Question for the Calvinist....

[Jin-Roh]

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the next question is "no", since I've never heard anything like that from any Calvinist, but the former question I'm still wondering about.

:huh:

[Gavin]

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the next question is "no", since I've never heard anything like that from any Calvinist, but the former question I'm still wondering about.


Hello Jin-Roh. That is an interesting name. What is it from?

I am a Calvinist. I would say, in reference to your question, that nothing is outside the sovereign will of God in our lives. I say, God predestines not only our justification, but also our sanctification.

If Arminians think that this view is deterministic and arbitrary, it apparently was not so for the biblical writers.

Psalm 139:16
"All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

David rejoices that all his days were "ordained" in advance to their taking place.

Romans 8:30
"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:11
"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

The apostle Paul sees God's justification and glorification of the elect as an expression of his sovereign plan in redemptive history.

I believe in both human responsibility in responding to God in true repentance and divine sovereignty over the decisions of those same humans. I believe in both of these because they are both clearly taught in the Scriptures.

If God's sovereignty and human responsibility seem philosophically incompatible, I submit we trust the Bible over philosophy.

[TheFiveSolas]

In the Bible predestination only refers to salvation so I think what you are asking is "how far does God's sovereignty extend?"

The Bible teaches that God is sovereign and therefore is in full control of ALL things. There is not even a single atom that is free from His providential control.

In fact, since God alone has the power within Himself of existence (aseity), it follows that ALL things (other than Himself) only exist AND are KEPT in existence by means of His divine power.

Hebrews 1:3 says, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory, the exact representation of His being, SUSTAINING (other translations have "upholding") ALL things by His powerful word."

So, how does this work with regards to human freedom? It would seem that human freedom is ruled out (precluded).

However, the Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God are what guarantee human freedom.

Because God is omnipotent He is able to foreordain even the free actions of men. In other words, God sovereignly chooses what our actions will be AND that when we choose a certain action, we do so freely without being forced or coerced by Him. When we choose, we do so out of OUR OWN desires, therefore we do so freely.

So, how far does God's sovereignty extend?

Acts 17:26 says, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth, AND HE DETERMINED THE TIMES SET FOR THEM AND THE EXACT PLACES THEY SHOULD LIVE."

You wrote:

so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?


You already know the answer.

Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things REVEALED belong to us and our children forever..."

So, we only know what God has revealed and where He has not revealed, those things belong to Him.

[Gavin]

I agree with what fivesolas wrote, and I also want to add this verse as a good example of a verse which emphasized both the divine sovereignty aspect as well as the human responsibility aspect of sanctification.

Philippians 2
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Verse twelve seems to emphasize that it is we who are in control of our santification when it tells us to "work it out" - but then verse 13 comes along and tells us that it is God who is the one working in us which makes us will and act according to his purpose. And these two verses are logically connected by the "for" (gar). Amazing!

[Blake Reas]

02-27-2003 @ 05:55 AM
Jin-Roh:

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the next question is "no", since I've never heard anything like that from any Calvinist, but the former question I'm still wondering about.

:huh:

I will tell you what I have read of Calvin, this is for everyone. He said not to dwell over the abyss of God's Sovereignty! Besides the normal accusation that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is all about Predestination is false. It is a very big part but the biggest part is Covenant Theology. I just read an article on the Reformed Biblical theological method in EJT and they use it as a case against the OV position. I just gave it a quick read, I am going to go back over it in depth at some point and I will post a outline. If someone else has already read this article by Michael S. Horton feel free to beat me to it! You would probably do a better job than me anyway!

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[mattbballman19]

If God's sovereignty and human responsibility seem philosophically incompatible, I submit we trust the Bible over philosophy.

Of course, a true philosophy, which necessitates conclusions which accuratley reflect reality, will complement the Bible, if it is, in fact, inerrent/infallible (an accurate representation of the way things actually are).

matt

[Jin-Roh]

Hello Jin-Roh. That is an interesting name. What is it from?

Jin-Roh is Japanese for "Wolf". I got the name of a Japanese Animation with the same name. I kinda like wolves, and it sounds cool.

[Jin-Roh]

Of course, a true philosophy, which necessitates conclusions which accuratley reflect reality, will complement the Bible, if it is, in fact, inerrent/infallible (an accurate representation of the way things actually are).

I think I can only agree halfway with that statement. Yes, true Philosophy will line-up (I hesitate to say "complement") the Bible, becuase I believe the Bible to be true.

I think were we might differ is that I (like most Christians), hold the Bible, as God's inspired word, to be the objective standard of what "truth" is. You seem to be holding that what is discerned with your senses and logical conclusions deduced from such, correct?

[Jin-Roh]

By the way, Its nice to hear from Calvinists who don't act like I'm a heretic for questioning the T.U.L.I.P.

[mattbballman19]

Hey Jin,

I basically agree with you there. My point is that the Bible doesn't talk about things like the law of non-contradiction, the impossibility of an actual infinite and/or traversing such, proper basicality, counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, power entailment principles, temporal necessity, etc . . . But if a good case is given that these things are true, nothing from the Bible is taken away. Since the Bible is an accurate description of way things are (i.e. the truth), anything that happens to be true outside of the Bible's explanatory scope, will complement, not contradict. But if the Bible happens to disagree (if a verse can be extrapolated from the Bible, properly interpreted/applied to a relevant issue) then those philosophical concepts will have to be ammended. But, also, if it looks like a philosophical concept is right, we can either say that the Bible doesn't talk about it (it doesn't look as if the whole citadel of Christianity will collapse due to the discovery of this concept/idea) and that, since it is true, the Bible would, in essence, agree with it OR, if there is a Biblical case that can be brought against the concept/idea, then it seems that it would be accurate to say that the verses undergirding that case are not being properly interpreted. Because if they were, then you have ideas, which the verses are trying to communicate, that correspond to reality along with philosophical concepts (which are either logically deduced from scripture or reality) that correspond to reality.

matt

[Jin-Roh]

okay.
It looks like I misunderstood your post.

[Gavin]

Hi matt, :smile:

Of course, a true philosophy, which necessitates conclusions which accuratley reflect reality, will complement the Bible, if it is, in fact, inerrent/infallible (an accurate representation of the way things actually are).

matt
Of course. But within the reformed tradition (with notable exceptions, such as B.B. Warfield) there has generally been a high degree of suspicion concerning philosophy as an accurate way to "necessitate conclusions which accurately reflect reality", due to the fallenness of the human mind (Matthew 11:25, "at that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.") and the desire to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18ff.).

With these reformed convictions I happily concur. :teeth:

[Gavin]

Jin-Roh is Japanese for "Wolf". I got the name of a Japanese Animation with the same name. I kinda like wolves, and it sounds cool.
oh, that's cool :thumb:
By the way, Its nice to hear from Calvinists who don't act like I'm a heretic for questioning the T.U.L.I.P.
The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not one of heretic implications. I warmly recognize and regard both Arminians and OVers as brothers (and sisters) in Christ.:rockon:

[psychopath]

You said:

"Because God is omnipotent He is able to foreordain even the free actions of men. In other words, God sovereignly chooses what our actions will be AND that when we choose a certain action, we do so freely without being forced or coerced by Him. When we choose, we do so out of OUR OWN desires, therefore we do so freely."

Do you agree that an act is free if and only if I could have acted otherwise?

In other words, if I do A, and do not have the ability to do not-A, my act is not free. I don't have two possibilities from which to choose.

You said "God sovereignly chooses what our actions will be." So if I, say, help an old lady cross the street, God chose for me to do this.

But I don't see how I could have acted otherwise in this situation. I could not have not helped the lady cross the street, because God sovereignly chose for me to do so. I am doing A, without the ability to do not-A; therefore, I don't see how my act is free. If God chooses our actions, I don't think we can logically have free will.

I'm probably just missing something. Looking forward to your response. :smile:

[GrayPilgrim]

02-28-2003 @ 02:15 AM
Blake Reas:



I will tell you what I have read of Calvin, this is for everyone. He said not to dwell over the abyss of God's Sovereignty! Besides the normal accusation that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is all about Predestination is false. It is a very big part but the biggest part is Covenant Theology. I just read an article on the Reformed Biblical theological method in EJT and they use it as a case against the OV position. I just gave it a quick read, I am going to go back over it in depth at some point and I will post a outline. If someone else has already read this article by Michael S. Horton feel free to beat me to it! You would probably do a better job than me anyway!

In Christ,
Blake Reas


That is why I don't think of myself as a Calvinist, because I reject Covenant Theology. My soteriology and theology proper are Reformed but that is about it. [Gross Characterization]Remember Covenant Theology is one long apologetic for infant baptism[/Gross Characterization].

GP

[joelkaki]

But you would affirm the 5 points at least would you not?


Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

I affirm the 5-points, God's total sovereignty and the like.

What I don't agree with is:

Covenant Theology--the concept that Prior to the Fall Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works, and that since the Fall all mankind has been under hte Covenant of Grace and htat the enumerated covenants of the Bible were jsut further explications of that Covenant. That is one thing I disagree with.


So while most people would call me a Calvinist I prefer to say that I have a reformed soteriology--which is what the 5 points are about.


BTW as an aside remember it was Arminus and his followers who had 5 points first in the Remosntrants and the 5 Points of Calvinsim are merely the Response of the Synod of Dort to the Remosntrants, and not meant to be an exhaistive defintion of Reformed Soteriology.

GP

[joelkaki]

Very true. That is what I had thought. What position do you tak then, if not the covenantal one?


Joel

[Andrew]

I have real trouble accepting that a foreordained choice is a choice at all. If I were to go and kill someone, would it be God who caused me to make that choice?

