Are you saved?

[JoeyArnold]

Yes, he can. That's why there are people in hell.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

[greatdivide46]

Yes, he can. That's why there are people in hell.

<*(((><

Exactly, because they freely chose to sin and reject God, not because they had no choice but to follow the inclinations of their nature.

 

[Skala]

OK. Only the concept of a truly free will can do justice to the many passages that picture God's blessings and punishments as conditioned upon human choices (see Deuteronomy 11:26-28 for example). There are many other verses, too numerous to list that illustrate this.

The reality of a free will presupposes the reality of sin and evil in general. One reason why determinist doctrines have been challenged so forcefully is that they negate the reality of moral responsbility. If the natural man cannot choose not to sin then he cannot be held responsible for his sin. Without free will one cannot be praised for his good choices, or be held responsible for his wrong choices, because he really had no choice but to follow the inclinations of his nature. When people are really free to put their choices into action whether right or wrong can they be held responsible for their choices and be justly blessed or condemned.

Thanks for this honest answer. I have two responses to it brother:

1) it is not good enough in my opinion to infer something when scripture is silent on the matter. I've always heard "don't go further than scripture"

If scripture truly aims to teach free will in the sense you mean it, then we have a glaring contradiction in scripture, because I posted scripture that teaches that man does not have a free will (in that sense). If there's scripture that teaches that man's will is not free from either good or evil, and not autonomous, and you cannot find scripture that teaches the opposite, how can you, at the end of the day, still affirm the latter? You are concluding things based on your own reasoning rather than scripture. Our own "Reasoning" is fallen, and tainted, we are finite fallen creatures. That is why we rely on "sola scriptura" - letting scripture tell us what is truth or not. Not what we THINK is the truth or should be the truth.

2) responsibility: I disagree with you that man's will being free is the only way that man can be responsible. Here's an an analogy:

Some students get drunk and lose the actual ability to do their homework. So, they do not turn in any papers the next day, and the teachers gives them an "F".

They had no freedom to do their homework because of their own self imposed disability. If you were consistent you would have to say that they should not be held responsible because they lacked the ability to do otherwise.

In like manner, mankind chose to fall into sin, and thus, has no ability to seek righteousness, but is enslaved to that sin, much like the students chose to get drunk, and lost the ability to think clearly. They are enslaved to a clouded mind (until it wears off )

The fact that man "cannot not sin" does not mean he is "off the hook" for the sins he does. In fact, the Bible is clear that man cannot not sin, while unregenerate (Rom 8:8, etc)

Frankly, man is still responsible even if it God's decree for an evil action to be carried out. See Ac ts 4:27-28. Christ's murder at the hands of wicked men, herod, pilate, etc, was "God's predestined plan" according to the verse., Yet the men are still responsible for murdering Christ because it's their intentions that are clear. They had wicked, evil intentions.

In like manner, man, enslaved to sin, always has evil intentions:

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

He is not off the hook for being enslaved to sin. He loves sin. He drinks it like water. He loves to sin. He loves to rebel against God. He loves to do all of those things in the unregenerate state.

That is why God's regenerating grace is so necessary and mandatory if anyone is ever to be saved.

Scripture's testimony on man's wickedness and his enslavement to sin prove to me that his will is not free, it is not morally neutral. It is altogether opposed to God and Christ. That is why man relies on free unearned mercy for salvation.

Edit** 3) Wanted to add this third statement

If man cannot be held responsible for evil since he cannot do otherwise, then God also cannot be held responsible for being holy, since he cannot do otherwise. God's holiness and sinless actions have no merit or praiseworthiness, since he cannot do otherwise.

If we're going to be consistent, let's at least acknowledge that fact.

 

[Eddie L]

Agreed. If the natural man cannot choose not to sin then he cannot be held responsible for his sin.

That's absurd. Whenever anyone does something it reveals WHO HE IS, what his internal struggles are. Adam (who best represented us pre-fall) did something that resulted in our fall. As a result, none of us "have what it takes" to be redeemed. That God decided to create things this way is His prerogative as God. We can't question it. It isn't up to us. All we know is that evil people who do evil things go to Hell because that's all they deserve. That a person didn't decide to be born, or to have moral shortcomings, in no way changes what they deserve. That's sort of what it is to be a creature. Man is not his own god. We don't even get to define who God is or what He does. Surrendering to Him and trusting Him means laying down all pretenses to those kinds of rights.

I can't believe how much energy is put into attempting to defend mankind from our sins, and arguing that we don't deserve the consequences of them. No matter what we want to think, the lost are going to hell. By all rights, we should be going with them.

