

Joh 8:45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.

Joh 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Those who hear are "of God", those who are not "of God" hear not. This is plain teaching of Scripture. There are clearly 2 types of people some able some other not able.

The sheep hear the voice of the shepard, those who are not his sheep hear him not.

Peace to u,

Bill

He didn't dumb down parables - the parables are the dumbing down. They can hear - they have ears. The parables are put in ways they understand using analogies in physical life (not spiritual).

BBAS 64

23rd September 2005, 05:30 AM

He didn't dumb down parables - the parables are the dumbing down. They can hear - they have ears. The parables are put in ways they understand using analogies in physical life (not spiritual).

Good Day, Godzchild

Seems Jesus had another view of the parables:
Mat 13:9 He who has ears, let him hear."

Mat 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"

Mat 13:11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Mat 13:12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Mat 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.

Mat 13:15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.'

Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.

Just because they have ears, yet they do not hear. The hearing has not been given uto them. Thoses who are "of God" they hear.

Peace to u,

Bill

Imblessed

23rd September 2005, 07:52 AM

exactly Bill!

When I understood that, a whole lot changed for me......

SoaringEagle

23rd September 2005, 11:49 AM

I can’t help but wonder how God takes pleasure in people who are, against their wills, supposedly regenerated by God’s irresistible grace. They are really nothing more than robots. If they love Him, it is only because they had no choice but to love Him, because they would have preferred to continue hating Him.According to calvinists, that is. This means, of course, that they really don’t love Him, because love is predicated upon choice. Their warm feelings toward Him are pre-programmed; thus true love is impossible.

Here is the funny part, the joke. I encourage everyone to take a puppet made from a sock, put it on your hand, have it turn and look at him, and then have it say, “I love you!”

Does that give you the same feeling as when his spouse or child or loved one says those words? And why not? Because free will has been eliminated. The puppet is only saying what you are making him say.

SoaringEagle

23rd September 2005, 12:01 PM

I also can’t help but wonder about the validity of calvies belief that unregenerate man will always use his freedom to resist God. Imagine a man who is an adulterer. His God-given conscience condemns him continually (see Rom. 2:15), but he continues in his adulterous relationship. Thus he is using his freedom to resist God, which calvies say is all he can or will ever do since he is totally depraved. But imagine that he finally breaks off his adulterous relationship due to guilt. Now can it still be said that he has only used his freedom to resist God? No, it cannot. He used his freedom to repent of adultery, and yielded to his God-given conscience. If he can use his freedom to do that, why can’t he, with the help of the Holy Spirit, repent of a lifestyle of rebellion and humble himself before God?

How could someone who has the free choice to remain unrepentant possibly not have the freedom to choose to repent? How could a person have the capacity to choose to become more evil but not have the capacity to choose to become less evil? Merely by choosing to not become more evil is by default, a choice for good. If we can use our freedom to resist God but can’t use it to yield to God, we really have no freedom at all. We’re robots, programmed to do evil, having no freedom. It is utterly impossible to have freedom to resist God if one doesn’t have freedom to yield to God. Calvin himself certainly admitted this fact, writing in his Institutes,

“Nothing is more absurd than to think anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which He has fore-ordained” (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect. 3).At least Calvin was consistent in this respect. He admitted (unlike some modern Calvinists) that there really was no room for free will in this theology. If depraved man can do nothing other than sin, then he has as much free will as a bullet shot from a gun.

Calvinists clearly add to what Scripture states regarding humanity’s depravity and God’s grace. Although unregenerate people are indeed, “dead in [their] trespasses and sins,” hundreds (if not thousands) of scriptures clearly state or imply that spiritually dead people can choose to humble themselves and repent, especially while they are under the influence of the gracious drawing of God’s Spirit. God’s drawing, however, never forces anyone to repent, nor does it change anyone’s will apart from the consent of his heart.