[rhutchin]

Andrew
I have real trouble accepting that a foreordained choice is a choice at all. If I were to go and kill someone, would it be God who caused me to make that choice?

If you kill someone, either you were forced to do so against your will or you were just being yourself. If you were just being yourself, then no one forced you to do it. Consequently, it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

[Andrew]

rhutchin,

it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

I have no problem with that understanding. It's the 'God foreordains your 'choices'' crowd that I don't understand.

[Chappie]

I affirm the 5-points, God's total sovereignty and the like.

What I don't agree with is:

Covenant Theology--the concept that Prior to the Fall Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works, and that since the Fall all mankind has been under hte Covenant of Grace and htat the enumerated covenants of the Bible were jsut further explications of that Covenant. That is one thing I disagree with.


So while most people would call me a Calvinist I prefer to say that I have a reformed soteriology--which is what the 5 points are about.


BTW as an aside remember it was Arminus and his followers who had 5 points first in the Remosntrants and the 5 Points of Calvinsim are merely the Response of the Synod of Dort to the Remosntrants, and not meant to be an exhaistive defintion of Reformed Soteriology.

GP

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves me correctly; was not Arminus five points in essense simply a five point disagreement with what Calvin was already teaching?

You say that the T.U.L.I.P does not represent an exhaustive definition of Reformed Theology, perhaps you could illustrate for me one or two aspects that do not fall under the T.U.L.I.P.

At this point my understanding is that it does a pretty good job of covering all of Calvinism. However is am plagued by a sense that my conclusion is probably wrong. Willing to learn.....

[Chappie]

I have real trouble accepting that a foreordained choice is a choice at all. If I were to go and kill someone, would it be God who caused me to make that choice?

Foreordained choice is not choice, it is nonsense. Actions that are forced upon an individual can never be acts of volition.

If I see a person, he is going about the business of living his life and just being happy: I take out a 45 and shoot that person six times and he dies. Did he choose to be shot, or did he choose to die. NO, HE DID NOT. My choices were imposed upon him, and I therefore bear full responsibility for what happened to him.

A moment before I shot him, I foreordained that he would be shot. And his death was foreordained by the six bullets that I pumped into him. I was not acting in response to any volition on his part. He did not choose to get shot; he did not choose to die.

Foreordained choice is a violation of the reality that the bible depends on for us to understand it. If we can violate the rules of understanding in order to have it our way, we give leave to the next guy to do the same. Pretty soon, as far as the bible is concerned, we are back in the stone ages. Why? In order to give credibility to a doctrine that has none....

Foreordained choice is nonsense, and if a blind man cannot see it; he is still without excuse: He ought to be able to smell it. If he cannot smell it, he ought to be able to feel it.

Foreordained choice is out of this world, it is not a part of this reality. It cannot be expressed within the physical realities of this world. God made the rules. Live by them, or you will die by them. But you can never change them to give reality to something that has none..

[Chappie]

If you kill someone, either you were forced to do so against your will or you were just being yourself. If you were just being yourself, then no one forced you to do it. Consequently, it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

The question now becomes, if I would otherwise choose not to kill someone, {exercising my freedom of choice} say I chose to exercise my depravity in another manner. But back in eternity past, God, being in controol of everything, had already ordained that I kill someone; who is responsible for my actions.

If I am to be considered free to kill, then as part and parcel of that freedom; is my freedom not to kill. Logic and reason simply will not allow any other resolution... You cannot have one without the other, you either have both or neither.....

Is it so hard to understand that in choosing, we chose one and reject the other... For it to be choice, we have to be able to choose either one.

[Chappie]

2 Kings 18
32 until I come and take you away (1) to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey, that you may live and not die." But do not listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you, saying, "The LORD will deliver us."

If Calvin had been alive and king, his name and theology could have very easily replaced Hezekiahs'

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If you kill someone, either you were forced to do so against your will or you were just being yourself. If you were just being yourself, then no one forced you to do it. Consequently, it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

Chappie
The question now becomes, if I would otherwise choose not to kill someone, {exercising my freedom of choice} say I chose to exercise my depravity in another manner. But back in eternity past, God, being in control of everything, had already ordained that I kill someone; who is responsible for my actions.

If I am to be considered free to kill, then as part and parcel of that freedom; is my freedom not to kill. Logic and reason simply will not allow any other resolution... You cannot have one without the other, you either have both or neither.....

Is it so hard to understand that in choosing, we chose one and reject the other... For it to be choice, we have to be able to choose either one.


Did God ordained you to act freely of your own volition knowing that you would freely choose to kill the person or did God simply ordain you to kill the person. I think this is the question that the Molinists seek to answer with their counterfactual theory.

However, regardless of the “process” whereby a person comes to the point where he kills someone, he is judged for his participation in the end result. All that matters is that he killed the person (arguments as to whether it was ordained are superfluous). If a person thinks that the act was ordained and he is getting a raw deal, then God has provided a means for him to escape punishment. If Satan has blinded that person so that he cannot see to escape then there is no hope for him unless someone petitions God on his behalf.

[rhutchin]

2 Kings 18
32 until I come and take you away (1) to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey, that you may live and not die." But do not listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you, saying, "The LORD will deliver us."

If Calvin had been alive and king, his name and theology could have very easily replaced Hezekiahs'


Such jealousy!! Who would have believed Chappie capable of such base emotions. To think, I was about to nominate you for the annual Dr. Spock award. Now you do this. Bummer.

[TheFiveSolas]

Chappie:
The question now becomes, if I would otherwise choose not to kill someone, {exercising my freedom of choice} say I chose to exercise my depravity in another manner. But back in eternity past, God, being in controol of everything, had already ordained that I kill someone; who is responsible for my actions.

If I am to be considered free to kill, then as part and parcel of that freedom; is my freedom not to kill. Logic and reason simply will not allow any other resolution... You cannot have one without the other, you either have both or neither.....

Is it so hard to understand that in choosing, we chose one and reject the other... For it to be choice, we have to be able to choose either one.

Chappie,
You still fail to deal with the Calvinist position on freedom and responsibility. Instead you have simply asserted and insisted on a libertarian view of freedom, without providing proof of its validity I should add. To the Calvinist an action is free and one in which the person is responsible IF they act out of their own desires without being forced or coerced. In addition, the Calvinist position is that God forordains even the free actions of men. Therefore, using your example, you are responsible for killing someone even if God has foreordained it. If God has foreordained that you freely, of your own desires instead of by means of force or coercion, kill someone then it necessarily and logically follows that you acted freely without being forced or coerced. This is why you are responsible for your actions, even those actions that God has foreordained.

[Chappie]

rhutchin,

it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

I have no problem with that understanding. It's the 'God foreordains your 'choices'' crowd that I don't understand.

A superficial evaluation of this doctrine would lead one to believe that inspite of election, the person doing the killing acted of his own free-will. Yet a little deeper analysis of the matter will prove that conclusion wrong.

If Reformed theologys views on total depravity are true, man is without a choice unless God interveans and provides that choice. If God ordains ones freedom to act. That freedom cannot be limited to a proneness to kill. For if true freedom or freewill is to be accounted to a person, then it must be possible for a person that is prone to kill, not to kill. Only then is a person accountable to justice that is righteous, just, and holy....

I am often saddened at reforme theology's slipping left and slidding right; just so that they can present to the world a theology that is grossly unjust as just..

If God ordained it, then God did it. If man did it, then it was not ordained by God.

[rhutchin]

Chappie
A superficial evaluation of this doctrine would lead one to believe that inspite of election, the person doing the killing acted of his own free-will. Yet a little deeper analysis of the matter will prove that conclusion wrong.

If Reformed theologys views on total depravity are true, man is without a choice unless God interveans and provides that choice. If God ordains ones freedom to act. That freedom cannot be limited to a proneness to kill. For if true freedom or freewill is to be accounted to a person, then it must be possible for a person that is prone to kill, not to kill. Only then is a person accountable to justice that is righteous, just, and holy....

I am often saddened at reforme theology's slipping left and slidding right; just so that they can present to the world a theology that is grossly unjust as just..

If God ordained it, then God did it. If man did it, then it was not ordained by God.

This free-will philosophy is hard to nail down.

Does free will mean that a person is free to do that which he wills or does it mean that a person is free to do what he doesn't will?

Does free will mean that a person has knowledge of all possible outcomes or does it mean that dummies have free will?

Does free will mean that aperson is a robot and can choose impartially among several outcomes or does it mean that a person is human and prefers some outcomes to others?

I just cannot figure out this free-will philosophy.

[Chappie]

This free-will philosophy is hard to nail down.

Does free will mean that a person is free to do that which he wills or does it mean that a person is free to do what he doesn't will?

It means that a person is free to follow either one of two diferent persuasions.

Does free will mean that a person has knowledge of all possible outcomes or does it mean that dummies have free will?

Consequences follow freewill, one need not have authority over consequences in order to have freewill.

Does free will mean that aperson is a robot and can choose impartially among several outcomes or does it mean that a person is human and prefers some outcomes to others?

Outcomes are post freewill, and are usually set by God or some law of nature. Our freewill choices are subject to preexisting criteria. It is that criteria that provides the persuasion in getting us to choose in one direction or the other. We do not choose the consequences of our choices, they are pre set. If we desire consequence "A", then we choose in that direction. If we desire the consequences of "B", then we choose "B".

If we choose Christ, the consequences are preset by God. If we choose the things of this world, the consequences are preset by God. Our freewill is to choose between differing consequences. Our volition does not determine those consequences. It simply enables us to choose volitionally the consequence that we desire....