You'd think, then, that this energy would be spent praising the grace of God that has spared ANYONE from hell. You'd think that, once we let go of a notion of humanistic rights, that we'd fall on our faces every time we experienced God's love, peace, and freedom out of a heartfelt understanding that we don't deserve even a glimpse of those things, much less eternal life with Christ.

Did we or did we not admit we are sinners on our conversion? Did we or did we not admit that we deserved no less than hell? Did we or did we not come to the conclusion that God owns us? If the answer isn't "yes", then we aren't converted at all!

Then why in the world do we still struggle with this? In your concern for the lost, don't spend your energy trying to change the definition of God to make others or yourself feel better. Get out there and be a part of His saving people, knowing that it is by His grace that you love Him and His gospel, and that this same grace will flow through you to those He is saving.

 

[greatdivide46]

Originally posted by Skala

2) responsibility: I disagree with you that man's will being free is the only way that man can be responsible. Here's an an analogy:

Some students get drunk and lose the actual ability to do their homework. So, they do not turn in any papers the next day, and the teachers gives them an "F".

They had no freedom to do their homework because of their own self imposed disability. If you were consistent you would have to say that they should not be held responsible because they lacked the ability to do otherwise.

In like manner, mankind chose to fall into sin, and thus, has no ability to seek righteousness, but is enslaved to that sin, much like the students chose to get drunk, and lost the ability to think clearly. They are enslaved to a clouded mind (until it wears off )

So, are you saying the man has a choice to be evil or be good like the students had a choice to be sober or drunk? I don't think that's what you're saying and if I'm right then your analogy fails. I don't think your saying that man chooses to be evil like the students chose to be drunk. However, if you are, I think your wrong.

The students had an obvious choice -- stay sober or get drunk. But from what I've been hearing you say mans choice is to be evil, period. As I've said before, that's no choice. Man cannot, if I'm understanding you correctly, choose to be good. Therefore, there's no choice. Man is evil. He has no choice. And if that's his natural state, then how can he be held responsible for what he had no choice over? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it, I guess.

 

[Skala]

So, are you saying the man has a choice to be evil or be good like the students had a choice to be sober or drunk? I don't think that's what you're saying and if I'm right then your analogy fails. I don't think your saying that man chooses to be evil like the students chose to be drunk. However, if you are, I think your wrong.

The students had an obvious choice -- stay sober or get drunk. But from what I've been hearing you say mans choice is to be evil, period. As I've said before, that's no choice. Man cannot, if I'm understanding you correctly, choose to be good. Therefore, there's no choice. Man is evil. He has no choice. And if that's his natural state, then how can he be held responsible for what he had no choice over? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it, I guess.

No no, the students, once drunk , cannot choose to be sober or inebriated.

Before they got drunk, they had the choice.

In like manner, before Adam sinned (who represents the entire human race), he had a choice.

He chose to sin, just like the students chose to get drunk

Once drunk (once in sin), they are corrupted and affected by that choice.

I'm saying all humans are born into a fallen state, just as the Bible says, because of Adam's choice.

My view, obviously, keeps in mind the Fall of man, and how Adam's choices affected the rest of us.

Regardless of all of this, what do you make of the scripture I have presented?

Surely you agree that scripture's view of man is that man is not "morally neutral", but inclined towards evil?

 

[greatdivide46]

That's absurd. Whenever anyone does something it reveals WHO HE IS, what his internal struggles are. Adam (who best represented us pre-fall) did something that resulted in our fall. As a result, none of us "have what it takes" to be redeemed. That God decided to create things this way is His prerogative as God. We can't question it. It isn't up to us.

I can understand why you can't question it. After all, everything is what it is and no one has any choice in the matter. I can't buy that.

All we know is that evil people who do evil things go to Hell because that's all they deserve. That a person didn't decide to be born, or to have moral shortcomings, in no way changes what they deserve. That's sort of what it is to be a creature. Man is not his own god. We don't even get to define who God is or what He does. Surrendering to Him and trusting Him means laying down all pretenses to those kinds of rights.

I agree that people who do evil things go to Hell because that's what they deserve. What I don't agree with is saying that they did these evil things because that's all they could do. If that's all they could do, then I don't see how they can be responsible. They had nothing else they could do.

I can't believe how much energy is put into attempting to defend mankind from our sins, and arguing that we don't deserve the consequences of them. No matter what we want to think, the lost are going to hell. By all rights, we should be going with them.

