Why Men are Responsible

[seer]

No amount of reasoning will compell a thinking, spiritual man to believe that God eternally harms men for doing what they can't help, irresistably moved to sin by a nature they never chose.

This doctrine does much to bring into question God's just nature,and I believe brings great reproach on His good name.

Men, by nature, can not seek God. So it is with the soulish (animal) human nature unadied by God.

But I believe that through God's grace, He makes His presence know to all men and gives them the ability to respond. Or reject for that matter.

Romans 1:18-20


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest IN THEM, for GOD HAS SHOWED IT TO THEM. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, BEING UNDERSTOOD by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without EXCUSE."

Here is a Universal work of God:

1. God manifest His truth IN them.

2. God HIMSELF SHOWS it to them.

3. They UNDERSTAND.

Romans 2:14,15

"for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts ACCUSING or else EXCUSING them."

I believe it is God alone who writes His law on pagan hearts. And they then have the ability to respond (excusing) or resist (accusing). Choice.

God can and does overcome all natural obstacles and bring a man to a point of genuine choice. And only in this model can we say with full assurance,while upholding the goodness of God, that men are without excuse.

[mustbenothing]

(seer) No amount of reasoning will compell a thinking, spiritual man to believe that God eternally harms men for doing what they can't help, irresistably moved to sin by a nature they never chose.

(Me) They did choose it, by representation.

Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


I see no provision of moral ability for all men in the text above (Romans 1-2). I see a lot of discussion telling us that all men know about God and His Law but still they worship the creature rather than the Creator, deceiving themselves and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. However, I see nothing stating that God had chosen to remove that suppression and grant everyone the moral ability to overcome their depravity on their own.

[joelkaki]

No amount of reasoning will compell a thinking, spiritual man to believe that God eternally harms men for doing what they can't help, irresistably moved to sin by a nature they never chose.



So how can he eternally bless someone for a righteousness they never possessed? You can't have one without the other.

Joel

[seer]

I see no provision of moral ability for all men in the text above (Romans 1-2). I see a lot of discussion telling us that all men know about God and His Law but still they worship the creature rather than the Creator, deceiving themselves and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. However, I see nothing stating that God had chosen to remove that suppression and grant everyone the moral ability to overcome their depravity on their own.

First of course you see provision for all men in the text you quoted:

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for ALL MEN, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL MEN."

Of course here is where the Calvinist does the double step. He will agree that the first "all men" really means all, but He will deny that the second "all men" does the same. A bit dishonest if you ask me.

But back to my point. God Himself has showed them the truth, He has manifest it IN them, they understand it, God writes His laws on their hearts, then can do it (i.e. their thoughts excusing them) if this work of God has not overcome their natural depravity nothing will. And of course not all men suppress the truth - you didn't, and I didn't.

Another quick point nothing:

"for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is NOT COUNTED where there is no law.Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

It seems that God in His grace does not impute sin apart from the Mosaic law.

[seer]

So how can he eternally bless someone for a righteousness they never possessed? You can't have one without the other.

What do you mean Joel?

[Solly]

Today @ 01:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81424#post81424)
seer:

Seer--No amount of reasoning will compell a thinking, spiritual man to believe that God eternally harms men for doing what they can't help, irresistably moved to sin by a nature they never chose.

--leaving aside the misrepresentation that is in this statement, it is obvious that some amount of reasoning HAS convinced many, down to this day; that is why there are Calvinists on this board.
However, addressing the point, we are not irresistably moved to sin, if by that you mean against our desires and wills. All we like sheep have gone astray, and did so by our own choice.

This doctrine does much to bring into question God's just nature,and I believe brings great reproach on His good name.

--You are free to believe that, but this is not an argument in itself, since Reformed Christians say the same about Arminianism, OVT, Universalism, etc.

Men, by nature, can not seek God. So it is with the soulish (animal) human nature unadied by God.

--I believe you are falling into a gnostic tendency to see this as an ontological problem, rather than an ethical and volitional one. By nature, one must mean "fallen, rebellious nature" not our created nature as such. It is not a matter of our finitude, but our rejection of God, as Paul goes on to say in Romans and elsewhere.

