It was God’s will that Adam sinned.

ohgin said:

Well then my question to you is this. Why did God put the tree of knowledge into the Garden of Eden???And why did God allowed the serpent to roam in the Garden to tempt Adam and Eve. Since God is an all-knowing God. Since God knew that Adam and Eve will end up being tempted why did God still do that. If you said that God did not set up Adam and Eve to fail then you are saying that He is not all knowing.

Click to expand...

I not only believe in free will, but I believe that free will was the whole point in creating this universe of time, space and its mathematical physical laws. There is no doubt that God can do and know whatever he wills. The physical laws of this universe do not restrain Him, but He does restrict himself to acting within these laws. I firmly believe that for someone who is all-powerful, knowlege and control are indistinguishable. So for free will to exist God must restrain both His power and His knowledge. Furthermore with God's power and knowledge, His ability to subtly manipulate events would be just as irresistable as outright control. I cannot imagine that He would fail to infuence us to do exactly what He wished us to do everytime He had any interaction with the world. Since I beleive that God interaction with the world is quite intimate and all the time, I must believe that He chooses not to know what we will do as part of His purpose to preserve our free will.

To answer your question more specifically would divert this discussion quite badly since the name "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" and "Tree of Life" shout SYMBOLISM at me. But to put it simply, I think that everything in the Garden of Eden had a role in human life that had nothing to do with the fall. The possibility for evil derived directly from the existence of free will. God being all knowing does not mean that He cannot choose not to know things. We often do believe in giving people some degree of privacy. I believe that God gives us privacy in regards to what our future choices will be, in order to preserve our free will.

ohgin said:

So from your perception either God is not all knowing or He is a very cruel God that You ought not to believe in. Or are you saying that God is not in absolute control. That what He wants to acheive is based on what Man decides to do??

Click to expand...

So I do not think that God is cruel. I do not think that God seeks His own glory. What need could he have for such a thing? God may want man to glorify Him but only for man's own sake. Therefore I cannot believe that God created the universe or man in order to bring glory to himself. He may point to the universe which He has created in order to inspire man to glorify God. But this is because God is the source of eternal life and by glorifying God we orient ourselves away from sin and death towards life.

Free will is a result of God choice not to control absolutely everything. But no I do not think that what God wants to acheive is based on what man decides to do, not in the long run. But I do think that part of what He wants for us individually depends on our choices. Just as Solomon wished for wisdom as a child and God responded to this wish by leading Solomon into great wisdom, I think God responds to our choices as part of His individual plan for us.

ohgin said:

I understand where you are coming from. Well then I guess you should read your bible more often then. I think that in this thread there has been a lot of bible verses quoted espacially in Romans that state that God has complete control of the destiny of His creations. He created some for the sake of destruction and some for the sake of showing mercy.

Click to expand...

No I am quite aware of the elements of predestination in the Bible and I do not deny that God can and does predestine certain events according to His will, but I do not think that God predestines everything. I do not believe that Romans means that all are saved or damned according to His will alone and that our free will is irrelevant. When it says that God is like a potter having the right over His clay to make of it what He wills, I think its purpose is only to endorse the proper fear of God, that salvation and judgement are God's perogative alone and that we cannot think to manipulate God in any manner whatsoever. I think it also means that we cannot usurp God's postion to stand in judgement ourselves as in Rom 10:6-7 "Do not say in your heart 'who will ascend into heaven?' (that is to bring Christ down from above) or, 'who will descend into the abyss?' (for that is to bring Christ up from the dead)."

ohgin said:

Well, I do not have total knowledge of God so I would not totally understand why He would plan for the destruction of most of man kind just to show his great love for a few. I guess that it is only through the deprativity of sin and it's effect that only then His love for us can be highlighted. That we truely understand self-sacrifice and love for others no matter how badly they treat us.

Click to expand...

Well I cannot help trying to make sense of it all.

ohgin said:

I think if we say that God is a tyrant which is because as you have described then I think that you must also be saying that God is a tyrant for creating Hell whereby everyone who is put there will be punished for eternity. I am sure you will not be able to comprehand why is it a person who respect a law, do good deads, has been a nice person, donates money to charity, but does not accept christ as His lord and Savior will end up in hell, theologically I understand but I find it a little hard to comprehand and I am sure most will think that way too. But one thing I know for sure is that whoever God wants to save will be saved. And that God's will will always be done no matter what.

Click to expand...

I find the idea of eternal damnation as a punishment completely nonsensical, for in my mind the purpose of punishment is behavior modification, but do not have any problem with the idea of eternal damnation as an unavoidable consequence of the nature of spiritual existence. God is the source of eternal life and it is an unavoidable fact that by cutting yourself off from this source you condemn yourself to an eternal existence without any meaning or joy. On that basis I also have no difficulty with the fate of the good man who rejects God. I do not think these difference between good and bad among people amounts to anything because without the intervention of God we are all under the law of sin, just as a thrown ball is under the law of gravity. So whether it is thrown up or down a ball eventually ends up in the same place: on the ground. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for all men. And even if it takes the intervention of God to deliver us up from the web of our self deceptions for one moment of truth where our free will can make a choice, God still requires that choice, before he will intervene further our life to do what it takes to bring us home. Asking God into our life is not any kind of free pass, it just means that we have given the doctor permission to operate, and there is no anesthetic for the kind of surgery He must perform.

ohgin said:

Mayby to God Man's fall is just a tool to accomplish his will. I mean since those that He had decided that are going to be saved are going to be saved then I guess that yes God's children do have to pay a price to understand what God's love is to them and the importance of obedience and that price is experiencing spritual death and the sins of the world. Having done that only can they come to a realization how great Jesus love and sacrifice for them is.

Click to expand...

I can't say that I agree with this but it is an interesting theory. But do you realize what this theory is really saying? I does away with any need for the idea of original sin. For if it was necessary for Adam, who was created without sin, to experience sin before he could be saved, then naturally the same must hold true for every human being -- every child. Also, it seems to me, to make the role of Jesus a bit ambiguous, for was not Jesus also created without sin? Did Jesus need to experience sin and if not then was he not so different from Adam as to be nothing like a man at all? I thought that Jesus had to be fully man as well as fully God in order for his atonement and resurrection to be effective.

ohgin said:

I am sad because frankly speaking I will never tell others that I am not willing to believe in a God that is not what I perceived because it is really very disrecpectful of God. We do not have full understanding of God and there is a possibility that even my limited understanding of God could be wrong.