I just cannot figure out this free-will philosophy.

That is because you steadfastly insist on complication it. You refuse to seperate an act of freewill from the consequences of freewill. They are irretrievably tied together, but cannot be defined as one...

Free-will is simply ones ability to chose between two different persuasions. {say for instance, between good and evil} Both persuasions must be present and come a knocking before freewill can be exercised. One persuasion will not define it. Two persuasions, but the ability to choose only one does not cut it. Choice is always a choice between. If we cannot choose volitionally either persuasion over the other, then freewill does not exist.

[TheFiveSolas]

Chappie,

It appears you've avoided my clarification so I'll ask you a question.

Is a person's choice free if they decide to act according to their own desires without force or coercion from someone else?

[Chappie]

Chappie,

It appears you've avoided my clarification so I'll ask you a question.

Is a person's choice free if they decide to act according to their own desires without force or coercion from someone else?

That would be called acting according to instincts. Choice is always a choice between. If that person has competing instincts, then he can choose between them..

If his instincts point in only one direction, then choice is not necessary...

I have not avoided your question, please do not avoid my answer...

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
This free-will philosophy is hard to nail down.

Does free will mean that a person is free to do that which he wills or does it mean that a person is free to do what he doesn't will?

Chappie
It means that a person is free to follow either one of two different persuasions.

What if all his persuasions are perversions? A person wills to evil but does not will to good. Does he have free will?


rhutchin
Does free will mean that a person has knowledge of all possible outcomes or does it mean that dummies have free will?

Chappie
Consequences follow freewill, one need not have authority over consequences in order to have freewill.

Not exactly what I asked, but I like the answer anyway. So again, how dumb can a person be and still have free will (or how smart must a person be in order to exercise free will?)? If a person has neither authority over consequences nor control over desires, does he still have free will after his first choice?


rhutchin
Does free will mean that a person is a robot and can choose impartially among several outcomes or does it mean that a person is human and prefers some outcomes to others?

Chappies
Outcomes are post freewill, and are usually set by God or some law of nature. Our freewill choices are subject to preexisting criteria. It is that criteria that provides the persuasion in getting us to choose in one direction or the other. We do not choose the consequences of our choices, they are pre set. If we desire consequence "A", then we choose in that direction. If we desire the consequences of "B", then we choose "B".

If we choose Christ, the consequences are preset by God. If we choose the things of this world, the consequences are preset by God. Our freewill is to choose between differing consequences. Our volition does not determine those consequences. It simply enables us to choose volitionally the consequence that we desire....

Can prior consequences influences the persuasions that engulf us or limit the future choices available to persuasions? If yes, are we still free to choose?


rhutchin
I just cannot figure out this free-will philosophy.

Chappie
That is because you steadfastly insist on complicating it. You refuse to separate an act of freewill from the consequences of freewill. They are irretrievably tied together, but cannot be defined as one...

Free-will is simply ones ability to chose between two different persuasions. {say for instance, between good and evil} Both persuasions must be present and come a knocking before freewill can be exercised. One persuasion will not define it. Two persuasions, but the ability to choose only one does not cut it. Choice is always a choice between. If we cannot choose volitionally either persuasion over the other, then freewill does not exist.

What if one is torn between robbing a bank or raping a girl? What if the choice is between dying of cancer or dying from suicide? Is that what you mean by two different persuasions or must free will persuasions be yes/no decisions and exclusively apply only to one’s decision about Christ?

[TheFiveSolas]

That would be called acting according to instincts. Choice is always a choice between. If that person has competing instincts, then he can choose between them..

If his instincts point in only one direction, then choice is not necessary...

I have not avoided your question, please do not avoid my answer...

Your final sentence comes across as an indicator of animus. I understand that you were responding to my statement that it "appears that you had avoided the Calvinistic position" as I had outlined it twice in this thread. However, you had responded to two others and it certainly appeared you had ignored me. On the other hand, your last sentence above assumes, prior to any response by me, that I would avoid your answer.

In answering I should first point out that you've changed my original question regarding free-will into one of choice. Are you correct in asserting that only a person that has "competing instincts" (I assume what you mean is a choice between doing good and doing evil) has free-will? If so, then your view would necessarily lead one to conclude that God doesn't have free-will.

So, with regards to your answer I would ask, given your view outlined above, does God have free-will? I ask since God's nature (the term instinct doesn't seem to be correct when speaking of a being or person's desires) is perfectly holy, righteous, and good. Therefore, God's "instincts" always point in the same direction. He never makes a choice between doing good or doing evil. So, since God never chooses between those alternatives it would seem to follow, according to your view, that God doesn't have free-will, and therein lies the problem with your view. Your view misunderstands what free-will is. Your view of what constitutes free-will would, if true, deny free-will to our Creator Himself!

[dizzle]

That is an interesting point TFS.

[Chappie]

What if all his persuasions are perversions? A person wills to evil but does not will to good. Does he have free will?

A person can chose to do evil all his life, still it is possible to say that the person has free-will, only if it is possible for that person to choose Good. It has to be possible to choose good over evil as well as evil over good. Free-will, with all of its sidebar ramifications really boils down to the ability of a moral agent to choose good over evil or vice versa.

Within those two persuasions rests a multitude of decisions that we as moral beings make. If it is impossible to choose good because that person is controlled by an evil nature. Then his will is overpowered by his nature and his will is no longer free. And consequently he is relegated to an existence comparable to the animal kingdom; He is controlled by his instincts. And like the animal kingdom he cannot be accounted to be a morally accountable being.

Animals are controlled by their nature to the point that they do not act morally but instinctively. Therefore God does not hold them morally accountable. This is the same condition that you try to ascribe to man through your doctrine of total depravity. I have not heard of a Great White Throne of Judgment that holds animals accountable. Does God value men less than animals? This is where you reformers loose it; you claim to establish accountability through some mysterious unrevealed act of God. For the sake of this discussion, I will not say that this can not be true, but I will say emphatically that it is not a scriptural concept.

Not exactly what I asked, but I like the answer anyway. So again, how dumb can a person be and still have free will (or how smart must a person be in order to exercise free will?)? If a person has neither authority over consequences nor control over desires, does he still have free will after his first choice?

The answer to your first question depends on the consequences of his first choice. If a person chooses hell over heaven in this life, then the consequences of his choice are so pervasive that it eliminates the choice of heaven or hell in the after life.

You can learn much from the world that we live in about freewill and consequences. The underlying truth concerning choice in this world should tell you that when choose in an orange, it is not really the orange that we choose, it is really the consequences of the orange that we choose. We choose the taste, the vitamin C; we choose the orange because the consequences that are set by God concerning the orange appeal to us. If you cannot see that we choose consequences rather than this or that, and that no choice that we make gives us authority over consequences. Choices are ours in anticipation of certain consequences, or do you believe that a person desiring the consequences of an orange should choose an apple and have any reasonable expectation of obtaining the consequences of the orange.

Can prior consequences influences the persuasions that engulf us or limit the future choices available to persuasions? If yes, are we still free to choose?

Christ came to restore mans ability to have fellowship with him; he came to seek and to save that which was lost. I believe that all men were just as lost as the so called elect; this would qualify all men as having their “ability” to have fellowship restored. Some men will take hold of the prize, some will not. Still the opportunity is there for all men.

I will close by saying that reformed theology’s idea of total depravity is so extreme as to render the concept unscriptural. It is so extreme that it places men in the same category as animals. Controlled by their nature to the point that accountability is lost. Without ability, there can be no accountability. You say that men are so pervasively evil that they have lost all concepts of what is good and what is evil. I say that the bible vigorously contradicts this idea as this knowledge was given to sinful man as a part of his fallen nature.

What if one is torn between robbing a bank or raping a girl? What if the choice is between dying of cancer or dying from suicide? Is that what you mean by two different persuasions or must free will persuasions be yes/no decisions and exclusively apply only to one’s decision about Christ?

Why would a man choose to rob a bank, what criteria is he choosing, same question concerning raping the girl.

The real essense of freewill is life or death, good or evil, God or Satan. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. On the cross, Christ made it possible for us to choose. Perhaps we can choose the instruments of our death, in some cases perhaps not. But what does it matter in the annuls of eternity. Dead is dead. And we cannot change what dead is. It is what God says it is....

[rhutchin]

Chappie
Animals are controlled by their nature to the point that they do not act morally but instinctively. Therefore God does not hold them morally accountable. This is the same condition that you try to ascribe to man through your doctrine of total depravity. I have not heard of a Great White Throne of Judgment that holds animals accountable. Does God value men less than animals? This is where you reformers loose it; you claim to establish accountability through some mysterious unrevealed act of God. For the sake of this discussion, I will not say that this can not be true, but I will say emphatically that it is not a scriptural concept.

…reformed theology’s idea of total depravity is so extreme as to render the concept unscriptural…You say that men are so pervasively evil that they have lost all concepts of what is good and what is evil. I say that the bible vigorously contradicts this idea as this knowledge was given to sinful man as a part of his fallen nature.

There are verses that tell us that man has particular problems. For example:

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
No one seeks God.

Total Depravity cannot be extreme if it only means what these verses tell us. Your claim is that knowledge offsets what these verses say (I think). Maybe you could cite one or two scriptures to give me a flavor for how you reach this conclusion.

I am not sure what you mean regarding your statements about accountability. A person is accountable for his sin. If he sins, the penalty is death.