But I believe that through God's grace, He makes His presence know to all men and gives them the ability to respond. Or reject for that matter.

--Again, you may believe this, but you are blurring the distinction betwen God making himself known as Creator, and as Saviour. As Creator, all should serve him, and acknowledge him Rom 1.21 Because that, when the knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful.

Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest IN THEM, for GOD HAS SHOWED IT TO THEM. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, BEING UNDERSTOOD by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without EXCUSE.

--They are without excuse in acknowledging God as their Creator and, as Paul goes on to say, as Judge also - this is why they are without excuse. Their ethical choices have mattered. But acknowledging this is NOT salvation. God does not make a universal revelation of his saving Grace in nature.

Here is a Universal work of God:
1. God manifest His truth IN them.
2. God HIMSELF SHOWS it to them.
3. They UNDERSTAND.

--AND THEY REJECT IT!!

Romans 2:14,15
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts ACCUSING or else EXCUSING them.

I believe it is God alone who writes His law on pagan hearts. And they then have the ability to respond (excusing) or resist (accusing). Choice.

--NO, the most they have is their conscience; but go back to chapter 1.32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same. but have pleasure in them that do them.
There is no salvation spoekn of here. The Gentiles have turned from God, and have suppressed in unrighteousnes what little knowledge they have. Paul is not talking about the possibility of salvation amongst those who do not hear the Gospel; he is pointing up how deep is their fall.

God can and does overcome all natural obstacles and bring a man to a point of genuine choice. And only in this model can we say with full assurance,while upholding the goodness of God, that men are without excuse.

[Solly]

Today @ 11:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81751#post81751)
seer:


First of course you see provision for all men in the text you quoted:

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for ALL MEN, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL MEN."


Since the first is a very real condemnation for ALL men, you must show how the second is a very real justification to life for ALL men. And not do the Arminian two step of talking about a possibility of justification which we can reject.

You are also ignoring the context whereby Paul is comparing Adam and Christ. So that the condemnation is subsumed under all that are in Adam, and the Justification is subsumed under all that are in Christ. See also 1 Cor 15.22. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[seer]

...However, addressing the point, we are not irresistably moved to sin, if by that you mean against our desires and wills. All we like sheep have gone astray, and did so by our own choice.

A choice forced by a nature we never asked for.

...I believe you are falling into a gnostic tendency to see this as an ontological problem, rather than an ethical and volitional one.

Volition:

"an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made."

So we have a real choice? Whether to please God or not please God. By nature?

choice:

"power of choosing : OPTION"

Options:

"the power or right to choose : freedom of choice,an alternative course of action."

What our our options by nature Solly? If there are none then volition does not exist.

...Their ethical choices have mattered. But acknowledging this is NOT salvation. God does not make a universal revelation of his saving Grace in nature.

That is your opinion.

--AND THEY REJECT IT!!

Correct, but not all men reject it. I didn't,you didn't...

...There is no salvation here. The Gentiles have turned from God, and have suppressed in unrighteousnes what little knowledge they have. Paul is not talking about the possibility of salvation amongst those who do not hear the Gospel; he is pointing up how deep is their fall.

Which Gospel Saved Abraham? And their thoughts are also EXCUSING them.

You know I wonder what compells men to put God in the worst possible light.

[seer]

...Since the first is a very real condemnation for ALL men, you must show how the second is a very real justification to life for ALL men. And not do the Arminian two step of talking about a possibility of justification which we can reject.

No, genuine justification has come to all men. Whether they receive it or not is another question. But I am open to christian universalism. So that is also an option.

...You are also ignoring the context whereby Paul is comparing Adam and Christ. So that the condemnation is subsumed under all that are in Adam, and the Justification is subsumed under all that are in Christ. See also 1 Cor 15.22. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Two step Solly. And you know it. These texts can bear the Arminian or the Universal explainations - but clearly not the Calvinist's. The fact is in Romans 5:18 Paul could have reduced the second clause to some men,or believers. But he didn't. He used all men - if Paul is not deceptive, he certainly is sloppy.