I agree with you for the most part. But it seems to me that the determinists are the ones denying that one is responsible for their own sin when they say the people can do nothing else but sin.

Did we or did we not admit we are sinners on our conversion? Did we or did we not admit that we deserved no less than hell? Did we or did we not come to the conclusion that God owns us? If the answer isn't "yes", then we aren't converted at all!

My answer is, "Yes." But I realized too that I said, "Yes" because that is the choice I made and now I was choosing to change that choice.

Then why in the world do we still struggle with this? In your concern for the lost, don't spend your energy trying to change the definition of God to make others or yourself feel better. Get out there and be a part of His saving people, knowing that it is by His grace that you love Him and His gospel, and that this same grace will flow through you to those He is saving.

To tell you the truth this is not a burning issue for me. But I do see the falseness of the determinists' views and enjoy addressing those and having good discussions about it. However, this kind of discussion rarely, if ever, enters into any witnessing that I do.

 

[Hammster]

You are contradicting yourself.

No I'm not.

<*(((><

 

[greatdivide46]

No no, the students, once drunk , cannot choose to be sober or inebriated.

Before they got drunk, they had the choice.

In like manner, before Adam sinned (who represents the entire human race), he had a choice.

He chose to sin, just like the students chose to get drunk

Once drunk (once in sin), they are corrupted and affected by that choice.

I'm saying all humans are born into a fallen state, just as the Bible says, because of Adam's choice.

My view, obviously, keeps in mind the Fall of man, and how Adam's choices affected the rest of us.

Regardless of all of this, what do you make of the scripture I have presented?

Surely you agree that scripture's view of man is that man is not "morally neutral", but inclined towards evil?

I see where we differ now. Using your analogy I see that the students chose to get drunk, therefore, since they made that choice, they are responsible for not being able to do their homework. However, I do not see man choosing to do evil in the same way since there is no alternative for man. The students had an alternative -- stay sober. I understand that after they chose to get drunk they were unable to do their homework. However, man didn't have the choice to do evil and therefore has the inability to do good. He's born that way. That's like saying the students were born drunk.

I'm also not convinced that while man is born in a fallen state that he is therefore necessarily born in sin and therefore deserving of condemnation from birth. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As far as the Scriptures you presented they are undoubtedly true, but as I was reading them I remember thinking that they didn't really address whether man was only evil continually because he is evil inherently of if he chose to be only evil continually because he chose to reject being obedient to God.

 

[Skala]

I see where we differ now. Using your analogy I see that the students chose to get drunk, therefore, since they made that choice, they are responsible for not being able to do their homework. However, I do not see man choosing to do evil in the same way since there is no alternative for man. The students had an alternative -- stay sober. I understand that after they chose to get drunk they were unable to do their homework. However, man didn't have the choice to do evil and therefore has the inability to do good. He's born that way. That's like saying the students were born drunk.

I'm also not convinced that while man is born in a fallen state that he is therefore necessarily born in sin and therefore deserving of condemnation from birth. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

As far as the Scriptures you presented they are undoubtedly true, but as I was reading them I remember thinking that they didn't really address whether man was only evil continually because he is evil inherently of if he chose to be only evil continually because he chose to reject being obedient to God.

Then you deny the doctrine of the Fall, then? That what Adam did plunged everyone else into a fallen state, and that they are born as sinful and spiritually dead?

It seems you think that everyone born today has the same "choice" that Adam had, the same freedoms, rather than believing, what I think the Bible teaches, that all of us are enslaved to sin, and born with a sinful nature, because of Adam's choice.

It seems to me that you do not believe in the Fall or the doctrine of original sin, etc.

That is the core issue here brother.

 

[greatdivide46]

Then you deny the doctrine of the Fall, then? That what Adam did plunged everyone else into a fallen state, and that they are born as sinful and spiritually dead?

It seems you think that everyone born today has the same "choice" that Adam had, the same freedoms, rather than believing, what I think the Bible teaches, that all of us are enslaved to sin, and born with a sinful nature, because of Adam's choice.

It seems to me that you do not believe in the Fall or the doctrine of original sin, etc.

That is the core issue here brother.

Oh, I believe in the Fall. That definitely happened, but I don't believe that all of us are born enslaved to sin. Yes, we have a nature that has a propensity to sin but we are not born already condemned to Hell. I believe that whatever happened as the result of the Fall was negated and cancelled out by the atonement of Christ. The only way I could deny that is if I believed that the sin of Adam was more powerful and effective than the atonement of Christ.

 

[JoeyArnold]

......that what Adam did plunged everyone else into a fallen state......