I am not aware that the Scriptures condition this accountability on any particular ability or knowledge. The actual participation in sin is sufficient to render the guilt of the individual. 2 Corinth tells us that Satan has blinded those headed for destruction. Destruction is the end result irrespective of the particular influence of Satan on the person being judged. One might argue that ability and knowledge are compromised in this case. However, those compromises do not absolve the guilt of the individual or negate the accountability for sin. Destruction still follows for no other reason than that the person actually did sin.

Your argument seems to be that a person who has sinned cannot be held accountable for that sin unless (something). I do not know what that “something” is. Can you provide a basic outline for your thinking using the Scriptures. Maybe, it is my Calvinistic biases, but I cannot conceive of your line of thought.

I have some questions on your statements about free will but will follow your discussion with TheFiveSolas for awhile to see how you address his comments.

[Chappie]

There are verses that tell us that man has particular problems. For example:

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
No one seeks God.

Please contrast for me the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked.

I have no problem with your comments that no man seeks God. Do you have a problem with mine when I say that "God seeks men"?

Total Depravity cannot be extreme if it only means what these verses tell us. Your claim is that knowledge offsets what these verses say (I think). Maybe you could cite one or two scriptures to give me a flavor for how you reach this conclusion.

The assertion that we are discussing is yours, not mine: Perhaps you could cite for me a passage that uses the phrase, "total depravity". Or perhaps one that unavoidably suggests total depravity. Keyword, "total"... Depravity is a scriptural concept that I do not deny.

I am not sure what you mean regarding your statements about accountability. A person is accountable for his sin. If he sins, the penalty is death.

Common sense, {that which is necessary if one is to correctly exegete the scriptures,} should tell you that one cannot volitionally or morally be held accountable for that which he does that is imposed upon him by a power that is infinitely greater than his own. He can be pronounced guilty; the available evidence is too great to arrive at any other conclusion. Guilty!!! Yes! But in order to be culpably {accountably} guilty he must have acted of his own free will.

Men are held morally and culpably guilty before God. Guilty means breaking the law: Volitionally, morally or culpably guilty means that a person did it of their own (volition) freewill. A person is guilty for his sins because he chose to break the law.

Please establish accountability for our sin nature which was imposed upon us by divine decree because of Adam. Please do not respond with some notion of "in Adam all die. I was not volitionally or morally present when Adam sinned. Neither was I consciously present. Still it can be said that my guilt is established in Adam. But I am not accountably guilty of anything that another person does… Guilty, yes! But dragged before a court of justice and deemed to be (willfully) culpably guilty which would result in my being punished. No. Nope. No way Jose….

This decree of God's was a just decree that could have/should have resulted in the destruction of all mankind. But God choose not to destroy man, but rather to provide man with a way to escape the consequences of this decree. So he provided man with a way to escape, and then held man accountable for his actions. Man is judged for the choices that he makes, even you acknowledge that. But then you say that man can only choose evil. If man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. One or the other in that case is imposed upon him.

Your concept of election adjudicates that. You say that man has no responsibility in God choosing him because God imposed a new nature upon him. He is not accountable for being chosen, well if he is not accountable (responsible) for being chosen, neither is he responsible for not being chosen. Go ahead, give God the glory for those that he saves, but he must also shoulder the responsibility for those that burn. Remember, all is of God, the good and the evil...

I am not aware that the Scriptures condition this accountability on any particular ability or knowledge.

What you are saying is that a person is saved just by remaining ignorant. He need never know the lord nor call upon his name. Accountability is established in ability. And I know that even you know that.

The actual participation in sin is sufficient to render the guilt of the individual. 2 Corinth tells us that Satan has blinded those headed for destruction.

It is sufficient to render one guilty, but without freewill; accountability cannot be established. And without accountability, the Great White Throne of Judgment is nothing more than a Devine farce. A divine attempt to pass the buck.

Destruction is the end result irrespective of the particular influence of Satan on the person being judged. One might argue that ability and knowledge are compromised in this case. However, those compromises do not absolve the guilt of the individual or negate the accountability for sin. Destruction still follows for no other reason than that the person actually did sin.

You are so immersed in guilt that you cannot see that guilt does not establish accountability. I am guilty of being a man, but is that my fault or God's fault. The one that made me a man must bear full responsibility for me not being a woman. I am guilty, but God is accountable.

You speak of accountability for sin that cannot be negated. Still it is an accountability that you cannot, and never will be able to establish without freewill. Why should I buy into your premise of it is there just because you say so... And you say so based on no evidence of scripture, and based on no principles of reason or logic. You say so because if you did not; reformed theology would come tumbling down...

Your concept of total depravity reduces men to the same moral status as animals. Animals are not judged for their sins..

Your argument seems to be that a person who has sinned cannot be held accountable for that sin unless (something). I do not know what that “something” is. Can you provide a basic outline for your thinking using the Scriptures. Maybe, it is my Calvinistic biases, but I cannot conceive of your line of thought.

I have some questions on your statements about free will but will follow your discussion with TheFiveSolas for awhile to see how you address his comments.[/QUOTE]

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
There are verses that tell us that man has particular problems. For example:

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
No one seeks God.

Chappie
Please contrast for me the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked.

Perhaps you could cite for me a passage that uses the phrase, "total depravity". Or perhaps one that unavoidably suggests total depravity. Keyword, "total"... Depravity is a scriptural concept that I do not deny.

I have no problem with your comments that no man seeks God. Do you have a problem with mine when I say that "God seeks men"? (rhutchin: Of course not.)

We do not have to contrast the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked. I will concede that Jer 17:9 only establishes that man is depraved but not the extent of that depravity. It is the Scripture that says, “No one seeks God,” that establishes the totality of this depravity. We know that only God is good and that God is love. The man who does not seek God also does not seek good or love. As a consequence, we can say that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of this person is only evil continually. We can describe this condition of man using the shorthand term, Total Depravity. The Scriptures do not use the term, Total Depravity, but its meaning is clear from the Scriptures.


rhutchin
I am not sure what you mean regarding your statements about accountability. A person is accountable for his sin. If he sins, the penalty is death.

Chappie
Common sense, {that which is necessary if one is to correctly exegete the scriptures,} should tell you that one cannot volitionally or morally be held accountable for that which he does that is imposed upon him by a power that is infinitely greater than his own. He can be pronounced guilty; the available evidence is too great to arrive at any other conclusion. Guilty!!! Yes! But in order to be culpably {accountably} guilty he must have acted of his own free will.

Men are held morally and culpably guilty before God. Guilty means breaking the law: Volitionally, morally or culpably guilty means that a person did it of their own (volition) freewill. A person is guilty for his sins because he chose to break the law.

Can you establish this position with the Scriptures or do you rely only on common sense for its support?


Chappie
Please establish accountability for our sin nature which was imposed upon us by divine decree because of Adam. Please do not respond with some notion of "in Adam all die. I was not volitionally or morally present when Adam sinned. Neither was I consciously present. Still it can be said that my guilt is established in Adam. But I am not accountably guilty of anything that another person does… Guilty, yes! But dragged before a court of justice and deemed to be (willfully) culpably guilty which would result in my being punished. No. Nope. No way Jose…

We know that Adam was in the presence of God when in the garden. When he sinned, he was expelled from the garden and from God’s presence. Adam’s children were then also born outside God’s presence. Adam’s sin also ensured his physical death and the physical death of all his children. That death ensures that Adam and his children will stand in the presence of God for it is now appointed to man once to die and then the judgment. So even though you were not present with Adam, you still suffer in these two respects. When you stand before God, you will be judged for your sin and we know that all have sinned. The law can be summed up in two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbor. However, we know that man does not seek God so he does not love God. Since love is active and not passive (e.g., we know that we love God if we keep His commandments requiring one to, among other things, actively resist temptation), to be passive with respect to God is to sin. One expresses his lack of love for God by a passive desire for God from the womb (The Baptist being an example of one expressing an active love for God while still in the womb). In the end, all are required to love God and not doing so is sin, so your accountability to God is established.


Chappie
This decree of God's was a just decree that could have/should have resulted in the destruction of all mankind. But God choose not to destroy man, but rather to provide man with a way to escape the consequences of this decree. So he provided man with a way to escape, and then held man accountable for his actions. Man is judged for the choices that he makes, even you acknowledge that. But then you say that man can only choose evil. If man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. One or the other in that case is imposed upon him.

Even if God had not provided a means of escape, man would still be condemned. A man may choose to love God or not love God. He may choose to seek God or not seek God. Man chooses not to seek God and is condemned. It does not matter that he had no desire for God, a desire that he could not overcome, and therefore no real ability to choose to love God. The man is still presented with the choice between good and evil. He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires.


Chappie
Your concept of election adjudicates that. You say that man has no responsibility in God choosing him because God imposed a new nature upon him. He is not accountable for being chosen, well if he is not accountable (responsible) for being chosen, neither is he responsible for not being chosen. Go ahead, give God the glory for those that he saves, but he must also shoulder the responsibility for those that burn. Remember, all is of God, the good and the evil...

Even if God chose to save no one, all would still be accountable to Him and fully responsible for his sin. Absent God providing a means of salvation, none could be saved. The availability of salvation does not make man responsible for his sin. He is responsible even if salvation was not a possibility. God would be responsible for man’s sin if he coerced man to sin. Man sins of his own free will and does so joyfully.


rhutchin
I am not aware that the Scriptures condition this accountability on any particular ability or knowledge.

Chappie
What you are saying is that a person is saved just by remaining ignorant. He need never know the lord nor call upon his name. Accountability is established in ability. And I know that even you know that.

Accountability is not established in ability. Accountability is established in the law that requires that a man love God or perish. To the perishing, there is no other name under heaven whereby he must be saved than that of Christ.