[Solly]

Today @ 11:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81764#post81764)
seer:
A choice forced by a nature we never asked for.

--A nature we are happy to go along with, since as you have pointed out, God has made known his existence, as we reject and surpress it. Without excuse.

So we have a real choice? Whether to please God or not please God. By nature?

--Rom 1 again. You have quoted it. He expects us to acknowledge him and be grateful at least. As for our options now, it is meant to lead us to call upon God and say, I CAN'T do it, help me.

What our our options by nature Solly? If there are none then volition does not exist.

--As above.

That is your opinion.

--Well, an end to all argumentation from seer!!

Correct, but not all men reject it. I didn't,you didn't...

--Firstly, all HAVE rejected it. That is where we start.
Secondly, reject what? God's revelation of his existence in nature and in us as Paul points out in Rom 1? I rejected that. I read philosophy and theology, and was aware of the "proofs" of God's existence. I rejected them fair ans square: I would not have this man to rule over me. It was a revelation of his grace that saved me, and that did not come from nature. Again, you blur the lines between general and special revelation.

Which Gospel Saved Abraham? And their thoughts are also EXCUSING them.

--The Gospel of God speaking to Abraham in a special revelation, not Abraham musing upon the hills, clouds and stars, and thinking, hmmm, there must be a God; I'm leaving this town.

You know I wonder what compells men to put God in the worst possible light.

--Frankly, seer, that is a reprehensible statement to a brother in Christ (as indeed I hope you are). Save it for the athiests.

----
No, genuine justification has come to all men. Whether they receive it or not is another question. But I am open to christian universalism. So that is also an option.

--Justification is a declareation that we are righteous in God's sight. That we are acquitted. We must already be in court to be acquitted. It is not a general amnesty, it is a decision of the court of God.

Two step Solly. And you know it. These texts can bear the Arminian or the Universal explainations - but clearly not the Calvinist's. The fact is in Romans 5:18 Paul could have reduced the second clause to some men,or believers. But he didn't. He used all men - if Paul is not deceptive, he certainly is sloppy.

--Since, as mentioned, Paul is comparing Adam and Christ, not a group of people with approrpiate numbers, my analysis stands. It is simply your lack of a proper depth analysis of sin, and the desire to maintain a nonBiblical view of Free Will that makes it say different. But then, I believed that way too once.

[seer]

First Solly, the Arminian view of fee will is quite like the Calvinist. That any ability we have to believe,repent or do good comes from God alone. The only point were we would differ is: can man resist God overtures.

And I will let my texts stand and let the readers decide.

But by definition men do NOT have volition,for volition rests on choice and choice rests on the ability to choose between options.

(me) A choice forced by a nature we never asked for.

(you)A nature we are happy to go along with, since as you have pointed out, God has made known his existence, as we reject and surpress it. Without excuse.

(me new) That statement is meaningless Solly. A dog loves being a dog. His nature created that character. But a dog is not morally responsible. And neither can man in the Calvinist model.

(you)Rom 1 again. You have quoted it. He expects us to acknowledge him and be grateful at least. As for our options now, it is meant to lead us to call upon God and say, I CAN'T do it, help me.

(me new) First we have very different views about what is happening in that chapter. Second why would God expect us to something He knows we can't do by nature? Would you expect your dog to fly? And would you get angry and harm him if he didn't fly?

And how can we call upon God when our natures,which we had no choice in receiving, won't allow it.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 11:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82411#post82411)
seer:

First Solly, the Arminian view of free will is quite like the Calvinist. That any ability we have to believe,repent or do good comes from God alone. The only point were we would differ is: can man resist God overtures.

--Since I am probably as well informed about Arminianism as you are about Calvinism, I will risk all by saying that I am not aware that Arminianism is the same as Calvinsim in this respect. The Calvinist believes that man must be regenerated before he can truly respond to God, and that this is the first work God does. The Arminian believes in God's prevenient grace, a response to which then leads to regeneration. That is a big difference. The former leaves regeneration with God's sovereign choice, the latter with our "free will" decision.