Although Scripture repeatedly decries the sinful state of humanity, at the same time it calls on all people to repent; thus it is obvious that all spiritually dead people still have the capacity to repent. For example, Paul publicly proclaimed, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). If Paul believed that people were so depraved that they had no capacity to repent, he would not have said that God was calling all people everywhere to repent, unless he was a deceiver. Moreover, if it were impossible for spiritually dead people to repent, God would be unrighteous to expect all of them to do what they are incapable of doing and then hold them guilty for not doing it.

Like Paul, John the Baptist, Jesus, and all the other apostles preached the gospel, calling on all people to repent (see Matt.3:2; 4:17; 11:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4: 2 Pet. 3:9). Several times in the book of Revelation, John is amazed that unregenerate people don’t repent while suffering God’s judgments (see Rev. 9:20-21; 16:9, 11). Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they didn’t repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matt. 11:21). He also declared that the wicked people of Tyre and Sidon, who didn’t repent, would have repented if they had seen miracles like the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida had seen! In both cases, Jesus believed that those who didn’t repent had the capacity to repent and should have repented, in contrast to Calvinists, who believe unregenerate people have no capacity to repent outside of God changing their wills and forcing them to repent (which He only does for some). Thus, Calvinism portrays Jesus as a liar and a deceiver, because Jesus gave all indication that people could do what He knew full well they couldn’t do. This also makes God the Father a liar, as Jesus only spoke His words (see John 12:49).

Jesus expected everyone of His generation to repent, because He stated that the men of Nineveh, who repented at Jonah’s preaching, would rightfully condemn His generation for not repenting. Again, if they had no capacity to repent, He would not have condemned them, as that would make God unrighteous. Moreover, what right would the repentant people of Nineveh have to condemn Jesus’ unrepentant generation? The people of Jesus’ generation could rightly say, “How can you, who by God’s sovereign decree could do nothing other than repent, condemn us, who by God’s sovereign decree could do nothing other than remain unrepentant?”

Thus, the Calvinist, who believes God condemns people for not doing what they are incapable of doing, makes God grossly unjust. God is thus somewhat equivalent to the parent who spanks his baby for not walking, but He is a million times worse. Why? Because to the Calvinist, God tortures people eternally in hell for not doing what they were absolutely incapable of doing.

The Calvinist also makes God ultimately responsible for all the evil in the world. Why? Because God could put an end to all evil by influencing everyone with His irresistible grace, but He sovereignly chooses not to, thus evil remains only because of God’s sovereign choice. Depraved man can supposedly do nothing but sin unless God keeps him from it by choosing to show him His irresistible grace, so the ultimate reason for evil is because God doesn’t keep evil people from sinning.

Calvinists often decry the position of non-Calvinists, accusing them of making man responsible for his own salvation (which is a false accusation). Yet Calvinists make God responsible for the damnation of billions! Clearly, the God of Calvinism hates people even before they are born, when He determines that their eternal fate will be incarceration and agony in hell. If God is solely responsible for the salvation of certain people, He is also solely responsible for the damnation of everyone else, because only He could have rescued them from their fate, but He decided not to do so. And that decision was not predicated on God’s inability to stop sin, but His unwillingness to stop it. Thus God wills sin in select people’s lives. To the Calvinist, man doesn’t stop sinning because he has no choice, but because God, who can stop sin, chooses not to! God is thus even more “totally depraved” than we are!

Calvinists should not object to this point, because Calvin himself believed that Adam fell, not because Adam chose by his own free will to sin, but because God ordained his fall:

God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should….I confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam’s fall, and therefore foreknew it, because he had ordained it so by his own decree (Cal. Inst., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 7).The Calvinist also portrays God as a very confused God who is actually working against Himself, hating sin and evil, yet promoting the very thing He hates by creating people who have no capacity but to do evil and who are predestined to never change. Moreover, the Calvinist’s God is a hypocrite, as He practices sins that He condemns in others, such as deception and showing partiality.

In summary, the Calvinist makes God a lying, deceiving, bigoted, malicious, unjust, confused hypocrite who is responsible for the world’s evil and who creates people for the expressed purpose of torturing them forever. If any man did the things Calvinists say God does, every person on the earth would rightly consider that man worthy of immediate execution, a