[Chappie]

We do not have to contrast the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked. I will concede that Jer 17:9 only establishes that man is depraved but not the extent of that depravity.

Here, let me help you. “Desperately wicked” suggests a condition of depravity that has resulted in desperation. Still, in a desperate situation, there remains a glimmer of hope. Totally wicked suggests a condition that is without hope. The scriptures do establish our condition as desperate. John Calvin did God one better; he took anyone foolish enough to believe him into a state of total depravity.

It is the Scripture that says, “No one seeks God,” that establishes the totality of this depravity.

“No one seeks God” no more establishes the extent of depravity any more than you or I do. It is what God says it is. And God does not make provisions for your extreme view. Ole’ Abe Lincoln has a word for you. “You can fool some of the people some of the, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

We know that only God is good and that God is love. The man who does not seek God also does not seek good or love.

If you truly believe that God is Good, why do you insist on attributing to him a hatred for the majority of mankind? Instead you call evil good and say that because God did it, evil must be good. For me, God is good means that his deeds will stand on their own merit. Describe election and its consequences without dropping God’s name in conjunction with it and no man alive will call it good. Evil is evil, no matter who does it…

Salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. Love does not seek its own; it always seeks the well-being of another. You have God using love to selfishly build his kingdom. Lucky for the elect, God needs a few warm bodies to worship him, without that he would just as soon burn em all… And you call that Love…..

As a consequence, we can say that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of this person is only evil continually. We can describe this condition of man using the shorthand term, Total Depravity. The Scriptures do not use the term, Total Depravity, but its meaning is clear from the Scriptures.

God said neither add nor subtract, your shorthand is your {Calvin’s} shorthand; it is not God’s. Everybody got a better way to say what God said than how God said it..

Can you establish this position with the Scriptures or do you rely only on common sense for its support?

If you are saying that you can better exegete scripture without using common sense, then I can see where reformed theology got its start. I always rely on common sense, how about you?

We know that Adam was in the presence of God when in the garden. When he sinned, he was expelled from the garden and from God’s presence. Adam’s children were then also born outside God’s presence. Adam’s sin also ensured his physical death and the physical death of all his children. That death ensures that Adam and his children will stand in the presence of God for it is now appointed to man once to die and then the judgment.

All of a sudden you want to judge the man. Why? Without freewill he is simply the unchangeable product of his creation. He is what he was created to be. He has the power to change nothing. He is helpless and totally dependent on his creator for what he is. And you suggest that he is responsible for what God did.

Adam was created innocent, without even a hint of knowledge of what was good and what was evil. He was not perfect because we know that only God is perfect. He was created a free moral agent. God made it real simple for him. Do not eat from that tree in the center of the garden. The tree established Adam’s only means of freedom of expression, for he had but one circumstance through which he could disobey God. Adam was not forced to disobey, he chose to disobey. Much of what you conclude evades even a semblance of reason and logic. It does not even require intelligence, for intelligence would tell you that it is not of God. God did tell us to obey and trust him even when we did not understand. And even tho it is not fail safe we can come to no knowledge and understanding of him if we discard our ability to reason. Reformed theology believes that to think and to reason is a sin in and of itself..

So even though you were not present with Adam, you still suffer in these two respects. When you stand before God, you will be judged for your sin and we know that all have sinned. The law can be summed up in two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbor. However, we know that man does not seek God so he does not love God. Since love is active and not passive (e.g., we know that we love God if we keep His commandments requiring one to, among other things, actively resist temptation), to be passive with respect to God is to sin. One expresses his lack of love for God by a passive desire for God from the womb (The Baptist being an example of one expressing an active love for God while still in the womb). In the end, all are required to love God and not doing so is sin, so your accountability to God is established.

The fact remains; there is no other way under heaven whereby accountability can be established without freewill. One fact will always remain, if it is impossible to accept God, it is impossible to reject him. When a moral agent is impeded by a power greater than his own ability to conform or resist, his will is not free and he is not accountable..

Even if God had not provided a means of escape, man would still be condemned.

Condemned, yes. Destroyed, yes. Judged culpably guilty and punished for that guilt… No way.

A man may choose to love God or not love God. He may choose to seek God or not seek God. Man chooses not to seek God and is condemned. It does not matter that he had no desire for God, a desire that he could not overcome, and therefore no real ability to choose to love God. The man is still presented with the choice between good and evil. He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires.

So much confusion and contradiction here. In spite of Calvin’s cult like influence in your life, you should be able to allow the evidence to speak and cause you to wonder… “He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires”. Now think! His desires were imposed upon him by a sin nature that was imposed upon him. No injustice there, but to willfully punish him for that nature knowing that he is without culpability in its imposition is Mike Tyson ludicrous

Even if God chose to save no one, all would still be accountable to Him and fully responsible for his sin. Absent God providing a means of salvation, none could be saved.

Absent God providing a means of condemnation, no one would be lost either. Let’s give God all the credit due him under reformed theology. God provides the means of salvation; he also provides the means of condemnation. We all know that is true, you just want to say that even though he provided the means of condemnation for all men. He only provided the means of salvation to some men.

The availability of salvation does not make man responsible for his sin. He is responsible even if salvation was not a possibility. God would be responsible for man’s sin if he coerced man to sin. Man sins of his own free will and does so joyfully.

Sin is no longer the issue that separates men from God. Mans sins were adjudicated on the cross. Accepting and embracing or rejecting God’s plan of salvation is now the issue that separates. As a regenerated one that is obedient to God, just how much joy have you wisely attributed to the disobedience of the non-elect.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
We do not have to contrast the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked. I will concede that Jer 17:9 only establishes that man is depraved but not the extent of that depravity.

Chappie
Here, let me help you. “Desperately wicked” suggests a condition of depravity that has resulted in desperation. Still, in a desperate situation, there remains a glimmer of hope. Totally wicked suggests a condition that is without hope. The scriptures do establish our condition as desperate. John Calvin did God one better; he took anyone foolish enough to believe him into a state of total depravity.

It is an interesting philosophy. However, if you want to make it good theology, you will need support from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in Ephesians speak against your position.

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…That at that time ye were without Christ…having no hope, and without God in the world:

Can you point us to Scripture that supports your philosophy that a person has hope despite his depravity.


rhutchin
It is the Scripture that says, “No one seeks God,” that establishes the totality of this depravity.

Chappie
“No one seeks God” no more establishes the extent of depravity any more than you or I do. It is what God says it is. And God does not make provisions for your extreme view. Ole’ Abe Lincoln has a word for you. “You can fool some of the people some of the, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Quoting Abe is nice but meaningless. Are you unable to get the Scriptures to support your philosophy? The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but the Lord gives wisdom. Show me the Scriptures and I will believe you.


rhutchin
We know that only God is good and that God is love. The man who does not seek God also does not seek good or love.

Chappie
If you truly believe that God is Good, why do you insist on attributing to him a hatred for the majority of mankind? Instead you call evil good and say that because God did it, evil must be good. For me, God is good means that his deeds will stand on their own merit. Describe election and its consequences without dropping God’s name in conjunction with it and no man alive will call it good. Evil is evil, no matter who does it…

Do we not read in the Scriptures
Gen 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;…

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Is this what you mean when you refer to God hating men? Does the flood then prove that God is not good or is He good still? Are you saying that there is no merit to these deeds of God.


Chappie
Salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. Love does not seek its own; it always seeks the well-being of another. You have God using love to selfishly build his kingdom. Lucky for the elect, God needs a few warm bodies to worship him, without that he would just as soon burn em all… And you call that Love…..

You argue as the universalists do. Are you saying that God will save everyone? Can the love you espouse do any less?


rhutchin
As a consequence, we can say that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of this person is only evil continually. We can describe this condition of man using the shorthand term, Total Depravity. The Scriptures do not use the term, Total Depravity, but its meaning is clear from the Scriptures.

Chappie
God said neither add nor subtract, your shorthand is your {Calvin’s} shorthand; it is not God’s. Everybody got a better way to say what God said than how God said it..

From what I have seen, you rarely let Scripture speak for itself but are constantly speaking for the Scriptures. Am I to conclude that your philosophies are derived from your imagination if you do not let the Scriptures speak those things that you would want people to believe?


rhutchin
Can you establish this position with the Scriptures or do you rely only on common sense for its support?

Chappie
If you are saying that you can better exegete scripture without using common sense, then I can see where reformed theology got its start. I always rely on common sense, how about you?

I always rely on the Scriptures. They speak plainly and directly on most matters (matters relating to the second coming being one exception). If a man does not know the Scriptures, he has no recourse but to rely on common sense.


rhutchin
We know that Adam was in the presence of God when in the garden. When he sinned, he was expelled from the garden and from God’s presence. Adam’s children were then also born outside God’s presence. Adam’s sin also ensured his physical death and the physical death of all his children. That death ensures that Adam and his children will stand in the presence of God for it is now appointed to man once to die and then the judgment.

Chappie
All of a sudden you want to judge the man. Why? Without freewill he is simply the unchangeable product of his creation. He is what he was created to be. He has the power to change nothing. He is helpless and totally dependent on his creator for what he is. And you suggest that he is responsible for what God did.

Are you saying that man will not be judged and that he is not accountable for his actions? Is man not responsible for what he does. Does he not do it willingly and joyfully and consistent with his desires? Does not God say to him, “Come and let us reason together…” and man refuses? Where is God at fault or man innocent?