And I will let my texts stand and let the readers decide.

--My thoughts exactly. it was to be my decision also. This isn't an argument, and I am not here to "blast" you away, merely to discus and be aware of differences. thankyou for seeing that too.

But by definition men do NOT have volition,for volition rests on choice and choice rests on the ability to choose between options.

(me) A choice forced by a nature we never asked for.

(you)A nature we are happy to go along with, since as you have pointed out, God has made known his existence, as we reject and surpress it. Without excuse.

(me new) That statement is meaningless Solly. A dog loves being a dog. His nature created that character. But a dog is not morally responsible. And neither can man in the Calvinist model.

--Again, I would say you are using ontology here. We are not talking about human nature as created by God, but the volitional/ethical orientation of human beings; something which Paul says we are aware of, reject, and yet are without excuse.

(you)Rom 1 again. You have quoted it. He expects us to acknowledge him and be grateful at least. As for our options now, it is meant to lead us to call upon God and say, I CAN'T do it, help me.

(me new) First we have very different views about what is happening in that chapter. Second why would God expect us to something He knows we can't do by nature? Would you expect your dog to fly? And would you get angry and harm him if he didn't fly?

--Ontology again. We are expected to acknowledge God, and be thankful at the very least, on Paul's own analysis. since God has shown us, and made known in us that he exists, obviously there is the possibility of our responding to that, though we don't. but that is not slavation, though it bears a resemblance to my understanding of Arminian prevenient grace and inclusivist understadnings of grace. But you could ask jaltus and Arminian to clarify that, as they are card carry Calvinist converts to ARminianism.

regards, Tony

[seer]

The Calvinist believes that man must be regenerated before he can truly respond to God, and that this is the first work God does. The Arminian believes in God's prevenient grace, a response to which then leads to regeneration. That is a big difference. The former leaves regeneration with God's sovereign choice, the latter with our "free will" decision.

Well as far as I know Arminius never held to the doctrine prevenient grace in the Wesley sense. Though Arminius believed that regeneration (more of an on going process,rather than a single act) could be resisted. But my ponit is, that neither us believe that man can do anything required of God before God does a work in the man's heart.

Again, I would say you are using ontology here. We are not talking about human nature as created by God, but the volitional/ethical orientation of human beings; something which Paul says we are aware of, reject, and yet are without excuse.

Again Solly, volition rests on choice and choice on the ability to choose between different options. That is not the case with the Calvinist model. The man,by nature, can not respond to God. Moral responsibility is a fiction. This is why my view of Romans 1, and 2 upholds God's just nature. They are without excuse precisely because God did give they ability to choose.

In your model God is in essence is rubbing their noses in their depravity. He knows that they can't respond yet He requires it any way. And punishes them if they don't. And these beliefs are call the "high thoughts" of God.

We are expected to acknowledge God, and be thankful at the very least, on Paul's own analysis. since God has shown us, and made known in us that he exists, obviously there is the possibility of our responding to that, though we don't.

So we can by nature respond? The possibility exists? If that is the case we should expect to see any number of men over the centuries actually responding. But that is not the case (at least in Calvinism). But such uniformed resistance in mankind (again according to Calvinism) points to natural inability. And if it is natural inability men then are not responsible - and neither would a just God hold them so.

But you could ask jaltus and Arminian to clarify that, as they are card carry Calvinist converts to ARminianism.

Yes,I am also a Calvinist convert to the Arminian position. Though some weeks I'am not so sure. Being wed to any system has it's problems. Not the least of which is having to beat certain opposing texts into said system.

[Solly]

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82900#post82900)
seer:
Well as far as I know Arminius never held to the doctrine prevenient grace in the Wesley sense. Though Arminius believed that regeneration (more of an on going process,rather than a single act) could be resisted. But my ponit is, that neither us believe that man can do anything required of God before God does a work in the man's heart.