Click to expand...

So you are willing to believe in a god like the Zeus or the golden calf? Are you saying that you are willing to believe in a God that is evil? As Christians we believe in a God that is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of all things, and perfect in goodness and love. But this means that by our description of what God has done we are also describing what is good rather than evil. So I think it is only natural for me to say that I cannot attribute what seems self-evidently evil actions to God. I also think that it is a perfectly adequate Christian response to simply say that this is beyond our understanding, for we cannot imagine that we have all the facts. But I think this means that we would have to admit that there must be more to the story and I am not sure you can so confidently rule out the possibility that my understanding of what is going on is at least partially correct.

ohgin said:

So if some of God's characteristic does not match my view then do I stop believing??? No.Because I am only interested in the truth and my belief is based on truth. In fact I was just like many of you who believed in free will but when God gave me revelation through my friends and my previous pastors, I changed my perception because I perceived predestination as biblical and in fact logical.

Click to expand...

As Christians we know that (at least after the fall) mankind is incapable of connections with God. I think that man is so full of lies, wishful thinking, delusions, and manipulative behavior that any concept of God has no relationship or connection with the real thing and that therefore our attempts appease or find favor with God are meaningless. It is only through understanding who Jesus is and what He did that we can cut through the deceptions to accept His gift of a relationship with a God that is the real thing. Perhaps through that relationship, God may conform our concept or understanding to the reality, and perhaps these concepts and understandings have so little importance that He does not. Perhaps He tells each of us only what we need to know.

You are free to doubt my relationship with God and feel concern. But I feel that it is more proper to express that concern in prayer to God rather than in condescension to others. I do not mean that you should fear to offend others, but only that you should fear God. For I feel the that the proper fear of God must acknowledge that salvation and judgement is God's alone, making the judgment of others quite impossible. But of course the sincere effort to bring others to into the knowledge of God cannot be criticized. And I will never hesitate to welcome any prayer of invitation to God, for I put no faith in anything of myself to say, that "I am saved and have no need of God's grace." The only assurance I have is of the power and goodness of God and that is the only assurance of which I feel any need.

ohgin said:

Let me ask you guys a question espacially those who believes in free will. What do you undetstand by the difference between perfection and sinful nature. I mean most of my friends think that because man is not perfect and thus he sins and thus this explains his sinful nature. So can you give me your opinions on what you think sinful nature really is. And do you really think then in this state man can accept God?

Click to expand...

Man's spiritual nature relates to the choices which he makes. These choices determine a man's habitual behavior and define what kind of person he is. Sin is the making of choices and the habits which they initiate which are destructive of the process of life, destroying a man's own potential for greater life. Without the input of God, the pressures of this world make it inevitable that we will make such choices. Each bad choice create habits that by destroying the life process within inevitably leads to more and more such choices and habits. It is like a degenerative disease, which not only progressively destroys our own life but which by the examples of behavior and destructive effects contributes to the negative pressure of this world passing sin from one generation to another. Like the law of gravity, the relentless acceleration of sin means that the farther we fall the faster we fall, and no matter whether we are going up or down at moment, it is inevitable that (without the intervention of God) we will all end up in same place.

ohgin said:

And do you really think then in this state man can accept God?

Click to expand...

No. These sinful habits include a great deal of habitual lies and self-deception. All ideas of God are self-serving delusions of wishful thinking and our habitual attemps to manipulate God are meaningless. Only an act of God can remedy this situation, and the most important was God's incarnation in Jesus, His atonement on the cross and resurrection. But the utter depravity of man and the necessity of God's divine intervention does not change the fact of our free will, or the fact that God requires that we exercise that free will to choose to accept His gift, when by His intervention He makes this possible.

ohgin said:

My perception of sinful nature is that sinful nature and perfection is not related at all. men, because of Adam's inherited sin has an inclination to rebel against God. The things that men do if he is not regenerated by the holy spirit is repulsive to God. If not for the holy spirit's work, man will never accept Christ because that is just man's nature. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I agree, perfection can only be found in God. Even without sin, man is in a perpetual state of incompleteness or imperfection, for we are made for a relationship with God as our shepherd, parent and teacher for all eternity. But all this being repulsive to God is nonsense. That is a human feeling only. God loves us. But he did not give us life and free will only to take it away. Therefore, we cannot escape the responsibility of living life ourselves and making our own choices, so at the very miniminum we must choose life when we are given the opportunity. Adam chose Lucifer and death, and the habits of sin and death which this choice brought have ruled mankind since that day. But in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus a way was found in which God can give us the opportunity to choose life once again.

Jedi said:

This is irony at its best. In the same breath, you say that God doesn’t force people to choose one way and then turn around and say that everyone who ends up with God is made to do so by God Himself, in spite of their own will. How you don’t see the absurdity of it all is well beyond comprehension.

Click to expand...

Let me see if I can explain this without seeming as if the concept isn't the least bit confusing. I acknowledge that it isn't something that we can wrap our minds around without consideration. The method that God uses to change our natures so that we are filled with a desire to serve Him is somewhat of a mystery. I say that not because the view isn't true but because I don't believe that God explicitly explains how He does it. I do believe, however, that God's work in the heart of the elect is grounded in His love for them. He does not steamroll them and subdue them. It is simply that through the monergistic work of regeneration, the natural response is willingly manifested. That is, when God gives someone life by changing their rebellious, spiritually corrupt heart that is inherently in opposition to the things of God into a heart that is inclined to submit to Him in love, they naturally desire and seek those things that are natural to one who is His child.

The Bible gives us an analogous instance to this work of God in the story of Lazarus. Lazarus died and was dead for four days. During that four days, he never cried out to God for resurrection. For that matter, all functions of his will were inactive. Jesus did not come to the lifeless corpse of Lazarus and say, "Hey buddy, you want me to bring you back to life?" Nor did He say, "Hey buddy, I'd like to bring you back to life. It sure would make a good impression on everyone. What do you say? Can I?" No. He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" Did Lazarus then say, "Well, okay, but only because I want to?" Did Lazarus say, "Naaah. I'll pass?" Did Lazarus say, "Hey, that sounds like a pretty good idea?" No. None of those. He simply responded in the natural fashion of one who was previously dead who is now alive. He lived. He came forth from death to life. Now, would you say that Jesus caused Lazarus to come to life against his will? Would you say that Jesus "forced" Lazarus to live?

Irresistible grace, you silly Calvinist you. Once God says “Hey, you, come here” the object of his command can only say “Yes, master…”

Click to expand...

Well, that was informative. Seems I remember the language of the reformed catachisms being a bit less colloquial than that....hmmm...oh, I get it. You decided to wow us by regurgitating the name of a reformed principle you don't understand in place of actually citing teachings from a reformed theologian. For the benefit of those who are not of the same persuasion as you, that persuasion being the one where a person hears a term and then seeks to exploit it despite their ignorance of it, a better label for the efficacious grace of God, if you wish to maintain the T.U.L.I.P. acrostic, is invincible grace. That is, the grace of God by which He ensures that those He has foreordained to give life, are actually raised from the corruptible to the incorruptible.

I am against the idea of total depravity in the sense that the phrase refers to human beings being incapable of doing any good of their own accord.

Click to expand...

Actually, the phrase refers to "man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform him" (John Piper). It does not refer to man's ability to perform acts of civic virtue, i.e., actions that appear good to society. Even these actions that outwardly appear righteous are an abomination to God for they are not ultimately predicated by a desire to please God. This natural inability stems from a nature that is corrupted in its entirity. To clarify, the word "total" is not an indictment that man is as bad as he could be, for we all know that even the most wicked person we have encountered could surely be worse. It is not a reference to the level of depravity, i.e., utter depravity. The phrase "total depravity" refers to the fact that sin has pervaded our fallen natures and there remains no part of us that is untouched by its influence. And whether you're against it or not is immaterial to whether the Bible reveals that it is so:

Gen 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Romans 8:7,8
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Such a ludicrous assertion is not only contrary to experience but would shift all moral responsibility off humans since, after all, they could do nothing but evil.

Click to expand...

Two things. First, what you have "experienced" is not the litmus test for whether unregenerate man can do anything good in the eyes of God. You see, you know neither a person's salvitic state nor their intent in the things that you are judging as "good." If you see someone do something that "appears" to be "good" but, unbeknownst to you, that action was predicated by a sinful desire, that action is surely not "good" in the eyes of God, despite the fact that you "experienced" it. Secondly, our accountability to obey God does not indicate moral ability. Consider the Ten Commandments. Can you follow them perfectly? If not, does that constitute a lack of obligation? What you seem to fail to realize is that God's imposition of commandments to be sinless serve two purposes. They serve as a reflection of His holiness, for what else could a holy God demand but that His subjects be sinless, and they show us our inability to comply and, thus, our need for a Savior.

If they could do nothing but evil, where is the sense in condemning them for not doing good? You might as well tell a river to flow upstream and then stomp your feet and throw a fit when it does not. What did you expect? It could have done nothing else.

Click to expand...

I refer you, once again, to Romans 9:

Romans 9:18-24
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

If you do not understand how this passage of Scripture is a direct Apostolic response to the very complaint you raise, feel free to ask. I'll explain it.

And once again, you display a dazzling show of ignorance and arrogance, only making a fool of yourself in the traditional Calvinist way. First, you presume that the phrase “unless the Father draws Him” is an active, not passive, drawing. If it’s not active, your whole case crumbles to dust. If it’s passive, it’s like saying, “No one will get to know that girl unless that girl draws them to herself.” It’s not that the girl is brainwashing those around her by saying, “Come to me,” but that there’s something about her that draws some people and not others depending on the people being drawn (she stays the same).

Click to expand...

Oh. I get it. The proper way to interpret that passage, according to your ridiculous, anthropocentric understanding of Scripture, is simply that those who are drawn to the Son are drawn because they find something about Him appealing. It's not that God changes anything about them or that He does anything to cause them to desire to be a child of God. It's just that those that are drawn to God simply have that desire inherently. LOL! What a joke. The hoops you must go through to protect your ridiculous position. This all stems from your self-centered notion that God has some moral obligation to try to save everyone He creates, despite the fact that in numerous cases He turns out to be incapable of doing so simply because the creation said, "No thanks." You paint God as some [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who set Himself up for eternal disappointment by creating people that He knew would never embrace Him but still desiring that they would. To that I can only offer a resounding..."huh?"

Your interpretation of this passage leaves God as a most evil being, refusing to help those who need His help most.

Click to expand...

LOL! And here we have it folks. Jedi shows that he has gone to the dark side by claiming that not saving an undeserving sinner is an evil act. By the way, for God to "refuse" to save someone they'd have to desire salvation. Natural man does not desire salvation but, instead, considers the things of God foolishness:

1 Cor 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It’s a problem that stares you blank in the face and a question you and every other Calvinist here has utterly and miserably failed to solve.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's no problem at all so "solving it" takes very little effort. The real problem here is as I pointed out twelve pages ago, is that you see salvation as God's obligation. It simply isn't. Salvation is an unmerited gift that God graciously deigns to dispense to undeserving sinners on the basis of Christ's vicarious atonement.

Apparently, you have a big problem thinking outside of your paradigm. Scripture uses the term “father” in a spiritually redemptive sense – to refer to those who follow Him. This is not to say that He is not the father of others in a different, but very real, physical/spiritual sense. There is no inconsistency here, only in what way God is seen as “father” over His creation.

Click to expand...

Okay. Please, for my edification, cite Scripture where God is ever referred to as "Father" of the wicked.

Regardless, it’s a rather moot point. Even if God weren’t in any way a “creator” or “father” of a perishing people, if He has the means to save them (and saving people is a good thing), and if God is all-good, then God’s own goodness means that He must save as many as He can. Trying to justify your God’s neglect by saying “Well, they weren’t His children” is as senseless as a man saying, “Well, those orphans weren’t mine, so I just waved as they floated and drowned in the river.”

Click to expand...

For those who are reading this debate, be you a Christian or not, reformed or whatever Jedi is, I pray that you see this comment for what it is. Look past the fact that it is surely a miracle when someone is saved. Look past the fact that there is great rejoicing in the church when God GRACIOUSLY redeems someone. Accept that His graciousness in salvation is His display of loving kindness and mercy and not the self imposed obligation of His benevolent nature. If you view salvation as God's obligation then you will never be able to fully appreciate the breadth of the chasm which Jesus crossed on behalf of those who would hang Him on a Cross and kill Him in their wickedness.

Scripture uses “father” to refer to God’s relationship with the people who follow Him. It does not neglect the fact that God is the father of others in a very real sense.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure that repeating this point made you feel more secure in your position but, again, I ask for a biblical example of God being referred to as "Father" of those who never come to Him.

I don’t care if you have sex with 1,000 women and have 2,000 children with all 2,000 choosing not to follow you. Physically, you’re they’re father, even if they did not side with you. You are not their father in a relational sense, but in a very real, intimate sense, you are. Somehow I don’t think the phrase, “They’re not on good terms with me, thus I am in no way their father” would fly.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Sure. That logic applies.

/me seriously wishes that "rolling eyes" smilie would return...

Watch your tongue, boy.

Click to expand...

Okay...girl. Despite the fact that I'm 11 years your senior, I can act like I'm carrying an ID 10 T card too.

Scripture draws that connection very easily by calling God our “father” – a clear reference to the relationship we have with our earthly male parent. It’s not me that draws the connection but scripture.

Click to expand...

Still waiting on that Scriptural example of God ever being referred to as Father of those who will go to hell.

Scripture uses “father” to describe God’s relation to those who follow Him – it describes the intimacy side of the relationship.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, I've never disputed the fact that God is the Father of believers. Seems like you're a bit further "outside the box" than you need to be.

It may be true that God does not owe us anything and that there is no higher power forcing Him to do anything, but it is God’s own goodness that compels Him to save as many perishing people as He can.

Click to expand...

God doesn't owe us salvation but His goodness compels Him to try to save as many as He can? LOL! The eternal God, the omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign, providential, Almighty is compelled by His nature to save everyone but, the impotent, finite creation can thwart His ability to do so. Sure. Man, oh man, you are in for a rude awakening.

You’re really having a hard time understanding this, aren’t you? It’s not our existence that forces God to save us, but God’s own goodness. As an all-good being, He must maximize the amount of goodness. It’s not that hard. I promise.

Click to expand...

LOL! All I could think when I read this was, "what is this person talking about??" "Maximize the amount of goodness?" Oh yeah, I remember now:

Jedi 6:66
Thou shalt worship me and I shalt maximize my goodness.

What a trip you are....boy.

(cont.)

However, not saving an undeserving sinner may be just, but if justice were the greatest good, Jesus should have never come to earth to die on the cross. Justice must be tempered with mercy – I thought a bible-reading Christian would understand that. Justice is not the whole of goodness but should be a last resort only after mercy has been offered.

Click to expand...

I see. Now you pit the justness of God against the mercy of God. The hits just keep rolling. God is ALWAYS just. In the case of the undeserving sinners to whom He grants eternal life, He is just on the basis of Christ's vicarious atonement. IOW, Christ justly earned their salvation. That is a case of non-justice. In the case of those who stand before God, answering to Him for their own sinfulness, He dispenses His justice in condemning them for their sins. He is unjust to no one.

I would think a Bible reading Christian would understand that. Maybe you don't fall into that catagory.

Simple: rebellion against God, that is, goodness itself.

Click to expand...

More specifically, it is either doing that which God has forbidden or not doing that which God has commanded. So, if it is God determining what is expected of us, it is God defining what is, and what is not, sinful, right?

Your Calvinist dribble, however, describes it more of a genetic disease passed on from parent to infant, making even unborn children condemned by it, which really shines a bad light on God when he refuses to save a people hoplessly sick through no fault of their own.

Click to expand...

"Hopelessly sick through no fault of their own?" You call the holiness of God into question when you deny the righteousness of appointing Adam as mankind's representative for wealth or ruin. I always find it very telling when people deny the righteousness of God's choice to impute to them the guilt for Adam's transgression but take absolutely no issue with the concept of the imputed righteousness of Christ. It shows the inconsistancy in their (your) view.

Not a single one of those verses supports the ludicrous idea that the innocent are guilty of rebellion against God (i.e. sin) before they know there is even anything to rebel against. The verses you pointed out affirm only that everyone is a sinner – a general statement that says nothing about unborn people and how they’re magically guilty of wrongdoing before they’ve done anything at all. To say that everyone is guilty of wrongdoing makes sense only if the "everyone" being spoken of are consious about morality and are responsible for their moral decisions - obviously, those that have not yet developed in a moral capacity cannot be condemned for moral wrongdoing.

Click to expand...

To this ridiculous, and expected, response, I will only remind you that you align yourself with the heretic Pelagius when you state this tripe, though you probably wear that as a badge of honor.

Reformationist said:

I acknowledge that it isn't something that we can wrap our minds around without consideration. The method that God uses to change our natures so that we are filled with a desire to serve Him is somewhat of a mystery.

Click to expand...

Sounds pretty simple, really. Plenty of phrases to describe it: brain washing, mind control, turning people into robots, rape, etc.

I do believe, however, that God's work in the heart of the elect is grounded in His love for them.

Click to expand...

And God does not love those He lets perish? Seems rather fickle to me.

It is simply that through the monergistic work of regeneration, the natural response is willingly manifested

Click to expand...

If someone has to be changed into something they are not – and against their wills at that - so that they will love God, then there is no “willingness” in the entire picture. It is an illusion Calvinists indulge themselves in.

That is, when God gives someone life by changing their rebellious, spiritually corrupt heart that is inherently in opposition to the things of God into a heart that is inclined to submit to Him in love, they naturally desire and seek those things that are natural to one who is His child.

Click to expand...

So basically, God turns person A into person B (i.e. He turns them into someone else who will actually choose Him). Enter the Stepford Wives scenario. It’s the Calvinist paradise.

The Bible gives us an analogous instance to this work of God in the story of Lazarus. Lazarus died and was dead for four days. During that four days, he never cried out to God for resurrection. For that matter, all functions of his will were inactive. Jesus did not come to the lifeless corpse of Lazarus and say, "Hey buddy, you want me to bring you back to life?" Nor did He say, "Hey buddy, I'd like to bring you back to life. It sure would make a good impression on everyone. What do you say? Can I?" No. He said, "Lazarus, come forth!" Did Lazarus then say, "Well, okay, but only because I want to?" Did Lazarus say, "Naaah. I'll pass?" Did Lazarus say, "Hey, that sounds like a pretty good idea?" No. None of those. He simply responded in the natural fashion of one who was previously dead who is now alive. He lived. He came forth from death to life. Now, would you say that Jesus caused Lazarus to come to life against his will? Would you say that Jesus "forced" Lazarus to live?

Click to expand...

Bad analogy. There’s no evidence to suggest that Lazarus was even conscious so that he could make a decision, so asking him would be nonsense. You may draw this comparison to God creating people (we don’t ask to be created in the first place), but not to people deciding whether or not to follow God. God gives people ability to be themselves in raising them from the dead and creating them in the first place. God forcing Himself upon His creation so that they must choose Him is quite simply not the same.

You decided to wow us by regurgitating the name of a reformed principle you don't understand in place of actually citing teachings from a reformed theologian.

Click to expand...

Unless you want to describe the doctrine of Irresistible Grace as anything other than what I’ve presented it to be and in a way that avoids the problems I’ve pointed out, you’re only wasting your breath.

That is, the grace of God by which He ensures that those He has foreordained to give life, are actually raised from the corruptible to the incorruptible.

Click to expand...

And this is different… how? Once God says “Hey, you, get over here,” they still have no choice but to respond “Yes, master…”

It does not refer to man's ability to perform acts of civic virtue, i.e., actions that appear good to society. Even these actions that outwardly appear righteous are an abomination to God for they are not ultimately predicated by a desire to please God.

Click to expand...

So… a non-believer that pushes an old lady out of the way of a speeding car and, in the process, gets hit himself and dies has done an “abomination” in the sight of God. God would condemn him for his actions that day. Give me a break. It’s inconceivable how Calvinists paint good as evil. Things such as courage, generosity, selflessness, wisdom, etc. are inherently good in and of themselves. Thus if anyone does them, it doesn’t magically become bad simply because the nonbeliever happens to believe the wrong set of theological facts – the nature of what he does is the same. Thus nonbelievers are capable of goodness.

It is not a reference to the level of depravity, i.e., utter depravity. The phrase "total depravity" refers to the fact that sin has pervaded our fallen natures and there remains no part of us that is untouched by its influence.

Click to expand...

If this were true, we should see no goodness in the nonbelievers. On the contrary, we see much good in men who haven’t even heard of the Bible.

Gen 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Click to expand...

You really don’t understand universal or hyperbolic language, do you? If every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, nothing even remotely good (i.e. survival, love-making, friendship, etc) could not exist. I’m sorry, but it takes more faith to believe that was the case than it does to believe the author was using hyperbolic language to explain how dire the situation was. Very clearly, there were exceptions (Noah anyone?).

Romans 8:7,8
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Click to expand...

And where in the world do you get the idea of humanity being only fleshly creatures? “The flesh” is a phrase to refer to things opposite of God, not the physical material we’re made of (else God really did make something inherently bad). The subject here are those who are set against God and focused on things opposing to Him. It’s not saying that everyone is only of the flesh and thus cannot possibly do any good. I’m sorry – it’s just not there.

First, what you have "experienced" is not the litmus test for whether unregenerate man can do anything good in the eyes of God. You see, you know neither a person's salvitic state nor their intent in the things that you are judging as "good." If you see someone do something that "appears" to be "good" but, unbeknownst to you, that action was predicated by a sinful desire, that action is surely not "good" in the eyes of God, despite the fact that you "experienced" it.

Click to expand...

For you to actually believe this, you would have to say there is not a single example of a nonbeliever doing any good anywhere and that behind every single apparently good deed, there is some hidden, evil motive. I’m sorry, but I don’t have enough faith to believe such a far-fetched idea. It reeks of a conspiracy theory. There’s plenty of nonbelievers who have never even heard of God that do things they could not possibly benefit from or demonstrate courage or honor when they could have chosen not to.

Secondly, our accountability to obey God does not indicate moral ability. Consider the Ten Commandments. Can you follow them perfectly?

Click to expand...

If God instructs me to do something, then I must be able to do it. If I cannot, there’s no sense in Him condemning me when His commands are not carried out.

What you seem to fail to realize is that God's imposition of commandments to be sinless serve two purposes. They serve as a reflection of His holiness, for what else could a holy God demand but that His subjects be sinless, and they show us our inability to comply and, thus, our need for a Savior.

Click to expand...

What you fail to realize is that there’s no sense in condemning people for not doing something they never had the ability to do. Like I said before, you might as well command a river to flow upstream and then condemn it because it doesn’t do so. What did you expect? It never had the ability to do what you wanted.

I refer you, once again, to Romans 9

Click to expand...

And I tell you, once again, I’ve been through Romans 9 through and through and there’s nothing in there that preaches how God sends some to hell and some to heaven on a whim. You Calvinists make the mistake of presuming that all mercy must be salfivic mercy and that’s quite simply not true. The passage you pointed out talks about people’s place in this life and how they’re used according to God’s purposes – like chess pieces on a board. You don’t change the pieces into something different while playing; rather, you use each piece according to its nature to accomplish your will.

LOL! What a joke. The hoops you must go through to protect your ridiculous position.

Click to expand...

Um, it’s rather simple. No hoops. Just read it. The joke is to say that God has to first brainwash someone before they come to him. LOL! What a joke. The hoops you must go through to protect your ridiculous position.

You paint God as some [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who set Himself up for eternal disappointment by creating people that He knew would never embrace Him but still desiring that they would.

Click to expand...

Simply because God chooses a route that contains pain does not mean He’s a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. In fact, it makes perfect sense that God would create the world in such a way that pain is present if the presence of pain allows for an even greater good that, without pain, would be absent.

LOL! And here we have it folks. Jedi shows that he has gone to the dark side by claiming that not saving an undeserving sinner is an evil act.

Click to expand...

Not quite, but thanks for the straw man. Not saving an undeserving sinner may be just but again, justice is not the whole of goodness. If it was, then Jesus should have never died for others’ sins. Mercy comes before justice so that justice is only carried out as a last resort. Thankfully, God, being an all-good being, understands this.

By the way, for God to "refuse" to save someone they'd have to desire salvation

Click to expand...

Quite right and that’s where free will comes in. As C.S. Lewis writes, “The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.' There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy--that is, to reality. We see it easily enough in a spoiled child that would sooner miss is play and its supper than say it was sorry and be friends" (The Great Divorce, 71).

Actually, it's no problem at all so "solving it" takes very little effort. The real problem here is as I pointed out twelve pages ago, is that you see salvation as God's obligation. It simply isn't. Salvation is an unmerited gift that God graciously deigns to dispense to undeserving sinners on the basis of Christ's vicarious atonement.

Click to expand...

If I have a choice between a God who saves as many as He can or one that can, but is unwilling, to save some who need His help, I’ll stick with the one who helps as many as He can. God’s own goodness compels Him to do so. My God is far more merciful than yours.

You’re also left with a very serious problem. If it is better to have your enemy join your cause than to mow them down like grass, then the Calvinist God has chosen the lesser glory. It may be glorious to beat your enemy but even more so to have them join you. If this weren’t true, Jesus should have never died on the cross. Given this, the Calvinistic God has chosen to destroy (lesser glory) rather than convert (greater glory). If so, the Calvinistic God is not entirely good, for he chose not to maximize goodness (of which glory is a part).

Please, for my edification, cite Scripture where God is ever referred to as "Father" of the wicked.

Click to expand...

I never said scripture used the term “father” in that sense. Scripture reserves that term to describe the relationship He has with His followers. This does not mean God is somehow not responsible for those He created and knit together in their mother’s wombs (which is by far more intimate than any earthly father’s relationship is with his offspring). Your futile effort to rid God of responsibility of those He created doesn’t even phase me. The connection between creation and creator is still there.

Look past the fact that it is surely a miracle when someone is saved. Look past the fact that there is great rejoicing in the church when God GRACIOUSLY redeems someone. Accept that His graciousness in salvation is His display of loving kindness and mercy and not the self imposed obligation of His benevolent nature. If you view salvation as God's obligation then you will never be able to fully appreciate the breadth of the chasm which Jesus crossed on behalf of those who would hang Him on a Cross and kill Him in their wickedness.

Click to expand...

You can’t just look at one half of the coin, friend. You can’t just look at the fact that God saved some and forget the fact that He let others perish who needed His help just as bad. You’re trying to portray God as a father who saved his son from drowning in the river out of the goodness of his heart, but forget about the other three kids that were also drowning in the same spot of that river whom that father brushed off as they drowned.

Uh huh. Sure. That logic applies.

Click to expand...

Funny – that’s exactly what I’m thinking. Funny how absurd your ideas are when the principles of what you’re saying are applied elsewhere for the sake of clarifying how ludicrous they are.

Okay...girl.

Click to expand...

Haha, oh, what class.

Despite the fact that I'm 11 years your senior, I can act like I'm carrying an ID 10 T card too.

Click to expand...

And for someone so allegedly experienced, you should have learned by now that age and wisdom don’t necessarily go hand in hand – as is very clearly the case here.

God doesn't owe us salvation but His goodness compels Him to try to save as many as He can? LOL! The eternal God, the omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign, providential, Almighty is compelled by His nature to save everyone but, the impotent, finite creation can thwart His ability to do so. Sure. Man, oh man, you are in for a rude awakening.

Click to expand...

The rude awakening is yours to enjoy when the tyrant of your praise turns out to be the very enemy of God. It’s very simple: God cannot do everything. Simple four words. Just as it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18), it is impossible for God to force free-will creatures to choose Him. If they are not free, it makes no sense to condemn them for doing things they had no choice but to do. It's a check-mate against Calvinism.

LOL! All I could think when I read this was, "what is this person talking about??" "Maximize the amount of goodness?" Oh yeah, I remember now:

Click to expand...

Philosophy 101 here, buddy: if a being is all-good, logic denotes this all-good being would want to maximize the amount of goodness. Yes, it’s a big jump, I know.

I see. Now you pit the justness of God against the mercy of God. The hits just keep rolling. God is ALWAYS just.

Click to expand...

I am not saying God’s justice conflicts with His mercy, only that carrying out justice is only a last result if mercy cannot be shown. Again, not that hard to understand.

I would think a Bible reading Christian would understand that. Maybe you don't fall into that catagory.

Click to expand...

I’ve read scripture inside and out, in English and in Greek, having translated countless passages, taking theology & philosophy courses alike, remaining in the top 20% of the class easily. I know scripture and I know that your Calvinistic dribble is contrary to the very heart of Christ.

More specifically, it is either doing that which God has forbidden or not doing that which God has commanded. So, if it is God determining what is expected of us, it is God defining what is, and what is not, sinful, right?

Click to expand...

As C.S. Lewis writes, “God is not merely good but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.” God is goodness itself, His very nature. Thus whenever someone chooses to do good, they are choosing the very heart of God. It’s not God defining what is and is not sinful, as if He pulls the rules out of thin air; rather, when God is describing what is good and what is not, He is describing what is Him and what is not.

You call the holiness of God into question when you deny the righteousness of appointing Adam as mankind's representative for wealth or ruin.

Click to expand...

Scripture never teaches that I am responsible for Adam’s decision. Never. His decision changed the world for the worse, but nowhere am I told that I am guilty for his wrongdoing. Any God that would hold an innocent man responsible for a guilty man’s sin is a horrible monster and I shall never follow such a God.

To this ridiculous, and expected, response, I will only remind you that you align yourself with the heretic Pelagius when you state this tripe, though you probably wear that as a badge of honor.

Click to expand...

I side with him in this regard with great pride. Man is only condemnable for what he does or does not do for as long as acting or refraining is within his choice and ability. To condemn a man for doing what he had no choice but to do is just as senseless as condemning a man for not doing what he never had the ability to do. What did you expect? Your request was impossible before you requested it. Calvinism tries to turn morality upside down and it is this that I stand adamantly against with a ready sword.

Well Jedi, to avoid invoking moderator wrath at a discussion that is clearly going no where, I'll leave you to discuss these topics with yourself.

The ridiculous nature of your views is readily apparent in your posts for any who wish to waste half an hour.

Good luck to you. You'll need it.

Reformationist said:

Well Jedi, to avoid invoking moderator wrath at a discussion that is clearly going no where, I'll leave you to discuss these topics with yourself.

The ridiculous nature of your views is readily apparent in your posts for any who wish to waste half an hour.

Good luck to you. You'll need it.

Click to expand...

Such brotherly love! Is this what the elect are supposed to be like?

woobadooba said:

Such brotherly love!

Click to expand...

Actually, the brotherly love part came earlier, when I tried to show him the destructive and self centered nature of his views. Likewise, clipping off the conversation when I perceive it to be fruitless is also the wise thing to do. My comments may have been ungracious but they weren't inaccurate. And, even though you only comment on my posts, I'll simply agree that many of my comments were unnecessary.

Is this what the elect are supposed to be like?

Click to expand...

Well, no one is supposed to be sinful, so I guess the answer to that question is, "no." If, however, you are asking if that is indicative of what the elect are like, then "yes," the elect are also sinners.

woobadooba said:

New thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3046647-sinlessness.html#post24453837
[/indent]

Click to expand...

Old story...

In Christ, GeneZ

Strong in Him said:

Where does it say in Scripture that a newborn baby is sinful?

Click to expand...

Not sinful. Born fallen. With a flesh that will sin once it becomes conscious of the realities of living bring.

Right, so it's a man's sperm which carries inherited guilt and the inclination to sin?

Click to expand...

No guilt. But, the sperm transfers the defective fallen nature to the embryo. The woman's seed (ovum) does not carry this defect from the fall. That is why Jesus had no human father, but did have a human mother. So he could be true humanity, yet be born as Adam had been created.

A woman's eggs are free of this moral defect, even though it was Eve who was deceived and was just as responsible for sin as Adam? Where's the Scriptural teaching to show that?

Click to expand...

Its not a "moral defect." Its a biological defect. Its like being born with a stroke. Everyone has it! No one knows what its like to not be a sinner. We all malfunction towards God's will because of it. God created man in his own image. In the fall, that image became distorted. God must reject what is sinful. God is perfect holiness and can not be one with what is unholy.


In our fallen state we do not function as God created man originally to. It causes immorality. But, its a biological defect to be found in the flesh. After all, Jesus only saved our soul. Not our bodies.

Our bodies we now possess are doomed to perish, and to be replaced by an entirely new type of body.
But we will remain who we are in our soul. God saves the soul, only!

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Jedi said:

The rude awakening is yours to enjoy when the tyrant of your praise turns out to be the very enemy of God. It’s very simple: God cannot do everything. Simple four words. Just as it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18), it is impossible for God to force free-will creatures to choose Him. If they are not free, it makes no sense to condemn them for doing things they had no choice but to do. It's a check-mate against Calvinism.

Click to expand...

calvinist theology paints a picture of a god that is capricious, and of a god that is a slave to his sovergienty. It is inconsistent with the traditional Christian revelation, and it is inconsistent with reality. And as the op pointed out, it ultimately makes God the author of evil, as even Calvin himself acknowledges.

genez said:

No guilt. But, the sperm transfers the defective fallen nature to the embryo. The woman's seed (ovum) does not carry this defect from the fall. That is why Jesus had no human father, but did have a human mother. So he could be true humanity, yet be born as Adam had been created.

Click to expand...

This reasoning neglects the purpose of the incarnation, plus it makes our flesh the cause of sin, not the result. It also negelects to address the original rebellion of Eve, and detracts from the role of the Theotokos, which I suspect is its intention.

I haven't seen Satan spoken of at all during this whole debate. I believe Satan has similar powers to those of God's. In the garden Satan took the form of a serpent. He decieved & tempted Eve & Adam to eat of The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good & Evil. Satan told them they would be as gods & know all things. Eve & Adam had never before known evil. They had pure & sinless hearts that belonged to God. They were given a choice to continue following God's ordained will or the will of Satan. They chose Satan's will. They made the same mistake as Satan & disobeyed God so they were punished. They then knew both God's will & Satan's will. They were forgiven & shown mercy so that they could choose their master yet again but this time thru knowledge. This decision also being their last. God & Satan both have omnipotent powers over spiritual realms. God did not choose for Satan or his angels. Nor does he choose for us. I believe the difference between Satan's choice & ours is Satan was given a choice to have his own domain whilst we were given a choice to follow it or God's. I believe we were given more mercy because of this.

Theophorus said:

This reasoning neglects the purpose of the incarnation,

Click to expand...

Which is? Mind telling us what you think it was?

plus it makes our flesh the cause of sin, not the result.

Click to expand...

It is both. It is the result of Adam's sin, and the cause of us being sinners by nature (from birth).


Paul points this out in saying he sins because of his flesh, yet his soul desires to do what is right. Our flesh is the seat of the defect called "the sin nature."

Paul was speaking of a scitzoid existence. He (his soul) knew what is good and desired to do good. But, his flesh would not allow him to carry out the good. He disired living righteous, but his flesh refused to allow it. That is what God set us free from by having the Holy Spirit take control over us so that the flesh with its sin nature, no longers reigns over our soul.

It also negelects to address the original rebellion of Eve, and detracts from the role of the Theotokos, which I suspect is its intention.

Click to expand...

Your off in another direction. What I stated is based upon that its understaood that Adam and Eve fell. It was a given. Why should I address that? And? As far as Mary being the Mother of God?????? God has no mother! Mary is the mother of the HUMANITY of Christ, not his Deity! God can not be born. God always has been and will be. No need for birth. Now? If you want to sideline this thread by getting into your belief that Mary is the mother of God? I suggest you begin a new thread.

In Christ, in patience.... GeneZ

genez said:

Which is? Mind telling us what you think it was?

Click to expand...

If Jesus were conceived as we are, then He wouldn't be God. Thus He had to be conceived of the Holy Spirit. For, God is not subject to man; rather, man is subject to God.

electroid said:

I believe Satan has similar powers to those of God's.

Click to expand...

Satan is a created being and is, in no way, anything like God.

In the garden Satan took the form of a serpent. He decieved & tempted Eve & Adam to eat of The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good & Evil. Satan told them they would be as gods & know all things. Eve & Adam had never before known evil. They had pure & sinless hearts that belonged to God. They were given a choice to continue following God's ordained will or the will of Satan. They chose Satan's will.

Click to expand...

If they had "pure and sinless hearts that belonged to God," why did they choose to disobey God?

God & Satan both have omnipotent powers over spiritual realms.

Click to expand...

Electroid, and anyone else who read her post, this is absolutely false. Satan is a created being and is not omnipotent. Powerful, yes. Omnipotent, certainly not.

God bless

Jedi said:

This is irony at its best. In the same breath, you say that God doesn’t force people to choose one way and then turn around and say that everyone who ends up with God is made to do so by God Himself, in spite of their own will. How you don’t see the absurdity of it all is well beyond comprehension.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with Calvinism. It jumped to a conclusion, and then declared it to be the way God works.

God does not make us believe in Him. God makes us able to believe in Him.



Man left to his own ability can not believe in God. As long as the flesh is allowed its normal function no one can believe.Grace enables the unregenerate to see the issue in salvation. It does not force the unregenerate to believe. How?

Grace forces the flesh with its depravity over our soul to 'sit and be quiet', while the soul alone is made free to decide what its going to do with the Gospel.

Grace enables us to be put in a state of mind where our soul is made free to accept, or reject, Christ!

Yes! Free to reject!

But, not out of the compulsion of the flesh to reject Christ. But, by not allowing the influence of the flesh to dominate men's souls. Our soul chooses what we are to think about Christ, Without grace being given to us by God, we could never be free to decide. The flesh would demand we reject all things of God.

That is why we are saved by grace, through faith.

For, if man innately had the capacity to believe in Christ? As Arminianism claims? Then we would simply be saved through faith (hearing the message), and grace would not be needed to save us!

Irresistible grace, you silly Calvinist you. Once God says “Hey, you, come here” the object of his command can only say “Yes, master…”

Click to expand...

Calvinist distort the function of grace. When they do so, they distort the knowledge and understanding of God.

I am against the idea of total depravity in the sense that the phrase refers to human beings being incapable of doing any good of their own accord.

Click to expand...

That is where the other side gets out of balance and gives the Calvinist his motivation to stick to his guns.

For the Calvinist sees plainly from Scripture that no man does what is right in the sight of God. That is, no unregenerate man. To think one can it would mean you are basing your belief either from arrogant self righteousness, or from a state which is a recipient of God's grace (but does not recognize the grace at work in them).

Such a ludicrous assertion is not only contrary to experience but would shift all moral responsibility off humans since, after all, they could do nothing but evil.

Click to expand...

Evil is not the same thing as sin! That's what we need to learn!

Evil is a way of thinking that pushes out God's life. It replaces God's Divine truth with substitutes designed to please man, not God.

Sin is what the flesh causes. Sin requires no thought, only impulse from the flesh. Evil is a system of rationales that justifies sinning. Sin does what it does by its own nature. It needs no justification to be made manifest in us.

Rejection of God's truth is accomplished by evil. All malfunction in our behavior is sin. The Law was given to make men conscious of sin. It set up a Divine standard as a contrast to reveal that we do sin. The Law was never intended to save. Its purpose was to show man that he needed a to be saved.

If they could do nothing but evil, where is the sense in condemning them for not doing good?

Click to expand...

God's GRACE is the great equalizer! Grace bypasses the issue of the sin nature in salvation, and isolates the soul to make its choice... for either the Truth, or, it runs to evil to hide from the truth.

Truth and sin are not opposites. Truth and evil, are. Sin and holiness in their expression, are opposites.

You might as well tell a river to flow upstream and then stomp your feet and throw a fit when it does not. What did you expect? It could have done nothing else.

Click to expand...

Calvinists have been running with a distorted view of God's grace. Let it rest.

They refuse to think beyond a certain level of understanding, and call it humility to do so.

They somehow feel that by submitting their logical minds to what they feel can not be understood, is being humble before God. Yet, God wants us to know his will. His pleasing will.

And once again, you display a dazzling show of ignorance and arrogance, only making a fool of yourself in the traditional Calvinist way. First, you presume that the phrase “unless the Father draws Him” is an active, not passive, drawing.

Click to expand...

It does not matter which mood is proven to make this point.....

Jesus was telling those words (Father's drawing) to work crazed Jews, who thought they could so something to be saved.

They were obsessively works oriented. Jesus showed them that salvation (the process of bringing men to salvation) is solely the work of God! For passive, or active? That is not the real issue. The fact that God must draw us to salvation was designed to shoot down their belief that they could be saved by their own works.

The fact that the Father draws us, is to show that without Grace we can not come to the knowledge of God.

God has even drawn the reprobate at some point in his life. Becoming reprobate was the result of the rejection of God's drawing them in the early stages to the knowledge that God must exist.

These reprobate men were drawn by God!

It was in the very primitive early stages of God's drawing that they were made conscious that God must exist!

Yet? They suppressed the truth with wickedness. With Evil thinking against the Truth.

It says ..... so that men are without excuse."

Why were they without excuse? God's drawing succeeded in its purpose. They were made to know that creation with all its complexity and order, must have a creator.

At their final judgement it will be based upon the reality that they had no excuse for rejecting God's drawing them.....



God grace has been issued to all men!


Its what is called EVIL that rejects the drawing by God's grace! Not the sin nature! For its God grace that suppressed the dominance of the flesh while the process of drawing to salvation takes place!

God's Truth in his drawing men is countered by evil.

Evil is anti-faith. Evil is a lie to replace the truth. In contrast, sin is unholy behavior motivated by impulse from the flesh.

Sin has its roots in the defective impulses of the flesh that effect the soul which is baptized into the flesh.

Evil has its roots in one's soul! Not the sin nature. The soul, where one thinks and decides, in one's 'heart.' Evil, not sin, is what chooses to create lies to defend and justify sin. Sin just "is." Evil requires work to overcome the truth. False doctrine is evil.....

Jesus died for our sins. He did not die for evil. If he had? He would have been forced to reject himself and his own holiness. Never to return.

Arminianism was not a response to Calvinism. It was a reaction to Calvinism.

Calvinism's best friend is Arminianism. For Calvinism could not ask for an easier strawman to work with to justify their points. For it is very easy for the Calvinists to see the error and naive thinking in Arminianism.

The key to knowing the process that brings us to salvation is to first know the total depravity of man. Calvinists are the winners here. BUT! It now all depends on understanding the function of God's grace upon the soul. An area that Calvinists fall and miss the crucial point of truth.

Calvinists distort the function of Grace because they do not yet discern the nature of God's love which holds together his justice. In doing so, they distort the knowledge of God. They make him into a Divine lottery machine that arbitrarily picks winners for salvation. His sovereign choice, that we have no right to question. That rationale attempts to make their way of thinking shielded from criticism... so they think.

God's sovereign choice is choosing us to be in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world.

In other words? God knowing all beforehand who would believe in Him? He did not choose Moses to be a part of the Bride of Christ.

He chose you and me (sovereignly) to this high honor. As the woman was to Adam, we shall we be to the Lord Christ Jesus!

The Jews were promised a Messiah to reign OVER them in the Kingdom. We are now given the opportunity and honor to rule WITH Him!

That is where God's sovereign choice came in. David, who I see as a far greater believer than myself, will not be a part of the Bride. He will be the freind to the Groom. God's sovereign choice.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Reformationist said:

Satan is a created being and is, in no way, anything like God.

Click to expand...

So what then does it mean to be created in the image of God, if not to be like God?

Reformationist said:

Satan is a created being and is, in no way, anything like God.
If they had "pure and sinless hearts that belonged to God," why did they choose to disobey God?

Click to expand...

When was Satan created and by whom ?
If he is not like God then whose image is he created in ?

Where does it say that Adam and Eve chose to disobey God ?

with love Andy153