Chappie
Adam was created innocent, without even a hint of knowledge of what was good and what was evil. He was not perfect because we know that only God is perfect. He was created a free moral agent. God made it real simple for him. Do not eat from that tree in the center of the garden. The tree established Adam’s only means of freedom of expression, for he had but one circumstance through which he could disobey God. Adam was not forced to disobey, he chose to disobey. Much of what you conclude evades even a semblance of reason and logic. It does not even require intelligence, for intelligence would tell you that it is not of God. God did tell us to obey and trust him even when we did not understand. And even tho it is not fail safe we can come to no knowledge and understanding of him if we discard our ability to reason. Reformed theology believes that to think and to reason is a sin in and of itself.

You did well until the last sentence. Fortunately, it does not matter what reformed theology believes. All that matters is what the Scriptures say.


Chappie
The fact remains; there is no other way under heaven whereby accountability can be established without freewill. One fact will always remain, if it is impossible to accept God, it is impossible to reject him. When a moral agent is impeded by a power greater than his own ability to conform or resist, his will is not free and he is not accountable.

That is an interesting philosophy, no doubt the product of common sense. Did not Paul and Barnabas say--

Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

Is that not choice?


rhutchin
Even if God had not provided a means of escape, man would still be condemned.

Chappie
Condemned, yes. Destroyed, yes. Judged culpably guilty and punished for that guilt… No way.

How are men not guilty? Do not they create gods of wood and metal to forgive them of their sins. Do not men devise extravagant methods to repent of their wrongs? In doing so, do they not acknowledge their sin and prove themselves guilty? Do not men create are kinds of philosophies in order to reject God and do that which they know is wrong? The invisible things of God 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.


rhutchin
A man may choose to love God or not love God. He may choose to seek God or not seek God. Man chooses not to seek God and is condemned. It does not matter that he had no desire for God, a desire that he could not overcome, and therefore no real ability to choose to love God. The man is still presented with the choice between good and evil. He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires.

Chappie
So much confusion and contradiction here. In spite of Calvin’s cult like influence in your life, you should be able to allow the evidence to speak and cause you to wonder… “He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires”. Now think! His desires were imposed upon him by a sin nature that was imposed upon him. No injustice there, but to willfully punish him for that nature knowing that he is without culpability in its imposition is Mike Tyson ludicrous.

Paul instructs on this matter thusly--
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.


rhutchin
Even if God chose to save no one, all would still be accountable to Him and fully responsible for his sin. Absent God providing a means of salvation, none could be saved.

Chappie
Absent God providing a means of condemnation, no one would be lost either. Let’s give God all the credit due him under reformed theology. God provides the means of salvation; he also provides the means of condemnation. We all know that is true, you just want to say that even though he provided the means of condemnation for all men. He only provided the means of salvation to some men.

All have sinned. Only without sin there is no condemnation. Will not God do what is right?


rhutchin
The availability of salvation does not make man responsible for his sin. He is responsible even if salvation was not a possibility. God would be responsible for man’s sin if he coerced man to sin. Man sins of his own free will and does so joyfully.

Chappie
Sin is no longer the issue that separates men from God. Mans sins were adjudicated on the cross. Accepting and embracing or rejecting God’s plan of salvation is now the issue that separates. As a regenerated one that is obedient to God, just how much joy have you wisely attributed to the disobedience of the non-elect.

Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So let a man choose Christ if he will and let God choose man if he will.

[Chappie]

It is an interesting philosophy. However, if you want to make it good theology, you will need support from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in Ephesians speak against your position.

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…That at that time ye were without Christ…having no hope, and without God in the world:

Can you point us to Scripture that supports your philosophy that a person has hope despite his depravity.

Shall we use the passage that you quoted out of context.. They will do just fine..
Ephesians 2
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

In times past, without hope, desperation.(verse 11) But now {Verse 13) made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Acts 2
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Quoting Abe is nice but meaningless. Are you unable to get the Scriptures to support your philosophy? The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but the Lord gives wisdom. Show me the Scriptures and I will believe you.

Ephesians 2:11-13, and Acts 2:26 as posted above. Now keep your word. Believe….

Do we not read in the Scriptures
Gen 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;…

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Is this what you mean when you refer to God hating men? Does the flood then prove that God is not good or is He good still? Are you saying that there is no merit to these deeds of God.

God hating men is your faith, not mine. What you have given is evidence of God hating sin, not men. God hates wickedness, God hates evil.

You argue as the Universalists do. Are you saying that God will save everyone? Can the love you espouse do any less?

I have never in my life said that God will save everyone. It is an exercise in extremism just like reformed theology is. You flip reformed theology over and you find universalism.

From what I have seen, you rarely let Scripture speak for itself but are constantly speaking for the Scriptures. Am I to conclude that your philosophies are derived from your imagination if you do not let the Scriptures speak those things that you would want people to believe?

OK John Calvin Jr. You speak and believe what guru John tells you to speak and believe. Therein lie your loyalties, they are concerned with what John said first, and scriptures second…

I always rely on the Scriptures. They speak plainly and directly on most matters (matters relating to the second coming being one exception).

So stated Jim Jones, David Koresh, The Mormons, Scientologists, That fella Moon and a host of other crackpots. Notice that I have carefully avoided calling “you” a crackpot.

If a man does not know the Scriptures, he has no recourse but to rely on common sense.

Yet only a fool will attempt to discern scripture without using common sense. Like hand and glove, they go together Bubba…

Are you saying that man will not be judged and that he is not accountable for his actions? Is man not responsible for what he does.

Nope, where did you ever get that idea? {Reformed thought no doubt.} What I do say is that there is no way under heaven, given by God to establish accountability other than through free-will. If you have another way, show it to me scripturally or even from a reasonable and/or logical perspective. YOU CANNOT.

Does he not do it willingly and joyfully and consistent with his desires?

I don’t know, I can only speak for myself. How about you? Do you do it willingly and joyfully? Or have you ceased from sin. Do you not yet realize that God has set a mirror in front of you, and every time you point the finger, it’s you standing in the mirror? You are no less a sinner than the man you so willfully point your finger at. Did you think that you have changed? You are still a sinner.

Does not God say to him, “Come and let us reason together…” and man refuses? Where is God at fault or man innocent?

One minute you say that God is sovereign and omnipotent. God is in “CONTROL” you claim from your position of self righteousness. But when it is convenient for you, you say; “and man refuses”. Make up your mind. One minute you claim one thing, the next minute you discredit what you just said.

You did well until the last sentence. Fortunately, it does not matter what reformed theology believes. All that matters is what the Scriptures say.[quote]

That is correct. Your problems arise because the scriptures do not say reformed theology..

[quote]That is an interesting philosophy, no doubt the product of common sense. Did not Paul and Barnabas say--
Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Who in times past suffered {allowed} all nations to walk in their own ways.
Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

Your effort to discredit reason and common sense is short-sighted at best. Still, it is quite reformed.

How are men not guilty?

Men are Guilty, but it takes free-will to establish accountability.

Do not they create gods of wood and metal to forgive them of their sins. Do not men devise extravagant methods to repent of their wrongs?

Here comes da judge, forever pointing the finger are ya?
All men need God. If your selfish God has rejected them just so that you can see his mercy, should they not be free to seek God elsewhere. Why should they be considered evil and punished just because they try to address their need for God. Election stinks huh?

In doing so, do they not acknowledge their sin and prove themselves guilty? Do not men create are kinds of philosophies in order to reject God and do that which they know is wrong? The invisible things of God 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.

Keep that finger wagging will ya? In doing so, do they not acknowledge their sin and prove themselves guilty? I don’t know, you da judge.

Do not men create are kinds of philosophies in order to reject God and do that which they know is wrong? You appear to have judged them already. Remember the mirror….

The invisible things of God 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.

One minute they cannot understand the things of God, the next minute they can. You cannot win playing three card molly if you do not know which cup the object is under. You have to know where you put it…

Paul instructs on this matter thusly--
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

Kind of eliminates “TOTAL DEPRAVITY” huh? Kind of slaps around your bad understanding of that passage that says that the thoughts of men were evil continually that you were so proud of. The scripture still stands in its integrity, but your bad understanding is getting punched ((((( OUT ))))). Every time reformed theology gets into the ring with scripture: Scripture KNOCKS IT OUT!!!! In the first round, in the first minute, KABOOOOOOM! Reformed theology is again on the mat being counted “OUT”…..

“Their conscience also bearing witness“. What!!!!! A conscience. These continually evil doers have a conscience. A conscience is a product of a sense of morality, right and wrong. Reformed theology is all confused huh. They post scriptures in support that really contradict them.

All have sinned. Only without sin there is no condemnation. Will not God do what is right?

Yes, God will do what is right. That is why he will not touch, even with Satan’s hands, your reformed concept of election.

Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So let a man choose Christ if he will and let God choose man if he will.

I love that passage. I love it, I love it, I LOVE IT. I think that it was Paul that said that. Speaking from a position that acknowledges his salvation, he proclaims; “Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

:b_jump: He’s got the whole world in his hands; he’s got the whole world in his hands. He’s Got the whole world, in his hand. :b_hop:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It is an interesting philosophy. However, if you want to make it good theology, you will need support from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in Ephesians speak against your position.

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…That at that time ye were without Christ…having no hope, and without God in the world:

Can you point us to Scripture that supports your philosophy that a person has hope despite his depravity.

Chappie
Shall we use the passage that you quoted out of context.. They will do just fine..
Ephesians 2
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

In times past, without hope, desperation.(verse 11) But now {Verse 13) made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Acts 2
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Do we agree, then, that these passages only give hope to those who are saved and not to the lost? Certainly, we whom God has saved have every reason to have hope because our hope is in Christ. I had thought you meant that those who are lost had hope, a position for which no Scriptural support exists, certainly not these that you cite.


Chappie
“No one seeks God” no more establishes the extent of depravity any more than you or I do. It is what God says it is. And God does not make provisions for your extreme view. Ole’ Abe Lincoln has a word for you. “You can fool some of the people some of the, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

rhutchin
Quoting Abe is nice but meaningless. Are you unable to get the Scriptures to support your philosophy? The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but the Lord gives wisdom. Show me the Scriptures and I will believe you.

Chappie
Ephesians 2:11-13, and Acts 2:26 as posted above. Now keep your word. Believe….

Total Depravity applies to the lost. Your citations apply to the saved. If all you mean is that the saved are not Totally Depraved, then you have no argument from me. I believe that. However, the real issue is whether the lost are Totally Depraved. Do you see any Scriptures to support a philosophy that the lost are anything but Totally Depraved?


Chappie
If you truly believe that God is Good, why do you insist on attributing to him a hatred for the majority of mankind? Instead you call evil good and say that because God did it, evil must be good. For me, God is good means that his deeds will stand on their own merit. Describe election and its consequences without dropping God’s name in conjunction with it and no man alive will call it good. Evil is evil, no matter who does it…

rhutchin
Do we not read in the Scriptures
Gen 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;…

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Is this what you mean when you refer to God hating men? Does the flood then prove that God is not good or is He good still? Are you saying that there is no merit to these deeds of God.

Chappie
God hating men is your faith, not mine. What you have given is evidence of God hating sin, not men. God hates wickedness, God hates evil.

We seem to agree that God can condemn men to hell for their sin, so what did you mean by your earlier comment about me “…attributing to [God] a hatred for the majority of mankind?” I guess that I did not understand your comment.


Chappie
Salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. Love does not seek its own; it always seeks the well-being of another. You have God using love to selfishly build his kingdom. Lucky for the elect, God needs a few warm bodies to worship him, without that he would just as soon burn em all… And you call that Love…..

rhutchin
You argue as the Universalists do. Are you saying that God will save everyone? Can the love you espouse do any less?

Chappie
I have never in my life said that God will save everyone. It is an exercise in extremism just like reformed theology is. You flip reformed theology over and you find universalism.

Confusion on my part again. We both agree that salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. We both agree that some people are saved and some lost forever. So, we agree that God saves a group of people (the elect) although we disagree on how this comes about. People still burn under your system and these are the same people who burn under my system. So how is it that you characterize my system as a loveless system and yours as not?


rhutchin
From what I have seen, you rarely let Scripture speak for itself but are constantly speaking for the Scriptures. Am I to conclude that your philosophies are derived from your imagination if you do not let the Scriptures speak those things that you would want people to believe?

Chappie
OK John Calvin Jr. You speak and believe what guru John tells you to speak and believe. Therein lie your loyalties, they are concerned with what John said first, and scriptures second…

It seems that we actually agree based on what you have said above. The manner in which you had phrased your responses had me thinking that you believed otherwise. Now, that I see your Scriptures (Eph 2, Acts 2) and that you were speaking only of the elect, I understand better your position.


rhutchin
Are you saying that man will not be judged and that he is not accountable for his actions? Is man not responsible for what he does.

Chappie
Nope, where did you ever get that idea? {Reformed thought no doubt.} What I do say is that there is no way under heaven, given by God to establish accountability other than through free-will. If you have another way, show it to me scripturally or even from a reasonable and/or logical perspective. YOU CANNOT.

Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

We know that those who are Totally Depraved practice these things. Now, if by free will, you mean only that a person chooses to do the above, then we have no argument. If by free will, you mean that a person who is Totally Depraved can choose to do good, then we have a dispute.

Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good?


rhutchin
Does not God say to him, “Come and let us reason together…” and man refuses? Where is God at fault or man innocent?

Chappie
One minute you say that God is sovereign and omnipotent. God is in “CONTROL” you claim from your position of self righteousness. But when it is convenient for you, you say; “and man refuses”. Make up your mind. One minute you claim one thing, the next minute you discredit what you just said.

Let me explain it. God says, “Come and let us reason together…” However, there is none that desires God, none that seeks God. The offer is ignored. All refuse to reason with God. They do it of their own free will. All are Totally Depraved and lost.


rhutchin
How are men not guilty?

Chappie
Men are Guilty, but it takes free-will to establish accountability.

If by free will you mean that man freely engages in his sin, then we agree and the Scriptures agree with us. If however, you mean that man can choose to do good, then we disagree and you will find no Scriptures to agree with you and all you have left is a philosophy built on nothing more than common sense.


[I]rhutchin
The invisible things of God 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.

Chappie
One minute they cannot understand the things of God, the next minute they can. You cannot win playing three card molly if you do not know which cup the object is under. You have to know where you put it…

Let me explain this. The things of God are understandable and are clearly seen by the lost. However, no man seeks God, so the lost explain away such things by saying that they are the result of natural forces or some other nonsense built on common sense. In the end, men are without excuse.


rhutchin
Paul instructs on this matter thusly--
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

Chappie
Kind of eliminates “TOTAL DEPRAVITY” huh? Kind of slaps around your bad understanding of that passage that says that the thoughts of men were evil continually that you were so proud of. The scripture still stands in its integrity, but your bad understanding is getting punched ((((( OUT ))))). Every time reformed theology gets into the ring with scripture: Scripture KNOCKS IT OUT!!!! In the first round, in the first minute, KABOOOOOOM! Reformed theology is again on the mat being counted “OUT”…..

“Their conscience also bearing witness“. What!!!!! A conscience. These continually evil doers have a conscience. A conscience is a product of a sense of morality, right and wrong. Reformed theology is all confused huh. They post scriptures in support that really contradict them.

Do you forget so quickly? No one seeks God and no one seeks good because only God is good. Even men of evil nature will devise laws not for the benefit of those around him but for his own protection. Man passes a law that says, “Thou shalt not steal” not because he does not want to steal but because he does not want people to steal from him. Is not your common sense able to make this clear to you?


[I]rhutchin
Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So let a man choose Christ if he will and let God choose man if He will.

Chappie
I love that passage. I love it, I love it, I LOVE IT. I think that it was Paul that said that. Speaking from a position that acknowledges his salvation, he proclaims; “Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


:b_jump: He’s got the whole world in his hands; he’s got the whole world in his hands. He’s Got the whole world, in his hand. :b_hop:

Actually, it is 1 John 2 (not that bad a guess, however).

Do you agree then that man may choose Christ if he will and that God may choose man if He will?

[Chappie]

Do we agree, then, that these passages only give hope to those who are saved and not to the lost? Certainly, we whom God has saved have every reason to have hope because our hope is in Christ. I had thought you meant that those who are lost had hope, a position for which no Scriptural support exists, certainly not these that you cite.
Here is the hope of those that are lost.
Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
(Whole Chapter: Luke 19 In context: Luke 19:9-11)

Total Depravity applies to the lost. Your citations apply to the saved. If all you mean is that the saved are not Totally Depraved, then you have no argument from me. I believe that. However, the real issue is whether the lost are Totally Depraved. Do you see any Scriptures to support a philosophy that the lost are anything but Totally Depraved?

Yes, I do.. Romans 2
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Can you now scripturally support your theory of “TOTAL” depravity?

We seem to agree that God can condemn men to hell for their sin, so what did you mean by your earlier comment about me “…attributing to [God] a hatred for the majority of mankind?” I guess that I did not understand your comment.

That is a sentiment that has been expressed to me by reformers on numerous occasions. God only loves those that he elected before the world was. I do not buy into it…

Confusion on my part again. We both agree that salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. We both agree that some people are saved and some lost forever. So, we agree that God saves a group of people (the elect) although we disagree on how this comes about. People still burn under your system and these are the same people who burn under my system. So how is it that you characterize my system as a loveless system and yours as not?[quote]

We agree that there is an elect, but we disagree on how one becomes one of the elect. I do not see what you believe as loveless. What I see is that you have Love and Hate standing side by side as blood brothers. I say that God hates sin, not men. You say that God created men to burn, I say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. You say that God did not make any provisions for them. Their provisions were to burn so that you might see God’s mercy pored out upon you.

The bible tells us to be imitators of Christ. Still if I exercised election, you would call me Hitler. What Hitler did in Germany is the perfect earthly parable if one wanted to teach election. The similarities alone are enough to frighten me away from reformed theology.

[quote]It seems that we actually agree based on what you have said above. The manner in which you had phrased your responses had me thinking that you believed otherwise. Now, that I see your Scriptures (Eph 2, Acts 2) and that you were speaking only of the elect, I understand better your position.




Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Matthew 5
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Have you plucked your eyes out yet? Ever feel twinges of jealously, outbursts of anger, dissensions. You violate one command, you violated them all. Remember that mirror that God has placed in front of you. What you think that you see in others, is really in you.

We know that those who are Totally Depraved practice these things. Now, if by free will, you mean only that a person chooses to do the above, then we have no argument? If by free will, you mean that a person who is Totally Depraved can choose to do good, then we have a dispute.

We have a real dispute…. If a man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. If a person’s nature overpowers his will, he no longer acts volitionally, but instinctively. Once a person is reduced to acting instinctively only, he is reduced to the animal kingdom. And just like animals he is not a free moral agent, and is no longer accountable for his actions. God acts as a counter balance to evil, he will not allow it to overpower your will and reduce you below the point of accountability.

Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good?

Your elect were supposedly saved before the foundations of the world were lost. So we know that God is not seeking them. So when God says that he came to seek, now get this, and to save that which is lost; who is he seeking and why is he seeking them if he has already predestined them to hell.

Let me explain it. God says, “Come and let us reason together…” However, there is none that desires God, none that seeks God. The offer is ignored. All refuse to reason with God. They do it of their own free will. All are Totally Depraved and lost.

Poor God, he must just be bored. He issues a command that he knows that no one will obey. Does he do this in some failed attempt to justify his already having predestined them to hell? Isaiah 1
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

Has God forgotten that he has already predestined them to be unwilling and disobedient? Even if it were possible for one of them to come to him, when they got there they would find God standing there grinning with a match in his hands.

Ever hear of those stings set up by policemen that send out invitations to the bad guys with promises of rewards or gifts if they will show up. They get there thinking that they have won a new car. Then they slap the cuffs on then and usher them off into everlasting punishment. Is that what Isaiah 1:17-19 represents. A divine sting operation. Shame on you God…

If by free will you mean that man freely engages in his sin, then we agree and the Scriptures agree with us. If however, you mean that man can choose to do good, then we disagree and you will find no Scriptures to agree with you and all you have left is a philosophy built on nothing more than common sense.

How can you suggest that a man freely engages in his sin when that is the only option available to him? Are you suggesting that he can do otherwise?

And being that scriptures are logical, how can you even suggest that they can be discerned without using common sense. Every discernment that we make concerning scripture, we arrive at it via common sense. You only want to throw it out when common sense does not jive with reformed theology.

When you accuse me of error because I use common sense. You affirm that reformed theology does not. Therefore, you can have it, I don’t want it, it’s too unscriptural for me…

Let me explain this. The things of God are understandable and are clearly seen by the lost. However, no man seeks God, so the lost explain away such things by saying that they are the result of natural forces or some other nonsense built on common sense. In the end, men are without excuse.

And you have replaced common sense with Johnny Boy Calvin. And you think that without common sense, you have found truth. Without the rhyme and reason of common sense, all that you have found is confusion…

“In the end, men are without excuse“, what do they need an excuse for? Before they were ever born, before they had done either good or evil, God had already predestined them to hell. I.e., your Jacob and Esau analogy. In the end it is your electoral God that needs an excuse. He caused everything, and has the sovereign right to do it. Nevertheless, sovereignty and all, he did it.

Do you forget so quickly? No one seeks God and no one seeks good because only God is good. Even men of evil nature will devise laws not for the benefit of those around him but for his own protection. Man passes a law that says, “Thou shalt not steal” not because he does not want to steal but because he does not want people to steal from him. Is not your common sense able to make this clear to you?

Common sense tells me that man did not make that law; you’ll find it in your bible. Men realized that it was a good law, and decided to utilize it. God gave it for our own protection, why should we not utilize it for that very same reason… An evil man would not pass such a law. All good things come from God. An evil person will pass laws that support evil. An evil person’s law would say, “thou shalt not steal unless you are me“.

Actually, it is 1 John 2 (not that bad a guess, however).

Do you agree then that man may choose Christ if he will and that God may choose man if He will?

Never said that men chose Christ in that context. It is in this context that I will affirm. A man can choose to accept Christ. He can choose to reject Christ. It is the persuasions that God places in his life that he can choose to accept or to reject… Precisely, that is what I affirm. You cannot detract from it; neither can you add to it and then attribute it to me….

[Andrew]

If God foreordains everything, can He feel a sense of frustration at anything we might do?

[rhutchin]

Chappie
Here is the hope of those that are lost.
Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
(Whole Chapter: Luke 19 In context: Luke 19:9-11)

We agree on this. The hope of the lost is that Christ may seek them out and save them. Pity those whom Christ will not save.


rhutchin
Total Depravity applies to the lost. Your citations apply to the saved. If all you mean is that the saved are not Totally Depraved, then you have no argument from me. I believe that. However, the real issue is whether the lost are Totally Depraved. Do you see any Scriptures to support a philosophy that the lost are anything but Totally Depraved?

Chappie
Yes, I do.. Romans 2
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Can you now scripturally support your theory of “TOTAL” depravity?

I have provided Scriptural support for the concept of TOTAL Depravity. They are Jer 17:9 and Rom 3 (No one seeks God). If you have forgotten that earlier discussion, I will go back and explain it for you again. There are other Scriptures, too. How much do you need?

However, by your citation of Romans 2, is your argument that by keeping the law people are doing “good”? Does not Isaiah say, “All our works are as filthy rags.” How then can you say that keeping some laws some time makes people good?

The idea Paul is expressing here is that people inherently know that laws protect them. It is not that people do not want to steal from others; they do not want others to steal from them. Thus, people makes laws to protect themselves and in doing so, they show that the law is good. However, making good laws does not make a person good. Even common sense should tell you that. When a person breaks a law that he knows is good (even if for purely selfish reasons) he condemns himself because he does those things that he does not want done to himself.


rhutchin
We seem to agree that God can condemn men to hell for their sin, so what did you mean by your earlier comment about me “…attributing to [God] a hatred for the majority of mankind?” I guess that I did not understand your comment.

Chappie
That is a sentiment that has been expressed to me by reformers on numerous occasions. God only loves those that he elected before the world was. I do not buy into it…

Even under your system, people will end up in hell. Does God love those people? Don’t the universalists challenge your position saying that God cannot love a person that He casts into hell.


rhutchin
Confusion on my part again. We both agree that salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. We both agree that some people are saved and some lost forever. So, we agree that God saves a group of people (the elect) although we disagree on how this comes about. People still burn under your system and these are the same people who burn under my system. So how is it that you characterize my system as a loveless system and yours as not?

Chappie
We agree that there is an elect, but we disagree on how one becomes one of the elect. I do not see what you believe as loveless. What I see is that you have Love and Hate standing side by side as blood brothers. I say that God hates sin, not men. You say that God created men to burn, I say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. You say that God did not make any provisions for them. Their provisions were to burn so that you might see God’s mercy pored out upon you.

We both say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. Men are condemned for there sin. Christ is offered as the way to escape that condemnation. Those who refuse to go through that door are rightly judged for their sin. Those who refuse to accept Christ are the same under your system and mine. Regardless of what each of us believes, the reality is that God knows the fate of each person who is born. Even under your system, if a person burns, then he was created to burn.


Chappie
The bible tells us to be imitators of Christ. Still if I exercised election, you would call me Hitler. What Hitler did in Germany is the perfect earthly parable if one wanted to teach election. The similarities alone are enough to frighten me away from reformed theology.

Except, no person exercises election. Only God does. It is true that Hitler made himself God, but Hitler is not our example. Christ preached to both the elect and the non-elect. Christ healed both the elect and the non-elect. Christ exhorted both the elect and the non-elect to repent. We should imitate Christ and do the same. Your analogy to Hitler probably stems from your common sense and not from anything the Scriptures tell us about Christ.


Chappie
Nope, where did you ever get that idea? {Reformed thought no doubt.} What I do say is that there is no way under heaven, given by God to establish accountability other than through free-will. If you have another way, show it to me scripturally or even from a reasonable and/or logical perspective. YOU CANNOT.

rhutchin
Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Chappie
Matthew 5
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Have you plucked your eyes out yet? Ever feel twinges of jealously, outbursts of anger, dissensions. You violate one command, you violated them all. Remember that mirror that God has placed in front of you. What you think that you see in others, is really in you.

No. But I suspect that you have not either. I suspect that you, like me, are constantly petitioning God to forgive you of your sin and are continually asking for His spirit to direct your thoughts and to cleanse your mind of the evil that tempts it.

Regardless, man is accountable for his sin as Gal 5 says. There are no Scriptures that say that free-will is a prerequisite for holding man accountable.


rhutchin
We know that those who are Totally Depraved practice [the things in Gal 5]. Now, if by free will, you mean only that a person chooses to do the above, then we have no argument? If by free will, you mean that a person who is Totally Depraved can choose to do good, then we have a dispute.

Chappie
We have a real dispute…. If a man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. If a person’s nature overpowers his will, he no longer acts volitionally, but instinctively. Once a person is reduced to acting instinctively only, he is reduced to the animal kingdom. And just like animals he is not a free moral agent, and is no longer accountable for his actions. God acts as a counter balance to evil, he will not allow it to overpower your will and reduce you below the point of accountability.

Is this the argument that common sense builds. Look at the foolishness of this.

1. People do not have to be able to choose good in order to choose evil. One can choose to steal as a way of life and never have a thought of not stealing. A good example are those who steal from God and never think twice about it.

2. If a person’s nature overpowers him, he does not act instinctively, he merely acts rationally to satisfy his desires. The baker makes bread not out of benevolence for his customers or instinct but from a rational desire to earn income.

3. You say that, “God acts as a counter balance to evil, he will not allow it to overpower your will and reduce you below the point of accountability.” Is this what you derive from common sense or can you get the Scriptures to say this?


rhutchin
Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good?

Chappie
Your elect were supposedly saved before the foundations of the world were lost. So we know that God is not seeking them. So when God says that he came to seek, now get this, and to save that which is lost; who is he seeking and why is he seeking them if he has already predestined them to hell.

Good question. Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good? Show me those, and I will explain whom God is seeking to save using those Scriptures and others.


rhutchin
Let me explain it. God says, “Come and let us reason together…” However, there is none that desires God, none that seeks God. The offer is ignored. All refuse to reason with God. They do it of their own free will. All are Totally Depraved and lost.

Chappie
Poor God, he must just be bored. He issues a command that he knows that no one will obey. Does he do this in some failed attempt to justify his already having predestined them to hell?
Isaiah 1
17 Learn to do