I agree with you there, on the last point. My knowledge of Arminianism is more of Wesley than Arminius himself. Arminius was reacting aginst Calvinism, whereas Wesley was building on a system well established.

Again Solly, volition rests on choice and choice on the ability to choose between different options. That is not the case with the Calvinist model. The man,by nature, can not respond to God. Moral responsibility is a fiction. This is why my view of Romans 1, and 2 upholds God's just nature. They are without excuse precisely because God did give they ability to choose.

In your model God is in essence is rubbing their noses in their depravity. He knows that they can't respond yet He requires it any way. And punishes them if they don't. And these beliefs are call the "high thoughts" of God.

--Yes, in the Calvinist model, God is rubbing their noses in it. Basically, he is saying, "You want it? Then have it in spades". And he gave them up... etc. But he still leaves room for acountability. Not that there is somewhere to turn as such, but that they know they should not be where they are.
If I go into a room I have been told not to go into, and the door locks behind me, I can still be told that I should come out. I can either say sorry and ask to be let out, or I can pretend I did nothing wrong, and it's my room anyway. I think Calvinsm and Arminianism are both attempts to understand this fact by humans who don't have unlimited knowledge; I just happen to believe Calvinism explains it better in the light of the scriptural witness, and my own experience.

So we can by nature respond? The possibility exists? If that is the case we should expect to see any number of men over the centuries actually responding. But that is not the case (at least in Calvinism). But such uniformed resistance in mankind (again according to Calvinism) points to natural inability. And if it is natural inability men then are not responsible - and neither would a just God hold them so.

--There is an inability that is part of it - what used to be called Total Depravity, until the word changed meaning (and as outlined in the idea of the locked room) - but there is also the added fact that can be characterised "Can't change, Won't change". It is part of the mystery. It does not hold us back in our evangelisation and preaching, which is always done in the light of God's sovereignty to save. But neither do we believe there will be a turning to God by men in a natural state. The regeneration comes first. All the witness in nature won't change a single person. Given the schema you propose I should also ask why more and more don't turn to God even without hearing the Gospel? We differ on the idea of what is a saving revelation from God. I restrict it entirely to the Spirit's work in connection with the gospel and Christ; you seem to link it with the knowledge of God revealed in nature, as in Rom 1.

Yes,I am also a Calvinist convert to the Arminian position. Though some weeks I'am not so sure. Being wed to any system has it's problems. Not the least of which is having to beat certain opposing texts into said system.

--Hah hah, you me both!! :rofl:

[seer]

My knowledge of Arminianism is more of Wesley than Arminius himself. Arminius was reacting aginst Calvinism, whereas Wesley was building on a system well established.

Exactly:

http://www.godrules.net/theology.html

Yes, in the Calvinist model, God is rubbing their noses in it. Basically, he is saying, "You want it? Then have it in spades". And he gave them up... etc. But he still leaves room for acountability. Not that there is somewhere to turn as such, but that they know they should not be where they are.

Except in Calvinism proper it was God who put them in that position in the first place. I still though see no room for accountability in your model. And rubbing their noses in it Solly, is actually a cruel act - if Calvinism is true.

If I go into a room I have been told not to go into, and the door locks behind me, I can still be told that I should come out. I can either say sorry and ask to be let out, or I can pretend I did nothing wrong, and it's my room anyway.

But they have no voice to ask to come out. And who put them in the room in the first place. That happened by birth,not choice.


We differ on the idea of what is a saving revelation from God. I restrict it entirely to the Spirit's work; you seem to link it with the knowledge of God revealed in nature, as in Rom 1.

No in Romans 1 and 2 we have God manifesting His truth IN them, and writing His laws on their heart. I see that as an inner work of the Holy Spirit.

I wish I could play more,but it's off to work... :whip:

[Solly]

Today @ 12:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82911#post82911)
seer:
http://www.godrules.net/theology.html

--useful site, some good works there. they have Bunyan's Grace Abounding to the chief of Sinners on it as well, which would be my position and experience, roughly.