Was Adam created perfect or good or innocent?

 

[Skala]

Oh, I believe in the Fall

.

What did the Fall do to affect the human race, if anything?

That definitely happened, but I don't believe that all of us are born enslaved to sin.

Christ says he who sins is the slave of sin. The fact is, every person starts sinning after they are born. David says we are conceived in iniquity. The fruit is proof of the kind of tree it is. That sounds like enslavement to sin.

Yes, we have a nature that has a propensity to sin

How is that not enslavement to sin?

but we are not born already condemned to Hell.

You have to be born twice to not be condemned to hell. The physical birth alone is all it takes to go to hell. You have to be born again. It seems you think a person is born neutral. That's not what I read in my Bible....

I believe that whatever happened as the result of the Fall was negated and cancelled out by the atonement of Christ.

Got scripture for that? Christ's atonement applies to believers only, not a flat universal benefit for the entire human race.

The only way I could deny that is if I believed that the sin of Adam was more powerful and effective than the atonement of Christ.

It isn't more powerful. But everyone is either "In Adam" or "In Christ", according to Paul. You seem to think everyone is "In Christ".

 

[JoeyArnold]

. Everyone is either in Adam or Christ.

Agreed that Romans 5:12 says we are born separated.

 

[greatdivide46]

.

What did the Fall do to affect the human race, if anything?

The only affect that's in effect today is physicaly death for those who accept the atonement of Christ since that atonement cancelled all other affects of the Fall.

Christ says he who sins is the slave of sin. The fact is, every person starts sinning after they are born. David says we are conceived in iniquity. The fruit is proof of the kind of tree it is. That sounds like enslavement to sin.

Yes, he who sins in the slave of sin. That's precisely why an infant is not a slave to sin. They have committed no sin, and until they do, they are not a slave of sin.

How is that not enslavement to sin?

It is enslavement to sin. I just doesn't happen until after a person is born and commits sin.

You have to be born twice to not be condemned to hell. The physical birth alone is all it takes to go to hell. You have to be born again. It seems you think a person is born neutral. That's not what I read in my Bible....

No, I don't think a person is born neutral. I think a person is born under original grace rather than original sin.

Got scripture for that? Christ's atonement applies to believers only, not a flat universal benefit for the entire human race.

Paul seems to think it does (see Romans 5:12-21).

It isn't more powerful. But everyone is either "In Adam" or "In Christ", according to Paul. You seem to think everyone is "In Christ".

I agree that everyone is either in Adam or in Christ, but I don't believe anyone is born in Adam or in Christ. People become "in Adam" when they sin.

I don't think a person is born neutral either, because I do believe that an infant who dies before it sins will be taken home to be with his/her heavenly father.

 

[Skala]

I agree that everyone is either in Adam or in Christ, but I don't believe anyone is born in Adam or in Christ. People become "in Adam" when they sin.

I wonder if you truly understand what the Fall or the doctrine or original sin are brother, because out of one side of your mouth you say you agree with it, then out of the other, you make this statement, which is a flat out rejection of it.

Every person born is "in Adam". They are Adam's descendant. What do you think 'In Adam' means? Paul says "in Adam, all die". Every person that exists dies, which proves they are in Adam. Age doesn't matter. And personal sin doesn't matter. Paul labors to explain that Adam's sin condemns us all as guilty, as Adam is our federal head, that is, until Christ becomes out federal head through our second birth (born again)

Also, I think your view of sin is woefully unbiblical brother. You view sin as only outward actions that a person does. Jesus labored to teach that this is not the case. The pharisees were known as outwardly moral people. They strictly obeyed the law. But Jesus came along and told us that sin isnot what the outward actions a person does, but it is a heart problem that exists at the core of a person. This is why he said the pharisees were outwardly beautiful, but inwardly ugly, like a whitewashed tomb, but inside had dead men's bones.

Your view of sin is exactly the view Jesus Christ condemned the pharisees for holding. Jesus told us that what sins we do come from within a person. Sin is a condition, not merely an outward action.

For example, you do not have to commit adultery to be guilty of it you simply have to have lust in your heart. You don't have to murder to be guilty of murder, you simply have to have hatred in your heart. Jesus taught both of those things. Do you see a pattern here?

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. (matt 15:19)

When a person sins, even for the first time, it is evidence and proof of what lies within a person. A baby doesn't "become" sinful upon committing his first sin. He sins because he is sinful by nature. If a child's first sin is theft, then as Jesus says, "it came out of the heart".

As I said, your view of sin is frankly unbiblical brother. I fear your watered down view of sin is what is affecting all of your other doctrines. You think man is morally neutral. you think babies are born innocent. You don't see people as being guilty in Adam. You view every person as a blank slate that is only corrupted through their own actions. Yet you fail to see the amazing fact that 100% of people eventually sin.

If 10 out of 10 people sin, that proves that something is wrong on a deeper level on those 10 people.

To be consistent you would have declare absolutely that it is possible that some people could live their entire lives, and never sin. That is called Pelagianism. You should know it was branded heresy early in church history.

But, if you say that it is inevitable that people sin, then you are affirming, without realizing it, the doctrine I have been laying down to you. Yet you also at the same time say you disagree with me.

I notice you have not supported any of your beliefs with scripture.

I've asked you to show me, and you couldn't. You came to your conclusion based on your "reasoning". but I believe in sola scriptura brother, not "personal reasoning".

And also, you make assertion after assertion, saying things like "i believe..." then make statements about sin and how it relates to people. Any scripture? Nope.

I don't mean to sound like i'm coming down hard on you. I'm just trying to relay what I have learned through my own journey into the study of theology and doctrine brother. I'm not smart, I am not a teacher or a great theologian. but I have paid attention to people who are ;D

So consider this a baton I am passing along to you, from much greater people than me.

 

[JoeyArnold]

The only affect that's in effect today is physical death.

Disagree since depravity effects not just physical death.

 

[greatdivide46]

I wonder if you truly understand what the Fall or the doctrine or original sin are brother, because out of one side of your mouth you say you agree with it, then out of the other, you make this statement, which is a flat out rejection of it.

I think I understand what the fall and the doctrine of original sin are. And while I agree that Adam certainly fell and mankind was cursed as a result, I do not believe the doctrine of original sin. I can elaborate (with Scripture) on why I reject original sin if you'd like.

Every person born is "in Adam". They are Adam's descendant. What do you think 'In Adam' means? Paul says "in Adam, all die". Every person that exists dies, which proves they are in Adam. Age doesn't matter. And personal sin doesn't matter. Paul labors to explain that Adam's sin condemns us all as guilty, as Adam is our federal head, that is, until Christ becomes out federal head through our second birth (born again)

I think "in Adam" means being a physical descendant of Adam and being subject to the results of Adam's sin. It does not mean being born a sinner. We are not guilty because of Adam's sin. We are guilty because of our own sin. I refuse to believe that God holds all of mankind responsible for the sin of one man. True all of mankind has suffered because of the sin of that one man, but that was because of the curse the God put on mankind as a result of Adam's sin, not because of the sin itself.

Also, I think your view of sin is woefully unbiblical brother. You view sin as only outward actions that a person does. Jesus labored to teach that this is not the case. The pharisees were known as outwardly moral people. They strictly obeyed the law. But Jesus came along and told us that sin isnot what the outward actions a person does, but it is a heart problem that exists at the core of a person. This is why he said the pharisees were outwardly beautiful, but inwardly ugly, like a whitewashed tomb, but inside had dead men's bones.

I agree that sins begins in the heart. For example, Adam and Eve's hearts had already fallen before they actually took the fruit and ate of it. If I implied that sin is only an outward action the someone performs I apologize. I don't believe that.

Your view of sin is exactly the view Jesus Christ condemned the pharisees for holding. Jesus told us that what sins we do come from within a person. Sin is a condition, not merely an outward action.

My view of sin is nothing like the Pharisees. I'm sorry that my poor communication skills have apparently given you an idea of my beliefs that is woefully off the mark. That's my fault for not saying things in a more understandable way.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Adam certainly fell & mankind was cursed as a result, I do not believe the doctrine of original sin.

I want to know exactly what the doctrine of Original Sin is.

 

[greatdivide46]

I want to know exactly what the doctrine of Original Sin is.

The way I understand the Augustinian/Calvinist view of original sin is this: Adam's sin had two devasting spiritual consequences for the entire human race. First, every baby is born in a state of total depravity or bondage of the will. In other words, his spiritual nature is so corrupted that his free will is gone, and he grows up with a total inability to come to faith and repentance in response to the gospel call. Second, every child is born guilty and condemned to hell, to which He will go unless the grace of God sovereignly intervenes. As J. O. Buswell, Jr. says, "All men naturally descending from Adam, without exception, are guilty sinners, lost, judicially under the wrath and curse of God." He declares, "I became a wicked guilty sinner in the Garden of Eden."

I don't believe that.