Except in Calvinism proper it was God who put them in that position in the first place.

--Tush, shame on you for saying such a thing.

I still though see no room for accountability in your model. And rubbing their noses in it Solly, is actually a cruel act - if Calvinism is true.

--They wanted to sin, we wanted to sin. How is it cruel for God to let us get on with it. He says he will give us the desires of our heart. of course, we don't like the consequences of that, but that is supposed to make us think again. What is significant is that he did not throw us all into hell immediatly, but rather suffered long with them, Rom 2.4 that they might call upon him in their situation.

But they have no voice to ask to come out. And who put them in the room in the first place. That happened by birth,not choice.

No in Romans 1 and 2 we have God manifesting His truth IN them, and writing His laws on their heart. I see that as an inner work of the Holy Spirit.

This is where we differ on our interprettion of Rom 1 & 2. I only see the revelation of his existence and Creatorship. You see a revelation of his saving grace.

I wish I could play more,but it's off to work... :whip:

See you later. :cheers:

[Theolog]

04-28-2003 @ 05:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81424#post81424)
seer:

No amount of reasoning will compell a thinking, spiritual man to believe that God eternally harms men for doing what they can't help, irresistably moved to sin by a nature they never chose.

This doctrine does much to bring into question God's just nature,and I believe brings great reproach on His good name.


Some of us reformed students believe that “of course mankind has volition, choice, ability to elect and yes even free will.”

To deny men have choice doesn’t set well with me. The Bible seems to clearly teach that man has volition, and is responsible for his choices.

I see nowhere in scripture that a sinful nature was forced upon anyone. It seems pretty clear to me that man has chosen what his nature would be, not God. We are born with little or no nature and it is our decisions and attitudes that determine what our nature will be.

It is equally clear that Bible teaches that it is not that “man cannot choose God” but rather “man will not choose God”, a big difference.

Mankind will only choose evil all the time and shun the light of God. God does not make us sin. We love sin so much that sin is our action and attitude of choice.

Mans inability to respond to God in a positive way lies in the desires of his will not in some straw man called “human nature”.

The only thing worse than Arminians whipping up their little straw man by saying that Calvinists teach that God requires man to choose Him but created him in such a way he cannot choose Him is a Calvinist thinking that such a man would want to hear the truth.

No amount of reasoning will compel a thinking, spiritual man to believe that such a man would be a seer of the truth.

I mean no offence to you but you have offended me by misrepresenting what Calvinists believe. You should build your argument on what you believe not what you think someone else believes when in reality they do not believe what you are saying they believe.

I thought that I read somewhere that it is a sin on this forum to misrepresent other people.

[seer]

...Except in Calvinism proper it was God who put them in that position in the first place.

--Tush, shame on you for saying such a thing.

Really Solly? A man born today did not choose his nature ( i.e. to be in the room). But I think that Calvin might disagree with you on this.

Inst. 3:21:5

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."

Not all men are CREATED equal. God creates some for Hell. It seems to all be God's doing Solly.

They wanted to sin, we wanted to sin. How is it cruel for God to let us get on with it. He says he will give us the desires of our heart. of course, we don't like the consequences of that, but that is supposed to make us think again. What is significant is that he did not throw us all into hell immediatly, but rather suffered long with them, Rom 2.4 that they might call upon him in their situation.

Are we going in circles? Of course they wanted to sin. They were born with a nature that irresistably compells them to sin. And that not of their choosing. And "that they might call upon Him?' Is God playing games Solly? Waiting for something He knows men are not capable of doing by nature?

This is where we differ on our interprettion of Rom 1 & 2. I only see the revelation of his existence and Creatorship. You see a revelation of his saving grace.

It is deeper Solly than mere revelation. Can the carnal man understand the things of God? NO. Yet in Romans One they UNDERSTAND His divinity and power. Can the carnal mind be subject to the law of God? NO. Yet in Romans Two the pagans are actually keeping the law of God written on their hearts - their thoughts either accusing or excusing.

So I think this goes a bit deeper than mere external revelation... :hi: